Anti-Chavez channel removed from cable

[cali]

Source: WaPo



Jan 24 12:45 AM US/Eastern
By CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER
Associated Press Writer


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuelan cable television providers stopped transmitting a channel critical of President Hugo Chavez on Sunday, after the government cited incompliance with new regulations requiring the socialist leader's speeches be televised on cable.

Radio Caracas Television, an anti-Chavez channel known as RCTV that switched to cable in 2007 after the government refused to renew its over-the-air license, disappeared from the airwaves shortly after midnight.

RCTV was dropped just hours after Diosdado Cabello, director of Venezuela's state-run telecommunications agency, said several local channels carried by cable television have breached broadcasting laws and should be removed from the airwaves.

Cabello warned cable operations on Saturday evening that they could find themselves in jeopardy if they keep showing those channels.

"They must comply with the law, and they cannot have a single channel that violates Venezuelan laws as part of their programming," he said.

Several channels have not shown Chavez's televised speeches—a requirement under new regulations approved last month by the telecommunications agency, Cabello said.

<snip>


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012400636.html

[bluestateguy]

1. Ah yes, they great progressive leader: Fatso Hugo Chavez

And I'm sure his apologists will be here soon with excuses.

[demoleft]

2. and CIA, Pentagon, the Empire of the US lurking from behind the cameras of that TV Station...

freedom of speech has become an accessory to some.

[bluestateguy]

3. Here we go

Trendy, chic anti-Americanism. The real world is not a Berkeley coffeehouse.

[demoleft]

4. just quoted what the chavezian army will be soon here with. n/t

[ronnie624]

95. The U.S. government has a long history of political and military intervention in other countries,

for the purpose of controlling resources and markets. Look it up.

Criticizing U.S. policies that are harmful to ourselves and other people in the world, is one of our duties as citizens of this country. So said the founders. The U.S. government and its policies are not 'America'.

[brooklynite]

61. Thats the CIA, Pentagon and "Empire" that President Obama is in charge of, right?

...or is it the "holdovers from the Bush Administration" who are secretly still running things?

[Matilda]

7. No need for excuses.

This law has been in force for free to air channels since 2004 and is
now being extended to cover cable channels whose main content comes from
Venezuela.

There is a full explanation of the laws here:

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5095

[demoleft]

8. no doubt it is in line with law. the italian premier promotes laws too.

the oppositions call them "ad personam" sometimes, because they are tailored to some personal needs.

[Matilda]

19. Many countries in the world have corrupt and even criminal leaders.

You might as well link the presidents of Kazakhstan or Albania with
Chavez; neither of them has any more similarity with him than does
Berlusconi.

There is also constitutional oversight by the judiciary of all new
laws, and should any new laws infringe the Venezuelan Constitution,
it will be nullified by the judges. Chavez simply can't do whatever
he likes; there are plenty of checks and balances should he try.

You may not like him, but there has never been any evidence that he
is corrupt in either his personal dealings or in his role as president.
His enemies might wish there were, but even they can't come up with
anything, and they have to limit themselves to the hollow charges of
dictatorship, which fly in the face of the verified legality of every
election that he's faced.

If Chavez suspends the constitution and calls out the military, then
you may have reason to call him a dictator, but until that happens,
he's a legally elected leader who is in power because the people of
Venezuela have put him there.

[demoleft]

23. he's a legally elected leader - i don't question it, matilda.

but as an observer, i notice things in his political behaviour, especially as far as his relation with media and free speech is concerned. not to talk of his outbursts about US and his smoothness on china.
i do not like them, as a democratic and as a leftist.

just this.

:) ciao.

[Wilms]

25. Yes. "His smoothness on china..." is a great concern.

In fact he imports things from them and they're um, ya know, they're Communists and stuff.

[demoleft]

30. since he sees the devil only in the US - seems not to feel much for chinese dissidents.

"communist" china buys oil - and who cares about the rest?
customers are always right.

and the devil is always in the US.

it works. i do not know for how long, but it works for him.

[Wilms]

33. His failure to crackdown on China is truly a black eye on his tenure.

This, I believe, is why he should be feared.

[Flaneur]

85. Indeed.

[ronnie624]

96. What strange, unrealistic thing to say.

China does not have a history of interventionism in Latin America.

And obviously, President Chavez realizes that it is not his responsibility to reform China's political system, but in fact, the responsibility of the Chinese people. It's called respect for the sovereignty of other countries.

[demoleft]

107. yes, i always forget that "socialist" is just a label stuck on the back pocket of his jeans. n/t

[Igel]

76. The Sinyavsky-Daniel trial in the 1960s

also followed the law.

There are many ways for a Party to rule without requiring a one-man dictatorship.

There are many ways for one man to rule without fulfilling the definition of "dictator".

There are many ways to defend a country's system, subtly and tacitly shifting the definition "dictatorship" ad libitum from one-man rule to one-party rule and back again, altering which criteria must be satisfied and the means that must be used.

At some point, as with the Sinyavsky-Daniel trial, there is enough evidence for most people to be convinced at which point most of them ask, "Who could have known? Why didn't anybody point this out?" Such cries of indignation usually serve to drown out the voices saying, "We did," because usually the question is merely rhetorical. However, even then there usually still remains a core of believers and fellow-travelers who continue to play the game. I had students in '89 who were convinced that the government that sentenced Terts and Arzhak, i.e., Sinyavsky and Daniel, was a good, humanist, and progressive force in the world and in its own country. In 2005 I had trouble convincing one student that Lenin and Stalin weren't good guys. He put more work into his attempts to dismiss Shalamov than he did in reading him.

Chavez has a ways to go. The mileposts are fairly clear, however, even as the Venezuelan parallels to the writers of Mileposts (Vekhi) receive far worse treatment. Truly, Chavez is no tsar'.

[David__77]

53. There need be no "excuses."

These media deserve the same fate as Völkischer Beobachter and Der Stürmer received in 1945. The Venezuelan government has been exceedingly tolerant of the intolerable.

[creeksneakers2]

94. Its intolerable not to run Chavez broadcasts?

[Flaneur]

84. Ooh, how grown up of you. "Fatso."

[struggle4progress]

5. ... RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly

ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised ...

Media Advisory
Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story
5/25/07
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

[demoleft]

6. a democracy must grant voice to everyone. that's its strength.

if you shut voices down, it means you don't feel quite strong.
which the recent outbursts of chavez seem to demonstrate.

[Dr.Phool]

13. Sometimes free speech needs a punch in the mouth.

Yeah, I'm speaking of Steve Douchey, Rush Limballs, and the rest. Not because I disagree with them, but because they flat-out lie.

Since they support the right of the govt. to spy on me, deny habeas corpus, invade my privacy, the least I could do is support the government in shutting them down.

[demoleft]

14. all those you quote can't shut your mouth and mind though. chavez is trying to do with his people.

[Wilms]

27. "His people"?

Since when is a corporation a person? :rofl:



Oh. Wait. :(

[jefferson_dem]

32. Yay!

Censorship! :patriot:

...


No thanks.

[struggle4progress]

38. You might ask yourself how a US media organization that supported a coup attempt would fare

under USC § 2384 or § 2385

See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html

[demoleft]

49. we slam US media here very often for biasing. i notice the same who do, like so much...

venezuelan/cuban/chinese government-controlled media.
never a word against it.

whenever free speech and freedom of opinion are attacked, you find me there on the barricades.
wherever it happens.

i've got a journal here to witness.

[struggle4progress]

54. I have nothing against such abstract principles: I just like getting the facts straight

before applying them. Getting the facts straight usually clarifies what principles are involved. And in the case of Mr. Chavez, I frequently find US media reports factually unreliable, so I'm unlikely to jump into a rant on principles before the situation is clear to me

[demoleft]

57. got it. ok. n/t

[Judi Lynn]

55. You should have looked more carefully at struggle4progress's link.

Maybe this will be helpful to you if you decide to relent and look at some actual information:

Chávez and RCTV: Media Enemies at Home and Abroad
by David Edwards
Oct 19 2007

~snip~
In a rare example of media honesty, the Los Angeles Times reported in May that RCTV had initially been focused on providing entertainment. “But after Chávez was elected president in 1998,” the article stated, “RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office.”

Controlled by members of the country’s ruling elite, including station chief Marcel Granier, the channel saw Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution in defense of Venezuela’s poor as a threat to established privilege and wealth.

Thus, for two days before the April 11, 2002, coup, RCTV canceled regular programming and ran constant coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chávez. A stream of commentators delivered fierce criticism of the president with no response allowed from the government. RCTV also ran nonstop advertisements encouraging people to attend an April 11 march aimed at toppling the government and later broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV ran manipulated video footage falsely blaming Chávez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.

On the same day, RCTV allowed leading coup plotter Carlos Ortega to call for demonstrators to march on the presidential palace. After the overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a journalist, “We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you.” Another grateful leader remarked: “I must thank Venevisión and RCTV.”

RCTV news director Andrés Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he had received clear orders from superiors at the station: “Zero pro-Chávez, nothing related to Chávez or his supporters. . . . The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country.”

While the streets of Caracas erupted with public outrage against the coup, RCTV broadcast soap operas, cartoons, and old movies.

On April 13, 2002, RCTV’s Marcel Granier and other media moguls met in the Miraflores palace to offer their support to the country’s new dictator, Pedro Carmona, who in one stroke eliminated Venezuela’s Supreme Court and the National Assembly, and suspended its Constitution. When Chávez returned to power that same day, the commercial stations refused to cover the news.

Many journalists have reported the enforced closure of RCTV, but in fact the channel has not been shut down; it has been broadcasting since July by satellite and cable. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting made the point that matters: “Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela.”

In a letter published in the Guardian (May 26, 2007), Gordon Hutchinson of the Venezuela Information Centre rejected the claim that there is censorship in Venezuela, where 95% of the media is fiercely opposed to the government. This includes five privately owned TV channels controlling 90% of the market. All of the country’s 118 newspaper companies, both regional and national, are privately held, as are 706 out of 709 radio stations.

More:
http://www.mediaaccuracy.org/node/8

[sabrina 1]

82. As the article says, if that were to happen here,

any station that collaborated in an attempted coup of the legitimitate government, would not only not be on the air, all those involved would be in jail and eventually tried for treason.

I am surprised that the station was allowed to continue after such a treasonous act.

[pretzel4gore]

79. you really compare the PIGMEDIA with any other?

The US, Britain and Israel spend 2/3rds of the global military budget-and their secret agencies spend god knows how much more! Does anyone think had the pigmedia reported the truth about 911 (that it was just a ordinary crime, in that it was NOT a military attack on USA by a identifiable military power, a miscued understanding which allowed the busheviki to invoke national security via the natsecstapo and the, ahem...complicit media)? How can the multi trillion dollar reactionarky rightwing, with its 'war on drugs' and goldman sachs ripoffs, its climate change trickery, its barry obama nudge winking etc compare to anything China or Cuba etc does? Both China and Cuba were born in revolution long after gw bush's granddad was funding the hitler nazis in late 1920's- something the pigmedia still keeps hidden away (and tho nazis did the death camp hollycost thing, which would seem to makem enemies of Israel, but somehow that doesn't bother the goose-steppers AT ALL!)
I am alot more mystified by this world then you

[Overseas]

80. Just like the 80% pro-First Strike War on Iraq news that US viewers were treated to.

I guess people wish Chavez would learn to be more media savvy like the USA. He should privatize his press into left wing hands, just like we've privatized ours into right wing conglomerates.

Get left wingers to purchase controlling stakes in all his major broadcasting companies, then keep the ratio of news over there like the Great USA had over here during Bush Gang Rule-- 80% of broadcast news commentary pro-Iraq invasion, with 20% against it allowed in there to show we had a "free press."

With a Privatized "Free Press" like we have over here, even if the people overwhelmingly favor a public option to control healthcare costs, your networks can spend far more time covering Astro-turf demonstrations all summer to create the impression of massive opposition to reform, as long as you have brief mentions when the polling data about public opinion is published.

Your administration can even be alleged to have committed war crimes, with photographic and video documentation of same, and remain in power, as long as the stories about alleged torture have been covered somewhere. Then your Privatized Free-for-Purchase Press can go on with its pro-administration position all it wants. Can't say it didn't show the stories-- it did. Just run a cool new drama series that glamorizes torture and you can build more support. Pretend that torture is justified sometimes, even though you signed the Geneva Conventions. You covered the Geneva Convention problems in some print news stories so you needn't bother with that boring stuff in the broadcast media. Just bring on a couple of stodgy human rights advocates now and again in one of those 5 to 2 opinion shows and you're good to go.

[bemildred]

9. So I guess the long running campaign to remove Chavez is not going so well.

Is it time to have a strategy review yet?

[cali]

20. every tv channel should be forced by law to carry every utterance of President Obama

you'd support that wholeheartedly, I'm sure.

[bemildred]

64. Well, every public speech, yeah.

And everything said in Congress too, all the "debates" and committee meetings, and so on, it should all be available on tape at least. We'd be a better country if everything was done in public.

[Xithras]

127. They are. It's called C-SPAN.

Every debate on the Congressional floor, every speech by the President, and every public committee meeting.

If you want to watch it, it's there already.

[bemildred]

130. I'm saying they all ought to be required to cover the goverment as a cost of doing business.

A public that is well-informed about what the government is up to essential to a functioning democracy, and all commercial media outlets ought to be required to cover the government a certain percentage of the time, like 10%. Not just CSPAN, all of them, especially the ones that are in it for the money. And they should get their licenses jerked if they don't. Let someone else suck up the advertising bucks.

[hack89]

138. To ensure that both sides are heard

do you support giving the opposition equal time? Do you support the Fairness Doctrine?

[bemildred]

142. I'm talking about open government, surveillance of the government, not free speech.

If I had to consider that sort of question, free speech, I am very much in favor of everyone having an equal right to speak, but I don't know how you ensure that everyone gets their own private propaganda outlet, except on the Internet. I think eventually everything is going to be digital and over the network, and these questions will all go away, because everyone will have access. All the fighting is going to shift to whether Google is returning "fair" search results. We are already seeing that question come up.

I didn't think much of the fairness doctrine when we had it, there wasn't really much that was fair about it, it was a gesture in the direction of fairness, that was all, but it certainly made things worse when they took it away. But a lot of that, the further decay of our public political debate, had to do with allowing the media to flat out lie all day long with no consequences. It used to be that you could get in trouble if you lied too much, but now there are no rules at all. I think that was much more important than the end of the "fairness doctrine".

[demoleft]

10. Venezuela TV channels taken off air

Source: bbc

The Venezuelan government has taken six cable television channels off the air for breaking a law on transmitting government material.

The privately owned RCTV International, openly opposed to President Hugo Chavez, is one of those affected.

On Saturday the government had ordered RCTV to televise a government message, but the channel refused to comply.
...

Mr Chavez has in the past accused it of backing a coup attempt against him.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8477428.stm

---

no comment.

[Tabasco_Dave]

11. .

:popcorn:

[demoleft]

12. haha, yes. there'll be some discussion round here.

or maybe not.
we'll see. spare some popcorn for me.

[jefferson_dem]

29. No need for comment.

Chavez's shittiness speaks for itself. How any "progressive" ... or any rational person, for that matter ... can defend the fucking despot is beyond me.

[polly7]

62. I'll defend him, np. nt.

[Igel]

77. That answers "Who?"

The question was "How?" and probably wasn't intended ask about means (i.e., "in writing") or manner of action ("loudly") but causes and motives, or at least intellectual and moral justification.

[polly7]

100. I was struck by the how could 'any rational person' defend

him. I consider myself a very rational person. I will defend the actions he's taken (obviously despised by those who consider helping one's people with their own resources) in any case. That is all. Thank you.

[Judi Lynn]

40. Free Speech and RCTV in Venezuela

Free Speech and RCTV in Venezuela
Written by James Suggett
Tuesday, 22 May 2007 06:55

~snip~
The accusations of "restrictions on the freedom of speech", which appear frequently in the international media, are not only inaccurate, but also simply frightening. Frankly, the discrepancy between what is reported internationally and what is happening on the ground raises concern that even respected groups like Human Rights Watch, the BBC World News, and CNN are out of touch with the real struggles of social movements in the Global South.

In Venezuela, as in most democracies, the right to broadcast TV and radio are public commons, which belong in the hands of the public in some way. Since representative democracy is such a predominant political model at this point in history, democratically elected governments like the one in Venezuela are supposed to control the public communications commons. The government gives concessions to private parties to use these commons responsibly, and the government has the right to take them away in the public interest at any time.

The decision not to renew the concession to RCTV was made after a thorough investigation of their journalistic ethics including accuracy, objectivity, and their compliance with the Law on Responsibility in Television and Radio (which was denounced by Human Rights Watch for being a restriction of free speech).

Since 1999 RCTV has spread blatant lies and outlandish manipulations of information directly attacking Chávez. It has broadcasted sexually explicit and other inappropriate material in such violation of the law (652 cases) that any honest assessment leads to the conclusion that their journalism is an attack on public health and decency. Fox News is a kitten compared to RCTV.

Beyond this, RCTV were leaders in the 2-day coup in April 2002. This coup was not only one that used the military, but also the media. During the coup, RCTV cancelled their usual programs and broadcast a two-day string of black and white fuzziness, Hollywood movies, cartoons, and infomercials. This is widely confirmed by Venezuelans. When RCTV finally covered the coup, they reported that Chávez had signed his resignation and peacefully left his post as president after his supporters had opened fire on an innocent opposition march. The images RCTV broadcasted of the violence among the marchers were later proved to have been secretively arranged so to block from view the reality; pro-Chávez marchers were firing in self-defense after having been attacked by hidden gunmen. Meanwhile, their president had been violently kidnapped. RCTV`s action were part of a blatant and well-coordinated attempt by the major media to assist the coup leaders by blinding the public to what was actually happening.

Luckily, there is an extensive system of alternative media in Latin America which spread the message of the truth, and the Venezuelan people stormed Caracas and put their president back in power, along with the majority of the National Guard which did not support the senior officers who had planned the coup. The reporting was in fact much worse than Fox News reporting that Florida went to Bush in the 2000 Presidential election and covering up all the manipulations of the voter roles.

RCTV is well-known not only for constant dishonest anti-Chavez propaganda and a complete lack of dignified analysis, but for massive amounts of advertising for sex hotlines, pornographic programs back to back between 1 and 5am, and other behavior that was considered to be irresponsible and in violation of laws protecting children.

There remain approximately three other major stations which are entirely opposition-run and very similar to RCTV in their programming. Over the years since the coup, the Chávez administration has negotiated with these stations behind the scenes. The stations have agreed to curb a lot of their ridiculous anti-Chávez propaganda and sexually explicit programming, so as not to have their concession closed. RCTV was absolutely uncompromising, and subsequently, it lost its concession.

Arguments suggesting that Chávez is arbitrarily censoring those who criticize him are weakened by the fact that the opposition's message (that there is no freedom of speech in Venezuela) is pounded through the most prominent radio waves, the biggest TV stations, and through all major press every day of the week, even after Chávez´s management of media concessions.

Many Venezuelans who support Chávez criticize Chávez for negotiating with the TV stations which participated in the coup (and have awful programming). Many believe those stations should have been shut down - without compromise.

More:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/742/35/

[Igel]

78. Interestly, the debate has shifted.

It started off pointing out that the air waves are a public commons, and one that properly can be or should be controlled by the government since it belongs to the people. (The rest of the argument being that the government acts solely on behalf of the country's population and doesn't form a special interest or present a special interest but an all-inclusive commons. Or that one subset of people are politically and morally privileged.)

That's where your post stops. While I don't necessary buy it, it strikes me as an argument that can be reasonably made. It's limited and principled.

This action doesn't find justification in that argument. This is cable, a medium that is provided not by government or a natural resource but something that is manufactured and installed. Essentially it is saying that the government owns such means.

The argument has shifted from regulating and even controlling content over "air waves" based on their being a public resource regulating and even controlling some content that's directed to a mass market, even over private means.

This argument strikes me as harder to make. It starts losing any principled foundation and devolves to asking just how much regulation, how much control, and how small the market. The problem is that the answers to these questions stop having principled limits and start becoming one of gut feelings. Your gut feeling is no more valid than Chavez' or mine and once they form a collective they're as likely to stage a Velvet Revolution as they are lynch somebody "different" on trumped up charges.

[Kolesar]

135. thanks for keeping us apprised...eom

[Warren Stupidity]

15. Good. I'm happy when right wing fucktards get some tough love. nt.

[Imajika]

18. So, the ends justify the means...

...if it is done to "rightwing fucktards"?

How about if the new right wing leader in Chile finds himself in political trouble and starts taking left wing channels off the air? Would that be acceptable?

We're apparently talking about cable channels here by the way, not regular broadcast channels on the public airwaves (which was his previous excuse for shutting down free speech).

Basically, Chavez is just shutting down all opposition media, and it is quite sad to watch the Chavez Cheerleading squad on DU applauding him all the way.

It is pretty clear that for some, free speech and an organized opposition is not something to be defended if it opposes politicians they like. Chavez has shown he stripes very clearly, but because he is a socialist, some will support anything he does.

Mugabe had his defenders here too way back when. Where are they now? Chavez is going down the same path.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. In this specific case absolutely.

RCTV aided and abetted the CIA sponsored coup against the democratically elected government. The fact that the persons involved are still walking around outside of jail is astonishing.

But I agree that it would have been better to just starve RCTV out of business a la Air America rather than to pull the plug on a mere violation of law. Obviously Chavez doesn't care much what Fox News and the rest of our lockstep corporate controlled media that passes for freedom of the press here are going to say about this, nor what the usual greek chorus of rightwing posters on DU have to say about it.

RCTV violated a law knowing the consequences. Oh well... one less gang of rightwing loudmouth bombarding Venezuelans with their bullshit. There are plenty of others.

[demoleft]

34. "rightwing posters on DU" - haha, since when defending freedom of speech is rightist?

and since when government-controlled media is better than corporate-controlled media?
i hate both, imagine!

[Warren Stupidity]

36. elsewhere you claimed you post negative shit about Venezuela

because you are insulted by his anti american free speeching that apparently floods the airwaves so yes indeed I doubt your motives and most of the other usual suspects.

[demoleft]

39. no. in GD i posted in response to OP, who asks why we often have an interest in chavez.

and i said it's not our obsession, but chavez' obsession to attack US lately.
which yes, has me tired.

here it is: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7558539

i answered the OP with no "shit".
again here as there - wash your mouth.

[Judi Lynn]

43. Living in Italy as you claim, you have a superior view of how news should be handled, don't you?

Italian TV accused of censoring furore over Berlusconi

Sophie Arie in Rome The Guardian, Saturday 5 July 2003 16.45 BST

Italian television stations were embroiled in a row over censorship yesterday as critics complained that coverage of Silvio Berlusconi's row in the European parliament had been deliberately "softened and cut".

"We Italians live in a world apart. Just turn the television on and you'll see," the left-leaning Repubblica newspaper said in an editorial.

Rather than showing the "mad vulgarity" of the prime minister's concentration camp "joke" in parliament on Wednesday, news bulletins on state television and Mr Berlus coni's three private channels had "hidden and censored" coverage, said the Repubblica editorial writer Curzio Maltese.

While coverage elsewhere in the world centred on Mr Berlusconi's offensive remarks - made as the prime minister took the helm of the European presidency - news programmes in Italy presented the incident as a vicious attack by Martin Schulz, leader of the German socialists in the Strasbourg assembly, which provoked the jibe.

One evening news show on Radio Televisione Italiana (RAI), dubbed over the prime minister's voice as he delivered the joke that prompted uproar in the assembly and led to diplomatic protests from Berlin.

More:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/jul/05/italy.europeanunion

Leftists apparently have a hell of a time living up to your lofty standards.

~~~~~~~~~

Censorship 'award' for Berlusconi
Free speech campaigners last night awarded a gong to the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, "for services to censorship".

Judges of the second annual Freedom of Expression awards, held in London by Index on Censorship, said he was putting "unprecedented powers of censorship into practice". They expressed alarm that "media, man and government" was "all wrapped up in the single person of Italy's prime minister".

More:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-22-2002-15160.asp
(© Guardian News & Media 2008
Published: 3/22/2002)

~~~~~~~~~
Wikipedia on Silvio Berlusconi:

Influence on the media

Berlusconi's extensive control over the media has been widely criticised by both analysts<59> and press freedom organisations, who allege Italy's media has limited freedom of expression. The Freedom of the Press 2004 Global Survey, an annual study issued by the American organization Freedom House, downgraded Italy's ranking from 'Free' to 'Partly Free' <60> due to Berlusconi's influence over RAI, a ranking which, in "Western Europe" was shared only with Turkey (as of 2005). Reporters Without Borders states that in 2004, "The conflict of interests involving prime minister Silvio Berlusconi and his vast media empire was still not resolved and continued to threaten news diversity".<61> In April 2004, the International Federation of Journalists joined the criticism, objecting to the passage of a law vetoed by Carlo Azeglio Ciampi in 2003, which critics believe is designed to protect Berlusconi's reported 90% control of the Italian national media.<62>

Berlusconi's influence over RAI became evident when in Sofia, Bulgaria he expressed his views on journalists Enzo Biagi and Michele Santoro,<63> and comedian Daniele Luttazzi. Berlusconi said that they "use television as a criminal means of communication". They lost their jobs as a result.<64> This statement was called by critics "Editto Bulgaro".

The TV broadcasting of a satirical programmme called RAIot was censored in November 2003 after the comedienne Sabina Guzzanti, made outspoken criticism of the Berlusconi media empire.<65> Mediaset, one of Berlusconi's companies, sued RAI over Guzzanti's program, demanding 20 million euros for "damages"; in November 2003 the show was cancelled by the president of RAI, Lucia Annunziata. The details of the event were made into a Michael Moore-style documentary called Viva Zapatero!, which was produced by Guzzanti.

Mediaset, Berlusconi's television group, has stated that it uses the same criteria as the public (state-owned) television RAI in assigning a proper visibility to all the most important political parties and movements (the so-called 'Par Condicio') - which has been since often disproved.<66><67> In March 2006, on the television channel Rai Tre, in a television interview with Lucia Annunziata during his talk show, In 1/2 h, he stormed out of the studio because of a disagreement with the host journalist regarding the economic consequences of his government.<68> In November 2007, allegations of news manipulation caused the departure from RAI of Berlusconi's personal assistant.<69>

Enrico Mentana, the news anchor long seen as a guarantor of Canale 5’s independence, walked out in April 2008, saying that he no longer felt “at home in a group that seems like an electoral (campaign) committee” <70>

On 24 June 2009, Silvio Berlusconi during the Confindustria young members congress in Santa Margherita Ligure, Italy has invited the advertisers to interrupt or boycott the advertising contracts with the magazines and newspapers published by Gruppo Editoriale L'Espresso,<71> in particular the newspaper la Repubblica and the newsmagazine L'espresso, calling the publishing group "shameless",<71> because is fueling the economic crisis speaking more and more about it and accusing also to make a subversive attack against him to replace with an "un-elected".<72> The publishing group has announced to begin legal proceedings against Berlusconi, to protect the image and the interests of the group.<72>

On 12 October 2009, Silvio Berlusconi during the Confindustria Monza and Brianza members congress, has again invited the industrialists present to a "widespread rebellion" against a "newspaper that hadn't any limits in discrediting the government and the country and indoctrinating foreign newspapers".<73>

In October 2009, Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard declared that Berlusconi "is on the verge of being added to our list of Predators of Press Freedom", which would be a first for a European leader. He also added that Italy will probably be ranked last in the European Union in the upcoming edition of the RWB press freedom index.<74>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Influence_on_the_media

[demoleft]

48. in italy berlusconi controls media, exacly as chavez wants. paradoxical, isn't it? ;)

never claimed what you say, judy linn.
i just replied to the accusation that i'm a rightwinger there.

[Judi Lynn]

50. How would you know what Chavez wants? Hasn't anyone explained slowly to you

that nearly ALL the outlets in Venezuela are privately owned, and are still blasting away their constant anti-Chavez blather, gibberish, and outright lies 24/7, year after year?

The problem with right wingers is that they don't have the ability to do much research to support their views, as there ISN'T anything respectable which DOES support them, so the best they can do is to try to disrupt the conversations Democrats, leftists, progressives attempt to have among themselves.

[demoleft]

51. oh, so i am a right-winger to you. :) ok, i leave you pure "democrats, leftists...

...progressives" discuss freely.
sorry for annoying you ;)

ah, have a look at my journal. see there what kind of rightwinger i am, you angel of justice.

[Overseas]

75. The way the story is reported, you would think there were no opposition channels remaining.

I didn't realize there were so many other sources of news and opinion broadcasting within Venezuela in opposition to the Chavez administration.

The story is pushed as though all dissent were shut down.

[Imajika]

35. Are you for real?

Seriously? Back to the 2002 coup? Chavez HIMSELF led a coup in 1992. If supporting a coup were the end all be all of the discussion, you shouldn't be supporting Chavez at all.

The rules RCTV violated were silly and you know it. Any government could make a bunch of half-baked, ridiculous laws and then punish someone for not abiding by them.

Lets say a Republican wins in 2012, god forbid, but for the sake of argument, let us assume Sarah Palin is our next President. Would you support this woman FORCING even cable channels to air all her endless inane blatherings? How many hours should they cover. What if she wants them to cover 12 hours of her propaganda each day?

These are cable outlets we are talking about. He can't even use the excuse of defending the public airwaves.

You, I, and everyone else knows he is just trying to get real opposition off the air. Oh, sure, he may leave some of the weaker opposition stations alone (though at this rate, he may not), but why would you support him picking and choosing what opposition to silence?

I think we both know the truth. For far too many here, and perhaps yourself, the ends justify the means. For those whom support "Bolivarian socialism", it is worth stomping on free speech and probably anything else in the hopes its goals are achieved.

You should remember that bad people come with leftist stripes as well. Both right and left have their share of tyrannical leaders. All should be opposed.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Ah that tired shit.

See Judi's excellent response to that crap. There is no equivalence. Where are all your posts about the profound and deadly human rights violations in rightwing Colombia?

[Imajika]

42. So, you can't refute what I say..

...so your answer is to point to Columbia? How about Honduras next?

This thread is not about those countries, it is about Chavez yanking opposition networks off cable TV.

What your falling back on is kinda like saying "Well, why should we give money to help alleviate the suffering in Haiti when things in Bangladesh are still horrible! Where is the outrage about Bangladesh".

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

[Wilms]

83. He did. But you're not listening/looking it up.

And it ain't the job of people to continually be expected to repost the same info. That is really disruptive to the conversation.

No. The world is not flat either. Look it up yourself.

[Pavulon]

59. And where are your FOIA released documentation on the "US" coup.

there is no backing information only speculation. It is possible but not a fact. We should always strive to separate fact from opinion. You know that thing fox news cant do.

Chavez. the us haarped haiti then invaded, is going to be in office for a LONG time. He is following the castro model. It will be interesting to see if his disciples defend him once he starts killing people. The pattern will only continue to get worse.

"send tanks to the border of colombia" rhetoric from him will eventually lead to problems.

[Wilms]

87. "see if his disciples defend him once he starts killing people"???

Grow up.

[Pavulon]

99. Just a matter of time..

they all do. will be interesting to see where the line is.

[Wilms]

101. How would that effect the financial interest that you have in VZ?

Bad for me because companies that do business there now have to pay more for our goods. - Pavulon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4229651

[Pavulon]

102. Lets see, unless they stop pumping oil

it has zero impact on my business of installing of CNC tools in shops all over the globe. Financial interest is a funny term, like you are trying to attack my credibility because I have actually been there and done business. What is your perspective, ever set foot there, ever left the united states?

[Wilms]

105. My perspective is that Chavez enjoys the support of the majority of the VZ people.

Minor detail.

[Pavulon]

106. So did hitler stalin and bush

so popular support is not everything in running a nation.

[Wilms]

108. Hitler, Stalin, and Bush are no comparison.

But, given your financial interest in VZ, it's not likely you can see clearly.

[Pavulon]

110. Sloppy tactic.

transparent and the last resort of a person who has no factual basis on which to stand. Your lunch was tasty. Try harder, I'll eat your dinner to.

[Wilms]

112. Sloppy is trying making the comparison you did.

Factual basis is my linking to your documentation of your financial interest in VZ.

You're out.

:hi:

[Pavulon]

113. Yes I have financial interests in the US, China, singapore, germany, the uk

france, hong kong, NSW australia, and canada and several other places in EME and APAC. So by your mental midget logic I can not comment on the foreign policy of any state where I have installed a CNC mill for money?

Mmm hope you eat breakfast, I'll take that from you too.

Ever been out of your home country pal? Done anything useful or interesting with your life?

[Wilms]

114. Comment all you want.

And I'll continue to point out your financial interests which you claim are harmed by the democratically elected leader of VZ.

The VZ people's interests are served before yours and that has you upset.

It makes me happy.

[Pavulon]

115. Feel free to flag yourself an ad hom idiot

all you want. My points are backed by fact or reason. You are attacking me based on stupidity. Classic tactic used by a loser.

Re read my post, I am harmed by devalued currency, in any nation that imports US equipment. Want to hurt you teeny brain an bit, I am also impacted by strong us dollar. When our stuff costs more than that sold by germany people buy german tools. A weak dollar actually helps my international business.

The fact remains the idiocy of hugo chavez in on an upswing, you will find defending him harder and harder. Kinda like the 20% who always defended bush. Cant stop stupid.

That is the point, not your shuck and jive distraction.

[Wilms]

116. You've backed up your comparisons of Chavez with mass murderers?

To freerepublic standards, surely.

And I'm not attacking based on your stupidity. That's regrettable, but understandable.

But I'll continue to point out that you think your financial interests trump those of the majority of VZ citizens.

[Pavulon]

117. What a web we weave

I posted the names of government officials who were elected, like the last president of the US, who made bad policy decisions. Elections dont screen out stupid people. I believe mugabe was elected too.

Point out whatever you like. Be sure to post that in EVERY thread because I have financial interests in the US too.

You want to call me a fweeper. How original. Because I dont slobber over a guy who is centralizing power and becoming increasingly stupid I am a freeper. This is not chavez underground friend.

I am busy designing a better earthquake weapon too. You know, so the US can invade one of the poorest places on earth and take their mangoes.

Ever left the US? Ever done anything with your life worth a shit. I have, and am happy to eat the lunch of a pissant who claims the US is invading haiti while saving lives.

[Judi Lynn]

125. More info. on your deceitful allusion to an "earthquake weapon" claim by Chavez.

Hugo Chavez Did Not Accuse the U.S. of Causing the Haitian Earthquake
Andronex (284 posts) Sun Jan-24-10 05:50 PM

On January 19, Spanish newspaper ABC, a newspaper of record in Spain, published a story entitled "Chavez Accuses US of Causing Earthquake in Haiti."

The story was quickly picked up by websites around the globe -- most quoting Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as saying the U.S. used a new tectonic weapon to induce the Haitian earthquake. This was, according to Chavez -- "only a drill, and the final target is destroying and taking over Iran."

Within the actual story, ABC noted that the information came from an obscure opinion post on the website of a Venezuelan state television channel, VIVE Television. The post referenced a supposed Russian military report on American seismic weapons.

All quotes subsequently attributed to Chavez regarding Haiti and earthquake weapons were in fact direct quotes from this web posting -- none of which was ever uttered by Chavez.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/media250110.html >

Editorials:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x513047

[Pavulon]

132. You mean the battleground in haiti

not letting the gringoes win... that hugo? Where we invaded?

[ronnie624]

122. "Your lunch was tasty...I'll eat your dinner to"

Not. Even. Close.

I love watching him kick your ass.

[Pavulon]

131. right up until he got to that thread on iran.

then it all falls apart. funny when the mask slips.

[WriteDown]

66. What are your feelings on Mercedes? nt

[cali]

21. every channel in the U.S. should have to carry every word uttered by

President Obama or they will be taken off the air. You do support that, right?

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Nope. Then again that is not the law.

But mostly I don't care for the boosting of rightwing propaganda here on DU.

[cali]

28. facts are not right wing propaganda

I find you blind adherents to any dogma puzzling. You don't seem to understand that one can support much of what Chavez does and criticize other things.

[pretzel4gore]

81. we're not blind...

Hugo is heroic in that he defies an almost implacable enemy of all humanity ie the 'reactionary right' which, to put it simply, is the greatest evil in history, and needs to be expunged, or the planet and god and life itself will die. Yes President Chavez has flaws, as did Gensec Stalin, but really....omelates require the breaking of a few eggs!

[Warren Stupidity]

103. "every utterance" is not a fact, it is bullshit you made up

to bolster your case. You could stick to the facts, and ignoring the factual history of RCTV, and the other fact that there remain a plethora of rightwing opposition media outlets barraging venezuela with their rightwing viewpoint, you could make a case that this is a terrible outrage against free speech. Instead you have to descend to bullshit to prop up your argument and in doing so undermine your own position.

[Dr.Phool]

58. I will persolly be happy when they stop broadcasting.....

Every utterance and speech given by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. I'm so sick of seeing Amy Goodman on the news every night. It's a wonder the government can function at all.

Where are all the real Americans like Dick Cheney, and Mitch McConnell?

[Imajika]

16. Even cable stations removed now eh?

But I thought Chavez was only targeting media using the public's airwaves? Why cable channels now?

And please, enough with the "they supported the coup in 2002". It just sounds so silly considering Chavez himself attempted a coup in 1992.

The DU Chavista's will excuse virtually anything he does, but it is pretty clear now to sane people that this guy is an anti-Democratic clown who will do anything he has to do to hold on to power.

Venezuela will not be turned into a Bolivarian utopia, instead it is headed towards a violent civil war pitting the people against a tyrannical leader who used democracy to get into power and then attempted to shut down those levers of democracy in order to stay in power.

[Mudoria]

17. +1

[dipsydoodle]

26. Don't believe everything

you think.

[Judi Lynn]

31. As most of us know, the President against whom he lead a coup ordered a massacre, El Caracazo,

during which he ordered his police, many of whom refused to comply, and walked off the job, and then his military to fire directly into crowds of poor Venezuelans who were protesting his evil price increase of their heating oil, food, and public transportation upon which most poor people relied to get to their jobs. They were furious and panic stricken, they protested, and they DIED.

President Carlos Andres Perez was later impeached for his gross corruption, bribery, and imprisoned, himself.

It's so easy for right-wingers to spew that "coup" crap, when they assume no one ever will know the circumstances. Unlike Republican trash, real Democrats want to know the truth.

[sabbat hunter]

41. so a military coup

is acceptable as long as the leader of the coup claims to be a leftist?

[Judi Lynn]

44. Who said that? What I said speaks for itself. n/t

[Imajika]

45. Why yes, I do believe that is how they justify it...

I am quite sure the anti-Chavez coup leaders in 2002 had a whole laundry list of claims about how Chavez was destroying the country. Therefore, by their way of thinking, their coup was also justified.

In fact, that Chavez is now reduced to having to yank opposition cable TV stations might even lend credence to their claims.

The bottom line is, the DU Cheerleaders support Chavez because he is "their" ideologue. They support the guy because he is a socialist and agree with his world view. All of their feigned outrage at what rightwing leaders do (see Columbia and Honduras) should be taken with a grain of salt, because the truth is, if "their" leaders do the same thing in the name of socialism it would be okay.

Most of the DU Chavez support group crowd also adore Castro. Again, virtually anything is okay if it is in the name of ideology they support. No matter how you slice it, that is the truth of the matter.

[naaman fletcher]

47. great post. /nt

[Robb]

56. I think you've got it.

Not all, of course, but many fit in what you describe.

It's impossible to ignore the good Chavez has done for the poor in his country. But it's easy for some to ignore the rest.

As we used to say, yes, the trains ran on time, but...

[COLGATE4]

63. Excellent post.

[jefferson_dem]

67. Truth.

I despise ideologues on the hard left or the hard right. Both are anti-thetical to the real "public interest."

Chavez <=> Bush. Same thing. They both suck equally.

[Flaneur]

92. Feigned outrage? Look in the fucking mirror.

You're bitching because the Venezuelan government took a coup-plotting TV station off the air--temporarily--because it refused to play by the rules. Meanwhile, thousands demonstrate against the government there without being repressed.

I guess I missed your posts about the Colombian government routinely assassinating labor leaders and murdering people and then dressing them in guerrilla uniforms. Or about the demonstrators shot down in Honduras.

I guess oppressed right-wing coup plotters are more deserving of your sympathies.

[creeksneakers2]

97. That's how I see it too.

They support Chavez no matter what.

[ronnie624]

124. I support democracy for the Venezuelan people,

and I support Chavez because he is the legally elected president of Venezuela.

Venezuelans are aware of the Chavez led attempted coup against their government, and a majority of them voted for him anyway (in elections with verifiable results, unlike those in the u.s.:-().

I wonder why most of the working class people of Venezuela are okay with the Chavez led attempt against the government in '92 (not really, I already know why). There must be a reason. Too bad you didn't explore the issue in your message, instead of spending most of it on oblique attacks against the character of other posters.

[PacerLJ35]

126. Accurate post...to the point. +1

[Matilda]

46. Please stick to the facts.

A tyrant, by definition, is an absolute ruler who is not restrained by
any law or constitution. Chavez leads a parliamentary democracy framed
by a constitution.

You say that Chavez "used democracy" to get elected - well, he certainly
did, and that makes him a democractically elected leader. How can that
be a problem?

How is he shutting down "the levers of democracy"? He hasn't suspended
the constitution, nor has he dismissed the parliament or the judiciary.
The people who did were the leaders of the 2002 coup against him; by
any criteria, that makes a regime illegal. As soon as Chavez was
restored to power, so were the Supreme Court and the parliament, along
with the constitution.

Emotional statements are no substitute for facts.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnie624]

123. The Venezuelan people are well aware of the coup of '92.

They elected Chavez, anyway (in highly monitored elections, unlike in the u.s.:-(). When the coup was attempted against him, the working class people poured into the streets by the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, demanding his return. If they're okay with the coup of '92, you have no cause to complain about it. It's their country, their president.

[Pavulon]

52. So they didn't carry dear leaders speech and got turned off

I mean that sounds fair. Any of you hangers on who have not figured this out yet have problems. It is clear where he is going.

[onehandle]

60. And lord high-poobah Chavez moves another few steps towards the rope he will be dangling from. nt

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Flaneur]

93. Let me try again: In your dreams...

[newfie11]

65. Now if he could just get rid of fox here n/t

[Andronex]

68. From a different perspective...

Mérida, January 22nd 2010 (Venezuelanalysis.com) –

On Thursday, Venezuela’s National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) released a list of cable television companies that will be subject to the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, marking an expansion of the law’s jurisdiction over television broadcasters.

The law, known by the acronym RESORTE, establishes standards for child and adult programming, prohibits inflammatory content such as incitement riot or assassinate the president, places limits on commercial advertising, and requires stations to broadcast important government announcements.

When the law was passed in 2004, it applied only to companies holding public broadcasting concessions. Last July, CONATEL announced that cable broadcasters would undergo review and be subject to the law if 70% of their content and overall operations could be considered “national,” meaning Venezuelan.

<snip>

RCTV, owned by media mogul Marcel Granier, supported the coup d’état against President Chavez in April 2002 by broadcasting false and manipulated images, showing Hollywood movies and other unrelated material while the coup was underway, and by welcoming the installment of the coup regime.


<http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5095>

[Joanne98]

69. YAY

[PacerLJ35]

70. Being critical of Chavez is not "right wing"

Imagine if Bush required all TV channels to air his speeches...and the more liberal channels like MSNBC refuse, and their plug is pulled, along with KO and other shows that were highly critical of him. How convenient, eh? Imagine if Bush had tried to ram legislation through a GOP-dominated Congress that gave him more powers (well, he actually DID do that) and also sought to remove limitations on his elected term? Think anyone on here criticizing such moves could be called "right wing"?

I'm sorry, but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. I've seen far-left people lie just as bad as the far right (look at the stuff regarding Haiti). Some people need to get it through their head...just because someone says they are "socialist" or "for the people" doesn't make it so. Mao, Stalin, Lenin...all those monsters said the same thing. Hell, even Hitler got ELECTED by saying he was for the working German man in the beginning. Look were that got them. Interestingly enough, all those people I just mentioned believed freedom of speech "deserved a punch in the mouth", as one poster stated. When our freedom to say what we like disappears, we've truly lost something very valuable to our society.

Being in the military, I have many friends that are conservative or even die-hard GOPers. I disagree with many of them...but I value their opinions because no one is entirely correct. To feel that you are is quite an arrogant thing, indeed.

[Enrique]

73. supporting a coup is not "being critical"

tell me, if a TV network took part in a coup in the U.S., and the government regained control, would our government allow that network to continue?

[Igel]

86. I actually liked one comment.

They supported the coup, in part, by broadcasting irrelevant material.

So here's how it goes:
You support the coup, bad.
You ignore the coup, bad.
You work against the coup, good.

You're good because you're actively engaging and doing your civic duty, which consists in supporting the government.

The people support the government. The people are the government. The government is Chavez. If you don't support Chavez, you're not part of the people. If you're not one of the people, you're not really a person. If you're not a person, you're a cockroach. The government should eradicate vermin.

"Who cares who they come for first or second? As long as they come for the cockroaches before they come for me, great!"

[PacerLJ35]

118. Did they merely broadcast opinions and statements supportive of the coup? Or did they plan it?

If this network actively planned/executed the coup, then I'd say they stepped over the line. If they merely voiced support for the coup, that is free speech.

Considering Chavez is just now shutting this outfit down, I'm guessing it was the latter, because if they actively participated in the coup (ie, by participate, I mean actually plan and execute it, not sit on the sidelines cheering for one side or the other) they would have been shut down ASAP.

[ChangoLoa]

128. Those questions will not be answered unless there is a trial

People have been asking for it since the coup. Somehow, the judicial system didn't take actions when the government talked about amnesty without making it official/legal, nor explaining who was concerned by it. 8 years ago. RCTV did support the coup. Direct involvement? I don't know. We could consider that a TV station which supports a coup is committing a crime and I would probably agree. But I need to see a trial, I need the institutions to answer, even if an amnesty is decided by the executive.

[PacerLJ35]

137. A trial for simply voicing support for a coup? Really?

If that's the case, you'd have to arrest and "try" a large chunk of the Venezuelan population, if that's the only requirement for indicting someone and charging them with a crime.

Again, those who actually attempted to detain government personnel and assume positions within the government is one thing. Those simply saying "I agree with this" is entirely a different thing.

[WriteDown]

136. And what are your feelings on Volkswagen and Porsche? nt

[Peace Patriot]

71. Good riddance to RCTV. I wish we could de-license ALL of the corpo-fascist 'news' monopolies here.

The fascist propaganda, brainwashing, psyops, disinformation, lies, distortions, warmongering, and evilly manipulative news, opinion and other programming-- to make us look like (and think of ourselves as) a rightwing nutball nation--that these corporate monopolies are perpetrating upon our people, day in and day out, is absolutely unconscionable, and absolutely not in the public interest. It is anti-democratic.

We have every right to demand balanced political coverage, a wide spectrum of opinion, good public access and large slots of public interest programming from both broadcasters and cable corps. We furthermore have the right, as a sovereign people, to bust up corporate monopolies, corporate conglomerates and multinational corporations, whatever their business here, but especially if their business is brainwashing the public.

Corporations have NO RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH! And they have absolutely no right to monopolize the airwaves or cable.

People who have this kneejerk response that de-licensing a CORPORATION somehow does damage to "free speech" are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Look at the bigger picture. Do we have anything even close to "free speech" for most people in this country, on TV/radio? Does the corporate media PERMIT views on TV/radio that challenge their power?

And, speaking of coups, quite frankly, I think that our corporate 'news' monopolies colluded in at least two rightwing coups here--in 2000 and 2004--and should be de-licensed for it. I wish to God that we, the people, had the power to do that. We certainly have the right.

As for Chavez and his weekly TV show, I wish Obama would do that here--sit down and talk to the people, extemporaneously, as Chavez does, on a weekly basis, and take callers, and chew over the issues. And I would be for requiring that this be broadcast on our public airwaves and cable. It would be good for us. It would be in the public interest.

There is one thing you can't accuse Chavez of, and that is being an UNKNOWN, being unvetted by the Venezuelan people--speaking only in controlled press conferences and prepared speeches. He is out there. He chats up a storm, on his TV show and wherever he goes. They know who he is.

Finally, I want to point out--since Thomas Jefferson was mentioned above--that Thomas Jefferson at one point proposed government funding of newspapers, not to control them, but to insure a wide spectrum of opinion, and to prevent the rich from controlling the press. That's all they had, in those days--newspapers. They didn't have TV/radio. Jefferson was more committed to free speech than anybody. He thought that the presses and the paper and other elements of newspaper production should be provided free from the government, with no interference from government on content--to insure free speech. Applying that principle today--in the field of broadcasting, which is even more dangerous to the public good when it is monopolized by huge corporations--we should un-privatize this medium altogether, or severely limit the licenses granted to commercial entities, and fund a whole new category of broadcaster--not-for-profit public groups--who are funded by our taxes, given the mission of expanding our political and social discussion, as well as providing art/entertainment, and could who earn their license by their commitment to public interest broadcasting.

I remember, in the 1960s, when the networks felt obliged to cover ENTIRE political conventions, and convention committee hearings and caucuses, and much else. Now they have shrunk these events down to a few canned speeches. They and our political overlords have conspired to make political conventions boring, and to reduce public involvement and interest in them. They really ought to be required to shut down all other programming for a good period of time before every election, and broadcast only candidates and issues.

We have that right. Corporations DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT to deny it to us. They operate in this country by our sovereign PERMISSION--both as businesses and as broadcasters. We can require anything we want of them or they don't get a license to do business here.

Turn the telescope around, friends, and gaze over the landscape of our shrunken political universe. Our democracy is in great trouble. And one of the reasons is that we do NOT have anything like real free speech here.

We need a remedy. We need to tip way the other way for a while, with OUR government--and it is ours, you know, in theory anyway--actively encouraging true free speech and actively repressing and disbanding corporate media monopolies.

[hack89]

139. Freedom through repression?

interesting way to promote civil rights - suppress all those that have different ideas than you. Do you also share St Hugo's love of military pageantry?

[earthlite]

72. Too bad this cant be done to FOX

Then silence Limbaugh's "golden microphone"

[hack89]

90. Would you grant the same power to a RW government? nt

[creeksneakers2]

98. Thank God it can't be done to Limbaugh and Fox

We are terribly fortunate to have free speech in this country.

[PacerLJ35]

119. Agreed...even if I don't like what they say, they have a right to say it

There's a difference between stating your opinion or voicing support for one political entity or another, versus actually taking action to take down an elected government. Saying you support someone who does isn't the same as actually doing it. RCTV might have said many things that piss people off, and it might have cheered along those involved in the coup, but that isn't a crime...or at least it shouldn't be.

Always think of these situations if the roles were reversed...ie, if Chavez was an ultra-right wing leader instead of a leftist.

[Codeine]

109. Fuck that.

I defend freedom, even for assholes.

[jwirr]

74. Good it is most likely some oil baron in the USA trying to get the

people pissed at Hugo. There's oil in them thar hills now you know.

[struggle4progress]

91. Venezuela Applies Media Social Responsibility Law to Cable Channels

Mérida, January 22nd 2010 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – On Thursday, Venezuela’s National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) released a list of cable television companies that will be subject to the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, marking an expansion of the law’s jurisdiction over television broadcasters.

The law, known by the acronym RESORTE, establishes standards for child and adult programming, prohibits inflammatory content such as incitement riot or assassinate the president, places limits on commercial advertising, and requires stations to broadcast important government announcements.

When the law was passed in 2004, it applied only to companies holding public broadcasting concessions. Last July, CONATEL announced that cable broadcasters would undergo review and be subject to the law if 70% of their content and overall operations could be considered “national,” meaning Venezuelan.

Minister for Public Works and Infrastructure Diosdado Cabello, who is also director of CONATEL, said on Thursday that 105 channels were classified as national, while 164 were classified as international. Over the past month, CONATEL invited all cable broadcasters to present their case for classification as either national or international, but only 24 companies responded, said Cabello ...

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5095

[Warren Stupidity]

104. "requires stations to broadcast important government announcements."

The horror. The shame. How is this possible?

[Pavulon]

111. Reminds me of some book I read..

will be interesting how far you guys will back the man.

[rayofreason]

121. What was that about...

...some animals being more equal than others?....

Never mind. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[devilgrrl]

120. They have Fox News in Venezuela?

:popcorn:

[boppers]

133. They *HAD* (past tense) Fox news in Venezuela.

Freedom of the press is not something Bolivarians believe in.

[devilgrrl]

134. Neither do Americans apparently...

:popcorn:

[Odin2005]

129. I see the Totalitarians are out in this thread.

Just because you don't like message and don't like the motives of the messenger that is no excuse to silence others.

[Poll_Blind]

140. Exposé of fledgling commie dictatorship or sour grapes from the world's largest, failed, Democracy?

Those curious to learn more about who Chavez is, why he is so reviled by the right and how he made an almost unheard-of return to the seat of government after being overthrown by a US-backed coup are encouraged to view an extraordinary documentary which was being filmed before the coup, during the coup and after his return to power by the people. This break of luck for the Irish documentary crew has yielded an internal view of something most only read about. Highly interesting, whatever your final assessment may be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id--ZFtjR5c">Chavez: Inside the Coup (full, free documentary)

It covers in detail how the television stations like RCTV were integral in fomenting the revolution and violence that ensued. Especially germane to this article.

PB

[Poll_Blind]

141. Ha! RCTV DIRECTLY thanked by Chavez coup plotters. Coup general speech recorded at RCTV...

...presenter's house.

First, the link to the video:The Revolution Will Not Be Televised - Chavez: Inside the Coup

Fast forward to 43:00 minutes into the film. From 43 minutes to about 43 minutes, 45 seconds.

PB