Is Chavez becoming a liability?

karen3212

The Corinthian wrote:

Just means that you're less interested in right and wrong and more interested in left and right.

I think that kind of left-wrong, right-right put down might work in the USA but I think you're mistaken if you think people are afraid of it here.

I thought you said 'a coup would be justified if there was a dictator'

Was that not the case in 1992?

Or do you only support US backed coups? Lets face it you are being completely blind here, the fact that TV station and the people in it still exists, says much to me.

They would certainly have been jailed, like Chavez was when he attempted his coup, if Chavez was in any way authoritarian?

If Chavez is so bad, why is it that he is only revoking their public broadcasting licence? If he was so bad they would all be dead/jailed by now?

Wake up!

metrovelvet

Im sorry for interupting but Ive just read this entire thread and am very very confused by a number of things.

Who is closing down CNN? It cant be closed down unless it goes out of business and closes itself down. It can be sued, but not closed down. FFS cable is full of crazies broadcasting hate about everything from the white devil man to the jewish imposter.

If Chavez is so bad, why is it that he is only revoking their public broadcasting licence? If he was so bad they would all be dead/jailed by now?

You don't know that he hasn't done this or hasn't started to. It is part of his policy. My friend's cousin was jailed and tortured by Chavez people last year.

Attempted coups are a dime a dozen in latin america. I was in Caracas in 1992 and I think there were three attempts while I was there. Its a part of life.

So this is part of my confusion, why do you and others assume that when you hear "democracy" that it has the same infrastructures, behaviors, and policy that the country you live in does? You may think its a democracy but it is and was the most chaotic and screwed up one I ever came across.


Didn't you know that they actually have people over there thinking Chavez is going to attack them? People believe he is a threat to their national security! Therefore the next step is, um.....um.....pre-emptive strike, or black ops, or antagonise him and have him start it.

You know you really should know that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are satirical. It's not real news.

The Corinthian

rickybutcher wrote:

Simple minded reasoning. The coup attempt gave Chavez the credibility and momentum to turn it into a political campaign. Without it he would not be President today.

You’re scary. Seriously. You’re justifying someone having committed a coup on purely Machiavellian grounds. I think you’ve pretty much lost track of the whole right and wrong thing.

karen3212 wrote:

I think that kind of left-wrong, right-right put down might work in the USA but I think you're mistaken if you think people are afraid of it here.

Actually in Ireland it’s actually more relevant as it historically never really got the whole left-right wing thing out of it’s system.

I thought you said 'a coup would be justified if there was a dictator'

Was that not the case in 1992?

No, it was a lot of bad things, but it was not a dictatorship.

They would certainly have been jailed, like Chavez was when he attempted his coup, if Chavez was in any way authoritarian?

Who is suggesting that individual’s who played a part in a failed coup should not be jailed? The thing being discussed it that the station is being taken off air.

If Chavez is so bad, why is it that he is only revoking their public broadcasting licence? If he was so bad they would all be dead/jailed by now?

Because he gains more by silencing a dissenting media voice than sending a few individuals to prison?

Wake up!

I could say the same of you tesoro.

karen3212

metrovelvet wrote:

Im sorry for interupting but Ive just read this entire thread and am very very confused by a number of things.

Who is closing down CNN? It cant be closed down unless it goes out of business and closes itself down. It can be sued, but not closed down. FFS cable is full of crazies broadcasting hate about everything from the white devil man to the jewish imposter.

If Chavez is so bad, why is it that he is only revoking their public broadcasting licence? If he was so bad they would all be dead/jailed by now?

You don't know that he hasn't done this or hasn't started to. It is part of his policy. My friend's cousin was jailed and tortured by Chavez people last year.

Attempted coups are a dime a dozen in latin america. I was in Caracas in 1992 and I think there were three attempts while I was there. Its a part of life.

So this is part of my confusion, why do you and others assume that when you hear "democracy" that it has the same infrastructures, behaviors, and policy that the country you live in does? You may think its a democracy but it is and was the most chaotic and screwed up one I ever came across.


Didn't you know that they actually have people over there thinking Chavez is going to attack them? People believe he is a threat to their national security! Therefore the next step is, um.....um.....pre-emptive strike, or black ops, or antagonise him and have him start it.

You know you really should know that the Daily Show and the Colbert Report are satirical. It's not real news.

Actually I don't think I've ever heard them discuss Chavez, they're not FOX

metrovelvet

Maybe you should get your info from somewhere else, Im not sure that counts as news either.

karen3212

metrovelvet wrote:

Maybe you should get your info from somewhere else, Im not sure that counts as news either.

Eh? I know FOX is entertainment, the others I've seen about twice in my life. Anyhow, you are right, I try and get my news from all sorts of places, including Ireland.

I got locked out before I could finish my other post, but I was going to say I am very sorry to hear that your cousin was harmed, obviously by brutal people.

I didn't get my impression of the fear in the US from news or tv though, I actually work with a few people from the US. So I did not get that from any of the channels/programmes mentioned.

I think it is shocking though, a step by step replay of what happened before the invasion of Iraq.

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

Just means that you're less interested in right and wrong and more interested in left and right.

its was not as clear cut but things were going very wrong for venezuala at the time of the coup and that leader originated from the left too didn't he?

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

its was not as clear cut but things were going very wrong for venezuala at the time of the coup and that leader originated from the left too didn't he?

What utter, utter crap. It doesn't matter if he was left wing or right wing, which is something that a number of posters here have a bit of a blind spot about. The fact of the matter is that people have been justifying his recent actions on the basis of an illegal and unwarranted coup against him and, when push comes to shove, are making excuses and justifications for his own illegal and unwarranted coup.

And make no mistake, it was illegal and unwarranted. That he subsequently got elected proves that democratic means were not exhausted. And justifying it on the basis that it gave him "credibility and momentum" is frankly on the same level as justifying it on the basis had it succeeded.

It's blind, partisan hypocrisy at its most base, plain and simple. And so God forbid that anyone criticize Chavez, because everything he does is justified without question.

nacho libre

.

nacho libre

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually I didn't. What I have done is point out that there are plenty of people foaming at the mouth to to damn one dictator and make excuses for another, not because they're dictators but because they happen to agree with the ideology of the poster.

Okay. Fair enough. Stalin comes to mind as an example of this.

Gobán Saor

Whether you're Pro-Chavez or anti-Chavez, just remember: a benevolent dictatorship is an impossibility.
All regimes have opposition.
It's either tolerated > no dictatorship
Or it's suppressed > no benevolence.

Can't have it both ways.

bobbyjoe

To cut a long story short was he justified in not renewing RCTV to broadcast?
I reckon yes.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

To cut a long story short

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

was he justified in not renewing RCTV to broadcast?
I reckon yes.

Because their's was a 'bad' coup, while his was a 'good' coup. :rolleyes:

rickybutcher

The Corinthian wrote:

You’re scary. Seriously. You’re justifying someone having committed a coup on purely Machiavellian grounds. I think you’ve pretty much lost track of the whole right and wrong thing.

I've already said I think Chavez was right to attempt the coup, accepting those caveats were met. And I'm simply stating a fact, without the belief in change the coup gave ordinary people and the profile it gave Chavez, particularly the "I'll be back" last-minute broadcast before he was arrested, he wouldn't have been President just a few years later. That's simply a fact. No more "right and wrong" than saying the sky is blue.

rickybutcher

The Corinthian wrote:

It's blind, partisan hypocrisy at its most base, plain and simple. And so God forbid that anyone criticize Chavez, because everything he does is justified without question.

You're criticising something that never happened and assuming it did. A dictatorship. Had Chavez succeeded, in all probability he would have put the same constitution to the people he put forward in 1999 in a referendum, one which 72% of the population voted in favour of and held free elections soon after. So to criticise his "coup" (I would say overthrow of a system which pissed on democracy) you have to be assuming he would have installed a dictatorship. If not, you agree there is a chance at least he would have put a new constituion forward for a referendum and followed it up with free and fair elections. I give him the benefit of the doubt because of the very restrained reaction he had towards his enemies after the coup and the fact he has gone to electorate 10 (does anybody know how many?) times since he was first elected, in votes of various kinds. Here's an example of what I'm talking about, the first thing those involved in the coup were told when Chavez loyalists took back the palace was that their rights defined in the Constitution, the Chavez Constitution, would be upheld, because they looked really really worried at the time. There were no executions, no political trials, no round-ups. Of the civilian leaders I think the worst thing that happened was house-arrest.

I have plenty criticism of Chavez, it's a long list of issues I have, but I just can't tolerate this dictator/autocrat/caudillo stuff. It's nonsense and has absolutely no basis in reality.

SkepticOne

Well it seems to be generating a lot of anger at the moment in Venezuela at the moment.

They have locked up 200 of 8,000 students protesting against the Chavez measure at the moment.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/816B2F53-AE14-4C9C-A991-767A0A119FCB.htm

"Al Jazeera's team on the scene said they were met by dozens of Chavez supporters on motorcycles, some of whom appeared to be armed."

The Corinthian

rickybutcher wrote:

You're criticising something that never happened and assuming it did. A dictatorship.

No I’m not. Where did I suggest Chavez is a dictator?

Had Chavez succeeded, in all probability he would have put the same constitution to the people he put forward in 1999 in a referendum, one which 72% of the population voted in favour of and held free elections soon after.

Huge assumption. Is there evidence – from that time – that would back up this up?

So to criticise his "coup" (I would say overthrow of a system which pissed on democracy) you have to be assuming he would have installed a dictatorship.

You can call it what you will byt the fact remains that he stage a coup in a system where the democratic means were available to create change. You may not have liked the regime or government he attempted to overthrow, but that fact proves that it was not simply ‘pissing on democracy’. Indeed, the president that Chavez sought to overthrow was subsequently ousted by legal and democratic means.

So really you’re simply justifying a illegal action by exaggerating the anti-democratic nature of the regime that Chavez rose against. It was a lot of things, but ultimately it was not a coup that removed it, making Chavez’s own coup unjustifiable.

I have plenty criticism of Chavez, it's a long list of issues I have, but I just can't tolerate this dictator/autocrat/caudillo stuff. It's nonsense and has absolutely no basis in reality.

You’re not bothering to read what others or I have posted. Again, where did I suggest Chavez is a dictator?

bobbyjoe

There's not a country in the world that would allow a tv station involved in a coup to continue broadcasting. Chavez seems to be held to a higher standard than most.

nacho libre

"So really you’re simply justifying a illegal action by exaggerating the anti-democratic nature of the regime that Chavez rose against."

Are you not doing exactly the same thing in relation to Chavez. You are not yet advocating a coup but you do appear to be exaggerating the anti-democratic nature of his government. I still get the impression if he was a right-wing leader it would'nt worry you as much what he was doing. However, to repeat what i said earlier it is odd when people don't condemn vile leaders because they share their ideology. If you are going to condemn some like Castro i don't see how you can then turn around and make excuses for someone like Pinochet.

nacho libre

"So really you’re simply justifying a illegal action by exaggerating the anti-democratic nature of the regime that Chavez rose against."

Are you not doing exactly the same thing in relation to Chavez? You are not yet advocating a coup but you do appear to be exaggerating the anti-democratic nature of his government. I still get the impression if he was a right-wing leader it would'nt worry you as much what he was doing. However, to repeat what i said earlier it is odd when people don't condemn vile leaders because they share their ideology. If you are going to condemn some like Castro i don't see how you can then turn around and make excuses for someone like Pinochet.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

There's not a country in the world that would allow a tv station involved in a coup to continue broadcasting. Chavez seems to be held to a higher standard than most.

Rubbish. There is not a country in the World that would not punish the individuals involved in a coup, regardless if they did so from a TV station, army barracks or box factory. But revoke the broadcasting licence of a TV station that’s been about for over fifty years because they worked there? Get real.

And how does that explain all the other stations that he’s looking to pull the plug on? CNN’s Venezuelan operations may well be shut down because they dared to suggest an al-Qaeda. Or Globovision for their coverage of protests against the RCTV closure? Feel free to explain those.

nacho libre wrote:

Are you not doing exactly the same thing in relation to Chavez. You are not yet advocating a coup but you do appear to be exaggerating the anti-democratic nature of his government.

I appear to be exaggerating the anti-democratic nature of his government only to those who appear to think the sun shines out of his ass, TBH.

I still get the impression if he was a right-wing leader it would'nt worry you as much what he was doing. However, to repeat what i said earlier it is odd when people don't condemn vile leaders because they share their ideology.

Actually, I said it. I’ve said it on numerous occasions in the past, most recently when Pinochet died.

Personally I have criticised right-wing leaders in a number of occasions here. Given this, most of the time there’s little point in doing so - if it was a right-wing leader, the lemmings here would be already falling over themselves with “me too” posts about how evil he/she is/was. Criticising someone like Chavez, who has an army of middle-class armchair Socialists who worship his every fart, makes for far better sport.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

Rubbish. There is not a country in the World that would not punish the individuals involved in a coup, regardless if they did so from a TV station, army barracks or box factory. But revoke the broadcasting licence of a TV station that’s been about for over fifty years because they worked there? Get real.

And how does that explain all the other stations that he’s looking to pull the plug on? CNN’s Venezuelan operations may well be shut down because they dared to suggest an al-Qaeda. Or Globovision for their coverage of protests against the RCTV closure? Feel free to explain those.

On the day of the 2002 coup RCTV deliberately showed film from one angle to falsely claim that Chávez supporters were firing on opposition demonstrators.
(See "the Revelution will not be televised" its on Google and youtube)
The station then went on to support the junta that took control, dismissed the entire Supreme Court and Congress, suspended the constitution, arrested the president and sent armed police onto the streets to suppress any resistance.
They failed to report anything about how Venezuelans took to the streets to demand the return of their President, the fighting between the police and demonstrors. They also neglected to report on the 1 million people who congregated in Caracas protesting for the return of Chavez, the coup leaders being overthrown or Chavez being returned to power. It broadcast cartoons for this!!! A time of national crisis.

Oh yeah and the coup leaders were broadcast on the station thanking it for its help and boasting\laughing about what happened. This station stayed on air for five more years until their license was due for renewal. No country in its right mind would renew a license for such a tv station. If a British or American station behaved like this its owners would be in Guantanamo being waterboarded before their feet touched the ground. Chavez was amazingly leniant to those who kidnapped him.
Other tv stations which are also anti-Chavez have had their licenses renewed. 95% of the media is privatly owned and most of it is anti-Chavez.

He hasn't threatned to shut down CNN or Globalvision (though it is being reported as such so what does that tell you?) CNN are being sued because they linked Chavez to Al Queda. Of course he should sue for that. Being linked to AQ can be bad for your countries health.

Maybe Chavez will become a dictator at some stage in the future, I don't know, but he seems to be doing better than the other South American countries who bought into the IMF\World bank game and had their economies decimated.
This story about the television station is just part of the probaganda against him. If your looking for a story about an evil dictator censoring freedom of speech this is not it.

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

On the day of the 2002 coup RCTV deliberately showed film from one angle to falsely claim that Chávez supporters were firing on opposition demonstrators.
(See "the Revelution will not be televised" its on Google and youtube)
They failed to report anything about how Venezuelans took to the streets to demand the return of their President, the fighting between the police and demonstrors. They also neglected to report on the 1 million people who congregated in Caracas protesting for the return of Chavez, the coup leaders being overthrown or Chavez being returned to power. It broadcast cartoons for this!!! A time of national crisis.

May go as far as to explain why the individuals involved should be charged or sued, but not why the station had its licence revoked years after the coup attempt without any trial.

He hasn't threatned to shut down CNN or Globalvision (though it is being reported as such so what does that tell you?)

Credible sources please, given you’re disputing mainstream media’s version of events?

Maybe Chavez will become a dictator at some stage in the future, I don't know, but he seems to be doing better than the other South American countries who bought into the IMF\World bank game and had their economies decimated.

Believe it or not I don’t entirely disagree with this.

This story about the television station is just part of the probaganda against him. If your looking for a story about an evil dictator censoring freedom of speech this is not it.

Yeah, sure. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

May go as far as to explain why the individuals involved should be charged or sued, but not why the station had its licence revoked years after the coup attempt without any trial.

the guy waited to he licence was up for renewal, before not renewing how ****ing patient is that that not the sign of dictator at all, that sign of clever man. RCTV raison d'etre was to get Chavez out of power, it was the _owners_ of the station intent to get get chvez out by any means necessary andinstall some rich white man or native puppet, pretty disgusting if you ask me i don't how you can defend it.

Credible sources please, given you’re disputing mainstream media’s version of events?

sorry corinthian although we're repeating ourselves its you that need to give credible sources for chavez threatening to shut down CNN and globovision.
[/QUOTE]

and don't give us reuters or any company like that

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

the guy waited to he licence was up for renewal, before not renewing how ****ing patient is that that not the sign of dictator at all, that sign of clever man. RCTV raison d'etre was to get Chavez out of power, it was the _owners_ of the station intent to get get chvez out by any means necessary andinstall some rich white man or native puppet, pretty disgusting if you ask me i don't how you can defend it.

How can RCTV raison d'etre be to get Chavez out of power if it’s been about as long as he has – or are you about to add that it was set up at his birth specifically to oust him later in life to you list of tinfoil hat theories?

So, you should explain why the owners were not targeted with legal proof of their involvement? Why have the individuals involved in supporting the coup not been charged and arrested if they’re so guilty? Or why don’t you just face the fact that targeting the station and not the individuals suits a political rather than legal agenda?

sorry corinthian although we're repeating ourselves its you that need to give credible sources for chavez threatening to shut down CNN and globovision.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6702965.stm

and don't give us reuters or any company like that

Would you prefer indymedia or some other nutbag outlet as a credible source? I’m afraid that if you get to pick the news sources, of course they’re going to back up your claims – a lesson you’ve picked up from Chavez himself, it would seem.

The Guardian, the BBC or Reuters are credible sources. Nothing you’ve put forward here has in any way proven otherwise. Neither can – certainly in the case of the first two – they be accused to be puppets of the US (unless you’re a senile political philosopher) given the continuous criticism they have hoisted upon it. I read them I see far more balanced news – sometimes they will critical, sometimes not – while your sources are so blatantly biased and one sided that they reek of propaganda.

bobbyjoe

I don't know why he shut the station instead of going after the individuals involved. A lot of people involved in the coup got off very lightly most countries would have bee a lot more harsh. Not the actions of a crazy dictator. They can continue to broadcast on cable. RCTV are appealing to the supreme court so looks like they have legal recourse again not the kind of thing that would be tolerated in most countries.

Your link to the BBC says he's sueing CNN and Globalvision not closing them down. Anyway how could he close down an American network?

Here is what the CNN suit is about note the image in the background Chavez and an AQ leader. Probably a small thing in most cases but considering he was kidnapped once already and the last president to be associated with AQ ended up hanging from a rope he's probably right to sue.
"Grabbing control of his nations oil" unbiased reporting there! They report on leaving the world bank and IMF as if its a bad thing.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1v9zd_chavez-in-cnn-may-1st-2007

The other vid is a protest in Mexico being shown as an anti-Chavez march in Caracas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4oTUciyqho

This is Globalvision discussing the RCTV case and then showing a video of the Pope being shot with a song "have faith, for this doesn't end here" playing in the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sea7olvOR-A

The Corinthian

bobbyjoe wrote:

I don't know why he shut the station instead of going after the individuals involved.

It’s not all that complicated to figure out TBH.

A lot of people involved in the coup got off very lightly most countries would have bee a lot more harsh. Not the actions of a crazy dictator. They can continue to broadcast on cable. RCTV are appealing to the supreme court so looks like they have legal recourse again not the kind of thing that would be tolerated in most countries.

Actually it’s completely tolerated in most countries. Remember, for all the accusations of their involvement in the coup, there has not been a single legal convition on it. A ‘committee’ appointed by Chavez came to the conclusion they were and denied permission to renew their licence. As such they have every legal right, as they would in any country, to appeal such a decision.

Of course, that leaves them with cable, but what is the breakdown of cable versus wireless in Venezuela – what percentage of the population are now unable to get RCTV.

Of course, none of these actions are those of a crazy dictator, but no one is suggesting he is a dictator, only that he is slowly going in that direction. Bare in mind, very few dictatorships (unless brought to power by violent means) start as such – erosion of democracy happens slowly. Opposition parties and individuals are tolerated at first, and then laws are slowly introduced that are meant to first suffocate then ultimately to criminalise them.

Again, Chavez is not a dictator. However the actions and direction he’s taking should cause at least alarm for all but the most deluded of people.

Your link to the BBC says he's sueing CNN and Globalvision not closing them down. Anyway how could he close down an American network?

Well statements like "I recommend you take a tranquiliser and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary" leave it pretty open to what he intends to do. As for closing down CNN – of course he can’t close them down, but he can close down their Venezuelan offices and confiscate any broadcasting equipment, as he has done with RCTV, there.

After all, Mugabe, wasn’t able to ‘close down’ the BBC either – only in Zimbabwe.

lostexpectation

The Corinthian wrote:

How can RCTV raison d'etre be to get Chavez out of power if it’s been about as long as he has – or are you about to add that it was set up at his birth specifically to oust him later in life to you list of tinfoil hat theories?

and the staion hasn't changed hands and owners i 50 years and hasn't been an arm of the rich white land owners there since its inception?
[/QUOTE]

THERE WAS A COUP AND RCTV HELPED ORGANISE IT ITS NOT TINFOIL. IT HAPPENED. THERE WAS A COUP. IT FAILED.

So, you should explain why the owners were not targeted with legal proof of their involvement? Why have the individuals involved in supporting the coup not been charged and arrested if they’re so guilty? Or why don’t you just face the fact that targeting the station and not the individuals suits a political rather than legal agenda?

cos there out of the country?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6702965.stm

The Guardian, the BBC or Reuters are credible sources. Nothing you’ve put forward here has in any way proven otherwise. [/QUOTE]
and they selcetively quote like t he best of them. which provided (a link) the full text of the speech where he mentioned globovision find me source I find them more credible

Nothing you’ve put forward here has in any way proven otherwise. Neither can – certainly in the case of the first two – they be accused to be puppets of the US (unless you’re a senile political philosopher)

[/QUOTE]

Of course CNN gives an American view of things what other view would it give?

I actually think narconews.com is good source, its is biased in particular manor but the journalist there are actual journalist and have standards unlike you and you sources.

The Corinthian

lostexpectation wrote:

and the staion hasn't changed hands and owners i 50 years and hasn't been an arm of the rich white land owners there since its inception?

Yadda, yadda - Spare us the red flag waving rhetoric.

THERE WAS A COUP AND RCTV HELPED ORGANISE IT ITS NOT TINFOIL. IT HAPPENED. THERE WAS A COUP. IT FAILED.

Should be straight forward enough to actually try the individuals and the station through legal means, rather than use a handpicked 'committee' to deliver the judgment then. Except he didn't bother with that.

cos there out of the country?

What, all of them? Every single last one? Where did you read that?

Of course CNN gives an American view of things what other view would it give?

Where did I suggest CNN was unbiased? Was that somehow hidden in between where I wrote Guardian, the BBC or Reuters?

You're scraping the barrel at this stage, TBH.

bobbyjoe

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s not all that complicated to figure out TBH.

Its because he's planning on becoming a dictator right?
Even though other anti-Chavez stations had their licenses renewed, 95% of the media is privatly owned and mostly against him.
This station was involved in a coup overthrowing the elected Gov and supporting the fascist junta which took over.
What other countries would allow such a station to continue broadcasting?

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually it’s completely tolerated in most countries. Remember, for all the accusations of their involvement in the coup, there has not been a single legal convition on it. A ‘committee’ appointed by Chavez came to the conclusion they were and denied permission to renew their licence. As such they have every legal right, as they would in any country, to appeal such a decision.

Of course, that leaves them with cable, but what is the breakdown of cable versus wireless in Venezuela – what percentage of the population are now unable to get RCTV.

Of course, none of these actions are those of a crazy dictator, but no one is suggesting he is a dictator, only that he is slowly going in that direction. Bare in mind, very few dictatorships (unless brought to power by violent means) start as such – erosion of democracy happens slowly. Opposition parties and individuals are tolerated at first, and then laws are slowly introduced that are meant to first suffocate then ultimately to criminalise them.

Again, Chavez is not a dictator. However the actions and direction he’s taking should cause at least alarm for all but the most deluded of people.

Care to name these countries where tv stations are allowed to openly help and support coups over the public airwaves?

There were investigations and public hearing the national assembly where RCTV was shown to be involved. I guess this isn't a reliable source though because it was done in Venesuela so it was all made up.
The head of production resigned on the morning of the coup in protest at what the station was doing.
Previously posted are the the actions of RCTV before, during and after the coup.
Then the feckin coup leaders come on the station thanking it for its help then having a laugh about the illegal fascist military coup that just took place.

If thats not enough evidence what is?

The Corinthian wrote:

Well statements like "I recommend you take a tranquiliser and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary" leave it pretty open to what he intends to do. As for closing down CNN – of course he can’t close them down, but he can close down their Venezuelan offices and confiscate any broadcasting equipment, as he has done with RCTV, there.

After all, Mugabe, wasn’t able to ‘close down’ the BBC either – only in Zimbabwe.

Have a source about the confiscation of equipment?
Media outlets are sued for defemation all the time but this is the first time I've heard it called trying to shut down the station.
Like I said earlier maybe he is heading towards dictatorship but this story isn't evidence of it.
What it is evidence of though in my opinion is the slander and smear thrown at Chavez at every opportunity.