Is Chavez becoming a liability?

FYI

From the Guardian:

The protests in Venezuela are motivated by more than a TV station. The oligarchy fears it is losing its right to run the country
Richard Gott in Caracas Thursday June 7, 2007
The Guardian


After 10 days of rival protests in the streets of Caracas, memories have been revived of earlier attempts to overthrow the Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chávez, now in its ninth year. Street demonstrations, culminating in an attempted coup in 2002 and a prolonged lock-out at the national oil industry, once seemed the last resort of an opposition unable to make headway at the polls. Yet the current unrest is a feeble echo of those tumultuous events, and the political struggle takes place on a smaller canvas. Today's battle is for the hearts and minds of a younger generation confused by the upheavals of an uncharted revolutionary process.

University students from privileged backgrounds have been pitched against newly enfranchised young people from the impoverished shantytowns, beneficiaries of the increased oil royalties spent on higher education projects for the poor. These separate groups never meet, but both sides occupy their familiar battleground within the city, one in the leafy squares of eastern Caracas, the other in the narrow and teeming streets in the west. This symbolic battle will become ever more familiar in Latin America in the years ahead: rich against poor, white against brown and black, immigrant settlers against indigenous peoples, privileged minorities against the great mass of the population. History may have come to an end in other parts of the world, but in this continent historical processes are in full flood.

Ostensibly the argument is about the media, and the government's decision not to renew the broadcasting licence of a prominent station, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), and to hand its frequencies to a newly established state channel. What are the rights of commercial television channels? What are the responsibilities of those funded by the state? Where should the balance between them lie? Academic questions in Europe and the US, the debate in Latin America is loud and impassioned. Here there is little tradition of public broadcasting, and commercial stations often received their licence in the days of military rule.

The debate in Venezuela has less to do with the alleged absence of freedom of expression than with a perennially tricky issue locally referred to as "exclusion", a shorthand term for "race" and "racism". RCTV was not just a politically reactionary organisation which supported the 2002 coup attempt against a democratically elected government - it was also a white supremacist channel. Its staff and presenters, in a country largely of black and indigenous descent, were uniformly white, as were the protagonists of its soap operas and the advertisements it carried. It was "colonial" television, reflecting the desires and ambitions of an external power.

At the final, close-down party of RCTV last month, those most in view on the screen were long-haired and pulchritudinous young blondes. Such images make for excellent television watching by European and North American males, and these languorous blondes are indeed familiar figures from the Miss World and Miss Universe competitions in which the children of recent immigrants from Europe are invariably Venezuela's chief contenders. Yet their ubiquity on the screen prevented the channel from presenting a mirror to the society that it sought to serve or to entertain. To watch a Venezuelan commercial station (and several still survive) is to imagine that you have been transported to the US. Everything is based on a modern, urban and industrialised society, remote from the experience of most Venezuelans. Their programmes, argues Aristóbulo Istúriz, until recently Chávez's minister of education (and an Afro-Venezuelan), encourage racism, discrimination and exclusion.

The new state-funded channels (and there are several of them too, plus innumerable community radio stations) are doing something completely different, and unusual in the competitive world of commercial television. Their programmes look as though they are taking place in Venezuela, and they display the cross-section of the population to be seen on cross-country buses or on the Caracas metro. As in every country in the world, not everyone in Venezuela is a natural beauty. Many are old, ugly and fat. Today they are given a voice and a face on the television channels of the state. Many are deaf or hard of hearing. Now they have sign language interpretation on every programme. Many are inarticulate peasants. They too have their moment on the screen. Their immediate and dangerous struggle for land is not just being observed by a documentary film-maker from the city. They are being taught to make the films themselves.

Blanca Eekhout, the head of Vive TV, the government's cultural channel, launched two years ago, coined the slogan "Don't watch television, make it". Classes in film-making have been set up all over the country. Lil Rodríguez, an Afro-Venezuelan journalist and the boss of TVES, the channel that replaces RCTV, claims that it will become "a useful space for rescuing those values that other models of television always ignore, especially our Afro-heritage". With time, the excluded will find a voice within the mainstream.

Little of this is under discussion in the dialogue of the deaf on the streets of Caracas. For the protesting university students, the argument about the media is just one more stick with which to hit out against the ever-popular Chávez. Yet as they mourn the loss of their favourite soap operas, they are already aware that their eventual loss may be more substantial. As children of the oligarchy, they might have expected soon to run the country. Now fresh faces are emerging from the shantytowns to challenge them, a new class educating itself at speed and planning to seize their birthright.

Just a few weeks ago, Chávez outlined his plans for university reform, encouraging wider access and the development of a different curriculum. New colleges and technical institutes across the country will dilute the prestige of the older establishments, still the preserve of the wealthy, and the battle over the media will soon be submerged in a wider struggle for educational reform. Chávez takes no notice of the complaints and simply soldiers on, with the characteristics of an evangelical preacher: he urges people to lead moral lives, live simply and resist the lure of consumerism. He is embarked on a challenge to the established order that has long prevailed in Venezuela and throughout the rest of Latin America, hoping that the message of his cultural revolution will soon echo across the continent.

· Richard Gott is the author

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

From the Guardian:

LOL. You reject the Guardian as biased when it criticises him then quote it when it agrees with your viewpoint. Priceless

metrovelvet

Hmnnnn..... the Guardian ... gotta love them.

You know how much you got paid for working at one of these eltitist universities as a lecturer pre-chavez? Or at least my friend did as an art history teacher.. $8 per hour.

Oh and here's some white supremacist colonial viewing for you from RCTV. You dont take soap operas away from Latinos without hearing about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqBk1lGzC5A&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8WeemTxy4

DadaKopf

Here's a view by an on-the-ground researcher from DCU, published in the letters page, Irish times, 5th June. He's in support of Chávez's move.

Seeing Chavéz in context

Madam, - I am writing to heartily congratulate you on your balanced, incisive and nuanced editorial (May 30th) following the non-renewal by the Venezuelan government of the licence of the private television channel RCTV. As the title of your editorial ("Chávez in context") underlines it is of great importance to distance ourselves from the shrill cries of the media in support of "freedom of speech" and many western governments by placing this action in a broader context.

As your editorial points out, RCTV "led and provoked the violent coup attempt against Mr Chávez in 2002". While in Venezuela in early 2002, I witnessed the television and print media constantly referring to the dangers of Chávez, to his presumed "madness" and to the need for Venezuela to "get rid of him", including in some cases through assassination. After the coup, I also witnessed coup leaders on television, including well known "journalists", congratulating the media on their crucial role in the coup. This behaviour goes well beyond "freedom of expression" and towards outright sedition which would have been severely punished by any of the states now so loudly pronouncing against this recent move by the Venezuelan government.

It is, however, also important to point to international media support for the coup and their continued negative portrayal of the Chávez government. According to Fair (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, www.fair.org) many major US newspapers printed editorials against Chávez and in favour of the coup plotters, including the New York Times and The Washington Post. More recently, Fair in a review of op-eds on Venezuela in top US newspapers found that 95 per cent expressed clear hostility to Chávez. Yet these are amongst the many media outlets now supposedly defending democracy and freedom of expression.

What is also disturbing about this is the coincidence between such negative media reporting and some western countries' hostile stance towards Venezuela, such as that of the US and also the UK. Both these countries immediately offered support to the illegal de facto government in Venezuela in April 2002 and leaders of both countries have been consistently negative about Venezuelan democracy and its democratically elected president in particular.

This coincidence in opinion between these leaders and major media outlets has troubling implications for freedom of expression in the West, especially when one considers media behaviour before and during the current Iraq War.

This uniformity in press reporting on Venezuela is denying the public its right to accurate and balanced information on that country from a plurality of sources and opinions, something which is essential for healthy democratic debate. It is salutary to see The Irish Times going against that trend and offering an alternative viewpoint.

- Yours, etc,

Dr BARRY CANNON, Centre for International Studies, School of Law and Government, Dublin City University,Glasnevin, Dublin.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

LOL. You reject the Guardian as biased when it criticises him then quote it when it agrees with your viewpoint. Priceless

What's priceless is that you appear to assume the validity of fact and argument purely on the basis on what newspaper (not even which journalist wrote it) it is published in, as opposed to whether those facts can be verified by reference to the historical record.

'For the record' you have offered no refutation of the criticisms I reproduced with regard to the mainstream media's (including the Guardian) inaccurate reporting of the RCTV story.

Your smug smile should really hide a foolish embarrassment.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

What's priceless is that you appear to assume the validity of fact and argument purely on the basis on what newspaper (not even which journalist wrote it) it is published in, as opposed to whether those facts can be verified by reference to the historical record.

And by the same logic I've been presented by facts that come from pro-Chavez lobby groups, as opposed to whether those facts can be (or at least anyone here has bothered to) verified by reference to the historical record. I'm just choosing to take the sources I'd know and respect more seriously, that's all.

'For the record' you have offered no refutation of the criticisms I reproduced with regard to the mainstream media's (including the Guardian) inaccurate reporting of the RCTV story.

TBH, there's not much point to responding any more as we're really only going round in circles and the amusement value of this thread for me has worn thin at this stage. I could for example point out that when you talk about "enough evidence" you're missing the point that I've repeatedly made about due process, of legal trial rather than judgment by shadow committee. But what would be the point of repeating myself?

Your smug smile should really hide a foolish embarrassment.

Don't take all this, me or, above all, yourself too seriously. This is a thread on the interweb, that's all.

And let's face it if the opinion of posters here was indicative of politics the real World, people like Joe Higgins would have a majority in the Dail at this stage rather than having lost his seat. So you'll forgive me if I don't lose too much sleep over it all.

spaceman1

I would not cosider Chavez a liability as far as Venezuela is concerned, and the rest of the world, well, no one cares except America....He is the first South American leader to thumb his nose at the American Goverment and not get it chopped off. Chavez is the best thing that has happened to Venzuela and South America in a long time, in my opinion cause he is acting as a counter weight to American foregn policy in the region. As far as I can tell, George Bush is a far greater liability than Chavez....

metrovelvet

spaceman1 wrote:

I would not cosider Chavez a liability as far as Venezuela is concerned, and the rest of the world, well, no one cares except America....He is the first South American leader to thumb his nose at the American Goverment and not get it chopped off. Chavez is the best thing that has happened to Venzuela and South America in a long time, in my opinion cause he is acting as a counter weight to American foregn policy in the region. As far as I can tell, George Bush is a far greater liability than Chavez....

He wont really snub the US. He needs the US to sell oil to and he needs the US to demonise to market his ideologies. He has made the mistake of letting his enemy define him.

Now that the US is aggressively researching and developing ethanol he might want to consider lowering his oil prices since he will need the money and the US will eventually find alternative fuel.

So while Venezuelans protest on the street, emigrate to Miami, lose their soap operas, Americans will just continue what they were doing, not pay too much attention.

The Corinthian

spaceman1 wrote:

As far as I can tell, George Bush is a far greater liability than Chavez....

Why do people keep on seeing things in such simplistic 'us versus them' terms?

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

let's face it if the opinion of posters here was indicative of politics the real World, people like Joe Higgins would have a majority in the Dail at this stage rather than having lost his seat. So you'll forgive me if I don't lose too much sleep over it all.

There has been no circles, just you avoiding the questions.

Two party system - that's whats confusing you.

DadaKopf

The Corinthian wrote:

let's face it if the opinion of posters here was indicative of politics the real World, people like Joe Higgins would have a majority in the Dail at this stage rather than having lost his seat. So you'll forgive me if I don't lose too much sleep over it all.

"If most people think X, therefore X is true." :rolleyes:

Not a robust argument, Corinthian.

nacho libre

The Corinthian wrote:

And by the same logic I've been presented by facts that come from pro-Chavez lobby groups, as opposed to whether those facts can be (or at least anyone here has bothered to) verified by reference to the historical record. I'm just choosing to take the sources I'd know and respect more seriously, that's all.

TBH, there's not much point to responding any more as we're really only going round in circles and the amusement value of this thread for me has worn thin at this stage. I could for example point out that when you talk about "enough evidence" you're missing the point that I've repeatedly made about due process, of legal trial rather than judgment by shadow committee. But what would be the point of repeating myself?

Don't take all this, me or, above all, yourself too seriously. This is a thread on the interweb, that's all.

And let's face it if the opinion of posters here was indicative of politics the real World, people like Joe Higgins would have a majority in the Dail at this stage rather than having lost his seat. So you'll forgive me if I don't lose too much sleep over it all.

That's a strange assumption to make. Why do you view everyone who disagrees with your views in this thread as automatically being a Socialist and pro-Chavez? I am just not convinced by your argument that he is on the road to becoming a dictator. Does a dictator usually allow private media to operate when the majority of these outlets are against him?
I realize from your perspective this is a probably reflection on me, not you:)
I wonder if a leader with the 'right politics', according to you, had undertaken this move, against a station which supported a coup against his leadership, would you be as swift to voice your concerns about this action portending he was on the way to becoming a dictator? I doubt your criteria for establishing the guilt of those involved would be as high either- shadow comittees rather than due process would likely suffice. The crux of the problem for you it seems is really that Chavez is a Socialist not the action he has taken. You'll deny this of course.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

There has been no circles, just you avoiding the questions.

Except I've not. I've responded and you either continue to ignore or fail to understand the responses. So eventually I get bored spoon feeding you, stop responding and you get to accuse me of avoiding questions. Nice - truth by attrition.

DadaKopf wrote:

"If most people think X, therefore X is true." :rolleyes:

Not a robust argument, Corinthian.

Never suggested that. Just pointed out that there's no point wasting endless hours arguing with individuals who have as much real say in current affairs as a dead lama.

nacho libre wrote:

That's a strange assumption to make. Why do you view everyone who disagrees with your views in this thread as automatically being a Socialist and pro-Chavez?

Not automatically anything, by any means - only going by the statements that people put forward and the manner in which they do so, but the whole Chavez good, US bad argument that keeps on cropping up repeatedly as some how relevant is certainly indicative of that type of partisan and puerile thinking.

I am just not convinced by your argument that he is on the road to becoming a dictator. Does a dictator usually allow private media to operate when the majority of these outlets are against him?

A dictator doesn't, but I've never said he is. Serious straw man argument there, btw - because he does not fulfill the criteria of being a "dictator" he cant be on the "road to be a dictator".

I wonder if a leader with the 'right politics', according to you, had undertaken this move, against a station which supported a coup against his leadership, would you be as swift to voice your concerns about this action portending he was on the way to becoming a dictator?

Probably not, but I've already explained why - there are more left-wing lemmings on boards to wind up than right-wing ones

I doubt your criteria for establishing the guilt of those involved would be as high either- shadow comittees rather than due process would likely suffice.

You're building quite an argument on your initial hypothesis. Would you like to add in how I'm probably a member of PNAC too?

The crux of the problem for you it seems is really that Chavez is a Socialist not the action he has taken. You'll deny this of course.

As I've already said repeatedly, it's not, but there's really no point in repeating myself if you're going to simply ignore my responses.

Look, you just believe whatever you prefer to believe if it pleases you. Makes little difference to me and, realistically, anyone else.

FYI

The Corinthian wrote:

Except I've not. I've responded and you either continue to ignore or fail to understand the responses. So eventually I get bored spoon feeding you, stop responding and you get to accuse me of avoiding questions. Nice - truth by attrition.

These are the questions, they can be found on page five:

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.

Can you point me to the answers?

If not, I can only infer you are deliberately being disingenuous in order to appear the winner of an argument - an argument that you have already disregarded:

Don't take all this, me or, above all, yourself too seriously. This is a thread on the interweb, that's all.

zogg18

Could anybody tell me whats going on RIGHT NOW.........................................
Fox news has had a wet dream..................................................................
Whats happening.....................................................................................
Is it the same all over again http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=chavez+duration%3Along???

karen3212

The Corinthian wrote:

Not automatically anything, by any means - only going by the statements that people put forward and the manner in which they do so, but the whole Chavez good, US bad argument that keeps on cropping up repeatedly as some how relevant is certainly indicative of that type of partisan and puerile thinking.
.

Seriously I have to admire your tenacity in continuing to argue at all, seems strange to me, when you are completely biased in your opinion. As for mentioning the US, well it seems quite clear.

First they start to go on and on and on about how bad he is to his own people obviously. Let's face it, most of the condemnation is coming from them.
Then they firghten their own citizens and tell them he is a threat to our national security( really a threat to security of oil supply for economy).

Then they take the moral high ground and go in there to spread their freedom to others. They will even lay down their own lives to protect the freedom of others - non-citizen others. Amazing, how noble, when you consider they don't really want non-citizen others coming to the US illegally and enjoying the same kind of freedom.

It amazes me, the US is willing to let their own citizens die for others' freedom, but no they don't want people coming into their country to freedom.

I hope they build a high wall and leave latin Americans alone

Von

The Corinthian wrote:

Never suggested that. Just pointed out that there's no point wasting endless hours arguing with individuals who have as much real say in current affairs as a dead lama.

Odd thing to say after 6 years and a bazillion posts here. How come?

Probably not, but I've already explained why - there are more left-wing lemmings on boards to wind up than right-wing ones

Oh, you answered my question, it's because you're here to 'wind up' (I'm not allowed say troll?) the gormless plebs and you save your awesome debating skills and razor sharp political insight solely for discussions with society's movers, shakers, great and good. You're only fooling yourself.

The Corinthian

Von wrote:

Odd thing to say after 6 years and a bazillion posts here. How come?

How is it odd?

Oh, you answered my question, it's because you're here to 'wind up' (I'm not allowed say troll?) the gormless plebs and you save your awesome debating skills and razor sharp political insight solely for discussions with society's movers, shakers, great and good. You're only fooling yourself.

Where have I suggested the latter part of what you say? You should stop taking yourself so seriously. I have.

Von

The Corinthian wrote:

How is it odd?

Because essentially, for the last 6 years you have been posting here along with (other) "individuals who have as much real say in current affairs as a dead lama". So what's another few hours? Having no 'real say' in current affairs does not invalidate someone's argument.

Where have I suggested the latter part of what you say? You should stop taking yourself so seriously. I have.

Since your contributions on this thread are peppered with various types of emotive ad hominem attacks, it doesn't look like it.

Bad bad man

[Was he ever an asset? Seems to me he's abused every iota of power soon as he gets it all in the name of social justice.

democrates

Von wrote:

Because essentially, for the last 6 years you have been posting here along with (other) "individuals who have as much real say in current affairs as a dead lama". So what's another few hours? Having no 'real say' in current affairs does not invalidate someone's argument.

Since your contributions on this thread are peppered with various types of emotive ad hominem attacks, it doesn't look like it.

In fairness that's ad hominem too, and I'll add to it. I've sparred strenuously with TC before, he argues well and keeps discussions vibrant, I enjoy seeing a sharp mind at work. If you discuss with like-minded individuals only, the tendency is toward extremes, the mob is a danger, so alternative views are healthy and it wouldn't improve my confidence in my own views to pidgeon-hole someone as anti-left or specialising in attacking flocks or whatever, it's not relevant.

Back on topic. As an ex coup leader Chavez has a credibility gap in going after the '02 coup leaders for leading a coup. His justification of course is that the two sides are not the same, it's the oppressed minority versus the rich minority, so the right and wrong of a coup depends on whether you're fighting for freedom or oppression.

TC's point that the democratic path was a viable alternative is well taken, a comparison with NI is tempting, if the peaceful approach had been taken by the civil rights movement with a strong international lobbying dimension it might have been resolved much sooner and without the bloodshed. Once the military campaign started however the "innocent victims" credentials of catholics/nationalists were severely diminished, "they started it" doesn't buy so much diplomatic support when you've blood on your hands. OTOH we saw what happened India following Ghandis success with peaceful resistance, the usual British parting line on the map is still divisive today.

In any event Chavez is now there democratically. I won't stick my head out and try to predict if his overall direction is towards dictatorship or a decent democratic society, but I'm not encouraged by all of his actions.

RCTV off the air means less freedom for the rich owners to promote their views and hits them in the pockets, but will the new state station be genuinely objective and bring more freedom of expression to the many? RCTV down, who's next now that the precedent is set, how far will this go, what is an acceptable standard of balancing state vs private broadcasting comparing fairly with other states?

When Chavez created the peoples branch I'd have expected any transfer of parliamentary power to go to that, but much was centralised with the presidency. Bouts of rule by decree are of particular concern. Bush has comparable powers, can veto both houses and negotiate trade agreements unchecked within time limits. Convenient for the leader for sure but not my idea of proper democratic accountability.

FYI

RCTV Reappears on Cable and Satellite

By: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com


Mérida, July 12, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Private television channel RCTV will be back on Venezuelan TV screens as of next Monday, via cable and satellite, RCTV General Director Marcel Granier announced at a press conference yesterday.

Off the air since May 27th when its broadcast license was not renewed by the Chavez government, RCTV will begin broadcasting again next week through cable and satellite with the same critical line against the Chavez government. Meanwhile, Gustavo Cisneros, in a televised statement yesterday, assured his channel Venevision would maintain a "balanced" position and commented that television channels should not play a role in the political conflict in Venezuela.

Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) will be viewable in 95% of the subscription television market starting Monday at 6:00 a.m., after being off the air for about a month and a half. The channel went off the national airwaves on May 27th, when the Chavez government denied it a renewal of its broadcast license that expired that day. The broadcast license, however, only applies to the national radio-electric spectrum, not subscription television such as cable and satellite.

The channel will be viewable through channel 103 on DirecTV, channel 13 on Intercable, Net Uno and Planet Cable (cable providers), which represent almost all of the national market for subscription television, and about 50 percent of the total population in Venezuela.

"We must return in the first place for our workers in order to try to keep the highest amount of talent possible," said Granier yesterday to justify the decision to broadcast by cable and satellite. "We confirm our commitment to Venezuela, with our audience, and with our workers. We won't cut back our efforts to recover the open airwaves across all national territory," he said.

Granier pledged to maintain a critical line against the government, and to continue fighting for "freedom of expression" and the return of the channel to the open airwaves. According to Granier, the channel's programming will be basically the same as before May 27th, which included several programs strongly opposed to the Chavez government such as a well-known political talk show in the morning called La Entrevista and its daily news program El Observador.

continued...

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2353

The Corinthian

Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) will be viewable in 95% of the subscription television market

And what percentage of the total television market does subscription television add up to?

FYI

have you heard of Google or was that meant to be a rhetorical question?

"The government says about one in five Venezuelan homes have subscription television, which does not reach much of Chavez's majority poor support base."

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?view=CN&WTmodLOC=C3-News-3&symbol=DTV&storyID=2007-07-11T215541Z_01_N11369285_RTRIDST_0_VENEZUELA-TELEVISION.XML&type=qcna

A small price to pay for an unpopular Western backed failed coup?

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

"The government says about one in five Venezuelan homes have subscription television, which does not reach much of Chavez's majority poor support base."

So RCTV will go from 90% penetration to 19% penetration (which assuming their market share of that market remains unchanged would bring them down from 33% to just under 7%). Pretty effective censorship, TBH.

I particularly like the way that the article tried to put forward the 95% of the subscription television market as if it was business as usual - an excellent manipulation of the facts, as long as you're not reading very carefully.

A small price to pay for an unpopular Western backed failed coup?

Yeah, who needs free press anyway..? :rolleyes:

FYI

Ahhh Corinthian, coming to the rescue of the downtrodden and the oppressed are we?

That you conveniently forget to put the issue in it's context again is not surprising. Do RCTV have any interest in representing the 'free press'? What is a 'free press' - is a 'free press' one that represents the people? Or a democratic agenda? Or a corporate agenda? An 'impartial and balanced' agenda? Or the agenda of its owners? Or the agenda of foreign interests? Or the agenda of its advertisers?

The answer is a broad mix of all these, but there is one predominant agenda that overrules all others – the corporate agenda – which in turn satisfies the advertiser’s agenda. For RCTV is first and foremost a business – selling it’s viewers to advertisers, who in turn attempt to sell products. The Reuters article confirms the obvious – the subscription subscribers are the minority wealthy elite RCTV and it’s advertisers wish to reach. And it is this same demographic who were the support, however minimal, for the failed coup originated. So in many ways it is 'business as usual'.

There is no logical reason to think RCTV’s previous market share will decrease relative to its new percentage of potential viewers. The two are not directly comparable.

Supporting a 'free press' that attempted to uproot the democratic and popular will is a contradiction. If ITV tried to oust Brown they would no doubt see a much worse fate.

Sand

Well, RCTV have been taught a lesson - hail to the chief....or else!

A lesson that some of their comrades in the opposition to Mr Chavez have taken to heart.

Venevision and Televen have since broadcast less criticism of the government while Globovision has maintained its critical stance, correspondents say.

Self censorship is the best form of it, because you dont have to invest as much time or effort if the media are doing their best to appease you and avoid criticising you. Id say some legal issues will be discovered with Globovision fairly soon if they dont start reporting how awesome Chavez is.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

Ahhh Corinthian, coming to the rescue of the downtrodden and the oppressed are we?

No, just pointing out the irony of the situation and the double standards of a lot of Chavez supporters. You’ll find I’ve already said this in this thread, if you were paying attention.

That you conveniently forget to put the issue in it's context again is not surprising. Do RCTV have any interest in representing the 'free press'? What is a 'free press' - is a 'free press' one that represents the people? Or a democratic agenda? Or a corporate agenda? An 'impartial and balanced' agenda? Or the agenda of its owners? Or the agenda of foreign interests? Or the agenda of its advertisers?

Do you actually know what free press means? Free press means that you’re free to publish dissenting or conformist views. These views may not be for the good of the people or they may not be balanced either, but you are free to publish them as much as anyone else is free to publish an alternative view that contradicts them.

What you’re suggesting is that a free press should be ‘free’ as long as it’s judged to be in the public interests. And apparently Chavez is that judge.

The answer is a broad mix of all these, but there is one predominant agenda that overrules all others – the corporate agenda – which in turn satisfies the advertiser’s agenda. For RCTV is first and foremost a business – selling it’s viewers to advertisers, who in turn attempt to sell products. The Reuters article confirms the obvious – the subscription subscribers are the minority wealthy elite RCTV and it’s advertisers wish to reach. And it is this same demographic who were the support, however minimal, for the failed coup originated. So in many ways it is 'business as usual'.

I’m not really sure how to respond to this rant, other than to treat it as a rant. Anti-capitalism dogma, which is not terribly relevant to the discussion, TBH.

There is no logical reason to think RCTV’s previous market share will decrease relative to its new percentage of potential viewers. The two are not directly comparable.

I never said it would – actually I assumed that it would remain static relative to its new percentage. However their absolute market share will drop because they are now only able to reach a fifth of their previous viewership and this is a de facto censorship.

Supporting a 'free press' that attempted to uproot the democratic and popular will is a contradiction. If ITV tried to oust Brown they would no doubt see a much worse fate.

“Democratic and popular will”? So all this really was just a triumph of the will..?

The fact remains that even if they supported the coup, this does not mean they instigated it, which is what you are claiming. And if they did, then the individuals involved should be brought to justice, not the station.

You’ll find that is pretty much what would happen if ITV tried to oust Brown.

FYI

I'll start with the fun stuff.

The Corinthian wrote:

"The answer is a broad mix of all these, but there is one predominant agenda that overrules all others – the corporate agenda – which in turn satisfies the advertiser’s agenda. For RCTV is first and foremost a business – selling it’s viewers to advertisers, who in turn attempt to sell products. The Reuters article confirms the obvious – the subscription subscribers are the minority wealthy elite RCTV and it’s advertisers wish to reach. And it is this same demographic who were the support, however minimal, for the failed coup originated. So in many ways it is 'business as usual'."

I’m not really sure how to respond to this rant, other than to treat it as a rant. Anti-capitalism dogma, which is not terribly relevant to the discussion, TBH.

What Corinthian is trying to do here is disregard +argument+ using derision. So he first labels the coherent argument as a 'rant', twice. Then he further labels it a 'dogma' - comparing it to religious belief, which as many would agree is a wildly held trust in the unknown, not to mention the word has Marxist connotations (and no one likes a commie do they). Then finally he passes it off as irrelevant.

But what Corinthian cannot do is actually address the content, because when you look at it it becomes clear that it is relevant, it is factual and it is in no way an unfounded version reality. If anything it is an honest interpretation of this particular capitalist system. Corinthian's response holds as much water as those that label those that criticise US foreign policy as 'anti-american'.

For your information Corinthian this, as I have quite succinctly stated, the way the corporate press operates. If you don't understand this, then you need to do some research, check out 'The National Newspapers of Ireland' or RTE's 'guiding principles' or read an in depth interview with an insider.

The Corinthian wrote:

No, just pointing out the irony of the situation and the double standards of a lot of Chavez supporters. You’ll find I’ve already said this in this thread, if you were paying attention.

The irony is that RCTV actively supported an unpopular coup, which was a non-too-subtle extension of US hegemony. The purpose of this coup was to unseat a democratic leader who was 'setting a bad example' for the rest of South America's 'dictatored' populations. Chavez's attempt had wildly different goals.

The Corinthian wrote:

Do you actually know what free press means? Free press means that you’re free to publish dissenting or conformist views. These views may not be for the good of the people or they may not be balanced either, but you are free to publish them as much as anyone else is free to publish an alternative view that contradicts them.

What you’re suggesting is that a free press should be ‘free’ as long as it’s judged to be in the public interests. And apparently Chavez is that judge.

Do I know what a 'free press' is? Of course I do, and I have demonstrated a greater knowledge of the 'free press' than you have thus far. The truth is there is nothing like a 'free press' anywhere in the mainstream world. Not the BBC, not the Sun, not the Times etc. They all have their own set of restrictions, the BBC being heavily biased towards their bosses, the Sun to it's owner and the Times to it's shareholders. They are 'free' within their own little structure. But more generally the system of ownership has given us a market of news organisations that do not differ to a great degree, there is very little dissent, despite the fact consumers a) generally do not trust 'the media' and b) have very different views than the general media consensus - as was demonstrated by the Bertiegate story.

The facts remain - RCTV and a majority of Venezuela's media hold an anti-Chavez stance, this is in direct contradiction to the majority of Venezuelans stance. It is though, not surprisingly, in alliance with the wealthy elites stance - why? because they own and finance these institutions. I'm all for dissent, there isn't enough of it, but not dissent that simply reinforces the position of the powerful at the expense of the majority. You call it 'dogma', most knowledgeable people call it 'reality'.

The Corinthian

FYI wrote:

What Corinthian is trying to do here is disregard +argument+ using derision. So he first labels the coherent argument as a 'rant', twice. Then he further labels it a 'dogma' - comparing it to religious belief, which as many would agree is a wildly held trust in the unknown, not to mention the word has Marxist connotations (and no one likes a commie do they). Then finally he passes it off as irrelevant.

Well it was irrelevant and only barely coherent. When does being a business means that you should be silenced? Or that you are by definition evil? Maybe in your reality, but not many other people’s.

But what Corinthian cannot do is actually address the content, because when you look at it it becomes clear that it is relevant, it is factual and it is in no way an unfounded version reality. If anything it is an honest interpretation of this particular capitalist system. Corinthian's response holds as much water as those that label those that criticise US foreign policy as 'anti-american'.

I didn’t bother addressing it because it’s irrelevant to the discussion.

For your information Corinthian this, as I have quite succinctly stated, the way the corporate press operates. If you don't understand this, then you need to do some research, check out 'The National Newspapers of Ireland' or RTE's 'guiding principles' or read an in depth interview with an insider.

I understand how the press works – so what? Commercial media organizations are looking to turn a profit – give the boy a cigar. And your point is? They should be shut down because of this?

The irony is that RCTV actively supported an unpopular coup, which was a non-too-subtle extension of US hegemony. The purpose of this coup was to unseat a democratic leader who was 'setting a bad example' for the rest of South America's 'dictatored' populations. Chavez's attempt had wildly different goals.

The irony is you will damn the coup against him but applaud the coup by him. Feel free to tell us all again how his was a ‘good’ coup.

Do I know what a 'free press' is? Of course I do, and I have demonstrated a greater knowledge of the 'free press' than you have thus far.

You’ll find that my last rebuttal demonstrates that you don’t have a clue what free press means.

The truth is there is nothing like a 'free press' anywhere in the mainstream world. Not the BBC, not the Sun, not the Times etc. They all have their own set of restrictions, the BBC being heavily biased towards their bosses, the Sun to it's owner and the Times to it's shareholders. They are 'free' within their own little structure.

Yes, very good. And if you allowed any one of those views to have a monopoly - as you are now finding in Venezuela – what happens? Go on, join the dots.

The facts remain - RCTV and a majority of Venezuela's media hold an anti-Chavez stance, this is in direct contradiction to the majority of Venezuelans stance.

That they oppose the ‘popular’ view is a reason to damn them? WTF?

I'm all for dissent, there isn't enough of it, but not dissent that simply reinforces the position of the powerful at the expense of the majority. You call it 'dogma', most knowledgeable people call it 'reality'.

No. You’re only all for dissent because you’re a dissenter of the system you’re in. If you were a proponent of that system you’d happily censor dissent for ‘the common good’.

Long may you remain a dissenter.