Thursday, June 07, 2007

Hugo Chavez versus Far Right TV

A long-time AP reporter in Venezuela agrees with me about the one-sided nature of the Hugo Chavex coverage in this country and that in America RCTV would have been shut down and its owners thrown in jail for inciting riots and treason five years ago.
Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt — and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez's government allowed it to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.

Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.


Saps said...

Anonymous said...

One-sided coverage? Wait a minute. Do you remember the hourlong interview that Amy Goodman gave to Chavez a few years ago--and how she ended up preempting her regularly scheduled program for the next two days so she could extend the interview for two additional hours?

Up to that point, I'd always respected Democracy Now--and maybe I could justify one hour (probably not)--but the fact Goodman thought this uncritical interview with Chavez merited 3 hours of Democracy Now made it clear how easily certain liberals could overlook this tyrant's excesses because his anti-Bushism was convenient for them.

Bush's policies in Venezuela were majorly screwed up, but they quickly learned their lesson within weeks and distanced themselves from previous actions. They deserve credit for that at least.

Frankly, I find Chavez's bloviating and repressive actions to be dangerous to Latin American democracies. Unfortunately there's not much the US government can do other than issue human rights reports and not to interfere . Of course, when the US government puts 54 cent tariffs on sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and refuses to take proactive measures to reduce energy independence, it only increases our dependence on oil-producing countries like Venezuela. And that is not a good thing.

Gary said...

When Democracy Now is mainstream media I may conceed your point. If "a few years ago" was a few weeks ago it might be germane to SCLM coverage now.

Gary said...

Saps should have linked to this.

He should also read more carefully. I was pointing out the AP writer was repeating arguments I have made for a long time, not parroting his arguments.

His other point seems to be that he would support a trial but this far right TV station is being unfairly. Some other stations did not lose their public broadcasting license, (but not their radio and cable and sattelite licenses), and this was not a decision by the Venezuelian equivalent of the FCC.

Why do I feel if the management of this station was on trial this person would object to that? If the other stations were closed down they would really object to that? If CONATEL had made the decision instead of Hugo Chavez they would object to that?

Decision against SAP, thanks for playing.

Gary said...

"far right TV station is being +treated+ unfairly."

Saps said...

I'm sorry Gary, I really never looked through your blog to find the post in which you state Bart arguments before him. Perhaps you could link to it so I can read more.

About my other point you simply based your argument in questioning if I would be ok, or if I would object to a trial?

Gary, Government officials work for us and they should have no right to forcefully conquer a major tv station and turn it for their own good. Freedom of speech is the real issue here. If this TV station was actually part of a coup, the government should have proceeded with due process which I wouldn't object.

The truth is there was absolutely no trial to find if RCTV really participated on this coup or not. The decision was taken by Chavez and Chavez alone and he used the end of their license as perfect opportunity to take over this TV station and appear legitimate in doing so.

Anonymous said...

First, the use of 'anonymous' is due to fear

Fear of retaliation to friends / relatives in Venezuela

Is this justified ? Please check for the affair "Tascon List"

Second. be open minded and look for the non-official interpretation of April 2002.

Did you know that all the dead people were unarmed, from the opossition ?

Do you know that there has been no transparent, complete account of the facts ?

I understand your frustration in regards to your government

However, this frustration should not mean double standards

A standard that Chavez good, and othere evil

A standard that allows Chavez to build a cult to his personality, chastise people, promote corruption, ..., and yet, be considered affective and nice

A standard that allows him to fire more than 20,000 thousand people from their jobs, bring people from Iran / India to fill their positions

A standard that allows him to have 'cuban foreign workers' building his dream stadium, with a salary lower than the minimum venezuelan salay

A standard that allows him to by-pass all controls, to hold absolute power, with no checks and balances

A standard that allows him to 'confiscate' privately owned land ... with everybody knowing tha the biggest landlord has always been the government .. with everybody knowing that the new landlords are his family and party members

I do understand and your true concerns for the people, the poor people.

However, do not allow these valid concerns fog your vision and judgement

Please, do not have double standards