|
Wikileaks Cables Reveal U.S. Embassy Works with Venezuelan Private Media
By Tamara Pearson - Venezuelanalysis.com
Mérida, September 6th 2011 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – The U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, Patrick Duddy, met with Venezuelan private media companies El Nacional, Globovision, and the Cisneros Group, to discuss their political content with them and El Nacional asked the U.S embassy for funding, according to cables written by the U.S embassy in Caracas and published by Wikileaks.
Duddy met with the 2002 coup supporting channel, Globovision, and with private newspaper El Nacional on 17 and 19 February 2010, and documented the meeting in a cable written that month and released by Wikileaks on 30 August 2011, classified as secret and titled, “Globovision Owners Acknowledge Defeat: El Nacional on the Ropes?”
El Nacional told the embassy that it had allegedly lost “advertising revenue from companies that had either been nationalised or been threatened by the (Venezuelan government)” and asked “the Ambassador whether the U.S. could provide (it with financial) assistance.” The newspaper said it was reaching “the end of its financial rope” and predicted that it could be out of business by April of that year (2010).
The El Nacional representative (whose name is blacked out) said El Universal had also lost advertising revenues, “over 14%, with the recent nationalisation of Exito (supermarket chain)”.
The U.S embassy cable reads, “To keep El Nacional alive, XXXXXXXXXXXX asked the Ambassador whether the Embassy knew of services of private financing they could approach outside the country*, or failing that, if the USG (U.S. government) could be persuaded to help.”
El Nacional currently still circulates on a daily basis.
A Globovision representative, their name also blacked out in the cable, alleged that Venezuelan government officials had pressured them to “tone down Globovision's strongly anti-Chavez orientation” and talked about “buying time” until the National Assembly elections (which took place in September last year), saying “If Chavez wins, we are all gone.” The pro-Chavez party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, did win a majority in those elections, and Globovision remains fully on air.
According to lawyer and journalist Eva Golinger, Globovision has a special agreement to transmit the program “La Voz de America” (The Voice of America), which is financed and supervised by the U.S government.
“Its objective is to promote pro-U.S propaganda in Latin America. For 2011, the U.S congress approved a multimillion budget in order to transmit the thirty minute program five days a week in Venezuela, supposedly to counteract the anti-US propaganda by the Venezuelan government,” Golinger said.
Another cable, written and released on the same dates, classified confidential and titled, “Venevision Seaks ‘Balance’ in News Coverage” related a meeting between Ambassador Duddy and the largest private media conglomerate in Venezuela, the Cisneros Group, which owns free to air television station Venevision, as well as phone company Digitel, several news websites, radio stations, the Miss Venezuela pageant, and Coca-Cola FEMSA Venezuela. Duddy alleged in the cable that “some in the opposition” claim that Venevision has made “backroom agreements” with the government to water down its criticisms and “avoid retaliation”.
However, as the cable details, during the meeting between the U.S. embassy and the Cisneros Group, which took place at Venevision headquarters on 10 February 2010, the television channel denied any government deal or self-censorship.
Carlos Bardasano, representing Venevision, said, according to the cable, that due to “the highly polarised atmosphere in the country, Venevision strives for objective and neutral news coverage.”
“He said the station's coverage tends to be approximately 60% opposition and 40% pro-government by content, with the ultimate goal of achieving a 50/50 balance.”
In the cable the ambassador is not impressed with Venevision’s “objective” stance. “The Ambassador reminded Venevision executives that should Globovision be closed, Venevision would have to carry the banner of freedom of expression”.
Context: Media power and influence in Venezuela
Eleazar Rangel, editor of highest circulating and private newspaper in Venezuela, Ultimas Noticias, said at a forum in New York last year that, “What’s not published in Venezuela is what media owners don’t want published”. He also said no one had ever offered any evidence of news not being published in Venezuela because of government pressure.
According to Rangel, in Venezuela, “there are currently between 90 and 100 newspapers, of which 80 percent side with the political opposition...and of AM radio stations, at least 400 broadcast the content of outlets that have assumed the role of directing the (political) opposition.”
Further, according to research by Mark Weisbot and Tara Ruttenberg, of CEPR, as of September 2010, Venezuelan state TV channels had just a 5.4% audience share. Of the other 94.6% of the audience, 61.4% watched privately owned television channels, and 33.1% watched paid TV.
Coordinator of the Global Media Observatory in Venezuela, Maryclen Stelling, said, “Venezuelan media outlets have stopped publishing information and have instead dedicated themselves to producing their own realities,” adding that it was possible to talk about the creation of “media parties” in Venezuela.
At the end of last year, after the above cables were written and meetings took place, the Venezuelan National Assembly modified its media social responsibility law. The main changes consisted in including internet news services as media, and requiring the broadcast of at least 50% nationally produced television during prime hours.
In general, Venezuela’s media laws are similar to those of most countries, and media can broadcast what it likes, as long as it does not incite hate, criminal activity, war propaganda, homicide, or the disobeying of constitutional authority.http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6469(Creative Commons license posted at the bottom of the page.) (My emphasis.) --- *(CIA slush funds?) -------------------------------------- Lula da Silva was right when he said, in his final speech in office, "The U.S. has not changed." We should be wary of these cables, though, because they could well be hiding some deeper realities. They are "confidential" not "top secret" (and, thus, someone like U.S. Amb. Duddy would be well aware that they could be leaked.) Duddy, for instance, could have been tongue-in-cheek when he writes that the El Nacional representative asked "if the USG (U.S. government) could be persuaded to help” with money for the newspaper. It's quite possible that both the Bush Junta and the Obama administration have been funding not just rightwing journalists and rightwing groups and causes (we know they are) but also rightwing newspapers and TV/radio stations. It would not surprise me in the least. Duddy may, in reality, be asking for MORE such funding. And this statement of his is hilarious: "In the cable the ambassador is not impressed with Venevision’s 'objective' stance. 'The Ambassador reminded Venevision executives that should Globovision be closed, Venevision would have to carry the banner of freedom of expression'."He wants Venevision to STOP being so objective in order "to carry the banner of freedom of expression"! Ergo, "freedom of expression" = RIGHTWING OPINION. Didn't we, um, elect a Democrat here? Jeez. ----------------------------- CONTEXT: At one time, in this country, balanced news coverage in the use of our public airwaves was THE LAW. It was called the Fairness Doctrine, and it worked to keep private corporations from using political news coverage to propagandize for their private financial interest. TV/radio news/opinion was REQUIRED to be objective, and this, in turn, influenced print newspapers and news magazines (which were not regulated) to also keep their news/editorial divisions separate from their business divisions. The goal was GOOD journalism and FAIR political coverage. This was considered especially important on the broadcast airwaves because they invade every home and have such power to brainwash the public. That brainwashing power--especially of TV, with its appeal to eyes and ears and the passivity of viewers--was considered DANGEROUS to democracy. This was THE LAW from the beginning of television broadcasting, until the Reagan regime got rid of it. It also included busting media monopolies--to prevent private media corporations from gaining too much power, and included an "equal time" provision. If a broadcaster advocated a political policy, they were REQUIRED to provide "equal time" to the OPPOSITE view. With regard to the media, the Chavez government has done nothing more and nothing less than try to implement a Fairness Doctrine policy in Venezuela. The transglobal corporate media monopolies have gotten so out of control, with their power and propagandizing in their financial interest, that they portray fairness as "anti-free speech." In reality, they say "it's not fair" that they can't advocate the overthrow of the government on TV, and falsify video footage to support a rightwing coup d'etat, and deny Chavez government officials the right to speak to the country in the midst of a coup, and stomp on the Chavez government, 24/7, on every channel, with no one else able to say anything. "It's not fair!" But good government DOES NOT PERMIT such misuse of the public airwaves. It is OKAY that the Chavez government is working for fair and balanced political coverage. It was once our own policy--in an era when we had good journalism! And it was the "centrist" position in the U.S., agreed to by both political parties. Not until the Reagan far rightwing extremists took over did we lose the RIGHT to balanced news coverage on OUR PUBLIC airwaves.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
