Media Deformers
What you see in the photo is media reform -- Venezuela
style. Hugo Chavez's police have now opened fire on protesting students with rubber bullets and tear gas. The demonstrators were trying to protest the shutdown this weekend of the country's largest and oldest private TV network --RCTV.
Chavez had refused to renew RCTV's license and in its stead has put on a pro-government propaganda station -- its first day of broadcast graced with pro-Chavez songs. By the way, this is what I saw on Iraqi TV in 1991 -- one show after another with singers adulating Saddam).
Why is this of any interest to me? Simply because it seems of so little relevance to too many others I know and from whom I would hope more. The reporting on the closure of Venezuela's last main opposition media is going unremarked or un-noticed by way too many liberal progressive sites who seem to placing ideology above principle. Kudos, then, to Arianna's Huffington Post for featuring the crisis on her front page. Human Rights Watch has also denounced the shut down as a serious setback for freedom of expression. Reporters Without Borders has also condemned the closure. Of course, Randy Paul is also on the case. And Boz does and excellent job of quickly dispensing with the proffered excuses for shutting down RCTV.
As I've quickly stipulated before in print: RCTV is no doubt a conservative, anti-Chavez, pro-oligarchic network chock full of mind-numbing and frankly stupid entertainment programs. But you know what? Millions of Venezuelans watch them, want to watch them, and much more importantly -- like it or not-- RCTV has become the major media outlet for the political opposition. And excuse me for being old-fashioned but without a strong opposition voice there is no such thing as democracy-- of the revolutionary sort or otherwise.
The question from the apologists is always: Well, would the U.S. allow a TV station that encouraged the overthrow of the government. I suspect not. But we would sure be protesting someone's right to encourage that? Wouldn't we? And at least there'd be some damn FCC hearing with a right to appeal before the troops were sent in to seize the equipment.
What really galls me -- no, what absolutely disgusts me-- are the so-called "media reformers" in the U.S. who just think it's grand when Chavez engages in this sort of muzzling. They want to stand with an authoritarian who, among other things, has said he's closing RCTV because its soap operas encourage immoral behavior? Roll over, Reverend Falwell and make room for your new lefty friends.
The most obvious lesson that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can draw from these events is that the closure of RCTV is but a direct threat to any other opposition voice in Venezuela. The two other private TV networks in Venezuela behaved exactly the same way that RCTV did during the 2002 failed coup against Chavez (they supported it). But in the past few years they have modified their political positions to supporting Hugo, so their billionaire owners continue with no restriction.
Here in the U.S. we journalists get understandably upset when as much as one reporter gets dragged before a grand jury. We rightfully consider that a chilling of press freedom. But how is that the phony media reformers -- like FAIR-- can't raise their voices when a major opposition network is yanked off the air and it supporters are fired on with rubber bullets? This all gives a new meaning to the word hypocrisy.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
P.S. This just in. Chavez is now making a move against a second private TV network. It's alleged crime? Inciting an assassination attempt against Chavez because it played a song by Ruben Blades called "This Does Not Stop Here" over footage of the attempted shooting of Pope John Paul II in 1981. Quick, someone call FAIR so they can crank up their mimeo machines to defend this one!
style. Hugo Chavez's police have now opened fire on protesting students with rubber bullets and tear gas. The demonstrators were trying to protest the shutdown this weekend of the country's largest and oldest private TV network --RCTV.
Chavez had refused to renew RCTV's license and in its stead has put on a pro-government propaganda station -- its first day of broadcast graced with pro-Chavez songs. By the way, this is what I saw on Iraqi TV in 1991 -- one show after another with singers adulating Saddam).
Why is this of any interest to me? Simply because it seems of so little relevance to too many others I know and from whom I would hope more. The reporting on the closure of Venezuela's last main opposition media is going unremarked or un-noticed by way too many liberal progressive sites who seem to placing ideology above principle. Kudos, then, to Arianna's Huffington Post for featuring the crisis on her front page. Human Rights Watch has also denounced the shut down as a serious setback for freedom of expression. Reporters Without Borders has also condemned the closure. Of course, Randy Paul is also on the case. And Boz does and excellent job of quickly dispensing with the proffered excuses for shutting down RCTV.
As I've quickly stipulated before in print: RCTV is no doubt a conservative, anti-Chavez, pro-oligarchic network chock full of mind-numbing and frankly stupid entertainment programs. But you know what? Millions of Venezuelans watch them, want to watch them, and much more importantly -- like it or not-- RCTV has become the major media outlet for the political opposition. And excuse me for being old-fashioned but without a strong opposition voice there is no such thing as democracy-- of the revolutionary sort or otherwise.
The question from the apologists is always: Well, would the U.S. allow a TV station that encouraged the overthrow of the government. I suspect not. But we would sure be protesting someone's right to encourage that? Wouldn't we? And at least there'd be some damn FCC hearing with a right to appeal before the troops were sent in to seize the equipment.
What really galls me -- no, what absolutely disgusts me-- are the so-called "media reformers" in the U.S. who just think it's grand when Chavez engages in this sort of muzzling. They want to stand with an authoritarian who, among other things, has said he's closing RCTV because its soap operas encourage immoral behavior? Roll over, Reverend Falwell and make room for your new lefty friends.
The most obvious lesson that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can draw from these events is that the closure of RCTV is but a direct threat to any other opposition voice in Venezuela. The two other private TV networks in Venezuela behaved exactly the same way that RCTV did during the 2002 failed coup against Chavez (they supported it). But in the past few years they have modified their political positions to supporting Hugo, so their billionaire owners continue with no restriction.
Here in the U.S. we journalists get understandably upset when as much as one reporter gets dragged before a grand jury. We rightfully consider that a chilling of press freedom. But how is that the phony media reformers -- like FAIR-- can't raise their voices when a major opposition network is yanked off the air and it supporters are fired on with rubber bullets? This all gives a new meaning to the word hypocrisy.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
P.S. This just in. Chavez is now making a move against a second private TV network. It's alleged crime? Inciting an assassination attempt against Chavez because it played a song by Ruben Blades called "This Does Not Stop Here" over footage of the attempted shooting of Pope John Paul II in 1981. Quick, someone call FAIR so they can crank up their mimeo machines to defend this one!
May 28th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
I hit the link to FAIR, and I couldn’t believe what I read. I have always loved FAIR, and I am astounded that they would defend these actions.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Thanks for the mentiuon, Marc. In Boz’s post, I also linked to the fact that the Inter-American Press Association, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Amnesty International have protested this.
May 28th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I read the FAIR release – and I share their perspective, which seems far more contextualization than justification:
Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:
The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States.
(end quote)
As a supporter of the Bolivarian revolution, I think it was politically very dumb of Mr. Chavez to hand his opponents such a victory.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Cummings… this is what you Canadians call a waffle. You support what Chavez did but you think its politically dumb. You agree with the process but you judge it flawed. So you opposed the shut down before you supported it.
My view: you much more simply lack the courage to say Chavez was wrong on this, period.
Anyway, don’t worry we have you checked off here on our various lists. JCummings: A Bolivarian Supporter: Yes. A Supporter of Civil Liberties: Waffler.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
jcummings,
You are in denial if you believe that this isn’t about censorship. Yes, RCTV was not renewed; and under the Venezuelan constitution pre-dating Chavez, the head of the government is allowed to issue, re-issue, and revoke broadcast licenses at his own discretion.
But RCTV was not the only one accused by Chavez of supporting the 2002 coup. Venezuela’s other two big media outfits -
Televen and Venevision – were also accused by Chavez of supporting the armed uprising. Since then, according to Human Rights Watch, it has had a chilling effect: they have broadcasted primarily Pro-Chavez content over the last five years since 2002.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Only RCTV has had the guts to broadcast anything remotely critical of Chavez…and what do you know? It’s now gone.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
By the way, I was at a Jello Biafra spoken word concert recently and he spoke eloquently at length of how undemocratic Chavez has been in Venezuela.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
You support what Chavez did but you think its politically dumb. You agree with the process but you judge it flawed. So you opposed the shut down before you supported it.
Where did I say that I supported what Chavez did? In all of the the “Chavez files” here I have always opposed his shutting down private media. Reading support into what either I, or FAIR, write, is nonsensical. I said I was a supporter of the Bolviarian revolution, n0ot of this.
I see that in lieu of responding substantively to the specific critiques made by John Dinges and others in the FAIR file, you attribute support that isn’t there. Context is not support.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
M. Biafra said at a spoken word show of his I saw ten years ago that Clinton killed Vince Foster. He’s a mixed bag.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Cummings: I accept your explanation. You have to cut me a little slack in being confused, however, because you never actually said you OPPOSED this move — which I now understand you do.
Context? Yes, always a good thing. However, what FAIR intends isnt context but rather justification. For a group of media reformers this ought to be a no-brainer… but I suppose when one literally has no brains it doesnt work that way.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
I don’t see anything that explicitly supports (or criticizes) the move in FAIR’s piece.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
The point I’m trying to make – and I don’[t neccesarily accept this logic – is that it is less important to explicitly criticize a stupid move as long as said move is not explicitly supprot4ed either. I don’t think I or FAIR or anyone needs to criticize this when they mention what the actual array of forces happens to be. If it makes the actual context clearer – which perhaps it would – it would be more neccessary.
I think it comes down to choosing to support a flawed process as part of the broader experiment in Latin America, or supporting the ancien regime.
May 28th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I think it comes down to choosing to support a flawed process as part of the broader experiment in Latin America, or supporting the ancien regime.
Mores the pity that some people just can’t seem to find a middle ground between two extremes.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Its not “middle ground” of the liberal imagination. Its really existing human events and what array of human forces exist on the ground.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Oh bullshit. For a leftist you seem to be incapable of dialectical thinking.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
That is a remarkably dimwitted comment by you, cummings. The only “ancien regime” here is the one that enables the ruler to shut down media at his whim. That’s got far more in common with Pinochet and the Argentinean junta – who routinely shut down opposition media – than it does with “the broader experiment” in Latin America.
Your knee must jerk so hard it bangs against your head.
May 28th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
is that it is less important to explicitly criticize a stupid move as long as said move is not explicitly supproted either.
I have read this statement about five times and I still can’t for the life of me parse its meaning. Can we get John Kerry to rephrase it, perhaps?
May 28th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I didn’t defend a specific action to which Randy Paul speaks. And dialectical thinking is not finding the liberal middle ground. Otherwise John Rawls and Isiah Berlin would be the dialecticians and Marx would be the stony realist. In fact dialectical materialism and realism – actual realism, not political realism – are not unrelated. The point is a rational calculus of forces, removing the liberal borugeois moralism, and specifically and organically finding one’s self as part of the primal social antagonism that produces the real.
To translate, in terms of the seizure of the media, I criticized it though I won’t lose sleep over it- I wonder if godo liberals criticize Bernie Sanders and Bill Moyers and othes who want to resusciate the fairness docitrine, which could theoretically move towards the seizure of Fox News… . If Rany can tell me – outside of his liberal fantasies – what the array of forces happens to be – in terms of real options, outside the realm of class struggle than he’s deluding himself. Yes, there are supporters of different class in different camps. This is, hwover, fundamentally about whether one wants to see an experiment, includign more “moderate” leftistsl ike Lula, Kirchner, more indigineous oriented leftists like Morales, social democrats like Correa, even corrupt assholes like Ortega – and entertaining populsits with a bit of Bonapartist tendenciesl iek Chavez, succeed – or whether one wants to splinter it. The only synthesis here is eventual victory of one side or another.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
is that it is less important to explicitly criticize a stupid move as long as said move is not explicitly supproted either.
I have read this statement about five times and I still can’t for the life of me parse its meaning. Can we get John Kerry to rephrase it, perhaps?
Lacking criticism of (object) does not mean supporting (object)
May 28th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
All I know is that Hugo Chavez will die a violent death, probably at the hands of his “friends”. He is nothing but a little gangster, and I can only hope that he takes few with him before he no longer breathes the air we do.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,437 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans this week:
DUNHAM, Robert E., 36, Sgt. First Class, Army; Baltimore; First Infantry Division.
LAFOREST, Mathew P., 21, Specialist, Army; Austin, Tex.; Second Infantry Division.
PULIDO, Victor H. Toledo, 22, Cpl., Army; Hanford, Calif.; Third Infantry Division.
SHOEMAKER, Russell K., 31, Staff Sgt., Army; Sweet Springs, Mo.; First Infantry Division.
WINTERBOTTOM, Jonathan D., 21, Cpl., Army; Falls Church, Va.; Third Infantry Division.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Contextualization. How I hate this waffle word of the left. I’m tempted to say it’s just another word for justification, but it isn’t really that. It’s more moral relativism. When a given action, no matter how evil, is looked at in its “context”, then you see that it is really an inevitable result of that context, and cannot be judged the same as if it took place in “our” context. Intellectual decadence.
May 28th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
“Contextualization. How I hate this waffle word of the left.”
Every attack on our Constitution and integrity as a nation by the Bush administration has been a result of their “contextualization.” The “left” around these particular NorteAmericano parts are pikers compared to these thugs. Fuck Chavez – but he’s a gnat compared to Cheney.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
FAIR’s position is typical of its confused mandate, ie whether the organization was intended to be a media watchdog or an arm of the left just as Accuracy in Media was an arm of the right. Most of the time it seems to be the latter. Too bad that it can’t be an arm of the left and uphold press freedom at the same time. Would we advocate that a publication in the United States be shut down for advocating armed insurrection against the US government? A number of organizations and their newspapers do, including the Progressive Labor Party and the Revolutionary Communist Party. Are we for shutting down their papers? I don’t think so.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
What baffles me is that what Chazez is doing is such a big deal. I love the way pundits like yourself comdemn what Chavez is doing while ignoring the fact that some of these media actively encourged a very undemocratic coup 5 years ago. Were you likewise as vociferous over the way the media was used to foment violence and political unrest?
Does it even dawn on you that while Chavez may look like he’s strong arming commercial media that if he was really such a cretin he could have justifiably done it years ago? …And that today’s focus is more likely a ploy by those same coup leaders to once again foment violence by resisting the ending of the license’s renewal to get your attention?
What about right here in our own country where the decency mongers are getting one useless, crass DJ after another fired just for being morons? We can’t even stand the occasional bad language on radio that’s used daily on our televisions and marketed and sold to our kids.
Then there’s the shutting down of small privately owned radio stations across the country. The big media outlets force the sales of those smaller stations through ‘legal’ (see: laws passed by the engaging of the biggest lobbying firms money can buy) trade manuevers that have more and more favored the big, corporate money take-over of our once strongly independent airwaves. This is shrinking the variety of sources to our media, making it all one big happy, “listen to us or else”, market friendly family.
And what do you do? Exactly what that big market media wants you to do. Make a tempest in a tea pot while ignoring far more grave actions right here in the ol’ freedom lovin’ US of A.
Good to see you have your priorities straight. Always side with the money.
Lambast the guy who cut our poor some slack when oil prices went through the roof. Attack the guy who is constantly reviled by American media pundits for doing nothing maore than asserting that he wants better for his country than to be controlled by moneyed industries the way we are. And let’s not forget to mention that a prominent religious leader from our own freedom lovin’ right said to millions of listeners that our government forces should assassinate Chavez.
OOOOooo he likes Fidel! Yeah, well Rumsfeld and and Cheney both went over and shook hands with Hussein and thanked him for a good job and then Hussein gassed the Kurds while we continued setting up arms deals for him.
Yessiree, we are a responsible bunch.
Sorry, for the sarcasm but you make the same “step in line with us, we’re always right, get it!” comments that I’d expect from FOX.
The fact is that Venezuela is in the midst of profound social change while still struggling with old world loyalties to money and power that are not even from that country. American influence alone has kept that country’s poor living on the edge of existence forever. So, while I’m not fond of the measures Chavez may take to “serve his people”, he’s up against some of the biggest money interests in the world. They financed and encouraged the coup, kept the oil money from that country’s oil fields out of the hands of it’s people and generally kept things violent as long as they controlled key commercial interests.
And lets not forget, in America this radio station and it’s crew would have run the risk of being shot with real bullets for resisting it’s closure. RCTV’s staff had five years to prove they answered to the people. By “dictator’s” standards, Chavez is not anywhere near the level of men like our own president who has waged an active war on our constitution since the day he stepped into office.
So, in summation, I’m tired of America’s media being focused on such incidents by their favorite whipping boy, while actively ignoring the great harm that’s befallen our own country with our own near dictator.
Ever wonder why there are guys like Chavez? They are a direct reaction to the kind of greed we seem to encourage by backing the money rather than the our own, true, best interests.
Rick Tucker
May 28th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Not moral relativism. Not justification. Moral absolutism, in fact. Reg, are you in favor of restorign the fairness doctrine?
Again, I’m against what Chavez did to the network that no one denes played a role in teh coup against him. I think it was a stupid move by Chavez, but it doesn’t make me turn my coat. There’s a big difference by the way – to Balter who normalyl is more reasonable – between a newspaper sold at a demo and the equivalent of NBC cheering on a foreign power.
And nowhere does FAIR defend this move at all. Pretending you see justification does not make it a justification.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
That should be “NBC cheering on a foreign power and its lackies inthe ruling class overthrow a legitmately elected (and at the time far less Napoleonic, so to speak) social democrat”.
Oh – and to those who would call context “intellectual decadence,” explain to me how context is unimportant in terms of human affairs.
May 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
FAIR, phoney media reformers…
Wow.
Most of the time Marc you get it right. But when it comes to Chavez, more often your distaste runneth over your judgement. As FAIR put it, yes, it would have been better to have a better process in which RCTV could try to defend the indefensible when faced with the renewal of its liscence. On this point you and FAIR agree[ital]. It would have been righteous to have this go through a process of appeals in Ven’s compromised Congress and courts. But Chavez — acting under pre-Chavez legal rules — declined to renew their liscence because they actively participated in a coup d’etat. Again, such a process was not available. And actively plotting to overthrow a government is ironclad justification. Am not clear if you agree or not: do you agree that actively partaking in the overthrow of a democratically-elected government is just cause for not renewing the liscense of a television station? Yes or no, no waffling allowed.
You argue indignantly that because Chavez is Chavez its all hypocrisy and huff and puff…obfuscation. As FAIR said, and you choose to disbelieve, this was not about Chavez not allowing the “opposition” to have its media channels. This is about a media company partaking in the illegal overthrow of a democratically-elected government.
Read this again. FAIR says:
“On the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:
The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.”
May 28th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
P.S. This is interesting. According to Patrick McElwee of Just Foreign Policy, while RCTV will not be able to continue to use the public broadcast frequencies IT WILL be able to send its signal out over cable in Venezuela. The penalty for coup plots gets stiffer by the minute!
Chavez and his buddies at least served some jail time for their illegal coup attempt, yes or no?
See:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/23/1405/
May 28th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
I give Marc credit for honesty in acknowledging that he’s playing the
risible Fox News Channel guilt-by-failure-to-disassociate game here:
“Why is this of any interest to me? Simply because it seems of so little relevance to too many others I know and from whom I would hope more.”
Note that he admits that he isn’t motivated by the fringe wingnuts who
support Chavez, but by the mainstream liberals who fail to join a campaign
against Venezuela’s fairly elected ruler.
Marc’s obviously no bigot, yet he clumsily adapts the Ann Coulteresque media
racist’s favorite rhetorical device to dress his personal animus toward lefty
activists in the costume of principle.
The usual refrain is: the Muslim community at large is our enemy because it
doesn’t condemn this or that suicide bombing, this or that radical cleric or
this or that insurgency that’s killing Americans.
As Marc applies that here: if you don’t take the time to condemn Chavez, you’re somehow an enemy of free speech, a hypocrite, an idiot or a closet Chavez supporter.
The quickest way to disrobe Marc’s claim is to ask, what exactly should
Americans do about Chavez’s widening assault on free speech? Does Marc support
military intervention? Surely not. Tighter sanctions? The better to legitimize
Chavez’ alliances with other “rogueTM” nations. Diplomatic isolation? To what
end, as Chavez has clearly staked his future on vision of small countries taking
on a U.S.-dominated diplomatic alliance that advertises itself as international
opinion.
To what end do we criticize Chavez? Principle? If that’s the case, there’s
no need to mention who is or is not on the bandwagon.
The American government is known to have supported coup attempts against
Chavez. Any rational, informed person can recite a long, sad history of U.S.
support for the violent overthrow of fairly elected Latin American leaders who’s
primary transgression is the failure to accept the hegemony of U.S. commercial and/or military interests.
Chavez’ regime is by and of that historical context. More important, that
history of U.S. deception, media manipulation and demonization leading directly
to military aggression is why sincere, informed liberals choose to refrain from
adding their voice to every criticism of Venezuela’s fairly elected government.
You want to lead a chorus? Try writing some lyrics that don’t rhyme so well
with a hundred years of gringo chauvanism.
May 28th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
There’s a wonderful saying in Spanish: “democracia sin apellidos.” This translates literally as democracy without surnames. We would say, democracy without qualifiers. Im for it. Period. You want a “peoples democracy?” Great. Try living in one.
Sorry, Brian and Tucker, but Ive been around too long and have seen first hand way too much damage done when those qualifiers are piled on. Look no father than at the culturally and intellectually barren landscape of Cuba. Fifty years of one party -one media rule and I guarantee you there are more Marxists today in Saskatchewan than there are in Havana.
Your arguments fall flat. They are a political justification perfumed with legalistic mumbo-jumbo about the “rights” of the President.
That’s kind of a long way for lefties to come, isn’t it? I thought we were more interested in broader rights. It’s folk like Bush who love to argue for executive rights. Im much more interested in building open, civil societies.
Cut through all your obfuscation and the bottom line remains the same: beginning tomorrow the political debate in Venezuela will be narrower not wider; the margins for dissent will be tighter not looser; the ability to freely speak one’s mind will be more not less perilous. That’s pretty grim.
Brian, your point about RCTV should be happy because it can still use cable or Internet is really one for the books. Big deal. Why don’t you reverse the dynamic for a moment and consider this: drowning in billions of petro-dollars the Chavez government was free to set up its own TV network on any available frequency…and if you read the news reports you will see there were plenty of available. That way its message could compete openly and aggressively with that of RCTV and the debate would be heightened, not muffled. The supposed power of Chavez’ idas would easily domimate the soap operas, game shows and right-wing commentary of RCTV. But those are not the ways of megalomaniacs prone to four hour public speeches. They just don’t like any second fiddles.
Ive said it before so what the hell. Shame on those of you who justify repression and the stifling of opposition. Diversity, my ass.
A final comment before I plug my Ipod into my ears: Michael Balter males an excellent point. On many occasions in my life I have made public speeches and published works that could easily be interpreted as calling for the overthrow of the government. Should I now be banned or jailed for such activity? I thought we were opposed to loyalty oaths — except I suppose when President Chavez is administering them. Fantastic, really.
As I have gotten older I have grown more and more comfortable with my position as a journalist . Political activism is a crucial civic duty but when it blinds you to principle it becomes a vice.
P.S. Bunkerbuster: you are what Robert DeNiro in the movie Casino meant when he said a “f___in’ momo.” No, I take that back,. You actually show the soul of a Cultural Commissar. “Comrades, what possible good can derive from us debating the right and wrong of things? Ours is the duty to defend our historic tasks and leave empty intellectualizing for the enemy.” You’re quite a case, kid.
May 29th, 2007 at 1:01 am
I see you’ve managed to smoke out some diehards to defend Chavez here. I don’t think that qualifies as intellectualizing, but it certainly is empty.
Now that you’ve had your fun shooting a few barrelled carp, what sort of ideas do you have about how to build democracy in Venezuela?
Chavez is degrading important democratic institutions while at the same time, supporting others, e.g. economic stability. It is far from an ideal situation for Venezuelans, overall, but it is one they have chosen independently of the U.S. or any other superpower. That matters, whether you like it or not.
You are an American, remember. How will you influence your government to do the right thing in Venezuela?
Like it or not, the U.S. has to have relationships with regimes of many stripes and it does so while carrying some very heavy baggage.
You prefer to ignore that context, because it makes shooting the fish a lot easier, leaving you more time for the Ipod and “Viva Las Vegas” DVDs.
May 29th, 2007 at 2:42 am
And, the least you can do Marc, is get your ad hominem right:
DeNiro doesn’t say “F__ckin’ Momo” in the film. He says “F__ckin’ A__hole.” In the edited for TV version, he says “Stinkin’ Momo.”
May 29th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Reg -
I didn’t mean for my comment to be a specifically left wing vs right wing argument. I have seen this word more in leftist “contexts”. as the right tends to eschew mealy-mouthed, intellectual jargon.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:06 am
“There’s a big difference by the way – to Balter who normalyl is more reasonable – between a newspaper sold at a demo and the equivalent of NBC cheering on a foreign power.”–jcummings
Here perhaps is the fundamental misunderstanding and the fundamental disagreement. Freedom of the press cannot be decided on a case by case basis, nor based on whether we or someone else might think that denying it is “reasonable” under such and such circumstances. Someone will always come up with an excuse for shutting down the press that sounds reasonable to some people. That is inconsistent with democracy and a free society. The press is either free or it isn’t, no matter what it wants to say. Same thing for free speech. Is the First Amendment dead already?
May 29th, 2007 at 5:15 am
btw, I am pretty much an absolutist on the First Amendment. For example, I think it is okay to yell “fire” in a theater full of Klansmen watching “Birth of a Nation.”
May 29th, 2007 at 6:53 am
Good for comrade Chavez. I tried to muzzle the pro-coup “El Mercurio” but the reactionary judges overruled me. That is why I ended up dead.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Saskatchewan has always had a strong socialist community, and a very progressive part of the country.
I didn’t defend Chavez’s move per se…but…. I do believe that Howard Dean talked about using the fairness doctrine against Fox News. Do people have a problem with that?
May 29th, 2007 at 7:42 am
My posts keep being put on moderation…so I’ll simply ask Chavez’s critics….are you in favor of the gaining-in-popularity liberal idea of re-imposing the fairness doctrine – which would certainly shut down more media than RCTV?
May 29th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Caracas Chronicles has a rather agonized take on all this:
http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2007/05/freedom-of-propaganda.html
Is censorship a legal regime or a particular act? If it’s the former, Venezuela has had this kind of censorship for all practical purposes since 1987. It’s just never been used this hamfistedly before.
Is “freedom of propaganda” good in itself, or just a side-effect (usually unfortunate, at best amusing) of freedom of the press? And what if it’s nothing but all propaganda, all the time, with no true deliberation at all?
Healthy democracies get by with the absolute minimum of censorsrhip (and yes, we do have censorship, you can’t pretend we don’t). But Venezuela is not a healthy democracy and it never has been one — the entire body politic is poisoned, alternating between junk-sick when oil prices are low, and deliriously ODed when oil prices are high. The RCTV shutdown was quite unpopular (only 16% or so of Venezuelans supported it), but the closure and seizure didn’t dent Chavez’ popularity much. What’s with that? It’s the oil, stupid. He wouldn’t be able to get away with half this shit if it weren’t for high oil prices and distribution of proceeds. To some extent, bread and circuses can trade off against each other. One less circus tonight. No shortage of bread, though.
May 29th, 2007 at 8:21 am
A few days ago the usually very conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted protection (“withholding of removal) to a Venezuelan family because of political persecution.
Delgado v. Atty. Gen’l.:
http://bibdaily.com/pdfs/Delgado%2011%205-25-07.pdf
May 29th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I really don’t why you are concentrating on Hugo Chavez when a far more serious breach is occuring next door in Brazil. This weekend President Lula expanded the program of free birth control for woem even though Pope Benedict XVI specifically condemned that while in the country. All Hugo is doing is a possible suppression of a few liberties while Lula is risking the immortal souls of his constituents. Have you no sense of proportion?
I’m reporting you to William Donahue and The Congregation for Family Life!
May 29th, 2007 at 9:30 am
BBuster: I will give you 100 t0 1 on a $10 paypal bet. DeNiro calls his slot manager a “fucking momo.”
http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/casino.html —->
SHERBERT enters, stands next to ACE.
ACE
The probability on one-four-reel
machine is a million and a half to
one. On three machines in a row,
it’s in the billions. It cannot
happen… would not happen, you
fuckin’ momo! What’s the matter with
you! Didn’t you see you were bein’
set up on the second win?
WARD
I really think you’re -
ACE
(Interrupts)
You – Wait! You didn’t see that you
were being set up on the second win?
WARD
I really think you’re overreacting
in this whole -
ACE
(Interrupts)
Listen, you fuckin’ yokel, I’ve had
it with you. I’ve been carryin’ your
ass in this place ever since I got
here. Get your ass and get your things
and get out of here.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“As I have gotten older I have grown more and more comfortable with my position as a journalist.”
At last, the truth.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I wouldn’t take that bet, BBuster. A classic scene, by the way.
And thanks, Marc, for that daily script site. I have bookmarked it.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:57 am
MB everyone gets that citation by Holmes wrong. I assure you, if the thatre is on fire you better yell “FIRE!” Its only falsely yelling something that gets the Great Dissenter’s goat.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Cummings,
Apparently you can’t comprehend the difference between middle of the road and middle ground. If you have two widely diverging points of view, there is space in between these poles. If you can’t find a middle ground between “the broader experiment in Latin America and the ancien regime”, it says more about your lack of imagination than anything else.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:37 am
I CAN find a middle ground in theory. I cannot find a middle ground in practical fact. Provide one for me that truly doesn’t lead to the restoration of the old social classes and I will listen.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:55 am
For the information of all I am posting the Venezuelan response to a letter from the head of the National Union of Journalists in the UK, of which I am a member. This at least will provide the government’s detailed arguments.
Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
London
22nd May 2007
Mr. Jeremy Dear
Secretary General
National Union of Journalists
308-312 Greys Inn Road
London W1C1X 8DP
Dear Mr. Dear,
It has been raised to the attention of the European Parliament, the case of the Venezuelan private TV channel RCTV, which has been wrongly presented by some euro parliamentarians as a manifestation of the violation of freedom of expression in my country.
In relation to this case I would like to present you with the following facts:
1. The case has been shown as the closure of the TV channel RCTV, when the reality is simply the non-renewal of its license to broadcast on public airwaves.
2. Venezuelan Legislation does not establish automatic renewal of public airwaves licenses. Article 113 of the Venezuelan Constitution and Article 73 of the Organic Law on Telecommunications state the need for license renewal.
3. Public airwaves licenses have a duration period of 20 years, according to Article 210 of the Organic Law on Telecommunications and Decree No.1577 (Concession Rules for Television and Radio Stations).
4. On 29 March 2007 the Venezuelan Ministry of Telecommunications replied negatively to the formal request presented by RCTV on 24 January 2007 in relation to the renewal of its license.
5. The non-renewal of the license only affects RCTV broadcasting on public airwaves, but it does not affect the TV station’s liberty to broadcast in Venezuela through Cable or Satellite. Neither does it affect the possibility of RCTV producing material for domestic or international TV programming
6. The reasons of the non-renewal are directly related to RCTV’s non-abidement of the requirements established by the Venezuelan Constitution and the Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television, for public airwaves licensees, to not incite political violence and civil unrest. Such violations correspond to conspiracy to bring down the Constitutional Government of Venezuela on the occasion of the coup of April 2002 that provoked several deaths, and the active promotion of the oil sabotage of December 2002, which caused the country more than US$10 billion in losses. It also relates to a long history of sanctions against RCTV imposed by previous governments for reasons oscillating from pornography, violations of laws prohibiting publicity of Smoking and Alcohol drinking to transmissions of false information. In that last sense reference should be made to sanctions against RCTV dated 1976, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1989, and 1991.
7. The non-renewal of RCTV license is not an expression of censorship on private media. It must be noted that 79 of 81 TV stations and all 118 newspapers in Venezuela are privately owned. A overwhelming majority of them are vehemently opposed to the democratically elected Government of President Hugo Chavez. Nonetheless, RCTV is unique in its excesses and its history of violations of the legal norms.
8. RCTV broadcasting airwaves license will be assigned, upon expiry, to a public broadcasting service that will present programmes by independent operators and producers.
Enclosed please find a sample of the film (DVD format) “The Revolution will not be Televised†produced by the Irish Film Board, and broadcasted several times by the BBC where the evidence of conspiracy by RCTV in the April 2002 coup against President Chavez, is clearly demonstrated.
Sincerely yours
Alfredo Toro Hardy
Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United Kingdom
May 29th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Cummings, once again you seem the leftist willing to go to the wall for the hard right on the phoniest pretext. Sorry, I lived in America with the Fairness Doctrine for years and their was no shortage of Fox-like, shlock right media (and the lousy politics that result from said), maybe you have bought into some fantasy from Bill O’Reilly or the like.
Bunkbuster, two gold stars for today.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
“I think it is okay to yell “fire†in a theater full of Klansmen watching “Birth of a Nation.—
Unless it’s really on fire…in which case, I’d slip out quietly.
(Great line, MB)
May 29th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
MarkC – I agree with you that the right’s bullshit takes a less academic rhetorical turn. One of their strengths.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
“The “left†around these particular NorteAmericano parts are pikers compared to these thugs. F— Chavez – but he’s a gnat compared to Cheney.”
I agree. In fact, what we have going on in this country right now concerning the corporatization of our media in our own country that we live in…should receive more attention than what Chavez does thousands of miles away. Let’s get our own house in order first before worrying about other countries.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
K Nardy, you miss my point. I’m for the fairness doctrine.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I encourage everyone – its on google video etc., iflm, youtube in parts, to see The Revolution will not be Televised. Its mindblowing as realtime political action, regardless of one’s views on Chavez. It does prove, beyond doubt, the duplicity of RCTV.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
My bad then. Although I don’t think the fairness doctrine is the answer, or the whole thing.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Another bit of zeitgeist: Which is worse, jourmalists who are muzzled by the closing down of opposition papers or journalists who have the right of a free press and pimp it out to corporate interests, have by and large nothing to say, or keep the level of “opposition” to goverment to a fetid, putrid, rancid and tired orthodoxy of content-free faux versions of left and right? Phew! Long sentence…
A free press cannot be an empty ideal, it has to be practiced every day, in every village, town and city.
The tragedy, it seems is not to lose freedom of the press (it can be regained by direct action) but to surrender it the marketing insitutions without nary a whimper.
May 29th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Marc: For the record, can we have some reference or quotations for which you stated that you might have been accused of advocating the overthrow of government? If you do, I’ll send youi mine with a Senate hearing reference.
May 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Far from calling the proceedings “grand” all the FAIR piece attempted to do was make clear the issue is far more complicated than the US media (and Marc) were making it out to be. But I guess providing context and filling the holes left by the MSM’s coverage is now being a “phony” watchdog.
As for Marc’s brand of “journalism,” he provides us with a great photograph, only to not tell us the “students” in question were actually charging the Telecom Ministry’s gates and employing slingshots (nearly getting through) and shutting down the City’s main freeway. But those photos would tell too much of the real story I guess. You would be great on RCTV Marc…
The piece then segues into an account of the first day of the new station, implying it is all pro-Chavez songs and equating it with Iraqi TV under Sadaam. Trouble is, the only song aired was the National Anthem. Far from propaganda, the day was filled with documentaries on Antarctica and rainforests, a travel show, childrens programming and exercise shows. News today is they’ve contracted with National Geographic to fill most of the morning and afternoon slots and 60% of airtime will be for Venezuelan independent producers. Scary indeed! Sounds like European TV.
Marc goes on to tell us that RCTV represents the “last main opposition media” outlet. Nevermind that approximately 2980 out of 3000 media outlets in that country are privately owned and almost all opposition dominated. He says the other main TV channels have become “pro-Government.” Is he just ignorant or feel the need to pad his argument with more BS? Maybe some of the other major stations have begun to show some semblence of fairness, as a result of losing market share more than anything else. Credible shows can no longer ignore the immense positive changes that a 40% rise in GDP in 3.5 years can produce in communities across Venzuela. But even the most disingenous Venezuelan will tell you that Globovision, Venevision and TeleVen (not to mention the main newspapers) all remain firmly anti-Chavez in their editorial lines and overall content. Perhaps Globovision’s airing of isurrectionary songs over assassination footage is actually pro-Government compared to RCTV though. That’s it, right Marc?
Why does Marc feel the need to distort so badly? Why does Marc dance around the central argument about media responsibility to democracy and the rule of law? Why does Marc compare his supposed Revolutionary speeches in the 80s to the #1 television station in the country actually conspiring with the military coupsters, before during and after they ripped up the nation’s Constitution, National Assembly and Supreme Court?
Despite his experience in Latin America, Marc appears to be living in a fantasyland where media and opposition groups abide by the unwritten rules of respectign democracy and the rule of law. But he should know very well, there is no such thing down there. Laws and enforcement of laws are needed. It would be nice if they were not. It would also be nice if the country’s elite did not sabotage their country (with crippling employer-mandated strikes that resulted in a great-depression type economic slide, thowing millions out of work), overthrow democracy and use the public’s airwave as a vital tools in those ends. Eventually the people say “basta!”
Meanwhile the income of the poorest 58% of Venezuelans has increased by 130% in 3 years (according to the Ven-American Chamber of Commerce). The poor have access to land titles (which brings sewers, electricity and roads), good schools, health care, jobs, ownership over their workplaces and a say in their communities. Literacy has been eradicated, hundreds of thousands of blind now have sight and the rich have never been richer. It is the possibly the fastest social transformation in favor of the poor in Latin American history.
May 29th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Isn’t it ironic that you are defending and sympathizing with right-wing, corporate pigs trying to overthrow a leftist government that has done more for the Venezuelan poor majority than any previous government in that country’s history. The same person who was Allende’s translator and rightly defended those who were violated by Pinochet has not learned at all from that experience about democracy and society in Latin America. You are the phony!
May 29th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
No, the fairness doctrine is not the whole answer. But my poitn is that many of the good liberals who are probably solidarizing with the Ven. ultraright, would be very much in favor of a government decree shutting down Fox News or demanding it moderate its lies. I would be.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Where are we getting the assumption that the only way Chavez could deal with TV coup plotters is by shutting their stations down?
Plotting the violent overthrow of a government, if that is in fact what RCTV did, is obviously a criminal enterprise. The suspected plotters at the station should then face a judge and jury as individuals. The government has no right to punish the organization the alleged plotters work in or, even, own.
To the extent that the air waves are quasi-public property, a licensed television station exists independently of the actions of its owners. RCTV’s workers and viewers also have a stake in what happens to the station and can’t possibly be served by closing it down.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Leftside, why is so much of the media in Ven. so Anti-Chavez, if he is as generally popular as you suggest? I mean this as a serious question. It seems odd, but on the other hand, Washington D.C., possibly the most liberal city in America has one center right and one far right Newspaper… so go figure…
May 29th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
K Nardy.
The answer in Venezuela as well as D.C. is profit – there are very few progressive dailies, if any.. in the case of much conservative media, bias of the owners of capital who are sometimes willing to take a loss.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
KnARDY- MAYBE BECAUSE SOME OF THE VZA MEDIA STILL REPRESENT THE OLIGARCHS AND SIX FAMILIES THAT CONTROLLED VZA BEFORE CHAVEZ.
I REALLY BELIEVE THAT WHILE OUR OWN MEDIA IS SELF-DESTRUCTING AND DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS ARE WITHERING UNDER THE BUSH ATTACKS (WITH LITTLE RESISTANCE OF THE AMERICAN LEFTY SCRIBES), WE MAY HAVE FORFEITED THE RIGHT TO TSK! TSK! THE RELATIVE PECADILLOS (BOY, THAT WILL GET A RISE FROM SOMEBODY WE KNOW) OF OUR OIL SUPPLIERS. THE MOTE IS IN OUR EYE THIS TIME.
I’M STILL IN FAVOR OF OBJECTIVE COVERAGE OF INTERNATIONAL EVENTS (THAT’S WHY I DON’T READ AMERICAN COVERAGE), BUT UNTIL WE GET BACK TO SOME RUDIMENTARY RETURN OF CIVIL LIBERTIES HERE, OUR CRITICAL EYE SHOULD BE DIRECTED INTRAMURALLY.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
WHAT IS THAT PHOTO OF THE LAPD METRO SQUAD AT MacARTHUR PARK DOING IN A VENEZUELA PIECE? The photographer will be pissed!
May 29th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
BB, the answer to your question about why the coup plotters were not tried for the crimes, is that many were. Unfortunately, the major plotters either left the country (living in Miami) or were set free when the Supreme Court astonishingly let them off the hook. This was a major tipping point in the Bolivarian revolution, a radicalizing event, when the average Jose saw the corruption tht ran through the country’s institutions (and led the the reforms Marc called “stacking with cronies”). Later tapes surfaced which proved that opposition party leaders (AD) and ex-Justice Minister Luis Miquilena (who appointed may of the judges and was widely viewed as the coupsters President to be) worked together to pressure swing vote Justices. The case against the principal plotters was decided 9-11, essentially buying the opposition’s pre-planned manufactured arguments about Chavez having resigned. Judges also had the nerve to cite the lack of weapons in Miraflores as a key argument, despite the evidence about a military threat to bomb the building in 10 minutes if Chavez did not leave (sound familiar Marc?).
Making a judicial argument against the media owners, however justified, was probably deemed politically unsavvy. The evidence of collusion is difficult to prove and the witnesses have fled. Garnier (RCTV’s owner) probably did not plan the coup, but just played a role in shutting out information and repeating the party-line. In the shaky days of 2002, it was probably deemed better to wait the 5 years for the renewal and then act.
Since then a number of participants have been tried and found guilty, but the main plotters (Carmona and Ortega) remain fugitives.
K Nardy, I don’t mean to be trite, but for-profit media outlets are simply capitalist to their core. They may be liberal but never socialist. The media is 100% dependent on big corporations for their ad dollars and normally owned by congolmerates that depend on the expansion of capitalism for their very being. The elites have a system that serves them very well, built on the backs of those socialism seeks to empower. Plus, from a narrow POV, why would they welcome competition from public media?
May 30th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Then the question becomes, if profit is the motive, why don’t some of these ruthless capialist’s sell the public media that reflects there own interests?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
That would be like selling rope.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:59 am
I applaud Mark for this posting and for his comments accurately describing the progressive fascists in “Liberal Clothing.”
June 1st, 2007 at 7:36 am
“Isn’t it ironic that you are defending and sympathizing with right-wing, corporate pigs trying to overthrow a leftist government that has done more for the Venezuelan poor majority than any previous government in that country’s history.”
Really? Where? Give me numbers. Poverty is at the same place it was in 1998, health numbers are worse, crime is up 300%, GDP has not grown since 1998, housing built by the Government in 8 years has been the lowest in any of the previous 5 year presidential term, but Chavez has had an extra three, human rights of everyone are threatened. All of this in the midst of the biggest oil windfall in the country’s history. You better review the Government of Leoni in teh 60′s, or even the much despised CAP in the 70′s when poverty reached only 22%, half of what it is today. Chavez is charismatic and he has given the people hope with smoke and mirrors, but he has delivered little.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:06 am
I don’t have to guess where “leftside” gets his talking points from…
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I’d like to look again at the “what-if” scenario that is offered here. What if a US station had supported a coup?
This may mean:
1. What if a US station supported the opposing party at election time?
2. What if a US station supported the armed overthrow of the democratic system and the end of elections?
The first happens every four years so we know the answer. I assume though that this is not what’s meant.
And the second is nonsense. A station that is free to voice opinions will not support an insurrection that ends that freedom. For this to make sense, you would also have to assume that the present situation in the US is far worse than a military government, and apparantly FAIR does in fact assume that about Venezuela.
June 12th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
One of the things that always amuse me in debates of this sort is the self-righteousness of Americans across the political spectrum, left, right, and center(“THOSE people down there are not up OUR standards” up here).
The commercial media is pretty twisted right here in Los Angeles, California.
Anybody here know (or care) about the census figures for the City of Los Angeles?
Hispanic 46%
White Non-Hispanic (29.7%)
Black (11.2%)
Asian (approximately 10%)
So, does our “Great Free Press” in Los Angeles reflect this reality. And I am not thinking about some affirmative-action “quota” bull. I’m thinking about reflecting the hopes and dreams and values of this marvelous tapestry.
No Way, Jose!
The Los Angeles Times, The Daily News, and yes, the LA Weekly are all “diverse” voices for the upper-middle-class “Angry White Man.”
Half the awful stuff that goes on in this country could be ameliorated if the So-Called-Liberal-Media simply did their job.
So, if you want to have a debate about Hugo Chavez — but spare me that gratuitous bad-mouthing of groups like F.A.I.R. Their primary mission is media criticism of the American media which damn well NEEDS to be criticized.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Why don’t you reverse the dynamic for a moment and consider this: drowning in billions of petro-dollars the Chavez government was free to set up its own TV network on any available frequency…and if you read the news reports you will see there were plenty of available. That way its message could compete openly and aggressively with that of RCTV and the debate would be heightened, not muffled. The supposed power of Chavez’ idas would easily domimate the soap operas, game shows and right-wing commentary of RCTV.
March 8th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Amazing site! love the easy layout