RSF: Venezuela among the worst press freedom offenders in the region

Source: El Universal

The status of press freedom in Venezuela has always been a source of concern for Reporters without Borders (RSF). In the Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2009 released on Tuesday in Paris, the non-governmental organization warns of a "major decline" affecting press freedom in Venezuela, "where President Hugo Chávez's administration kept changing the rules that govern broadcasting with the aim of steadily silencing its critics."

"The sudden withdrawal of the licenses of 34 regional radio and TV stations in August 2009 was part of the strategy," RSF said. Referring to the country —ranked 124th in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2009— the Paris-based international organization stresses that "already badly placed in the 2008 index, Venezuela is now among the region's worst press freedom offenders, close to Colombia (126th) and Mexico (tied 137th)", Efe reported.

According to the report, "the broadcast landscape was shattered by the years of 'media war' that followed the 11 April 2002 coup that briefly removed Hugo Chavez from power. Among the four television channels that backed the coup, the oldest and most popular, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), had to give up its terrestrial frequency to the public cultural channel Televisora Venezolana Social (Teves), on 27 May 2007, but was able to resume broadcasts on cable. Televen and Venevisión hung on to their frequencies by adjusting their editorial line."

A lone voice
The report issued by the group, also known by its French acronym RSF, says that the Venezuelan private TV news channel Globovisión "alone kept up its criticism of the government. Hugo Chavez himself saw to it that the small news channel broadcasting only to Caracas and the surrounding area was sued for 'breaking electoral law' the day after regional elections on 23 November 2008. In the meantime, its headquarters has come under attack several times by radical pro-Chavez militants, whom the president ended up condemning. Globovisión is the sole terrestrial exception to state control."

Read more: http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/10/20/en_pol_esp_rsf:-venezuela-among_20A2922771.shtml

in the Humour section ? :shrug:

Clinton's penis did it!

Some RW groups linked with the CIA do fund them, as you said. Do you know any organization we could trust for this kind of reports?

Self-generated funding (excluding grants and member dues)

This rose 28% in 2008, to €3,291,851, and accounted for 68% of our total income (up from 58% in 2007).

It came from :

- Sales of three books of photographs (plus advertising in them) and three year-end calendars. These proceeds were down 24% from 2007 and accounted for 59% of self-generated funds. 160,000 copies of the books were sold in 2008-09, compared with 225,000 in 2007-08, and advertising income from them fell 30% (after deductions), to €333,000 from €475,000.

- Income from the use of the Reporters Without Borders name on various products and from the Beijing 2008 t-shirts. This totalled a substantial €1,354,225 (41% of self-generated funds) and was due to public enthusiasm and international support for the Beijing campaign.

Private donors

Donations by French and foreign private foundations and firms were less than in 2007 mainly due to lack of once-off contributions. In 2007, we had sponsorship from the Chti guide to the Lille region of France and the prize money of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy’s 2006 Asia Democracy and Human Rights Award. Private company donations also fell in 2008 because of non-renewal of a special €100,000 grant made in 2007.

The main companies helping Reporters Without Borders in 2008 were Sanofi Aventis and the French distribution firm CFAO. Private foundations included the the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Overbrook Foundation, the Center for a Free Cuba and the US National Endowment for Democracy.

Private donations accounted for 10% of the combined Reporters Without Borders income, down from 20% in 2007.

Public grants

These were 6% of the total budget (down from 9% in 2007) and came from the French prime minister’s office, the French foreign ministry, the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, the European Commission and UNESCO.

For example, those "radical pro-Chavez militants" was one woman who wasn't even in the same party.

You can fact check this garbage on your own and easily find out that it's crap if your interest is a factual report.

Lina Ron is not a pro-Chavez militant?!

Any Venezuelan would be laughing after the demonstration of deep ignorance you just made. There are more than 80 political parties in Venezuela and Lina Ron is the head of UPV, the most radical pro-Chavez movement. In you think chavista militants are only in the PSUV, I guess you are absolutely clueless about Venezuela. Lina Ron is THE symbol of radical chavismo. Try to avoid speaking so offensively about a matter you ignore that much.

In campaign with the vice-president of the PSUV, nice cap (Müller Rojas)



Political meeting with the former vice-president of Venezuela (in 2007, Jorge Rodriguez)



With Chavez when he announced he was a candidate for the 2006 election

she's completely out of her head as well as being disowned and convicted for her violence.

But it is very revealing that you insist on smearing Chavez with the bad behavior of others. Par for your course here.

:banghead:

but be very patient.

s

her actions and stated emphatically that his government disapproves vehemently of any kind of radical behavior against media outlets? It would be hard to believe that he and his government were not furious with her associating her militant actions with his government.

You may not like him, but one thing he is not, is stupid. He is well aware of the radical rightwingnuts here and their cohorts in Venezuela are only waiting to jump all over him and would never give them an opportunity to do so.

Of course, you will not hear that from the propaganda machine which churns out deceptive 'articles' like this one every week or so.

He has oil and natural gas. He has nationalized it for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. Global Corporations are not happy about that. So, they have conducted a sustained campaign against him and it's sad to see progressives passing along their anti-Venezuelan propaganda.

have been doing the same for the last 7 years. Last august, for the first time, one of their violent actions was filmed by security cameras and the usual denial became impossible. So I think that they were furious because she got caught.

She was put in trial and the tribunal concluded that, considering the charges, she should stay in prison during the trial. However, one week ago, the Ministerio Publico revoked the tribunal's decision and gave her back her freedom for the duration of the trial. This contrasts a lot with the way that the cases of many non-chavista people have been treated by the judicial system. Their charges are a lot smaller than hers but they don't get to stay free during their trial.

I was surprised by one of your comments. Where did you get the information that Chavez nationalized the oil industry?? It is ironical to see you put this argument next to the word "propaganda".

Venezuelan oil industry was nationalized 33 years ago.

It was but that was slowly reverting to handing over control of the oil industry to multi-nationals. Chavez reversed that trend, while not completely blocking foreign investment in the industry.

Actually Venezueala, while Chavez has taken back control of its national oil company, is far more welcoming of foreign investment, even allowing foreign oil corps to drill in Venezuela, than some of our supposed 'best energy allies' like Saudi Arabia and Mexico neither of whom allow foreign drilling.

Just another myth about Chavez, that he is not a good oil partner to the US.

As for the radicals who support his government, they exist everywhere, in every country and governments generally don't prosecute them (I'm sure if this had happened, the anti-Venezuela contingency would have slammed them for unfair treatment then also) until they actually have evidence against them, as is happening now.

"He has oil and natural gas. He has nationalized it for the benefit of the Venezuelan people. Global Corporations are not happy about that. So, they have conducted a sustained campaign against him"

"(Venezuela) is far more welcoming of foreign investment, even allowing foreign oil corps to drill in Venezuela, than some of our supposed 'best energy allies' like Saudi Arabia and Mexico neither of whom allow foreign drilling.
Just another myth about Chavez, that he is not a good oil partner to the US."

He Has nationalized Venezuela's own oil company. And the multi-nationalists HAVE conducgted a sustained campaign against him. The reason being he reversed the trend they were very happy with. That should have been obvious to you, I hope it is now.

As to the second point, I mentioned it as a fact, since his steps to regain control of the oil industry have been mis-characterized by the same anti-Venezuelan entities as isolationist. When in fact he is far less so than our so-called 'best partners' Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

As for this OP, it is almost predictable now that every week or so someone will rush to spread the smears most often coming from biased sources like this one. Last week it was of all idiotic morons, Breitbart.

I predict another from the NYT any day now, with its Venezuelan Judith Miller type 'reporter' who pops up ever few weeks or so with another biased article it doesn't usually take too long to debunk.

Venezuela's own oil company. PDVSA has always been a public company. You are confused between nationalization and "partisanization". In Venezuela, we are observing a fusion between the State and the party. As Chavez keeps on repeating, PDVSA is roja-rojita like the army and the administration. And I don't agree with State officials (non governmental) having to repeat "fatherland, socialism or death". I don't agree neither whith the magistrates and judges in the Supreme Court singing "Uh ah Chavez no se va" in chorus. I believe that the State, the government and the dominant party should be separate, specific entities.

Now, it is true that he reversed the previous trend of letting more and more multinationals invest and produce in Venezuela... for a time. Now, if you check the oil sector's activity in Venezuela, you can verify how he is reversing that reversion.

PDVSA was increasingly under private and often foreign management. So, there is a difference of opinion over whether it ever was nationalized (in the 70s)

As for your characterization of this trend to nationalize industries such as the oil industries, comparing to the Soviet Union (that is what you imply, I believe, I have read much about how Chavez views the future of Venezuela and I see no comparison to the S.U. whatsoever. That is a US scare tactic used against anyone who places the needs of the people ahead of greedy corporatists. Not very effective anymore as new generations reject these fear tactics from history and indeed know a lot about the crimes that were committed in the name of fighting 'Communism'. Some prominent figures here in the US now asking the question 'What if We Were Wrong' about those policies. Of course we were when we facilitated dictatorships and assassinations and torture. So, my advice, don't expect that old fear tactic to work the way it may have in the '50s.

You must be aware that when he was first elected, Chavez had to deal with huge levels of poverty and illiteracy, the result of profits from Venezuela's resources being in the hands of approx. 20% of the population while the rest of the country was in poverty.

To turn such inequity around takes drastic measures, sometimes. There is no question that he has been successful, amazingly so, in reducing poverty and illiteracy. He subscribes to the theory that an educated population will not be so easily rolled over in the future.

I'm sure there's a lot still to be done and since he's done a lot of the heavy lifting, future leaders will not have to do so much. And he did it with so much opposition from powerful sources, who did not have Venezuela's interests at heart, but rather their own.

He is still extremely popular, the last poll I saw giving him a 62% popularity rating so clearly the people who matter, approve of what he is doing.

Don't expect to find people in the US willing to fall for rightwing propaganda. George Bush did one good thing, he awakened the population to the fact that the US uses the media to control rather than inform its citizens.

You don't like Chavez, fine. I don't agree with everything he is doing, but I don't agree with everything Obama is doing either. But he's not a dictator and he does care about his people AND he's been successful in making vast improvements in the lives of his own people. The US needs to stay out of other people's business, our own is badly in need of attention and we are at the moment, no model to emulate.

The entire oil sector became public in 1976 after the state acquired all the capital from the multinationals by paid expropriation. There was 0% foreign capital in the sector until 1991 or 92. From 92 to 2000 it opened with a maximum of 25% multinationals' participation. With Chavez it's around 15%. So, no, there's no reasonable difference of opinion whether it was nationalized in the 70s. It was a bit de-nationalized in the 90s, and it still is, a little less, nowadays.

You can improvise an explanation that fits the beliefs in your imagination, but you can't expect everyone to be that clueless. And it's the same for the pavlovian assumptions you are able to make. I agree with the nationalization, it's a good thing for the country, strategically, and there is an important domestic industry that develops around it. In fact, it's strange to see you put the automatic tirade about communism when the most left you get to vote is for a centrist party. I agree more with the majority of communists than with the half of your politicians. Really, what do I care about Bush nowadays? Fukhim! Why pull out a pointless argument?

Nothing you said had any relation with anything we were talking about. And you don't need to make up stuff. When Chavez reached power, the literacy rate was 93-94%, 11 years after, it's around 96%. The same growth rate it had before. Don't try to describe his government as a social miracle because it's not. Many good things have been also done, like the important reduction of poverty, but we have to admit the oil shock was magical and it still is. Oil is like 3 times higher than it was 11 years ago. The fascination with a charismatic leader and the anger you put to defend him for things no one has criticized him for are confusing. And as you said, maybe sad for a progressive.

I agree with you on one thing though. Certainly there's no system of power to support, there or here.

Doesn't seem like a very good use of vast right-wing conspiracy money if they're gonna make Obama look good.

waged against countries with oil - Venezuela Iraq Iran and countries important to oil Afghanistan - DER !

The faux outrage at the Iranian election results - which were legitimate - yet not a blip about Afghanistan's which were rigged - oh that's right YOUR GUY WON.

The issue here is that the right wing media in VEnezeula was acting in cohorts with the US - the CIA specifically in an attempt to illegally overthrow Chavez - they were criminals and in the US would have been executed for treason - no doubt about it - if they tried to pull off the same conspiracy.

Lets consider the US in contrast - 30 years ago you had over 10,000 independent news papers, radio and television stations these are now in the hands of less than 5 companies - that's about as concentrated as it gets !! Independent - really - the same people who build your weapons, your nuclear bombs your fridges, run your social welfare systems, run your taxation department also OWN your media outlets - yes its true. How can the same people who tax you, pay your welfare, wage war for you, also inform you independently.

America is a truly terrifying thought experiment gone wrong.

:)

No outrage over the Afghan elections? The U.S. and the broader international community were instrumental in pushing Karzai to accept a runoff vote. Frankly, I think you're letting your dislike of what our foreign policy has traditionally been in these situations get in the way of your view of what actually took place.

Not to mention, the fraud was being reported for weeks in the run up.

and once it was wrapped up, we put pressure on Karzai to hold a runoff. This is exactly the way the situation should have been handled.

Fortunately, there was a whistleblower as well as other horrified onlookers who didn't go for it.

poor people are using their money for housing and education
help the capitalists before they have to resort to murder

Bring back the United Fruit Company FFS!!! They knew hot get shit done.

do you folks ever learn?

Good thing you're here to provide the daily RW attack piece on Venezuela! Thanks!

But even a right-wing anti-Cuban front group like RSF can't hide the reality that Colombia and Mexico are much worse for press freedoms.


From the beginning, RSF has made Cuba its No. 1 target. Allegedly founded to advocate freedom of the press around the world and to help journalists under attack, the organization has called Cuba "the world's biggest prison for journalists." It even gives the country a lower ranking on its press freedom index than countries where journalists routinely have been killed, such as Colombia, Peru and Mexico. RSF has waged campaigns aimed at discouraging Europeans from vacationing in Cuba and the European Union from doing business there ­ its only campaigns worldwide intended to damage a country's economy.

The above is not a matter of chance because it turns out that RSF is on the payroll of the U.S. State Department and has close ties to Helms-Burton-funded Cuban exile groups.

As a majority of members of Congress work toward normalizing trade and travel with Cuba, the extremist anti-Castro groups that have dictated U.S. Cuba policy for 40 years continue working tirelessly to maintain an economic stranglehold on the island. Their support for RSF is part of this overall strategy.

Havana-based journalist Jean-Guy Allard wrote a book about RSF's leader (El expediente Robert Ménard: Por qué Reporteros sin Fronteras se ensaña con Cuba, Quebec: Lanctôt, 2005) which lays out the pieces of the puzzle regarding Menard's activities, associations and sources of funding in an attempt to explain what he calls Menard's "obsession" with Cuba. On April 27 this year the pieces began to come together: Thierry Meyssan, president of the Paris daily, Red Voltaire, published an article in which he claimed Menard had negotiated a contract with Otto Reich and the Center for a Free Cuba (CFC) in 2001. Reich was a trustee of the center, which receives the bulk of its funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The contract, according to Meyssan, was signed in 2002 around the time Reich was appointed Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere for the Secretary of State. The initial payment for RSF's services was approximately 24,970 euros in 2002 ($25,000), which went up to 59,201 euros in 2003 ($50,000).

Lucie Morillon, RSF's Washington representative, confirmed in an interview on April 29 that they are indeed receiving payments from the Center for a Free Cuba, and that the contract with Reich requires them to inform Europeans about the repression against journalists in Cuba and to support the families of journalists in prison....



READ MORE

http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html

I'm SERIES!

This news could literally make a person lose his/her dinner. Not shocking, but completely repulsive.

I knew they are so slimy, but didn't know this filthy fascist scum has ties to them. From the article:

Otto Reich connection
"The man who links RSF to these activities is Otto Reich, who worked on the coups first as assistant secretary of state for Latin American affairs, and, after Nov. 2002, as a special envoy to Latin America on the National Security Council. Besides being a trustee of the government-funded Center for a Free Cuba, which gives RSF $50,000 a year, Reich has worked since the early 1980's with the IRI.'s senior vice president, Georges Fauriol, another member of the Center for a Free Cuba. But it is Reich's experience in propaganda that is especially relevant."

Also from the article:

Funding Sources
Robert Menard, the Secretary General of RSF, was forced to confess that RSF's budget was primarily provided by "US organizations strictly linked with US foreign policy" (Thibodeau, La Presse).

NED (US$39,900 paid 14 Jan 2005)
Center for a Free Cuba (USAID and NED funded) $50,000 per year NED grant. Contract was signed by Otto Reich
European Union (1.2m Euro) -- currently contested in EU parliament
Rights & Democracy in 2004 supported Reporters Without Borders-Canada <1>
"Grants from private foundations (Open Society Foundation, Center for a Free Cuba, Fondation de France, National Endowment for Democracy) were slightly up, due to the Africa project funded by the NED and payment by Center for a Free Cuba for a reprint of the banned magazine De Cuba." <2>

Thanks for your great links and aids for our education.

http://schema-root.org.nyud.net:8090/region/americas/north_america/usa/government/officials/otto_reich/otto_reich_afp.jpg http://www.ottoreich.com.nyud.net:8090/images/newsweek.jpg

Money from the "NED" (NED = US government) and the EU parliament.

... A Cuban-American who has been a vociferous anti-Fidel Castro militant, Reich was implicated in the Iran-Contra scandal as a result of his work in Ronald Reagan’s Office of Public Diplomacy, the propaganda outfit charged with planting op-eds that disparaged critics of Reagan’s Latin American policies and lauded Contra leaders. Because of his contentious record working under Reagan, Bush made Reich a “recess appointment” to the State Department, thereby avoiding congressional opposition ... http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Reich_Otto

... On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government ... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela

... One of the grassroots groups mobilizing for Zelaya's return is the Honduran Black Fraternal Organization (OFRANEH), which issued a statement July 3 asserting the "undeniable involvement" of former US under-secretary of state Otto Reich in the coup d'etat. Similar claims were made at the emergency session of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington DC as the coup went into action. Venezuelan representative Roy Chaderton said: "We have information that worries us. These is a person who has been important in the diplomacy of the US who has reconnected with old colleagues and encouraged the coup: Otto Reich, ex sub-secretary of State under Bush. We know him as an interventionist person..." He cited Reich's purported involvement in the attempted coup d'etat against Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez in April 2002. Recalling Reich's involvement in the Nicaragua destabilization campaign in the 1980s and (apparently) the Venezuelan coup attempt, he quipped, "We suffered the First Reich, the Second Reich, and now we are suffering the Third Reich" ... http://ww4report.com/node/7671

... “The current battle for political control of Honduras is not only about that small nation,” Mr. Reich testified in July before Congress ... Mr. Noriega, who was a co-author of the Helms-Burton Act, which tightened the United States embargo against Cuba, and who has recently served as a lobbyist for a Honduran business group, declined to comment for this article. Mr. Reich, who served in key Latin America posts for President Ronald Reagan and President George W. Bush, said ... he had used his connections to push the agenda of the de facto government, led by Roberto Micheletti, because he believed that the Obama administration had made a mistake ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/americas/08honduras.html?_r=1

Here's a link to a National Security Archive briefing book on Reich: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB40/

By Jim Naureckas
... Despite the constant repetition of the claim that the spell-binding Aristide "exhorted mobs to use necklacing," there were no documented cases of necklacing from the day of Aristide's inauguration until the day of the coup ... http://www.fair.org/extra/9411/aristide-demonization.html

it's amazing how the lie that Aristide propagated necklacing even got off the ground. When you look at the actual quotes, it's clear he wasn't advocating those sorts of actions at all.

and here is an example of RSF pushing the idea:

... The legal authorities do not think what Bony said was in any way an incitement to murder. They say it was just a call to state officials (police and the courts) to carry out a publicly-issued order by the head of state and that "zero tolerance" means no more than strictly obeying the law with regard to criminals. Also, they say, a member of parliament can hardly be prosecuted for asking for the law to be applied. But according to many observers, Aristide’s appeal for "zero tolerance" is barely-concealed approval of lynching. Jean-Claude Bajeux, head of the Ecumenical Centre for Human Rights (CEDH), is convinced Aristide was calling on people to give suspected criminals the "necklace" treatment, where a person is burned alive or dead with a flaming tyre placed around their neck ... http://www.rsf.org/spip.php?page=article&id_article=3755

Here's another example:

... Several dozen members of popular organisations allied with Fanmi Lavalas protested on 11 January 2002 outside the Port-au-Prince hotel where Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Robert Ménard and AJH secretary-general Guy Delva were giving a press conference to hold the authorities responsible for the failure to arrest and try the murderers of two journalists. To shouts of "Down with Ménard," some of the protesters led by Aristide associate Paul Raymond forced their way into the hotel’s garden, disrupting the press conference. Raymond accused Ménard of distributing firearms in several districts of the capital in order to destabilize the country. In the course of the next few days, Delva was threatened by the head of Bale Wouze, a pro-Fanmi Lavalas popular organisation based in Saint-Marc (Artibonite department) with being necklaced (lynched by means of a burning tyre placed over the head) if he came to Saint-Marc ... http://www.rsf.org/Haiti-2003-Annual-Report.html

see for myself.

None of the armchair revolutionaries will ever take you up on your suggestions for DU meetups in Cuba or Venezuela.

There's nothing they can discover actually being in those places that they don't already know.

Very few Che-loving, Mao-reading "revolutionaries" actually saw the real results of their beloved ideologies.

nothing about. I have friends who live in Venezuela, and I am planning to visit as soon I can get some time to do so. Lots of friends from Europe also who've been there and loved it and are planning to return. They loved the excitement they felt among the people of building a free country, free from the oppression of global interests and the women especially are proud of how the Chavez government has made them feel that their participation is vitally important to the success of the country.

I would love to visit Cuba also but this 'free' country WE live restricts its citizens from visiting certain countries. How did that happen in a supposedly free society?

There are ways to go I've been told without being arrested on your way home so I hope to get there soon also. None of these people are my enemies. Our greedy, power-hungry government may see them that way, but that should not influence the American people. It's an outrage, actually to deny American citizens the right to travel wherever they want.

You don't see that happening in Venezuela eg ~ far more of a democracy at this point, than the US.

Your post is classic projection.

We'll have to see if I'm in Ecuador by then. :hi:

Although, my meet ups usually involve scalpels and sutures. :7

I visited Venezuela several years ago with a dedicated group of volunteers, I've already been there.


http://www.operationsmile.org/missions/schedule/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHWUeR-IxpU

but then again, if she had actual facts, we'd be deprived of EFerrari's nonstop rejoinders of "LOL!" to even the slightest of criticisms.

http://www.cpj.org/imprisoned/2008.php

And here's where CPJ says journalists have disappeared in recent years: http://www.cpj.org/reports/2008/02/journalists-missing.php

Note journalists regularly disappear in Mexico

http://cpj.org/killed/2009/

One of the 32 was in Venezuela:

Orel Sambrano
ABC de la Semana and Radio América
January 16, 2009, in Valencia, Venezuela
A motorcycle-riding assailant shot Sambrano, director of the local political weekly ABC de la Semana and Radio América, at around 3 p.m. outside a video store in Valencia ... Sambrano, 62, a practicing lawyer, had worked as a political columnist for the local daily Notitarde in the north-central province of Carabobo for 18 years and was known locally for his investigations and commentary on local politics ... Prior to his death, he had reported extensively on local drug trafficking ... On February 13, Venezuelan authorities arrested Rafael Segundo Pérez, a former sergeant for the Carabobo police, in connection to Sambrano's killing. Pérez is accused of working as a hired assassin ... Colleagues told CPJ that Sambrano had published a number of investigative pieces on the Makled family in the months before his death. The local press also reported that Sambrano had mentioned Pérez as one of 13 police officers with ties to the Makled clan. Investigators said they believe Sambrano was shot in retaliation for his journalism ... http://cpj.org/killed/2009/orel-sambrano.php

http://cpj.org/americas/venezuela/

Attacks on the Press in 2008: Venezuela
Official intolerance of criticism and unfounded government accusations promoted a climate of fear among Venezuelan journalists. Tensions reached new heights in September when, without providing evidence, President Hugo Chávez Frías and high-ranking administration officials accused private media outlets of plotting to overthrow the government and murder the president. With violent crime rates escalating, the murder of a newspaper executive and the shooting of a critical columnist raised concern about journalists’ safety.

http://cpj.org/2009/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2008-venezuela.php

Journalist shot and injured
New York, January 16, 2009--Unidentified individuals shot and injured a Venezuelan journalist outside the offices of the local daily El Regional in the southwestern Portuguesa province on Tuesday evening. The Committee to Protect Journalists called today on Venezuelan authorities to investigate the attack and bring all those responsible to justice.

http://cpj.org/2009/01/journalist-shot-and-injured.php

Reporter who covered drugs, corruption is slain
New York, January 20, 2009--A Venezuelan journalist who recently reported on drug trafficking and corruption was shot to death on Friday in Valencia, a city in the north-central province of Carabobo, according to news reports and interviews.

http://cpj.org/2009/01/reporter-who-covered-drug-trade-corruption-is-slai.php

Bill punishing 'media crimes' in Venezuela a serious setback
New York, July 30, 2009--A bill by Venezuela's attorney general that punishes "press crimes" with prison terms is an unprecedented step in the crusade by President Hugo Chávez Frías' administration to curtail media freedom, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today

http://cpj.org/2009/07/bill-punishing-media-crimes-in-venezuela-a-serious.php

to create their imaginary paradise.