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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.