In my
opinion the WP has decided to engage in a full-frontal propaganda campaign against Chavez' Venezuela. But, then again, it could just be sloppy journalism. In these days of pre-emptive strikes, what's worse?
Venezuela's Media Minister Andres Izarra replies to the Washington PostMr. Jackson Diehl
The Washington Post
Washington DC USA
Mister Diehl:
It's impossible to believe that a journalist at a newspaper as important as the Washington Post is so badly informed as you appear to be in your article "Chavez's Censorship: Where Disrespect Can Land You in Jail," published March 28.
You can believe, if you wish, that Venezuela used to be "the most prosperous and stable democracy in Latin America" (with 80% of the population in extreme poverty, civil strife, and military uprisings), but you can't write, without lying, that in Venezuela, journalists are persecuted and the press is censored, because there isn't a single case that supports what you say.
You say the truth when you affirm that "some newspapers and television stations openly sided with attempts to oust the president via coup, strike or a national referendum." Before being Minister of Information and Communication, I worked as news director for RCTV, an important private TV station in Venezuela. Immediately after the coup of April 2002 against President Hugo Chavez, when hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets demanding the return of their elected president, RCTV and other private channels decided not to report on this civil uprising, preferring to broadcast cartoons and old movies. Since I couldn't bring myself to participate in this censorship, I resigned.
As journalist Duncan Campbell reported for the (London) Guardian, "The five principal TV channels gave publicity spots to those who convened the demonstrations that supported the coup." Moreover, the principal media owners in Venezuela assured Dictator Carmona, "We can't guarantee the army's loyalty, but we can promise the media's support" (see "Coup and Counter-Coup," The Economist Global Agenda, April 16, 2002).
more@link
-------------------------------------------
P.S. If someone can link to a verifiable case of a Venezuelan reporter being jailed for 'direspecting' Chavez, please do it.
P.P.S. According to
this article at Znet, slander is as common as parrots down there.
Regarding the media law that was passed actually last year, the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, was a law that had been in the works for about three years. Actually, it preceded even the coup in 2002.
Well, I don't know if any of the listeners have ever been down to Venezuela and seen the private media channels, but it's like a thousand times worse than Fox Cable News, and we're talking every channel except the state-owned channel. Not just with political opinions, but in terms of presenting outright lies, lots of violence, there was a lot of soft porn -- and sometimes even beyond that -- during daytime hours.
So, basically this law, the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, is to put some kind of control on sex and violence that can be shown during children's and family viewing hours. Once again the United States Dept. of State together with U.S. media and Venezuelan private media, have launched this massive campaign saying freedom of speech and expression is being stifled and the government is censoring the media. But that's absolutely absurd. You turn on any of the channels here and you'll see that there's more freedom of expression enjoyed in Venezuela than probably anywhere else in the world. It's the only place where they can go on television and talk about killing the president, or saying the most derogatory and offensive things on a news hour.
In my
opinion a thousand times than FOX is really, really bad.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
