Is Chavez becoming a liability?

Raskolnikov

True to his word, Chavez has shut down the most watched television station in Venezuala. The only surprise is it took him this long to do it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article1850844.ece

Sand

Thats what they get for not hailing to the chimp.

karen3212

Orizio wrote:

Basically I don't take politicians at their word.Call me crazy...;)


Good to see you have dropped the old 'blood for oil' argument.I don't doubt the US admin dislikes Chavez-so what?

The US needs a supplier,Chavez needs a seller.Thats not going to change.

Re the oil,

Is it not the case though, that there are plenty of buyers for oil, but not so many suppliers.

What is the best way to ensure that you can keep your suppliers faithful to you, and make sure you have a plentiful supply for the future?

Especially when it looks like China is increasing demand.

FYI

Raskolnikov wrote:

True to his word, Chavez has shut down the most watched television station in Venezuala. The only surprise is it took him this long to do it.

That is incorrect. In fact the truth of the matter is much more complex and surprisingly quite removed from that being circulated by even the most 'respected' news organisations. The TV station is not being 'shut down'. Further, but by no means complete, information I've provided below (much if not all of it you would be hard pushed to find in the mainstream media).

The question is why are we being told that the station is being 'shut down', why is this framed as a 'freedom of the press' issue? Why are we reading 'heart rendering tales' of viewers who can nolonger watch their favourite TV shows? Is it that it is beneficial for us to believe Chavez is an unholy dictator who seeks to quash all criticism of him or is it just sloppy journalism? If there are 'interests' being served, who or what are those interests?


RCTV station is free to broadcast

Sir: Your report "Chavez accused of censorship over threat to close TV station", (10 May), fails to make clear that the RCTV station will remain free to broadcast in Venezuela on cable and satellite. Rather, the licence for the station to broadcast on public airwaves is not being renewed at the end of the existing contract.

There is no censorship of the media in Venezuela: 79 of 81 TV stations and all 118 newspapers are privately owned. Nearly all are vehemently opposed to the popular and democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez.

RCTV played a key role in inciting a military coup attempt on Venezuela's government in 2002. Its refusal to abide by laws prohibiting incitement of political violence is the main reason its licence will not be renewed.

GORDON HUTCHISON

SECRETARY, VENEZUELA INFORMATION CENTRE, LONDON N4

Link: http://comment.independent.co.uk/letters/article2539372.ece


Venezuela's press

Friday May 25, 2007

Guardian

The RCTV station did not just back an illegal military coup against President Chávez in 2002, but was active in orchestrating it (Chávez silences critical TV station, May 23). RCTV ran adverts encouraging people to take to the streets and to overthrow the elected president; spread lies that pro-Chávez supporters were shooting on unarmed civilians, which were used by some in the military to justify the coup; and read out a fake resignation letter from President Chávez.

The non-renewal of RCTV's licence is not because of its criticism of the Chávez government but because of its incitement of political violence. In no country in the world would a station which played a key role in organising the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government have its licence renewed.

Despite the claims of opponents of President Chávez, there is no censorship in Venezuela, where 95% of the media is in virulent opposition to Chávez. This includes five privately owned TV channels controlling 90% of the market. All of the country's 118 newspaper companies, both regional and national, are held in private hands, as are 706 out of 709 radio stations.

Gordon Hutchison
Secretary, Venezuela Information Centre

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2087679,00.html



Media Advisory

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story

5/25/07

The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.

According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chavez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."

Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."

continued...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

That is incorrect. In fact the truth of the matter is much more complex and surprisingly quite removed from that being circulated by even the most 'respected' news organisations.

So you would instead have us believe that the truth is closer to that portrayed in two letters from the secretary of the Venezuela Information Centre and an anonymously written article?

Indeed, the letters giving the 'true' side of the story were sent to the UK Independent and Guardian newspapers, well known supporters of US foreign policy Worldwide, attacking them for their evil imperialist lapdog slants on the RCTV story.

I think you're going to have to come up with more convincing sources to at least stop me from laughing so much.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

So you would instead have us believe that the truth is closer to that portrayed in two letters from the secretary of the Venezuela Information Centre and an anonymously written article?

Indeed, the letters giving the 'true' side of the story were sent to the UK Independent and Guardian newspapers, well known supporters of US foreign policy Worldwide, attacking them for their evil imperialist lapdog slants on the RCTV story.

I think you're going to have to come up with more convincing sources to at least stop me from laughing so much.

Sorry I don't understand your point. Both the source of the information and the information itself have not been questioned in this instance. It is disingenuous of you to pass them off as 'laughable'. Indeed when organisations such the UK Independent and the Guardian publish letters, any information contained in them is checked. Therefore neither of these letters would have been published if the information in them was incorrect.

Despite your ridicule, you offer no reason to suspect the information is anything other than accurate.

What is it that you question?

The fact that RCTV actively supported the failed coup is unquestioned. Further information is available in this Irish made documentary:

"the revolution will not be televised"

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised

RCTV licence will instead be given to a public service broadcaster, in a sea of privately owned stations and newspapers, to offer a similar service to that of the BBC and RTE.

"The Venezuela Information Centre (VIC) is a broad-based UK campaign in solidarity with the people of Venezuela. It was launched on 25th May 2005 at a meeting sponsored by trade unions (UNISON, TGWU, GMB, RMT, AUT, CWU, FBU, ASLEF and the General Secretaries of NATFHE and NUJ), NGOs and media organisations. The meeting of 300 people included, NGOs, academics, students and media, as well as trade unionists."

http://www.vicuk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=28

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

Indeed when organisations such the UK Independent and the Guardian publish letters, any information contained in them is checked. Therefore neither of these letters would have been published if the information in them was incorrect.

Since when has it been policy of newspapers to vet the right to reply based upon factual accuracy?

What is it that you question?

You posted one named and one anonymous source. The named one is, call a spade a spade, a propaganda office the other is whoever. On the other hand, you have articles critical of the present Venezuelan regime that are not only from respectable publications, but moreover liberal ones that are normally considered anti-American.

Had it been Fox or Sky News, or the Daily Mail or even a US based media outlet, I would certainly view any anti Chavez piece with greater skepticism, but it wasn't. So given the weight of information, and more importantly the sources, that are coming out of Venezuela you really would have to be pretty deluded at this stage to pretend it was all some evil Western conspiracy.

Call a spade a spade. Chavez is not a dictator. But he is presently going in that direction and it is actually getting to the point that the denials of this are getting laughable.

"The Venezuela Information Centre (VIC) is a broad-based UK campaign in solidarity with the people of Venezuela. It was launched on 25th May 2005 at a meeting sponsored by trade unions (UNISON, TGWU, GMB, RMT, AUT, CWU, FBU, ASLEF and the General Secretaries of NATFHE and NUJ), NGOs and media organisations. The meeting of 300 people included, NGOs, academics, students and media, as well as trade unionists."

Hardly broad-based, TBH.

wasper

The Corinthian wrote:

Since when has it been policy of newspapers to vet the right to reply based upon factual accuracy?

You posted one named and one anonymous source. The named one is, call a spade a spade, a propaganda office the other is whoever. On the other hand, you have articles critical of the present Venezuelan regime that are not only from respectable publications, but moreover liberal ones that are normally considered anti-American.

Had it been Fox or Sky News, or the Daily Mail or even a US based media outlet, I would certainly view any anti Chavez piece with greater skepticism, but it wasn't. So given the weight of information, and more importantly the sources, that are coming out of Venezuela you really would have to be pretty deluded at this stage to pretend it was all some evil Western conspiracy.

Call a spade a spade. Chavez is not a dictator. But he is presently going in that direction and it is actually getting to the point that the denials of this are getting laughable.

Hardly broad-based, TBH.

Did you see the Irish documentary few years ago about the coup against Chavez. That TV station was inciting the army to take power & overthrow a democratically elected government.
The USA is behind all treachery & financing groups working against Chavez.
Why is this animosity against him. He is not a communist, Al-qaeda sympathiser or a radical muslim.

The Corinthian

wasper wrote:

The USA is behind all treachery & financing groups working against Chavez.

So what? Chavez is more than happy to align himself, assist and finance groups and governments opposed to the US. He can do that and the US can’t? When he funds Castro or supports anti-US groups, it’s good while when the US funds or supports anti-Chavez groups it’s evil? What is it about politics that people don’t understand?

Why is this animosity against him. He is not a communist, Al-qaeda sympathiser or a radical muslim.

Actually I wouldn’t have any more animosity against him than I would against Mugabe. Of course with Mugabe, you don’t have a herd of Western lemmings so full of blind faith that they’re willing to either deny or justify the very obvious direction his regime is taking at present.

He takes one TV station off the air and now is working on taking another off. He gives himself power to rule by decree and tells his coalition partners that they should join a single party under him. He moves to nationalise not just big business, ranches and the oil industry (replacing one bunch of cronies with his own) but even small businesses, like shops and butchers, unless they comply with his price fixing. And most telling of all, he has been consistently building up a cult of personality designed to centre everything on him.

I mean, seriously, how dumb are some people that they don’t see where this is going?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah... I liked chavez and had some hopes for him, but as time goes on.. I find myself slipping more and more into the corinthians worldview.

it's all just a teensy bit suspect...

liamdubh

Here's a hypothetical for you, if a TV station in Britain very closely aligned with the British Communist Party, called for the assassination of Tony Blair and actively supported a coup that was happening at the time (you know, the overthrow of the democratically elected government and replacement of it with a military dictatorship? that kind), how long do you think it would be before it was put off the air? Be honest.

A - the minutes it would take the RAF to scramble fighter planes to blow up it's transmitters and/or offices.

B - the time it would take for a police SWAT team to get from the police station to the station, kick the door in and arrest everybody inside and kill anybody who resisted.

C - the time it would take for Tony Blair to thwart the coup, sign a bill into law removing it's right to broadcast and the state to prosecute it's owners for treason, who would probably be sentenced to death or life.

D - the time it would take for it's licence to expire and simply not be renewed.

I would think B is the most likely answer, A depending on the circumstances and C if Tony Blair was feeling generous. D? Not on a million years. But when D happens in Venezuela, with a left-wing President, clearly this is evidence that a dictatorship is forming. Chavez waiting 5 years and retaliating in a significant but peaceful way results in outrage here but the same people who are complaining about Chavez doing it and crying "dictator" are the same people who would, if it was this country and it was TV3 which had tried to undermine democracy to the extent the Venezuelan station has, be the first people in line to burn it down in retaliation. It is grossly hypocritical of people to say it's the wrong thing to do. Simply because Chavez is left-wing and has changed Venezuelan politics so fundamentally he gets stuck with the dictator tag. Chavez is not a dictator or authoritarian. His power comes from the massive majorities each and every time and election is held there. End of argument. Chavez might have different reasons for shutting it down, it does help manage public opinion that little bit better, but undeniably, he can point to the coup and that stations involvement in it and justifiably say he is protecting democracy in the country.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

Since when has it been policy of newspapers to vet the right to reply based upon factual accuracy?

The letters page of a newspaper is still part of that paper. The facts contained within those two letters from a UK based non-governmental organisation are to the best of our knowledge completely true. You and nobody else have provided reason to believe otherwise.

The Corinthian wrote:

You posted one named and one anonymous source. The named one is, call a spade a spade, a propaganda office the other is whoever. On the other hand, you have articles critical of the present Venezuelan regime that are not only from respectable publications, but moreover liberal ones that are normally considered anti-American.

VIC is an organisation "in solidarity with the people of Venezuela" and therefore supports the people, not the government. Again the information is to the best of our knowledge completely true. On the other hand the information in some ‘liberal’ newspapers is verifiably inaccurate.

Those 'liberal' newspapers are not anti-American, they are for the most part pro-US administration and their interests. For instance they are rabidly anti-Iranian.

The Corinthian wrote:

Had it been Fox or Sky News, or the Daily Mail or even a US based media outlet, I would certainly view any anti Chavez piece with greater skepticism, but it wasn't. So given the weight of information, and more importantly the sources.

Believe everything you read huh? The conduit for the information makes no odds if the information is verifiably inaccurate.

Your quote: "Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate." - F.M. Knowles - appears to reflect your position.

You have taken a position that aligns yourself with private interests who oppose democratically elected officials, who supported an illegal failed coup and then when said government withholds public monies to support your private interests launches a worldwide propaganda campaign to discredit the government you tried to illegally overthrow. Despite the fact you are still free to disseminate your anti-Chavez rhetoric on cable channels, along with the 90% of other privately owned media. You hold a very undemocratic and marginal position.

The Corinthian

If individuals, be they anchors, reporters or station executives were involved in the failed coup then certainly they should be arrested. But take the whole station off air? And now take another one off? Because his specialists have concluded that 'airing footage of the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II with the song "This Does Not Stop Here"' amounted to incitement to assassinate Chavez? This warrants taking an entire TV station off the air? Apparently CNN is also on the list too for daring to link Chavez to al-Qaeda.

TV stations do inappropriate or even illegal things all the time. GMTV's use of fraudulent SMS competitions and Channel 4's 'Death of a President' TV film is another. Even if you could say that any of these things were illegal or treasonable, does that warrant taking an entire channel off the air?

It does if you don't like people criticising you.

So seriously, wake up and smell the coffee. There's very little that is justifiable in shutting down TV stations on increasingly dubious pretexts, simply because you don't like their editorial slant.

As I've already said, Chavez is not a dictator - yet. But increasingly this is the road he's on and the cries of justification for these increasingly authoritarian actions are frankly getting just a little bit ridiculous.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

The letters page of a newspaper is still part of that paper. The facts contained within those two letters from a UK based non-governmental organisation are to the best of our knowledge completely true. You and nobody else have provided reason to believe otherwise.

Actually, I would not believe facts given by any partisan organisation unless confirmed by neutral sources. Truth is not 'true unless proven false' as you appear to believe.

VIC is an organisation "in solidarity with the people of Venezuela" and therefore supports the people, not the government. Again the information is to the best of our knowledge completely true.

Only if you're simply taking their word for it.

Those 'liberal' newspapers are not anti-American, they are for the most part pro-US administration and their interests. For instance they are rabidly anti-Iranian.

It take it you've never actually read the Guardian.

Your quote: "Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate." - F.M. Knowles - appears to reflect your position.

This is rich coming from someone who appears to have accepted as fact everything the VIC put forward.

You have taken a position that aligns yourself with private interests who oppose democratically elected officials, who supported an illegal failed coup and then when said government withholds public monies to support your private interests launches a worldwide propaganda campaign to discredit the government you tried to illegally overthrow. Despite the fact you are still free to disseminate your anti-Chavez rhetoric on cable channels, along with the 90% of other privately owned media. You hold a very undemocratic and marginal position.

Me personally? You wouldn't be wearing a tin-foil hat presently, would you?

RalphCifaretto

Should Al Jazeera be banned because it doesnt play stories the way the White House wants?

Sorry to pluck a comment from the middle of the thread but I couldn't miss that one.:D

Not only did the White House want to take Al Jazeera off air, it appears it intended to bomb it off air. (Guardian 9th Jan).

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Channel 4's 'Death of a President' TV film is another. Even if you could say that any of these things were illegal or treasonable, does that warrant taking an entire channel off the air?

how is an english station airing a show about the death of an american president equal to treason?

liamdubh

Mordeth wrote:

how is an english station airing a show about the death of an american president equal to treason?

A fictional show at that.

liamdubh

The Corinthian wrote:

It take it you've never actually read the Guardian.

You've clearly never read the articles reviewed here:

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=site%3Amedialens.org+%22the+guardian%22&meta=

The Corinthian

Mordeth wrote:

how is an english station airing a show about the death of an american president equal to treason?

Well, if airing footage of the 1981 assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II with the song "This Does Not Stop Here" equal to inciting the assassination of the president of Venezuela, anything is possible.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6699383.stm

FYI

Chavez has the weight of a large majority of Venezeula's people behind him, he has been voted into office 9 times, in free and fair elections. Few (read 'no') Western leaders boast a record such as that. You may disagree with his policies, but to attempt to depict him as anything other than a democratic leader is simply a crude attempt at vilification.

Wikipedia:

"RCTV may continue broadcasting over cable or DTH systems (DirecTV Latin America) when its license expires"

I suppose the best thing to do is to accept that your position is markedly different from mine. I won't go to the bother of searching for more sources for the same information, no doubt much of it is in Spanish and mine is too rusty to be of any use, and no doubt you don't really care whether RCTV is free to air on cable. Your position is evidently one that seeks to paint Chavez as other than a 9 times democratically elected leader. You would argue, I am sure, that my position is one that stands to defend alleged undemocratic decisions, such as the non-renewal of a broadcasting licence on the public service network. However, this depiction of my stance is obviously false and exists only as misdirection. The renewal of any TV stations license is NOT guaranteed. I personally might not have, in the position, sought to deny renewal, but that is neither here nor there. The decision was the government that RCTV had attempted to help overthrow. What would the Irish government do if the Irish Independent aided a military coup?

Your position it appears is exactly as I have said, it is you that is wearing the tin hat. RCTV actively supported an illegal and undemocratic failed coup. It was not the work of a few anchor men, it is evident that it was a conscious decision made by the hierarchy of the organisation.

"During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

You seem to be literally pulling information from thin air, or worse still - making it up to suit your position.

Again:

You have taken a position that aligns yourself with - private interests who oppose democratically elected officials, who supported an illegal failed coup and then when said government withholds public monies to support your private interests launches a worldwide propaganda campaign to discredit the government you tried to illegally overthrow, despite the fact they are still free to disseminate your anti-Chavez rhetoric on cable channels, along with the 90% of other privately owned media.

FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) wrote: ""Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela.""

You hold a very undemocratic and marginal position.

If you're interested in understanding the bias of the 'liberal' media, then perhaps you should read this Irish Times piece, but instead read it from end to beginning (seriously), it paints a slightly different picture:


Venezuela replaces anti-Chavez TV station with state network
Brian Ellsworth in Caracas

A supporter of RCTV taking part in a protest march in Caracas at the weekend along with tens of thousands other Venezuelans.
Photograph: Christian Veron/ReutersVENEZUELA: Venezuela's replacement of an opposition television station yesterday with a state network promoting President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution has drawn sharp criticism that the former soldier is attacking democratic freedoms.

The left-wing leader took the RCTV station off the air shortly after midnight on Sunday, silencing a major opponent to reforms that have given him greater control over the judiciary, the military and the oil sector of this Opec nation.

The European Union said it was concerned by the decision to replace Venezuela's most popular television station with a new state-backed public service channel without allowing open competition and a tender process for a new broadcast licence.

"Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential elements of democracy," said the EU presidency, currently held by Germany.

The takeover of the channel dramatically boosts the state's presence in Venezuela's media, with the three main broadcast channels either controlled by the government or largely uncritical of its concentration of power.

"We are heading towards . . . the conversion of media into political weapons in the control of the state," Marcelino Bisbal, a journalism professor at Universidad Catolica in Caracas, said in a newspaper interview.

Venezuela's opposition media has been widely accused of violating basic journalistic standards. RCTV and others openly supported a bungled 2002 coup against Mr Chavez, who this year began ruling by decree and forging a one-party state.

In a tearful farewell programme, RCTV staff packed a studio and prayed together.

"Do not lose hope. We will see you soon," RCTV presenter Nelson Bustamante told viewers.

Workers ranging from cameramen to make-up artists have promised to continue showing up at the station as executives discuss plans to broadcast over the internet or via radio.

The new state channel opened its transmission with traditional Venezuelan dance and song, but by early morning was airing an aerobics show featuring tanned and fit Venezuelans doing kickboxing moves to a bouncing electronic beat.

The closure of RCTV was condemned by the US Senate and the European Parliament, but Mr Chavez's supporters justified the move by criticising the journalistic ethics of the channel. RCTV ran films and cartoons when the tide turned in Mr Chavez's favour in the 2002 coup and refused to show huge crowds of the president's supporters rallying against coup leaders.

Pollster Datanalisis found almost 70 per cent of Venezuelans opposed the shut-down, but most cited the loss of their favourite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression.

Among the Chavez supporters swigging beer and dancing in the streets of central Caracas on Sunday, some thought the president should go further and shut down the few remaining opposition networks, such as Globovision. "They all participated in the coup and incited violence," said shopkeeper José Quijada (58), wearing the hallmark red T-shirt of Chavez supporters. - ( Reuters)

© 2007 Reuters



Link: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0529/1180134074395.html

liamdubh

FYI wrote:

Link: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2007/0529/1180134074395.html[/I]

You're pissing into the wind FYI. Clearly people ignore basic facts when it comes to Chavez. That he was supported overwhelmingly in about 8 billion different elections (Venezuela has a major voter fatigue problem), that the TV station in question is as subversive in it's aims as the IRA was in this country and has acted on them (Gerry Adams' voice wasn't even allowed be heard in this country remember) and that Chavez has delivered only mild retaliation when he'd be well within his legal and moral rights to go a hell of a lot further.

And I'm not a Chavista by any means, corruption still occurs on roughly the same level as it did under the undemocratic oligarchic 2 party system, crime levels are still at an incredible level (and these 2 things are linked in some ways), the fact he has failed to deliver the fundamental change to the country he promised and tackle the crime & corruption problems that are destroying the country (he is more social-democrat than revolutionary) and Chavez can sometimes engage in buffoonery which makes him look silly. But I can't deny basic facts, namely that Venezuela has a democratic government, that people are free to organise and oppose Chavez in elections (most chose not to last time because of the support Chavez has) and that Chavez is fundamentally a decent human being who is trying to deliver a better life for the poor in a country with one of the most unequal distributions of wealth in the world.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

Chavez has the weight of a large majority of Venezeula's people behind him, he has been voted into office 9 times, in free and fair elections. Few (read 'no') Western leaders boast a record such as that. You may disagree with his policies, but to attempt to depict him as anything other than a democratic leader is simply a crude attempt at vilification.

You're really not bothering to read what I've written. For the third time, Chavez is not a dictator, however this is the direction he is going in. Even if one concedes that RCTV was rotten to the core and had to be shut down, it does not explain why he's expanded his purge of the airways and is in the process of shutting down other stations with increasingly dubious excuses. I mean seriously; they're discussing shutting down CNN's operation on the basis that they linked him to al-Qaeda!

Look at the thread title - the key word is 'becoming'. No one here is saying that he is a dictator, but that he is becoming one. What people are saying is that his increasingly authoritarian actions are bringing him towards that position and the present campaign to limit the ability for non-government media to get their message across is a sign of that.

And being elected does not give him an unlimited mandate, neither does it make him a natural democrat - remember many dictators were originally elected too - especially in light of his own attempt at a coup in the nineties.

You seem to be literally pulling information from thin air, or worse still - making it up to suit your position.

Actually I've linked to all my sources, none of which are fringe pressure groups like yours. You even posted one source that was anonymous.

You hold a very undemocratic and marginal position.

And, TBH, you hold a very deluded one born of having been sucked into the cult of personality that surrounds Chavez. All his actions in your eyes can be justified, no matter how dubious or anti-democratic they may be. There's a word for that, you know.

aequinoctium

what non south american allie(s) does he have?

Dirk Gently

aequinoctium wrote:

what non south american allie(s) does he have?

Russia and China stand out, as well as pockets of support from many european left leaning political parties. Labour in the UK have a support group for Venezuela but the Blair leadership would be hostile, likewise some Democrates in the US want to increase co-operation with chavez while other democrates and the republican party are hostile. Spain has defied the US by trading arms with Chavez. Venezuela is also popular among OPEC countries.

bobbyjoe

Wasn't Thames TV taken off the air for broadcasting Murder on the Rock? The US wanted to bomb Al Jazeera in Qatar and did bomb its office in Iraq. NATO bobmed Serbian TV stations.

This tv channel was congratulated by the coup leaders and supported it throughout the time they kidnapped the president and threatned to bomb the houses of parliment. Here is a clip of them boasting (and having a laugh) about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAalLAYl0VA

The only suprising thing is that it wasn't shut down earlier and its owner in jail.

He's not playing the IMF and World Bank game demonstrating another way of doing things and thats what annoys the Americans.

mike65

bobbyjoe wrote:

Wasn't Thames TV taken off the air for broadcasting Murder on the Rock?

Nope. btw it was called Death on the Rock.

Mike.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

...

Your latest response is cryptically incoherent.

Continually referring to sources as ‘fringe’ groups when you know nothing whatsoever about them, other than by inference from the name, is pointless. The letters printed in both newspapers simply offer facts – widely available ones – which can be found on Wikipedia (for instance). Your choice to attempt to discredit these facts, without basis, and only for the purpose of enforcing your views adds no weight to your argument and only offers others further reason to disregard your writing as foundation-less ramblings.

Deal with the facts. A TV station which actively supported an illegal coup has found it’s licence not renewed.

You also find yourself in a tangle when dealing with how you characterise Chavez. You say he is not a dictator, simply becoming one. There is in this a characterisation in itself. Chavez is in your muddled world (since you concede there is no evidence he is a dictator) a dictator in waiting; you even go to the point of vaguely comparing him to Hitler.

You’re not even bothering to do elementary research:

“Most of Venezuela's mass media are privately operated and derive most of their revenues from advertising, subscriptions, and sale or distribution of copyrighted materials. A small proportion of the Venezuelan television, newspaper, and radio markets is controlled by state-owned outlets.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_of_Venezuela

And from the beeb:

“Venezuela's many private broadcasters operate alongside state-run radio and TV channels.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1229345.stm#media

Your argument simply amounts to discarding sources as fringe groups and anonymous (this is especially strange – it was a press release by FAIR), when the facts can be easily verified.

It seems you have no argument, simply a position of foundation-less characterisation.

bobbyjoe

mike65 wrote:

Nope. btw it was called Death on the Rock.

Mike.

Your right it wasn't taken off the air its license to broadcast wasn't renewed.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

Your latest response is cryptically incoherent.

No, you simply choose not to comprehend it as it serves your argument.

Continually referring to sources as ‘fringe’ groups when you know nothing whatsoever about them, other than by inference from the name, is pointless. The letters printed in both newspapers simply offer facts – widely available ones – which can be found on Wikipedia (for instance).

So Wikipedia is cannon for fact then?

Your choice to attempt to discredit these facts, without basis, and only for the purpose of enforcing your views adds no weight to your argument and only offers others further reason to disregard your writing as foundation-less ramblings.

I questioned the source as being partisan. I also pointed out that media outlets such a the Guardian are far less likely to be simply toeing a partisan line when criticizing Chavez, as you do, as they are historically left-leaning.

That would lead me to be far more willing to believe the Guardian than your anonymous writer or pro-Chavez lobby group.

Deal with the facts.

No. Deal with information put forward as purely factual and complete by your sources without question is what you mean.

You also find yourself in a tangle when dealing with how you characterise Chavez. You say he is not a dictator, simply becoming one. There is in this a characterisation in itself. Chavez is in your muddled world (since you concede there is no evidence he is a dictator) a dictator in waiting; you even go to the point of vaguely comparing him to Hitler.

LOL. What a load of self important horsecrap! I never said he was a dictator, something you now bizarrely seem to think is some form of admission, and indeed have never said he will become one. All I have said is that the path he's on will take him to that conclusion if followed and the evidence of that is becoming increasingly visible.

Now, you may consider that 'muddled', but that may be simply because you have difficulty comprehending a logical argument.

As for Hitler; seriously, take off that tin-foil hat.

It seems you have no argument, simply a position of foundation-less characterisation.

Yet, you've centred on simply this one station and ignored all the other evidence that is mounting. The other stations presently up for the block and the pretexts being used to shut them down. His moves to rule by presidential decree and single party government. And most tellingly his increasing reliance on a cult of personality.

These have all been raised here, yet you've quietly ignored all of them. As I said, there's a word for such unquestioning devotion.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

No, you simply choose not to comprehend it as it serves your argument.

Comprehend what?

These are the facts you take issue with:

1. "the licence for the station to broadcast on public airwaves is not being renewed at the end of the existing contract"

2. "79 of 81 TV stations and all 118 newspapers are privately owned. Nearly all are vehemently opposed to the popular and democratically elected government of Hugo Chavez."

3. "RCTV played a key role in inciting a military coup attempt on Venezuela's government in 2002."

Are we to believe, according to you, that these are all lies? Simple yes or no, otherwise stop hiding behind this ridiculous source questioning.

The Corinthian wrote:

What a load of self important horsecrap! I never said he was a dictator, something you now bizarrely seem to think is some form of admission, and indeed have never said he will become one. All I have said is that the path he's on will take him to that conclusion if followed and the evidence of that is becoming increasingly visible.

Is President Bush moving towards a dictatorship - there's evidence to suggest he seeks a police state. Would oyu have called Tony Blair a dictator in waiting?

The fact you continually refer to Chavez as becoming a dictator is in itself a characterisation.

Chavez has turned Venezuela into a model the rest of South America will follow, turning their back on the Washington agenda which for so long kept it in the third world. Whatever you think of Chavez you can't deny the benefits his rule has given the people of Venezuela.

The Corinthian wrote:

His moves to rule by presidential decree and single party government.

"the enabling law is completely different from the above type of "rule by decree" in that it is limited in several ways. First, the President is bound by the constitution. He can only issue so-called "law-decrees" in the areas named by the National Assembly, in the time limit the Assembly imposes, and that are consistent with the constitution. In other words, he cannot arbitrarily order someone's arrest or do away with basic civil rights, for example. Some of the laws even need to be submitted to the Supreme Court, which vets the law for its constitutionality.

Second, contrary to popular belief, even though Chavez supporters control all branches of the state, law-decrees can be reversed by the most important power of all: the citizens. That is, law-decrees can be rescinded by popular vote. According to Venezuela's 1999 constitution all laws can be submitted to a referendum if at least 10% of registered voters request such a referendum. Law decrees have an even lower signature requirement, of only 5% of registered voters (800,000 out of 16 million registered voters).[3]

Third, the National Assembly may also modify or rescind law-decrees, at any time, should it feel the need to do so. This is quite unlike the enabling law in the U.S., known as the "Fast Track" law, where the president may sign international treaties that are automatically binding and not open to revision or rescinding by the population. "

http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2007-02/06wilpert.cfm