This is the "cadena" (all-station legally mandated broadcast) that RCTV, now reduced to a cable station, refused to show and got suspended for refusing to show. Gee, don't you wonder why they refused? Well, here's a broad hint: The reality you see above doesn't fit with their crapagandic agenda. This is the opening of the "Admirable Campaign" for the Venezuelan congressional elections--a gigantic rally in O'Leary Square in Caracas. As you can see, the Chavistas totally rule; they've got a real campaign going. Admirable? Yep, it's that.
And the oppos? Well...let's just say this is as good as their campaign will get.
Showing posts with label RCTV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RCTV. Show all posts
Friday, January 29, 2010
Monday, August 20, 2007
Venezuela's RCTV: An Instrument of the CIA?
Venezuelanalysis.com
The president of Venezuela's RCTV, Eladio Larez, is no stranger to the CIA. In fact, Eladio's contact with the agency goes back nearly twenty years. Back in 1989, Larez helped the CIA funnel money through Venezuela to the Nicaraguan opposition as they worked to topple the Sandinista government through massive violence and destabilization. Larez was actually so kind as to set up a fraudulent foundation in Venezuela, called the National Foundation for Democracy, as a front organization to receive money from the CIA and pass it on to fund the operations of a major opposition newspaper in Nicaragua.[1]
"As a journalist," Larez said to his Nicaraguan counterparts, "I understand the problems with freedom of expression in these countries and the necessities and difficulties with written and spoken media."[2] A few weeks later, Larez' friend and political ally Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez would order the national army to fire on innocent protesters killing hundreds, possibly thousands, of activists in the streets of Caracas. Larez' RCTV helped mask the reality by not televising images of the massacre.[3]
Likewise, on April 13th, 2002, after RCTV and other Venezuelan media supported and participated in a coup d’etat against President Hugo Chavez, as many as sixty pro-Chavez protesters were shot down by the temporary government of Pedro Carmona.[4] RCTV refused to broadcast the violence, instead playing cartoons and soap operas as people were killed in the streets of the capital.[5]
Apparently, Larez' fictitious concerns about "freedom of expression" haven't changed much over the years. One has to wonder though, might his relationship with the CIA not have changed either? A look at Larez' role in the CIA's destabilization of Nicaragua sheds some light on how Eladio Larez and his RCTV are using the same methods in Venezuela.
Nicaragua’s La Prensa: A model for Venezuela’s RCTV
In the same year that the Sandinista rebels overthrew the brutal, decades-long dictatorship of the Somoza family in 1979, the U.S. State Department was already searching for a way to avoid any significant changes in the country and create what they referred to as “Somocismo without Somoza”.[6] In the years of Sandinista rule that followed, the United States and the CIA tried nearly every strategy at their disposal, including all out violence and warfare through U.S. aided “counter-revolutionary” forces called the “contras”, in order to undermine, destabilize, and eventually topple the revolutionary Sandinista regime. The use of the media would be a critical element in the campaign.
In its attempts to create a hostile media atmosphere, the United States aided, created, and financed media outlets both inside and outside Nicaragua in order to shape public opinion and destabilize the Sandinista government. In the early years, the CIA broadcast into Nicaragua from radio stations in neighboring countries like Honduras, and gave financial assistance to existing opposition radio stations inside Nicaragua. But later, the United States eventually set up its own station inside the country called Radio Democracia with money from the CIA’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The mission, according to the director of the station, would be to “offset the [Sandinistas’] instruments for consciousness formation.”[7] This was logical, after all, since a conscious population might not agree with Washington’s plans for “Somocismo without Somoza.”
The most important media for the U.S., however, would be the well-known opposition newspaper La Prensa. From the very beginning of the Sandinista government, the Managua daily received millions of dollars in payments from the CIA and NED, much of it funneled covertly through third-party connections like Eladio Larez and the Venezuelan government of President Carlos Andres Perez.
Larez met with La Prensa owner, and Washington’s preferred candidate for the 1990 elections, Violeta Chamorro, the year before the elections to set up a fraudulent foundation to receive money from the CIA, and pass it on to the opposition newspaper.[8] According to one document, Larez’ front organization, the National Foundation for Democracy, “would probably not actually have to serve as a pass-through other than on paper.”[9]
Larez collaborated in, and witnessed first hand, the U.S. efforts to orchestrate the Nicaraguan opposition media campaign and to promote the opposition candidate. Their efforts would allow the United States to “buy” the 1990 Nicaraguan elections for the opposition as explained by California Congressman George Miller: “We have taken Mrs. Chamorro and we pay for her newspaper to run, we funded her entire operation, and now we are going to provide her the very best election that America can buy," he said.[10]
CIA assistance enabled the paper to play a key role in the campaign against the government; the same role, in fact, that the CIA had cultivated in other countries that were victims of destabilization programs. The El Mercurio newspaper in Chile, for example, had played the same role in the CIA operation against the Allende government in 1973, as had the Daily Gleaner in Jamaica against the Manley government in 1980.[11] The media could be a very useful tool in getting rid of popular, yet “undesirable,” governments. In Venezuela, Eladio Larez’ RCTV appears to be playing that very same role.
Destabilizing Venezuela
In the few years I have been observing the media in Venezuela, there has been one aspect of RCTV news coverage that has really stuck out: everything centers on the president. On a daily basis, from morning to night, RCTV news coverage and political talk shows seem to tie every single problem in the country back to the Chavez government.
Interestingly, this strategy appears to be straight out of the CIA handbook, and was implemented in the same fashion against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. One CIA manual used by anti-Sandinista groups instructed them to determine “the needs and frustration of the target groups” and to channel them into “generalized anti-government hostility.” The goal was to make the population identify the current government as “the cause of their frustration,” according to the manual, and believe that these frustrations could only be gotten rid of with the elimination of that government.[12] Linking all the problems in the country back to the central government, or even the president himself, is the strategy used to create general anti-government hostility and frustration.
In Venezuela, crime, corruption, kidnappings, strikes, unemployment, poverty, problems with infrastructure, and general inefficiencies are always blamed directly on the central government or even the president himself, almost as if none of these problems ever existed before Hugo Chavez, and as if his government was the only possible cause. The kidnapping and murder of three children in 2006, for example, was used for months on end to criticize the Chavez government, as was the collapse of a major bridge near Caracas the same year. Even an increase in the nation’s homicide rate has literally been attributed to “the president’s fiery rhetoric.”[13]
And nearly every person interviewed by RCTV almost always has some message or other for the president of the country, even if the issue at hand is simply a hole in the road, or a flooded street. The complaints of the common citizen seem to be frequently directed to President Chavez himself. It seems likely that RCTV does this on purpose, presumably by asking their interviewees if they have anything to say to the president, then airing their response in order to create a direct connection between local problems in communities and the central government. By channeling all problems back to the Chavez government, the media creates the image that Hugo Chavez is the root “cause of their frustration.”
The United States also used a whole variety of other covert psychological operations in destabilizing Nicaragua and waging an informational war against the government. These involved manipulating and paying off journalists, planting disinformation and propaganda, and influencing international coverage of the country. As one U.S. official admitted, the media war in Nicaragua sought to “demonize the Sandinista government” in order to “turn it into a real enemy and threat.”[14]
This appears to be the identical strategy used in Venezuela. Recent revelations have also shown that some of the principal journalists from the Venezuelan opposition have received payments from the U.S. government in recent years,[15] and U.S.-funded organizations frequently make press releases and call for press conferences to make public criticisms of nearly every policy decision of the Chavez government.
On a constant basis, the U.S. State Department releases propagandistic reports to the international press criticizing the Venezuelan government on everything from drug enforcement, to human rights, to corruption. These reports pretend that Venezuela has a worse record than previous Venezuelan governments or even Venezuela’s neighbors including, for example, U.S.-allies such as Colombia with much worse human rights situations.[16]
Opposition media like RCTV work in unison with the U.S. propaganda effort and give unwavering coverage to U.S. reports and denunciations from U.S.-funded organizations like Sumate, or Primero Justicia. Government opponents are given almost daily coverage to make accusations of political persecution, threats to democracy, curbed freedoms, and economic problems, over and over again week after week, year after year. As William Robinson says in his book about the Nicaraguan destabilization, A Faustian Bargain:
“Like worn-out records, the themes of a lack of democracy in Nicaragua, political repression, persecution of the church, economic disaster, militarization, the export of revolution, and so forth, were repeated on a daily basis during the course of a decade.”[17]
All of this, with opposition media like RCTV consistently putting all the blame on the government, comes together into a very effective “demonizing” of Hugo Chavez. For many Venezuelans as well as U.S. citizens, the media campaign has managed to duplicate the strategy in Nicaragua and “turn [Hugo Chavez] into a real enemy and threat.”
“Crackdown” on freedom of expression
If the principal function of the La Prensa newspaper in Nicaragua was to destabilize the Sandinista government, one of the ways it did this was by creating the image that freedom of expression had suffered repression under the Sandinista government. Although there were other newspapers and opposition media in the country, La Prensa attempted to create the impression that it was “Nicaragua’s only independent newspaper,” and tried to appear as a victim of an authoritarian government. As William Robinson explains:
“La Prensa’a activities are a textbook study in how a psychological warfare organ operates. In this role, La Prensa worked closely with U.S. Embassy personnel in Managua and coordinated its editorial policy in unison with overall U.S. strategy and the contra war. When the Sandinistas tried to curb the excesses in La Prensa’s openly destabilizing activities through limited censorship, the issue was pounced on as evidence of their ‘anti-democratic tendencies’.”[18]
Since the beginning of the Chavez government, private media like RCTV have continuously accused the government of “repressing” the private media and have even claimed they are paying “armed groups” to attack journalists. None of these accusations were ever accompanied by evidence or supported by the facts, but the media did not cease their claims.
The more recent strategy of RCTV, however, seems amazingly similar to the strategy used in Nicaragua. After Hugo Chavez announced last year that he would not renew RCTV’s broadcast license when it expired on May 27th of this year, RCTV made every effort possible to appear as a victim of an “authoritarian” regime. And exactly as Nicaragua’s La Prensa had done, RCTV claimed the government was repressing the “only independent media” in the country.
For months leading up to the May 27th deadline, the RCTV news programming completely centered around what they referred to the “closing” of the channel, and the “silencing of opposition.” Never did they mention, however, that the station would not be closed, but would simply go off the nation’s VHF spectrum and could continue to broadcast by cable.
The private channel, along with the opposition political parties (many of whom are funded by the U.S. State Dept.), organized public events, political marches, and street protests building up to May 27th, which was to be the climax of several months of protest and “resistance” to the “closure.” The street protests on and around the final days leading up to the deadline were used by RCTV and the international media to claim the Chavez government was “cracking down” on “independent” media, and “repressing freedom of expression.” Isolated protests among certain sectors of the population were made to appear like a massive protest movement against a repressive regime.
Surprisingly, this “protest movement” was not unique to Venezuela. A very similar event in Nicaragua, organized with the help of the U.S. Embassy, had been used to create the image of a “burgeoning protest movement” against the Sandinistas. When a joint embassy-opposition activity ended in violence between police and protesters, the Sandinista government arrested many people and accused the CIA of organizing the incident to provoke violence. The incident was described as “repression” of civil liberties and a “Sandinista crackdown” in the U.S. and international press.[19]
Months later, the Sandinista accusations were confirmed when Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Jim Wright affirmed that Congress “had received clear testimony from CIA people that they had deliberately done things to provoke an overreaction on the part of the Government of Nicaragua.” The goal had been “to provoke a riot or antagonize [Sandinista] officials.”[20]
Video of the protesters in Nicaragua show that they had initiated the violence by attacking the police just as RCTV protesters seemed to have intended the same when they attacked a police line in front of the National Telecommunications Commission two months ago.[21] And RCTV protesters tended to dress alike, using T-shirts and apparel distributed by RCTV and opposition political parties. The protesters in Nicaragua did the same, according to video footage, dressing in light colored guayabera shirts and dark pants.[22]
All of this is eerily similar to the section on “urban insurrection” in the CIA’s Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare manual used by anti-Sandinista forces. In the section dedicated to how to organize urban disturbances, the manual advises insurrectionary forces to dress alike so that they can easily identify each other and situate themselves strategically before they are incited to “violently confront the government” by a political ‘cadre’ in the crowd. When this political “cadre” has created “great hostility against the regime,” the conditions are ripe for the overthrow of the government, says the manual.[23] Not only is this very similar to the strategy of RCTV protesters during the May 2007 protests, but also of the opposition marchers who were urged on by RCTV during the April 2002 coup attempt that temporarily overthrew the Chavez government.
A little more than a month after RCTV finally went off the air on May 27th, the channel began to broadcast in Venezuela again two weeks ago, this time over cable and satellite. But, again, the channel immediately caused problems when it refused to follow the national media regulations that require all national media to broadcast government public-service messages as well as the national anthem on a daily basis. A new conflict was created with the government when RCTV asserted that it did not have to follow national law claiming that it was now an “international” channel with its administrative office located in Miami. The Venezuelan government responded warning RCTV that if it did not follow national law, they would be forced to take them off the air once again.[24]
Repeating the strategy used by La Prensa to create conflict with the government and then claim repression when the government responds, RCTV used the situation to initiate another campaign claiming “repression” of “independent media”, and an “attack on freedom of expression.” Other private and international media joined in, but none ever mentioned the fact that the private media’s freedom to make these accusations was evidence enough of the complete freedom of expression in the country.
If the actions and strategy of the opposition in Nicaragua, and the CIA-financed newspaper La Prensa are any indication, it is apparent that RCTV is following the very same strategy of destabilization used by the CIA in other countries. As the CIA manuals and documents demonstrate, along with the evidence documented in William Robinson’s book A Faustian Bargain, La Prensa was an important instrument in the CIA destabilization of Nicaragua, and, with the help of Eladio Larez, the campaign eventually succeeded in overthrowing the Sandinista government.
In Venezuela the CIA’s goal is the same, and RCTV appears to be playing the same role. Although to date there is no documented evidence that RCTV is receiving any significant CIA funding, Eladio Larez’ previous connections to the agency seem to make it a likely possibility.
Chris Carlson is a freelance journalist and activist living in Venezuela. See his personal blog at: www.gringoinvenezuela.com
CovertAction Information Bulletin, #34, Summer 1990
William Robinson, "A Faustian Bargain: U.S. Intervention in the Nicaraguan Elections and American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era", pg. 246
According to testimony from witnesses of the media coverage of the “Caracazo” massacre in February 1989, RCTV and other private media did not show the reality of events during and after the massacre. Footage taken from those days shows that the channels continued with normal commercial broadcasting. In editorials made by Eladio Larez on live television in the days surrounding the massacre he praises the efforts of the government for bringing a “rapid end to the crisis.”
Human Rights Watch, Informe Annual 2003 Venezuela, New York, 2003, http://www.hrw.org/spanish/inf_anual/2003/venezuela.html
During the popular uprising of Chavez supporters following the coup of April 11th 2002, RCTV and other private media declared that they would not show images that could “cause harm to the stability of the country.” Instead, RCTV and other private media broadcast entertainment programs despite demands from people in the streets to cover the popular rebellion taking place in the country.
U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States spoke in favor of installing “Somocismo without Somoza.” That is, keeping the same basic political and economic system, but without the Somoza dictator. From Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants,?Odonian Press, 1993 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Nicaragua.html
CovertAction Information Bulletin, #34, Summer 1990
In the Appendix to his book, Robinson shows an internal La Prensa fax from Cristina Chamorro, Violeta’s daughter, in which she describes their meeting with Eladio Larez and the plan to set up the foundation in Venezuela, pg. 247
Robinson, pg. 93
George Miller, (D- CA): "We are going into this election process [spending] $1 billion dollars. We funded the Contras, we have destroyed [Nicaragua's] economy, we have taken Mrs. Chamorro and we pay for her newspaper to run, we funded her entire operation, and now we are going to provide her the very best election that America can buy." Congressional Record (House), October 4, 1989, p. H6642.
Robinson, pg. 79
Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, The CIA’s Nicaragua Manual, a manual prepared by the CIA for the contras. (New York: Vintage Books, 1985). pg. 70
Opposition media and political groups have frequently made the claim that Venezuela’s increased homicide rate is a result of the president’s “hateful language” (lenguaje de odio) and that he is “planting hate” (sembrando odio) in the society.
Robinson, pg. 77
“Documents Reveal U.S. Effort to Influence Venezuelan Journalists,” Venezuela Analysis, May 26th, 2007, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2309
See the 2006 U.S. human trafficking report or the 2006 U.S. human rights report in which Colombia and Mexico are praised for their “progress on human rights” while Venezuela is condemned as “outside the democratic norm.” Or recent U.S. drug reports that again praise U.S. allies like Colombia and Mexico while condemning Venezuela for “not cooperating” with U.S. officials. See the 2007 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2007/, and U.S. State Department report: Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2006, Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd/2006/80591.htm
Robinson, pg. 71
Robinson, pg. 80
Robinson, pg. 43
U.S. House of Representatives Jim Wright, New York Times, September 20, 1988
“Protests For and Against RCTV Continue in Caracas,” Venezuela Analysis, May 28, 2007, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2311
Robinson, pg. 43
Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, pg. 80-90
El Universal, “CHACÓN: REGISTRO DE RCTV INTERNACIONAL ANTE CONATEL ES UN REQUISITO EXIGIDO POR LA LEY,” Sunday, July 29th, 2007. http://www.eluniversal.com/2007/07/29/pol_ava_chacon:-registro-de_29A907283.shtml
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. -- Edward R. Murrow
www.milfuegos.net
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President and Vice President.
The president of Venezuela's RCTV, Eladio Larez, is no stranger to the CIA. In fact, Eladio's contact with the agency goes back nearly twenty years. Back in 1989, Larez helped the CIA funnel money through Venezuela to the Nicaraguan opposition as they worked to topple the Sandinista government through massive violence and destabilization. Larez was actually so kind as to set up a fraudulent foundation in Venezuela, called the National Foundation for Democracy, as a front organization to receive money from the CIA and pass it on to fund the operations of a major opposition newspaper in Nicaragua.[1]
"As a journalist," Larez said to his Nicaraguan counterparts, "I understand the problems with freedom of expression in these countries and the necessities and difficulties with written and spoken media."[2] A few weeks later, Larez' friend and political ally Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez would order the national army to fire on innocent protesters killing hundreds, possibly thousands, of activists in the streets of Caracas. Larez' RCTV helped mask the reality by not televising images of the massacre.[3]
Likewise, on April 13th, 2002, after RCTV and other Venezuelan media supported and participated in a coup d’etat against President Hugo Chavez, as many as sixty pro-Chavez protesters were shot down by the temporary government of Pedro Carmona.[4] RCTV refused to broadcast the violence, instead playing cartoons and soap operas as people were killed in the streets of the capital.[5]
Apparently, Larez' fictitious concerns about "freedom of expression" haven't changed much over the years. One has to wonder though, might his relationship with the CIA not have changed either? A look at Larez' role in the CIA's destabilization of Nicaragua sheds some light on how Eladio Larez and his RCTV are using the same methods in Venezuela.
Nicaragua’s La Prensa: A model for Venezuela’s RCTV
In the same year that the Sandinista rebels overthrew the brutal, decades-long dictatorship of the Somoza family in 1979, the U.S. State Department was already searching for a way to avoid any significant changes in the country and create what they referred to as “Somocismo without Somoza”.[6] In the years of Sandinista rule that followed, the United States and the CIA tried nearly every strategy at their disposal, including all out violence and warfare through U.S. aided “counter-revolutionary” forces called the “contras”, in order to undermine, destabilize, and eventually topple the revolutionary Sandinista regime. The use of the media would be a critical element in the campaign.
In its attempts to create a hostile media atmosphere, the United States aided, created, and financed media outlets both inside and outside Nicaragua in order to shape public opinion and destabilize the Sandinista government. In the early years, the CIA broadcast into Nicaragua from radio stations in neighboring countries like Honduras, and gave financial assistance to existing opposition radio stations inside Nicaragua. But later, the United States eventually set up its own station inside the country called Radio Democracia with money from the CIA’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The mission, according to the director of the station, would be to “offset the [Sandinistas’] instruments for consciousness formation.”[7] This was logical, after all, since a conscious population might not agree with Washington’s plans for “Somocismo without Somoza.”
The most important media for the U.S., however, would be the well-known opposition newspaper La Prensa. From the very beginning of the Sandinista government, the Managua daily received millions of dollars in payments from the CIA and NED, much of it funneled covertly through third-party connections like Eladio Larez and the Venezuelan government of President Carlos Andres Perez.
Larez met with La Prensa owner, and Washington’s preferred candidate for the 1990 elections, Violeta Chamorro, the year before the elections to set up a fraudulent foundation to receive money from the CIA, and pass it on to the opposition newspaper.[8] According to one document, Larez’ front organization, the National Foundation for Democracy, “would probably not actually have to serve as a pass-through other than on paper.”[9]
Larez collaborated in, and witnessed first hand, the U.S. efforts to orchestrate the Nicaraguan opposition media campaign and to promote the opposition candidate. Their efforts would allow the United States to “buy” the 1990 Nicaraguan elections for the opposition as explained by California Congressman George Miller: “We have taken Mrs. Chamorro and we pay for her newspaper to run, we funded her entire operation, and now we are going to provide her the very best election that America can buy," he said.[10]
CIA assistance enabled the paper to play a key role in the campaign against the government; the same role, in fact, that the CIA had cultivated in other countries that were victims of destabilization programs. The El Mercurio newspaper in Chile, for example, had played the same role in the CIA operation against the Allende government in 1973, as had the Daily Gleaner in Jamaica against the Manley government in 1980.[11] The media could be a very useful tool in getting rid of popular, yet “undesirable,” governments. In Venezuela, Eladio Larez’ RCTV appears to be playing that very same role.
Destabilizing Venezuela
In the few years I have been observing the media in Venezuela, there has been one aspect of RCTV news coverage that has really stuck out: everything centers on the president. On a daily basis, from morning to night, RCTV news coverage and political talk shows seem to tie every single problem in the country back to the Chavez government.
Interestingly, this strategy appears to be straight out of the CIA handbook, and was implemented in the same fashion against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. One CIA manual used by anti-Sandinista groups instructed them to determine “the needs and frustration of the target groups” and to channel them into “generalized anti-government hostility.” The goal was to make the population identify the current government as “the cause of their frustration,” according to the manual, and believe that these frustrations could only be gotten rid of with the elimination of that government.[12] Linking all the problems in the country back to the central government, or even the president himself, is the strategy used to create general anti-government hostility and frustration.
In Venezuela, crime, corruption, kidnappings, strikes, unemployment, poverty, problems with infrastructure, and general inefficiencies are always blamed directly on the central government or even the president himself, almost as if none of these problems ever existed before Hugo Chavez, and as if his government was the only possible cause. The kidnapping and murder of three children in 2006, for example, was used for months on end to criticize the Chavez government, as was the collapse of a major bridge near Caracas the same year. Even an increase in the nation’s homicide rate has literally been attributed to “the president’s fiery rhetoric.”[13]
And nearly every person interviewed by RCTV almost always has some message or other for the president of the country, even if the issue at hand is simply a hole in the road, or a flooded street. The complaints of the common citizen seem to be frequently directed to President Chavez himself. It seems likely that RCTV does this on purpose, presumably by asking their interviewees if they have anything to say to the president, then airing their response in order to create a direct connection between local problems in communities and the central government. By channeling all problems back to the Chavez government, the media creates the image that Hugo Chavez is the root “cause of their frustration.”
The United States also used a whole variety of other covert psychological operations in destabilizing Nicaragua and waging an informational war against the government. These involved manipulating and paying off journalists, planting disinformation and propaganda, and influencing international coverage of the country. As one U.S. official admitted, the media war in Nicaragua sought to “demonize the Sandinista government” in order to “turn it into a real enemy and threat.”[14]
This appears to be the identical strategy used in Venezuela. Recent revelations have also shown that some of the principal journalists from the Venezuelan opposition have received payments from the U.S. government in recent years,[15] and U.S.-funded organizations frequently make press releases and call for press conferences to make public criticisms of nearly every policy decision of the Chavez government.
On a constant basis, the U.S. State Department releases propagandistic reports to the international press criticizing the Venezuelan government on everything from drug enforcement, to human rights, to corruption. These reports pretend that Venezuela has a worse record than previous Venezuelan governments or even Venezuela’s neighbors including, for example, U.S.-allies such as Colombia with much worse human rights situations.[16]
Opposition media like RCTV work in unison with the U.S. propaganda effort and give unwavering coverage to U.S. reports and denunciations from U.S.-funded organizations like Sumate, or Primero Justicia. Government opponents are given almost daily coverage to make accusations of political persecution, threats to democracy, curbed freedoms, and economic problems, over and over again week after week, year after year. As William Robinson says in his book about the Nicaraguan destabilization, A Faustian Bargain:
“Like worn-out records, the themes of a lack of democracy in Nicaragua, political repression, persecution of the church, economic disaster, militarization, the export of revolution, and so forth, were repeated on a daily basis during the course of a decade.”[17]
All of this, with opposition media like RCTV consistently putting all the blame on the government, comes together into a very effective “demonizing” of Hugo Chavez. For many Venezuelans as well as U.S. citizens, the media campaign has managed to duplicate the strategy in Nicaragua and “turn [Hugo Chavez] into a real enemy and threat.”
“Crackdown” on freedom of expression
If the principal function of the La Prensa newspaper in Nicaragua was to destabilize the Sandinista government, one of the ways it did this was by creating the image that freedom of expression had suffered repression under the Sandinista government. Although there were other newspapers and opposition media in the country, La Prensa attempted to create the impression that it was “Nicaragua’s only independent newspaper,” and tried to appear as a victim of an authoritarian government. As William Robinson explains:
“La Prensa’a activities are a textbook study in how a psychological warfare organ operates. In this role, La Prensa worked closely with U.S. Embassy personnel in Managua and coordinated its editorial policy in unison with overall U.S. strategy and the contra war. When the Sandinistas tried to curb the excesses in La Prensa’s openly destabilizing activities through limited censorship, the issue was pounced on as evidence of their ‘anti-democratic tendencies’.”[18]
Since the beginning of the Chavez government, private media like RCTV have continuously accused the government of “repressing” the private media and have even claimed they are paying “armed groups” to attack journalists. None of these accusations were ever accompanied by evidence or supported by the facts, but the media did not cease their claims.
The more recent strategy of RCTV, however, seems amazingly similar to the strategy used in Nicaragua. After Hugo Chavez announced last year that he would not renew RCTV’s broadcast license when it expired on May 27th of this year, RCTV made every effort possible to appear as a victim of an “authoritarian” regime. And exactly as Nicaragua’s La Prensa had done, RCTV claimed the government was repressing the “only independent media” in the country.
For months leading up to the May 27th deadline, the RCTV news programming completely centered around what they referred to the “closing” of the channel, and the “silencing of opposition.” Never did they mention, however, that the station would not be closed, but would simply go off the nation’s VHF spectrum and could continue to broadcast by cable.
The private channel, along with the opposition political parties (many of whom are funded by the U.S. State Dept.), organized public events, political marches, and street protests building up to May 27th, which was to be the climax of several months of protest and “resistance” to the “closure.” The street protests on and around the final days leading up to the deadline were used by RCTV and the international media to claim the Chavez government was “cracking down” on “independent” media, and “repressing freedom of expression.” Isolated protests among certain sectors of the population were made to appear like a massive protest movement against a repressive regime.
Surprisingly, this “protest movement” was not unique to Venezuela. A very similar event in Nicaragua, organized with the help of the U.S. Embassy, had been used to create the image of a “burgeoning protest movement” against the Sandinistas. When a joint embassy-opposition activity ended in violence between police and protesters, the Sandinista government arrested many people and accused the CIA of organizing the incident to provoke violence. The incident was described as “repression” of civil liberties and a “Sandinista crackdown” in the U.S. and international press.[19]
Months later, the Sandinista accusations were confirmed when Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Jim Wright affirmed that Congress “had received clear testimony from CIA people that they had deliberately done things to provoke an overreaction on the part of the Government of Nicaragua.” The goal had been “to provoke a riot or antagonize [Sandinista] officials.”[20]
Video of the protesters in Nicaragua show that they had initiated the violence by attacking the police just as RCTV protesters seemed to have intended the same when they attacked a police line in front of the National Telecommunications Commission two months ago.[21] And RCTV protesters tended to dress alike, using T-shirts and apparel distributed by RCTV and opposition political parties. The protesters in Nicaragua did the same, according to video footage, dressing in light colored guayabera shirts and dark pants.[22]
All of this is eerily similar to the section on “urban insurrection” in the CIA’s Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare manual used by anti-Sandinista forces. In the section dedicated to how to organize urban disturbances, the manual advises insurrectionary forces to dress alike so that they can easily identify each other and situate themselves strategically before they are incited to “violently confront the government” by a political ‘cadre’ in the crowd. When this political “cadre” has created “great hostility against the regime,” the conditions are ripe for the overthrow of the government, says the manual.[23] Not only is this very similar to the strategy of RCTV protesters during the May 2007 protests, but also of the opposition marchers who were urged on by RCTV during the April 2002 coup attempt that temporarily overthrew the Chavez government.
A little more than a month after RCTV finally went off the air on May 27th, the channel began to broadcast in Venezuela again two weeks ago, this time over cable and satellite. But, again, the channel immediately caused problems when it refused to follow the national media regulations that require all national media to broadcast government public-service messages as well as the national anthem on a daily basis. A new conflict was created with the government when RCTV asserted that it did not have to follow national law claiming that it was now an “international” channel with its administrative office located in Miami. The Venezuelan government responded warning RCTV that if it did not follow national law, they would be forced to take them off the air once again.[24]
Repeating the strategy used by La Prensa to create conflict with the government and then claim repression when the government responds, RCTV used the situation to initiate another campaign claiming “repression” of “independent media”, and an “attack on freedom of expression.” Other private and international media joined in, but none ever mentioned the fact that the private media’s freedom to make these accusations was evidence enough of the complete freedom of expression in the country.
If the actions and strategy of the opposition in Nicaragua, and the CIA-financed newspaper La Prensa are any indication, it is apparent that RCTV is following the very same strategy of destabilization used by the CIA in other countries. As the CIA manuals and documents demonstrate, along with the evidence documented in William Robinson’s book A Faustian Bargain, La Prensa was an important instrument in the CIA destabilization of Nicaragua, and, with the help of Eladio Larez, the campaign eventually succeeded in overthrowing the Sandinista government.
In Venezuela the CIA’s goal is the same, and RCTV appears to be playing the same role. Although to date there is no documented evidence that RCTV is receiving any significant CIA funding, Eladio Larez’ previous connections to the agency seem to make it a likely possibility.
Chris Carlson is a freelance journalist and activist living in Venezuela. See his personal blog at: www.gringoinvenezuela.com
CovertAction Information Bulletin, #34, Summer 1990
William Robinson, "A Faustian Bargain: U.S. Intervention in the Nicaraguan Elections and American Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era", pg. 246
According to testimony from witnesses of the media coverage of the “Caracazo” massacre in February 1989, RCTV and other private media did not show the reality of events during and after the massacre. Footage taken from those days shows that the channels continued with normal commercial broadcasting. In editorials made by Eladio Larez on live television in the days surrounding the massacre he praises the efforts of the government for bringing a “rapid end to the crisis.”
Human Rights Watch, Informe Annual 2003 Venezuela, New York, 2003, http://www.hrw.org/spanish/inf_anual/2003/venezuela.html
During the popular uprising of Chavez supporters following the coup of April 11th 2002, RCTV and other private media declared that they would not show images that could “cause harm to the stability of the country.” Instead, RCTV and other private media broadcast entertainment programs despite demands from people in the streets to cover the popular rebellion taking place in the country.
U.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States spoke in favor of installing “Somocismo without Somoza.” That is, keeping the same basic political and economic system, but without the Somoza dictator. From Noam Chomsky, What Uncle Sam Really Wants,?Odonian Press, 1993 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_Nicaragua.html
CovertAction Information Bulletin, #34, Summer 1990
In the Appendix to his book, Robinson shows an internal La Prensa fax from Cristina Chamorro, Violeta’s daughter, in which she describes their meeting with Eladio Larez and the plan to set up the foundation in Venezuela, pg. 247
Robinson, pg. 93
George Miller, (D- CA): "We are going into this election process [spending] $1 billion dollars. We funded the Contras, we have destroyed [Nicaragua's] economy, we have taken Mrs. Chamorro and we pay for her newspaper to run, we funded her entire operation, and now we are going to provide her the very best election that America can buy." Congressional Record (House), October 4, 1989, p. H6642.
Robinson, pg. 79
Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, The CIA’s Nicaragua Manual, a manual prepared by the CIA for the contras. (New York: Vintage Books, 1985). pg. 70
Opposition media and political groups have frequently made the claim that Venezuela’s increased homicide rate is a result of the president’s “hateful language” (lenguaje de odio) and that he is “planting hate” (sembrando odio) in the society.
Robinson, pg. 77
“Documents Reveal U.S. Effort to Influence Venezuelan Journalists,” Venezuela Analysis, May 26th, 2007, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2309
See the 2006 U.S. human trafficking report or the 2006 U.S. human rights report in which Colombia and Mexico are praised for their “progress on human rights” while Venezuela is condemned as “outside the democratic norm.” Or recent U.S. drug reports that again praise U.S. allies like Colombia and Mexico while condemning Venezuela for “not cooperating” with U.S. officials. See the 2007 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2007/, and U.S. State Department report: Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2006, Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/shrd/2006/80591.htm
Robinson, pg. 71
Robinson, pg. 80
Robinson, pg. 43
U.S. House of Representatives Jim Wright, New York Times, September 20, 1988
“Protests For and Against RCTV Continue in Caracas,” Venezuela Analysis, May 28, 2007, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2311
Robinson, pg. 43
Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare, pg. 80-90
El Universal, “CHACÓN: REGISTRO DE RCTV INTERNACIONAL ANTE CONATEL ES UN REQUISITO EXIGIDO POR LA LEY,” Sunday, July 29th, 2007. http://www.eluniversal.com/2007/07/29/pol_ava_chacon:-registro-de_29A907283.shtml
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. -- Edward R. Murrow
www.milfuegos.net
NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President and Vice President.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Granier não viu o 'Livro Branco sobre a RCTV'? (1)
ESCRITO POR JOSÉ CARLOS MOUTINHO
18-JUL-2007
O diretor-presidente da RCTV (Rádio Caracas de Televisão), Marcel Granier, foi entrevistado no programa “Canal Livre”, da Rede Bandeirantes de Televisão (Band), no dia 01/07. O “comunicador” venezuelano tentou passar para os brasileiros a imagem de um perseguido político. Os jornalistas da Band ficaram no trivial. Optaram por não incomodar muito seu colega de imprensa com questionamentos mais aprofundados sobre o vencimento (legal) da concessão da RCTV, a participação desta no golpe de Estado de 11 de abril de 2002, sobre financiamentos das multinacionais e programação inapropriada para as crianças, entre outros. A preocupação principal daquela espécie de convescote jornalístico era atacar o Governo Hugo Chávez. Não tiveram preocupação de analisar o direito constitucional do Governo da República Bolivariana da Venezuela sobre as concessões do espaço radiofônico. Como se faz no vôlei, os entrevistadores só se empenharam em levantar a bola para que ele cortasse. Levantaram a auto-estima do pobre ricaço.
Pautada pela corporação Ruppert Murdoch/Fox News Cannel, a Band manifestou seu nítido apoio àquele irresponsável comunicador. O “Canal Livre” deu a oportunidade para Granier mentir a vontade.
Granier disse, entre outras coisas, não ter recebido, nem visto o “Livro Branco sobre a RCTV”. Um dossiê elaborado pelo Ministério do Poder Popular para a Comunicação e Informação da Venezuela, que trás a luz do dia o obscurantismo daquela rede de televisão. Disse que sua televisão é democrática, que não participou do golpe contra Chávez. Mas não se conteve em manifestar sua repulsa, intolerância, arrogância e desrespeito pelo líder venezuelano.
A partir do presente artigo vamos trazer algumas importantes questões que Granier não quis que os brasileiros soubessem e nem os jornalistas da Band fizeram esforço para que ele dissesse. O “Livro Branco sobre a RCTV” é um libelo para a imprensa responsável e um míssil (no bom sentido) contra o conglomerado da mentira internacional e seus “afiliados”.
Caixa de ressonância
A posição submissa ao império da mentira internacional não é só uma qualidade da RCTV, pelo visto. É, também, do “Canal Livre” (Band), é da Globo, e de outras mais, que seguem a pauta exógena de tentar desqualificar o presidente da Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, e, paralelamente, a integração sul-americana. Tal orientação nada mais é do que a manifestação objetiva das instituições financeiras imperialistas contra a Revolução Bolivariana e o Mercosul. Os financiadores da invasão ao Iraque acusam o presidente venezuelano de agredir à liberdade de imprensa e expressão, de ser um presidente totalitário e ditador, um incômodo nos encontros de chefes de Estados. Tal linha editorial foi a tônica da entrevista de Granier no programa “Canal Livre”.
Existe um influente número de esclerosados no mundo (esses que figuram na revista “Fortune”) que só sabem contar dinheiro, checar seus longos extratos bancários. Vivem a vida toda contando dinheiro e tentando golpear os outros para ganhar mais e mais dinheiro. E há os gerentes ideológicos destes, que ganham algum dinheiro para ajudar os poucos biliardários a tomar posse das riquezas alheias e subverter a cultura de um povo. Para ajudar na identificação dos gerentes, são os Roberto Campos e os FHCs da vida, que tudo fizeram para acabar com a Era Vargas e pôr fim ao Estado brasileiro. Conseguiram entregar (a preço de banana) setores estratégicos, como a Vale do Rio Doce, as telecomunicações, o transporte de cabotagem. E há ainda os novos neoliberais, que hoje sonham fazer o mesmo com a Petrobrás, na medida em que estão aumentando cada vez mais o nível de internacionalização da estatal e exportando petróleo bruto como se fosse uma “commodity” qualquer. Estamos perto de ver todo lucro das nossas empresas (estatais ou privadas) esvaírem para o exterior. E o brasileiro que vá “catar coquinho” e plantar cana para os gringos.
Na Venezuela há os Granier e os Carmonas, que seguem a mesma lógica de seus homólogos brasileiros. Preferem ver aquele rico país caribenho curvado ante o capital estrangeiro. Acham que os anglo-saxãos são bons administradores, por isso, mantiveram, por longos anos, a PDVSA distante do povo e em estreito laços com os acionistas em Wall Street, que mamavam nas tetas daquela estatal venezuelana. Essa é a questão de fundo oculta nos debates sobre a liberdade de imprensa e expressão, não só na Venezuela como no Brasil e demais países. O direito de quem deve prevalecer: o da maioria do povo ou a minoria de serviçais do sistema financeiro internacional?
Tal alarde da mídia, questionando o direito legal de um Estado soberano, pode funcionar como uma tentativa de intimidação para evitar a não renovação de outras concessões, como por exemplo, as do setor petrolífero. Nós assistimos o caso da Bolívia. Mas podemos, também, um dia, que esperamos seja breve, assistir no Brasil, quando decidir pôr fim aos leilões de nossas bacias sedimentares, que concedem imensas áreas do território nacional às multinacionais. As multinacionais vão gritar (a mídia vai reforçar o grito) e o Brasil entrará para o “Eixo do Mal”.
Esses personagens, via as maçudas edições dos mega-jornais, TVs e rádios procuram denegrir as forças progressistas. Eles têm verdadeira antipatia pelas expressões “defesa da soberania nacional”, “Estado de Bem-estar Social”, “projeto de desenvolvimento nacional”, “empresas estatais”, “monopólio estatal do petróleo”, “reforma agrária”, “gastos sociais”, “distribuição de renda com justiça social”, “pleno emprego”, “investimentos nas Forças Armadas”, “sentimento de pátria”, entre outras. Dia e noite, ininterruptamente e subliminarmente, trabalham para distanciar o povo de tais princípios fundamentais para conformar a cidadania.
A mensagem dos oligopólios midiáticos é o individualismo: você tem vida curta, viva a vida, viva o agora, ganhe dinheiro rápido, diante do estresse e do desemprego leia livros de auto-ajuda, saiba economizar seu salário (se é baixo, foi devido a sua qualificação que não acompanhou o mundo globalizado), Carteira de Trabalho é coisa do passado, seja autônomo, não se misture aos sindicalistas e aos defensores da soberania nacional e do socialismo.
Goebbels global
O escritor Richard Neville, em seu artigo “La vida y los crímenes de un Goebbels global” (Rebelión.org, 12-09-06), citou um fato bastante didático sobre a “liberdade” da mídia internacional. Ele disse que a jornalista Serene Sabbagh (ex-Fox News) explicou o motivo pelo qual chegou ao limite com os bombardeios no Líbano. “Como mãe de três, contemplava as imagens, as imagens em carne viva de crianças arrancadas dos escombros, e logo distorcidas pela Fox News. E escutava alguns de seus apresentadores, que afirmavam que esses pequenos assassinados, essas vítimas inocentes assassinadas, eram escudos humanos utilizados pelo Hezbollah. E um dos apresentadores chegou a dizer que foram colocados ali para o Hezbollah ganhar apoio nesta guerra. Foi algo incrível. Para mim, foi o ponto de ruptura”.
Sabbagh e uma colega, ressaltou Neville, enviaram uma carta conjunta de renúncia à Fox News com os seguintes termos: “Vocês não são só um instrumento da Casa Branca de Bush, e da propaganda israelense, vocês incitam a guerra sem ter sentido de decência, nem de profissionalismo”. “Um veredito amplamente compartido”, sublinhou Neville. “Fox News tem tido repórteres correndo no norte de Israel para detalhar cada ataque com foguetes e cada mobilização israelense, no entanto tem mostrado pouco ou nenhum interesse em relação a qualquer coisa que acontece do outro lado da fronteira”, disse Andrew Gumbel ao jornal britânico “Independent”.
Essa é a qualidade da “liberdade de imprensa” que eles pretendiam (e pretendem) manter na Venezuela. Distorcer fatos. Por isso, gritam contra o encerramento da concessão da RCTV. Mas não gritam contra outras centenas de concessões que não foram renovadas pelo mundo, inclusive nos EUA, como vimos no nosso artigo “Venezuela quer imprensa responsável”. E na concorrência de tal gritaria, a Band, não querendo ficar para trás da Globo, correu para entrevistar seu colega de mídia, o diretor-presidente da RCTV, Marcel Granier.
Além do apresentador Joelmir Betting, participaram os jornalistas Fernando Mitre, Antônio Teles, Fernando Dias de Melo, e Marcelo Parada, vice-presidente da Band, responsável pela TV aberta.
Joelmir Betting fez uma apoteótica apresentação daquela edição do “Canal Livre”, com imagens pinçadas de funcionários da RCTV chorando, bem ao estilo “Domingão do Faustão”. Outras imagens projetavam o presidente da Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, fazendo contundente discurso (de uniforme militar e boina vermelha) chamando a RCTV de televisão fascista e avisando sobre a não renovação da concessão. Com a manipulação das imagens, a Band tentou engabelar os brasileiros ao projetar o enérgico presidente Chávez em contraste com os emocionados funcionários da RCTV.
Dizia a apresentação da Band: “O fim das transmissões emocionou os funcionários e levantou a discussão sobre a liberdade de expressão na Venezuela e em toda a América Latina. Os protestos se espalharam por todo o país. As medidas também afetaram as relações entre Brasil e a Venezuela. No início de junho o Senado brasileiro aprovou um requerimento em defesa do funcionamento da RCTV. Em resposta o presidente Hugo Chávez disse que o Congresso brasileiro agia como um papagaio do Congresso americano. O presidente Lula botou 'panos quentes' e disse que o presidente Chávez é parceiro do Brasil”. E a Band arrematou com uma alucinação: “A polêmica pode gerar conflitos na região”. “Hugo Chávez afirmou que está disposto a retirar o pedido de ingresso da Venezuela no Mercosul por causa da pressão do bloco contra o fechamento da RCTV”.
Joelmir, numa completa falta de respeito ao país vizinho e numa total paranóia, fez a pergunta que deu o tom daquela edição do “Canal Livre”: “Marcel Granier, a Venezuela estaria em contagem regressiva para a ditadura chavista?” E citou que tal processo teria três movimentos: presidência vitalícia de Hugo Chávez, a censura a toda liberdade de expressão e o partido único (acreditamos que seja uma alusão ao recém criado Partido Socialista Unido da Venezuela, que já tem mais de 5 milhões de filiados).
Marcel Granier, naturalmente, agradeceu muito a oportunidade e disse em tom absurdado disse que “a Venezuela está em marcha para um regime totalitário”. Afirmou que todos os Poderes na Venezuela são partidários do presidente Hugo Chávez. Disse que uma reforma constitucional está sendo elaborada secretamente, que há um clima de repressão policial, que Hugo Chávez tem sido muito aclamado pelo povo em geral (civil ou militar). Ele disse, mais absurdado ainda, que até os militares dão “vivas!” ao presidente Chávez.
Em resposta ao Fernando Mitre, que quis saber sobre a resistência ao presidente venezuelano, Granier disse que a oposição está planejando uma reação, mas que os partidos políticos estão em crise há muitos anos. Nesse sentido, o diretor-presidente da RCTV tem razão. Se de um lado os movimentos sociais (do povo) estão empolgados com a gestão de Hugo Chávez, de outro o movimento conservador realmente entrou em crise política, inclusive de desarticulação partidária. Isso talvez explique o fato de Granier ter reclamado tanto, durante a entrevista, que Chávez nunca se reúne com a oposição, nunca se reúne com os dirigentes sindicais, não se reúne com os intelectuais, e por aí foi.
Como pode o Sr. Granier querer tapear os brasileiros com tais afirmações de que um presidente, várias vezes reeleito, com milhões de pessoas nas ruas enfrentando os covardes tiros disparados pelas armas dos oposicionistas, não querer se reunir com as lideranças daquele país? Se a afirmativa do Sr. Granier fosse verdadeira (o que não é) estaríamos diante de um acontecimento incrível, sem igual no mundo. Ou seja, como Chávez teria conseguido tal façanha – ser reeleito diversas vezes, conseguir doação de vidas humanas (civis e militares) em defesa da Revolução Bolivariana? Como ele conseguiu tal feito sem sequer se reunir com as lideranças daquele país? Sem ouvir as lideranças, é algo impensável. Ou então, o presidente da RCTV tem um critério diferente de nós normais para definir “lideranças representativas”.
O vice-presidente da Band, Marcelo Parada, antes de dirigir nova pergunta ao Sr. Granier chamou este pelo título de presidente. E os demais jornalistas, como bons funcionários que são, também passaram a chamar Granier de presidente. Um tanto estranho, não é? Na linguagem popular isso significa “puxar o saco”. Parada: “Presidente, o senhor atribuiria essa perseguição do presidente Chávez ao seu canal de televisão, e ao senhor pessoalmente, o fato de que no golpe militar de 2002, que depôs o presidente Chávez por alguns dias, a sua rede de televisão teria se posicionado francamente a favor desse golpe?”.
E vem a mentira das grossas do “Goebbels” Granier: “Não é assim. É claro que meu canal de televisão não se posicionou em favor desse golpe, nem de nenhum outro golpe. Nossa televisão é uma televisão democrática”. Dá para acreditar? Não é o que diz o “Livro Branco sobre a RCTV”, que Granier, respondendo ao Fernando Mitre, disse não ter lido. É o que trataremos na nossa breve série de artigos.
Finalizamos este primeiro artigo introdutório, com uma importante pergunta do Fernando Mitre: “Presidente, o Ministério das Comunicações da Venezuela publicou um documento – o Livro Branco – que seria uma série de acusações à RCTV. Entre essas acusações estaria a ação objetiva da televisão apoiando o movimento golpista. Quais foram os movimentos que ocorreram no noticiário da televisão que o Governo Chávez considera golpista?”.
O “comunicador” venezuelano disse que, primeiro, foi devido o posicionamento crítico de sua televisão à concentração de poder do presidente Chávez. “Mas a publicação desse livro mostra como o governo venezuelano viola o Estado de Direito. Se o governo venezuelano tem alguma queixa sobre a RCTV ou de qualquer outra emissora (rádio, televisão) não tem que andar publicando livros. Ele tem é que iniciar um processo policial, que prevêem as leis, dando a oportunidade das emissoras se defenderem das acusações que se formulam. Esse documento é um documento parcial. (...) Não é nenhuma decisão administrativa, nem policial, e nenhum processo”. “Esse tal livro nunca nos foi entregue. Nós não vimos o livro. Nós não o recebemos. Entendo que ele circula em alguns meios, em alguns fóruns internacionais. Mas ele não tem nenhuma sustentação legal. E não estão permitindo a defesa de quem é acusado nesse livro”.
Granier não viu o Livro Branco? Então, como tece juízos sobre o petardo? Como pode ele arrogar-se no direito de dizer que o Governo da Venezuela, notadamente o Ministério do Poder Popular para a Comunicação e Informação, não tem que publicar livros? Granier é um tremendo arrogante. Ele não viu o livro? A publicação oficial (que é efetivamente o início de um processo, no qual a não renovação da concessão foi uma das sentenças) está disponível na internet, no portal do referido ministério. E mais: o livro é lido semanalmente pelo programa “La Trinchera”, na Emissora Comunitária ARTE 91,5 FM. Ele poderia ouvir essa rádio, seria educativo.
O livro foi publicado em março de 2007, bem antes de expirar a concessão da RCTV. Ou seja, houve tempo suficiente para o Sr. Granier ter lido o livro de 184 páginas. Mas ele pode estar falando a verdade, pode ser que não tenha lido. E se não leu está configurada a sua incompetência como administrador de uma concessão pública. Nós aqui do Brasil conseguimos baixar, com muita facilidade, nossa cópia, no formato PDF, gratuitamente, sem precisar preencher nenhum formulário de identificação. Está na primeira página do endereço eletrônico (http://www.conatel.gob.ve), do Ministério do Poder Popular para a Comunicação e Informação.
Os efeitos negativos do monopólio da comunicação
O “Livro Branco sobre RCTV”, em seu quinto capítulo, fala sobre a concentração das televisões privadas no espectro radiofônico, que, até 26/01/07, detinham 80% (UHF) e 78% (VHF). O livro lembra que a Declaração da Convenção Interamericana de Direitos Humanos da Organização de Estados Americanos (OEA), firmada em Washington declara: “Os monopólios ou oligopólios na propriedade e controle dos meios de comunicação devem estar sujeitos a leis anti-monopolistas por quanto conspiram contra a democracia ao restringir a pluralidade e diversidade que assegura o pleno exercício do direito a informação dos cidadãos. Em nenhum caso, essas leis devem ser exclusivas para os meios de comunicação. As concessões de rádio e televisão devem considerar critérios democráticos que garantem uma igualdade de oportunidades para todos os indivíduos no acesso aos mesmos”. Será um dos assuntos do próximo artigo Granier não viu o “Livro Branco sobre a RCTV”? (2).
José Carlos Moutinho é jornalista.
18-JUL-2007
O diretor-presidente da RCTV (Rádio Caracas de Televisão), Marcel Granier, foi entrevistado no programa “Canal Livre”, da Rede Bandeirantes de Televisão (Band), no dia 01/07. O “comunicador” venezuelano tentou passar para os brasileiros a imagem de um perseguido político. Os jornalistas da Band ficaram no trivial. Optaram por não incomodar muito seu colega de imprensa com questionamentos mais aprofundados sobre o vencimento (legal) da concessão da RCTV, a participação desta no golpe de Estado de 11 de abril de 2002, sobre financiamentos das multinacionais e programação inapropriada para as crianças, entre outros. A preocupação principal daquela espécie de convescote jornalístico era atacar o Governo Hugo Chávez. Não tiveram preocupação de analisar o direito constitucional do Governo da República Bolivariana da Venezuela sobre as concessões do espaço radiofônico. Como se faz no vôlei, os entrevistadores só se empenharam em levantar a bola para que ele cortasse. Levantaram a auto-estima do pobre ricaço.
Pautada pela corporação Ruppert Murdoch/Fox News Cannel, a Band manifestou seu nítido apoio àquele irresponsável comunicador. O “Canal Livre” deu a oportunidade para Granier mentir a vontade.
Granier disse, entre outras coisas, não ter recebido, nem visto o “Livro Branco sobre a RCTV”. Um dossiê elaborado pelo Ministério do Poder Popular para a Comunicação e Informação da Venezuela, que trás a luz do dia o obscurantismo daquela rede de televisão. Disse que sua televisão é democrática, que não participou do golpe contra Chávez. Mas não se conteve em manifestar sua repulsa, intolerância, arrogância e desrespeito pelo líder venezuelano.
A partir do presente artigo vamos trazer algumas importantes questões que Granier não quis que os brasileiros soubessem e nem os jornalistas da Band fizeram esforço para que ele dissesse. O “Livro Branco sobre a RCTV” é um libelo para a imprensa responsável e um míssil (no bom sentido) contra o conglomerado da mentira internacional e seus “afiliados”.
Caixa de ressonância
A posição submissa ao império da mentira internacional não é só uma qualidade da RCTV, pelo visto. É, também, do “Canal Livre” (Band), é da Globo, e de outras mais, que seguem a pauta exógena de tentar desqualificar o presidente da Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, e, paralelamente, a integração sul-americana. Tal orientação nada mais é do que a manifestação objetiva das instituições financeiras imperialistas contra a Revolução Bolivariana e o Mercosul. Os financiadores da invasão ao Iraque acusam o presidente venezuelano de agredir à liberdade de imprensa e expressão, de ser um presidente totalitário e ditador, um incômodo nos encontros de chefes de Estados. Tal linha editorial foi a tônica da entrevista de Granier no programa “Canal Livre”.
Existe um influente número de esclerosados no mundo (esses que figuram na revista “Fortune”) que só sabem contar dinheiro, checar seus longos extratos bancários. Vivem a vida toda contando dinheiro e tentando golpear os outros para ganhar mais e mais dinheiro. E há os gerentes ideológicos destes, que ganham algum dinheiro para ajudar os poucos biliardários a tomar posse das riquezas alheias e subverter a cultura de um povo. Para ajudar na identificação dos gerentes, são os Roberto Campos e os FHCs da vida, que tudo fizeram para acabar com a Era Vargas e pôr fim ao Estado brasileiro. Conseguiram entregar (a preço de banana) setores estratégicos, como a Vale do Rio Doce, as telecomunicações, o transporte de cabotagem. E há ainda os novos neoliberais, que hoje sonham fazer o mesmo com a Petrobrás, na medida em que estão aumentando cada vez mais o nível de internacionalização da estatal e exportando petróleo bruto como se fosse uma “commodity” qualquer. Estamos perto de ver todo lucro das nossas empresas (estatais ou privadas) esvaírem para o exterior. E o brasileiro que vá “catar coquinho” e plantar cana para os gringos.
Na Venezuela há os Granier e os Carmonas, que seguem a mesma lógica de seus homólogos brasileiros. Preferem ver aquele rico país caribenho curvado ante o capital estrangeiro. Acham que os anglo-saxãos são bons administradores, por isso, mantiveram, por longos anos, a PDVSA distante do povo e em estreito laços com os acionistas em Wall Street, que mamavam nas tetas daquela estatal venezuelana. Essa é a questão de fundo oculta nos debates sobre a liberdade de imprensa e expressão, não só na Venezuela como no Brasil e demais países. O direito de quem deve prevalecer: o da maioria do povo ou a minoria de serviçais do sistema financeiro internacional?
Tal alarde da mídia, questionando o direito legal de um Estado soberano, pode funcionar como uma tentativa de intimidação para evitar a não renovação de outras concessões, como por exemplo, as do setor petrolífero. Nós assistimos o caso da Bolívia. Mas podemos, também, um dia, que esperamos seja breve, assistir no Brasil, quando decidir pôr fim aos leilões de nossas bacias sedimentares, que concedem imensas áreas do território nacional às multinacionais. As multinacionais vão gritar (a mídia vai reforçar o grito) e o Brasil entrará para o “Eixo do Mal”.
Esses personagens, via as maçudas edições dos mega-jornais, TVs e rádios procuram denegrir as forças progressistas. Eles têm verdadeira antipatia pelas expressões “defesa da soberania nacional”, “Estado de Bem-estar Social”, “projeto de desenvolvimento nacional”, “empresas estatais”, “monopólio estatal do petróleo”, “reforma agrária”, “gastos sociais”, “distribuição de renda com justiça social”, “pleno emprego”, “investimentos nas Forças Armadas”, “sentimento de pátria”, entre outras. Dia e noite, ininterruptamente e subliminarmente, trabalham para distanciar o povo de tais princípios fundamentais para conformar a cidadania.
A mensagem dos oligopólios midiáticos é o individualismo: você tem vida curta, viva a vida, viva o agora, ganhe dinheiro rápido, diante do estresse e do desemprego leia livros de auto-ajuda, saiba economizar seu salário (se é baixo, foi devido a sua qualificação que não acompanhou o mundo globalizado), Carteira de Trabalho é coisa do passado, seja autônomo, não se misture aos sindicalistas e aos defensores da soberania nacional e do socialismo.
Goebbels global
O escritor Richard Neville, em seu artigo “La vida y los crímenes de un Goebbels global” (Rebelión.org, 12-09-06), citou um fato bastante didático sobre a “liberdade” da mídia internacional. Ele disse que a jornalista Serene Sabbagh (ex-Fox News) explicou o motivo pelo qual chegou ao limite com os bombardeios no Líbano. “Como mãe de três, contemplava as imagens, as imagens em carne viva de crianças arrancadas dos escombros, e logo distorcidas pela Fox News. E escutava alguns de seus apresentadores, que afirmavam que esses pequenos assassinados, essas vítimas inocentes assassinadas, eram escudos humanos utilizados pelo Hezbollah. E um dos apresentadores chegou a dizer que foram colocados ali para o Hezbollah ganhar apoio nesta guerra. Foi algo incrível. Para mim, foi o ponto de ruptura”.
Sabbagh e uma colega, ressaltou Neville, enviaram uma carta conjunta de renúncia à Fox News com os seguintes termos: “Vocês não são só um instrumento da Casa Branca de Bush, e da propaganda israelense, vocês incitam a guerra sem ter sentido de decência, nem de profissionalismo”. “Um veredito amplamente compartido”, sublinhou Neville. “Fox News tem tido repórteres correndo no norte de Israel para detalhar cada ataque com foguetes e cada mobilização israelense, no entanto tem mostrado pouco ou nenhum interesse em relação a qualquer coisa que acontece do outro lado da fronteira”, disse Andrew Gumbel ao jornal britânico “Independent”.
Essa é a qualidade da “liberdade de imprensa” que eles pretendiam (e pretendem) manter na Venezuela. Distorcer fatos. Por isso, gritam contra o encerramento da concessão da RCTV. Mas não gritam contra outras centenas de concessões que não foram renovadas pelo mundo, inclusive nos EUA, como vimos no nosso artigo “Venezuela quer imprensa responsável”. E na concorrência de tal gritaria, a Band, não querendo ficar para trás da Globo, correu para entrevistar seu colega de mídia, o diretor-presidente da RCTV, Marcel Granier.
Além do apresentador Joelmir Betting, participaram os jornalistas Fernando Mitre, Antônio Teles, Fernando Dias de Melo, e Marcelo Parada, vice-presidente da Band, responsável pela TV aberta.
Joelmir Betting fez uma apoteótica apresentação daquela edição do “Canal Livre”, com imagens pinçadas de funcionários da RCTV chorando, bem ao estilo “Domingão do Faustão”. Outras imagens projetavam o presidente da Venezuela, Hugo Chávez Frías, fazendo contundente discurso (de uniforme militar e boina vermelha) chamando a RCTV de televisão fascista e avisando sobre a não renovação da concessão. Com a manipulação das imagens, a Band tentou engabelar os brasileiros ao projetar o enérgico presidente Chávez em contraste com os emocionados funcionários da RCTV.
Dizia a apresentação da Band: “O fim das transmissões emocionou os funcionários e levantou a discussão sobre a liberdade de expressão na Venezuela e em toda a América Latina. Os protestos se espalharam por todo o país. As medidas também afetaram as relações entre Brasil e a Venezuela. No início de junho o Senado brasileiro aprovou um requerimento em defesa do funcionamento da RCTV. Em resposta o presidente Hugo Chávez disse que o Congresso brasileiro agia como um papagaio do Congresso americano. O presidente Lula botou 'panos quentes' e disse que o presidente Chávez é parceiro do Brasil”. E a Band arrematou com uma alucinação: “A polêmica pode gerar conflitos na região”. “Hugo Chávez afirmou que está disposto a retirar o pedido de ingresso da Venezuela no Mercosul por causa da pressão do bloco contra o fechamento da RCTV”.
Joelmir, numa completa falta de respeito ao país vizinho e numa total paranóia, fez a pergunta que deu o tom daquela edição do “Canal Livre”: “Marcel Granier, a Venezuela estaria em contagem regressiva para a ditadura chavista?” E citou que tal processo teria três movimentos: presidência vitalícia de Hugo Chávez, a censura a toda liberdade de expressão e o partido único (acreditamos que seja uma alusão ao recém criado Partido Socialista Unido da Venezuela, que já tem mais de 5 milhões de filiados).
Marcel Granier, naturalmente, agradeceu muito a oportunidade e disse em tom absurdado disse que “a Venezuela está em marcha para um regime totalitário”. Afirmou que todos os Poderes na Venezuela são partidários do presidente Hugo Chávez. Disse que uma reforma constitucional está sendo elaborada secretamente, que há um clima de repressão policial, que Hugo Chávez tem sido muito aclamado pelo povo em geral (civil ou militar). Ele disse, mais absurdado ainda, que até os militares dão “vivas!” ao presidente Chávez.
Em resposta ao Fernando Mitre, que quis saber sobre a resistência ao presidente venezuelano, Granier disse que a oposição está planejando uma reação, mas que os partidos políticos estão em crise há muitos anos. Nesse sentido, o diretor-presidente da RCTV tem razão. Se de um lado os movimentos sociais (do povo) estão empolgados com a gestão de Hugo Chávez, de outro o movimento conservador realmente entrou em crise política, inclusive de desarticulação partidária. Isso talvez explique o fato de Granier ter reclamado tanto, durante a entrevista, que Chávez nunca se reúne com a oposição, nunca se reúne com os dirigentes sindicais, não se reúne com os intelectuais, e por aí foi.
Como pode o Sr. Granier querer tapear os brasileiros com tais afirmações de que um presidente, várias vezes reeleito, com milhões de pessoas nas ruas enfrentando os covardes tiros disparados pelas armas dos oposicionistas, não querer se reunir com as lideranças daquele país? Se a afirmativa do Sr. Granier fosse verdadeira (o que não é) estaríamos diante de um acontecimento incrível, sem igual no mundo. Ou seja, como Chávez teria conseguido tal façanha – ser reeleito diversas vezes, conseguir doação de vidas humanas (civis e militares) em defesa da Revolução Bolivariana? Como ele conseguiu tal feito sem sequer se reunir com as lideranças daquele país? Sem ouvir as lideranças, é algo impensável. Ou então, o presidente da RCTV tem um critério diferente de nós normais para definir “lideranças representativas”.
O vice-presidente da Band, Marcelo Parada, antes de dirigir nova pergunta ao Sr. Granier chamou este pelo título de presidente. E os demais jornalistas, como bons funcionários que são, também passaram a chamar Granier de presidente. Um tanto estranho, não é? Na linguagem popular isso significa “puxar o saco”. Parada: “Presidente, o senhor atribuiria essa perseguição do presidente Chávez ao seu canal de televisão, e ao senhor pessoalmente, o fato de que no golpe militar de 2002, que depôs o presidente Chávez por alguns dias, a sua rede de televisão teria se posicionado francamente a favor desse golpe?”.
E vem a mentira das grossas do “Goebbels” Granier: “Não é assim. É claro que meu canal de televisão não se posicionou em favor desse golpe, nem de nenhum outro golpe. Nossa televisão é uma televisão democrática”. Dá para acreditar? Não é o que diz o “Livro Branco sobre a RCTV”, que Granier, respondendo ao Fernando Mitre, disse não ter lido. É o que trataremos na nossa breve série de artigos.
Finalizamos este primeiro artigo introdutório, com uma importante pergunta do Fernando Mitre: “Presidente, o Ministério das Comunicações da Venezuela publicou um documento – o Livro Branco – que seria uma série de acusações à RCTV. Entre essas acusações estaria a ação objetiva da televisão apoiando o movimento golpista. Quais foram os movimentos que ocorreram no noticiário da televisão que o Governo Chávez considera golpista?”.
O “comunicador” venezuelano disse que, primeiro, foi devido o posicionamento crítico de sua televisão à concentração de poder do presidente Chávez. “Mas a publicação desse livro mostra como o governo venezuelano viola o Estado de Direito. Se o governo venezuelano tem alguma queixa sobre a RCTV ou de qualquer outra emissora (rádio, televisão) não tem que andar publicando livros. Ele tem é que iniciar um processo policial, que prevêem as leis, dando a oportunidade das emissoras se defenderem das acusações que se formulam. Esse documento é um documento parcial. (...) Não é nenhuma decisão administrativa, nem policial, e nenhum processo”. “Esse tal livro nunca nos foi entregue. Nós não vimos o livro. Nós não o recebemos. Entendo que ele circula em alguns meios, em alguns fóruns internacionais. Mas ele não tem nenhuma sustentação legal. E não estão permitindo a defesa de quem é acusado nesse livro”.
Granier não viu o Livro Branco? Então, como tece juízos sobre o petardo? Como pode ele arrogar-se no direito de dizer que o Governo da Venezuela, notadamente o Ministério do Poder Popular para a Comunicação e Informação, não tem que publicar livros? Granier é um tremendo arrogante. Ele não viu o livro? A publicação oficial (que é efetivamente o início de um processo, no qual a não renovação da concessão foi uma das sentenças) está disponível na internet, no portal do referido ministério. E mais: o livro é lido semanalmente pelo programa “La Trinchera”, na Emissora Comunitária ARTE 91,5 FM. Ele poderia ouvir essa rádio, seria educativo.
O livro foi publicado em março de 2007, bem antes de expirar a concessão da RCTV. Ou seja, houve tempo suficiente para o Sr. Granier ter lido o livro de 184 páginas. Mas ele pode estar falando a verdade, pode ser que não tenha lido. E se não leu está configurada a sua incompetência como administrador de uma concessão pública. Nós aqui do Brasil conseguimos baixar, com muita facilidade, nossa cópia, no formato PDF, gratuitamente, sem precisar preencher nenhum formulário de identificação. Está na primeira página do endereço eletrônico (http://www.conatel.gob.ve), do Ministério do Poder Popular para a Comunicação e Informação.
Os efeitos negativos do monopólio da comunicação
O “Livro Branco sobre RCTV”, em seu quinto capítulo, fala sobre a concentração das televisões privadas no espectro radiofônico, que, até 26/01/07, detinham 80% (UHF) e 78% (VHF). O livro lembra que a Declaração da Convenção Interamericana de Direitos Humanos da Organização de Estados Americanos (OEA), firmada em Washington declara: “Os monopólios ou oligopólios na propriedade e controle dos meios de comunicação devem estar sujeitos a leis anti-monopolistas por quanto conspiram contra a democracia ao restringir a pluralidade e diversidade que assegura o pleno exercício do direito a informação dos cidadãos. Em nenhum caso, essas leis devem ser exclusivas para os meios de comunicação. As concessões de rádio e televisão devem considerar critérios democráticos que garantem uma igualdade de oportunidades para todos os indivíduos no acesso aos mesmos”. Será um dos assuntos do próximo artigo Granier não viu o “Livro Branco sobre a RCTV”? (2).
José Carlos Moutinho é jornalista.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
US Continues Destabilisation Push in Venezuela By: Eva Golinger and Sam King - Green Left Weekly
By: Eva Golinger and Sam King - Green Left Weekly
In the wake of widely covered opposition protests against the Venezuelan government’s decision not to renew Radio Caracas Televison’s (RCTV) broadcasting licence following its countless violations of the law and its role in the 2002 coup attempt against the democratically elected government, Green Left Weekly’s Sam King spoke with lawyer and writer Eva Golinger in Caracas. Golinger is the author of The Chavez Code and Bush Versus Chavez, which expose US intervention into Venezuela aiming to overthrow Chavez.
Q: What evidence is there to support the view that the student-led mobilisations in support of RCTV are part of a broader destabilisation plan aimed at overthrowing the government of President Hugo Chavez, and are linked to hostile political forces based in the US?
A lot of evidence. One angle is if you look at who are the people protesting. Everyone has the right to protest, but all of a sudden the wealthier upper-class and upper middle-class students from primarily private universities take to the streets to defend an issue that has been at the forefront of the opposition movement of the traditional politicians. All of a sudden, here they appear out of nowhere and they’re carrying the same agenda and the same political discourse, even though they are trying to disguise it as not being political. Any march in the street is political. Any claiming or demanding of rights is a political action.
They are repeating a discourse the traditional opposition has been using here and they’re doing it in a way that is not even fully formed. It’s a contradiction in itself to say “no, no we’re not being political” and then crying out for freedom of expression, liberty and things like that in a country that has more freedom of expression than probably most countries in the world, and certainly under this government more than this country has ever had before. Unfortunately they’re being used as mouthpieces for an opposition that’s been using that discourse over the past seven years, despite the fact that they’re the ones who ruled the country before.
I was looking at the 1992-93 annual report from a Venezuelan human rights group Provea when Antonia Ledezma, who is one of the opposition spokespeople today, was the governor of Caracas. He had actually prohibited all student protests in the street for that entire year. This just shows the hypocrisy, contradictions and double discourse. [The student protest campaign] is part of what has been going on for the last five, six years … different attempts and different ways to destabilise the country, leading to the overthrow of Chavez.
We know that is the final objective because they tried it already during the coup in April 2002, then later the economic sabotage at the end of that year when they specifically said the goal was to force Chavez to resign or to overthrow Chavez. Also the [unsuccessful August 2004 presidential] recall referendum … It is apparent that [this is] a student movement that was not born naturally from the ranks of students.
From my own investigations, looking at documents that I have obtained over the last four years using the Freedom of Information Act in the US, looking at [information] that I got a year or two ago from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is a funding entity of the US State Department, there were a series of contracts or grants to different student organisations, private universities and other entities …
There were six grants from USAID that showed the US government had been funding efforts to have training seminars and formation seminars for student leaders with the objective being — and this is what the documents were saying — to reinsert universities and student activism back into political life in Venezuela. It used to be before Chavez [came to power in 1998 that] students were always the vanguard, as they are in most countries, of movements to push social changes. The difference is now we have a revolutionary government where many of those student leaders are now the ones in power — so even though there are movements within the universities, they have not played a role in fighting against the state because now they are the state. It’s the reverse situation.
One of these grants was for 90 million bolivars (US$42,000). That’s a lot of money for a series of seminars at the UCV. This was a joint venture with this strange organisation called Foundation for Educating the Country, the UCV student federation that is headed by this opposition student Stalin Gonzalez and the [student federation] from University of the Andes, which is headed by a student who is now a fugitive — Nixon Moreno.
They’re involved in this grant that is for forming student leaders, to reinsert them back into political life in Venezuela so that students can help define the direction the country is taking, and now we are seeing that manifest. The grants that were given, the funding, training programs, all kinds of things [form a] relationship with the US starting from a couple of years ago.
On top of that, some of the same groups or individuals have participated since 2004 in training sessions with other US entities such as the Albert Einstein Institute and the International Centre on Non-Violent Conflict. These are the entities that were responsible for helping to promote, fund and advise the “coloured” revolutions in Eastern Europe [in the] Ukraine, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Georgia. They failed in Belarus and they began working here in April 2003, first with traditional opposition leaders and then, as in those movements in Eastern Europe, they used young people — students.
Even though the US government likes to talk about Venezuela and Chavez as a dictatorship, it is not. While those strategies may have worked in countries where there were governments that were maybe more authoritarian and that had also been run down by bombing campaigns of the US government [such as Serbia] … Here there are totally different circumstances. They tried to apply the same tactics and the evidence is quite clear. The documents from those organisations themselves, their annual reports, talk about how they worked to help form the Venezuelan opposition.
Then this movement manifested in support or in defence of a media corporation — not even anything to do with freedom of speech but corporate rights, which is bizarre for students to be out on the streets defending the rights, non-existent rights, of a corporation! It goes against the entire anti-globalisation movement around the world that the student movement here in Venezuela is actually promoting corporate rights. They are using the same symbols and actions and strategies that were used by other groups that were trained and formed by the Albert Einstein Institute and the International Center on Non-Violent Conflict, so I think there is a lot of different evidence that shows there is a US tie, certainly financially [and] more so in providing strategic advice.
Very unfortunately I think for students and for student movements, a lot of the students said “no, no we are not being manipulated, we are out here because this is what we believe in” and I believe that, but … when the coup took place in April 2002 there were about 1 million people on the streets for the opposition and I don’t think that million knew that a conspiracy had already been planned and set up to be executed that day using them. I think a lot of people were in the streets because they were protesting against the Chavez government, but they were used to execute a coup.
I think we have a similar situation here. Yes there are a lot of students who are voluntarily in that movement, they have been brought up with those values, they mainly come from middle and upper classes, that’s what they believe in. They don’t know the history of the country and how things were before because their parents were part of the ruling classes and so didn’t teach them that part of it. However there is a smaller group connected with international interests and with the traditional political and economic elite here in the country that has a plan and is using the rest of them to try and execute it.
Q: The opposition student leaders declined the opportunity to debate the RCTV issue in the National Assembly on June 7, at the same time as trying to present themselves as non-political and for peace. Do you think this represented a retreat from the original intentions of the movement?
That was very strange. I think that they possibly got nervous and thought that they had to find a way out of that situation. And if they were to have a debate in that setting, they would certainly not come out in a positive way … I don’t think any country in the world has ever offered to students … an entire day, with no time limit to speak before the congress … and transmitted it live on television on every channel around the country. It certainly surprised me that they were given that opportunity, and the fact that they didn’t take advantage of it shows that their discourse is empty, that it is a manipulated movement, unfortunately because I think that it tars the other student movements, the ones that are more genuine and sincere.
[They also tried] to make a circus out of the National Assembly and that whole scenario. [They were] reading fabricated speeches — a speech that had been written by a publicity company — and then taking shirts off, things … that you do in a show to draw attention to yourself, so it became very clear there was no profound meaning in what they were saying.
Q: It seems that what remains of that student movement now has dropped the issue of RCTV and is focused more on defending the autonomy of the prestigious universities. Has it lost the battle for RCTV and now moved into a new defensive battle?
If there was a battle it was lost from the beginning because the only way they saw that they could win the battle is if RCTV was given a concession again to operate on the public airwaves and that is not going to happen. I think they actually thought — not the students, the opposition leaders, [RCTV owner and multi-millionaire] Marcel Granier, those directing RCTV — that the government was going to retract its decision, because of international pressure. But in the end the international pressure was only coming from the US, and Venezuela has had international pressure coming from the US for the past five years — it’s used to it, so it didn’t do anything. I think they [the opposition leaders] were kind of shocked. Even though they will continue to find ways to promote their agenda, that is definitely a lost battle.
Anyone who looks at it in a dry legal way sees that there is no issue — like the Organisation of American States did. Its secretary general said “that’s an administrative matter in the country, it has nothing to do with freedom of expression” and that’s true. You can make a scene about anything you want but in the end the government did not violate absolutely anything.
The issue of universities is kind of ridiculous because this is a government that has created more autonomy for universities than ever before. It has created more in the sense of providing more funding, opening more universities, providing more access to education, providing more alternative education in the sense that it is not following traditional state structures of rigid or very limited operating structures in the universities. We’ve got universities that are in the communities, all kinds such as the Bolivarian University … So I think that issue [is lost].
Q: Has the opposition had to abandon any serious attempts to destabilise the political situation in the immediate future?
Yes and no. They have a big march planned for the 27th [of June], which is International Journalists’ Day. Whenever they try to plan these marches, there is always the moment of concern that there could be further aggression, especially because at that point the America Cup [football competition] will have started. That provides them with another scenario to try and make a scene, and there is a lot of concern that extremist groups might try to use terrorism or some kind of violence against the America Cup so that again the international community would want to get involved.
It’s a very strange objective for a student movement or any movement to try to encourage international intervention. Not only is that a betrayal of your country but it is incredibly dangerous, especially when you are trying to encourage the international intervention from the United States, with a warmongering government that would love to come in here and take over everything, especially the oil industry, and militarise the entire country. I think that a lot of people don’t understand — they think that US intervention means more McDonald’s and restaurants and shops, or something like that. I don’t understand why anyone would be calling for that. It’s outrageous. The danger still exists certainly.
More at the forefront is the possibility of an assassination attempt against the president. As ridiculous as that may sound, not only has it been used in the past against other foreign leaders, but here it almost seems to be the only way out. Chavez just keeps winning, keeps getting more support, more people are with [the revolution], the country is improving, things are getting better, regionally people are integrating with Venezuela. Around the world people are starting to pay attention to Venezuela and they’re interested in what is happening. Every attempt to defeat Chavez and the revolution is stopped and Chavez comes out stronger and the revolution comes out stronger, the people come out more conscious.
We are denouncing things here that have never been talked about, even though they exist in other countries. On a public level, this puts the US in a really difficult position. They always do this sort of risk-benefit analysis. If they do assassinate Chavez what would happen? Would there really be a reaction around the world? … People would be up in arms, but would there be any sort of a unified reaction that could somehow harm the US? It’s probably not likely. What could countries do? Cripple the US economy? Militarily damage the US? No. So the other issue is what would happen in Venezuela? It would go into civil war. Does the US care? They care about the oil so what would they do? They would militarise [the country] just like they have done in Iraq.
Q: The US would care what the outcome is. They would be thinking, who is going to win a civil war?
Look what they have done in Iraq. The same thing happened in Iraq and now Iraq is in a civil war and [the US is] controlling pretty much the oil industry there — but it is a constant risk situation. As different as Venezuela and Iraq are, I think that is almost the study of what would happen here. So I think [assassination is] a very likely scenario that Chavez talks about all the time and the government is constantly investigating and taking security measures to prevent it.
Q: Chavez talks about assassination attempts all the time?
Sure, because it’s true. One, it’s true that [the Venezuelan government has] stopped a few of them, found evidence and things like that. Also because the more that you talk about it the less likely that it will happen. The more people who are aware, the more people who are consciously considering what would happen, what we would do, how we would react, and therefore preparing for that kind of scenario, which makes it more difficult because then it would be obvious if anything happened to Chavez what the source was.
From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #716 4 July 2007.
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. -- Edward R. Murrow
In the wake of widely covered opposition protests against the Venezuelan government’s decision not to renew Radio Caracas Televison’s (RCTV) broadcasting licence following its countless violations of the law and its role in the 2002 coup attempt against the democratically elected government, Green Left Weekly’s Sam King spoke with lawyer and writer Eva Golinger in Caracas. Golinger is the author of The Chavez Code and Bush Versus Chavez, which expose US intervention into Venezuela aiming to overthrow Chavez.
Q: What evidence is there to support the view that the student-led mobilisations in support of RCTV are part of a broader destabilisation plan aimed at overthrowing the government of President Hugo Chavez, and are linked to hostile political forces based in the US?
A lot of evidence. One angle is if you look at who are the people protesting. Everyone has the right to protest, but all of a sudden the wealthier upper-class and upper middle-class students from primarily private universities take to the streets to defend an issue that has been at the forefront of the opposition movement of the traditional politicians. All of a sudden, here they appear out of nowhere and they’re carrying the same agenda and the same political discourse, even though they are trying to disguise it as not being political. Any march in the street is political. Any claiming or demanding of rights is a political action.
They are repeating a discourse the traditional opposition has been using here and they’re doing it in a way that is not even fully formed. It’s a contradiction in itself to say “no, no we’re not being political” and then crying out for freedom of expression, liberty and things like that in a country that has more freedom of expression than probably most countries in the world, and certainly under this government more than this country has ever had before. Unfortunately they’re being used as mouthpieces for an opposition that’s been using that discourse over the past seven years, despite the fact that they’re the ones who ruled the country before.
I was looking at the 1992-93 annual report from a Venezuelan human rights group Provea when Antonia Ledezma, who is one of the opposition spokespeople today, was the governor of Caracas. He had actually prohibited all student protests in the street for that entire year. This just shows the hypocrisy, contradictions and double discourse. [The student protest campaign] is part of what has been going on for the last five, six years … different attempts and different ways to destabilise the country, leading to the overthrow of Chavez.
We know that is the final objective because they tried it already during the coup in April 2002, then later the economic sabotage at the end of that year when they specifically said the goal was to force Chavez to resign or to overthrow Chavez. Also the [unsuccessful August 2004 presidential] recall referendum … It is apparent that [this is] a student movement that was not born naturally from the ranks of students.
From my own investigations, looking at documents that I have obtained over the last four years using the Freedom of Information Act in the US, looking at [information] that I got a year or two ago from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which is a funding entity of the US State Department, there were a series of contracts or grants to different student organisations, private universities and other entities …
There were six grants from USAID that showed the US government had been funding efforts to have training seminars and formation seminars for student leaders with the objective being — and this is what the documents were saying — to reinsert universities and student activism back into political life in Venezuela. It used to be before Chavez [came to power in 1998 that] students were always the vanguard, as they are in most countries, of movements to push social changes. The difference is now we have a revolutionary government where many of those student leaders are now the ones in power — so even though there are movements within the universities, they have not played a role in fighting against the state because now they are the state. It’s the reverse situation.
One of these grants was for 90 million bolivars (US$42,000). That’s a lot of money for a series of seminars at the UCV. This was a joint venture with this strange organisation called Foundation for Educating the Country, the UCV student federation that is headed by this opposition student Stalin Gonzalez and the [student federation] from University of the Andes, which is headed by a student who is now a fugitive — Nixon Moreno.
They’re involved in this grant that is for forming student leaders, to reinsert them back into political life in Venezuela so that students can help define the direction the country is taking, and now we are seeing that manifest. The grants that were given, the funding, training programs, all kinds of things [form a] relationship with the US starting from a couple of years ago.
On top of that, some of the same groups or individuals have participated since 2004 in training sessions with other US entities such as the Albert Einstein Institute and the International Centre on Non-Violent Conflict. These are the entities that were responsible for helping to promote, fund and advise the “coloured” revolutions in Eastern Europe [in the] Ukraine, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Georgia. They failed in Belarus and they began working here in April 2003, first with traditional opposition leaders and then, as in those movements in Eastern Europe, they used young people — students.
Even though the US government likes to talk about Venezuela and Chavez as a dictatorship, it is not. While those strategies may have worked in countries where there were governments that were maybe more authoritarian and that had also been run down by bombing campaigns of the US government [such as Serbia] … Here there are totally different circumstances. They tried to apply the same tactics and the evidence is quite clear. The documents from those organisations themselves, their annual reports, talk about how they worked to help form the Venezuelan opposition.
Then this movement manifested in support or in defence of a media corporation — not even anything to do with freedom of speech but corporate rights, which is bizarre for students to be out on the streets defending the rights, non-existent rights, of a corporation! It goes against the entire anti-globalisation movement around the world that the student movement here in Venezuela is actually promoting corporate rights. They are using the same symbols and actions and strategies that were used by other groups that were trained and formed by the Albert Einstein Institute and the International Center on Non-Violent Conflict, so I think there is a lot of different evidence that shows there is a US tie, certainly financially [and] more so in providing strategic advice.
Very unfortunately I think for students and for student movements, a lot of the students said “no, no we are not being manipulated, we are out here because this is what we believe in” and I believe that, but … when the coup took place in April 2002 there were about 1 million people on the streets for the opposition and I don’t think that million knew that a conspiracy had already been planned and set up to be executed that day using them. I think a lot of people were in the streets because they were protesting against the Chavez government, but they were used to execute a coup.
I think we have a similar situation here. Yes there are a lot of students who are voluntarily in that movement, they have been brought up with those values, they mainly come from middle and upper classes, that’s what they believe in. They don’t know the history of the country and how things were before because their parents were part of the ruling classes and so didn’t teach them that part of it. However there is a smaller group connected with international interests and with the traditional political and economic elite here in the country that has a plan and is using the rest of them to try and execute it.
Q: The opposition student leaders declined the opportunity to debate the RCTV issue in the National Assembly on June 7, at the same time as trying to present themselves as non-political and for peace. Do you think this represented a retreat from the original intentions of the movement?
That was very strange. I think that they possibly got nervous and thought that they had to find a way out of that situation. And if they were to have a debate in that setting, they would certainly not come out in a positive way … I don’t think any country in the world has ever offered to students … an entire day, with no time limit to speak before the congress … and transmitted it live on television on every channel around the country. It certainly surprised me that they were given that opportunity, and the fact that they didn’t take advantage of it shows that their discourse is empty, that it is a manipulated movement, unfortunately because I think that it tars the other student movements, the ones that are more genuine and sincere.
[They also tried] to make a circus out of the National Assembly and that whole scenario. [They were] reading fabricated speeches — a speech that had been written by a publicity company — and then taking shirts off, things … that you do in a show to draw attention to yourself, so it became very clear there was no profound meaning in what they were saying.
Q: It seems that what remains of that student movement now has dropped the issue of RCTV and is focused more on defending the autonomy of the prestigious universities. Has it lost the battle for RCTV and now moved into a new defensive battle?
If there was a battle it was lost from the beginning because the only way they saw that they could win the battle is if RCTV was given a concession again to operate on the public airwaves and that is not going to happen. I think they actually thought — not the students, the opposition leaders, [RCTV owner and multi-millionaire] Marcel Granier, those directing RCTV — that the government was going to retract its decision, because of international pressure. But in the end the international pressure was only coming from the US, and Venezuela has had international pressure coming from the US for the past five years — it’s used to it, so it didn’t do anything. I think they [the opposition leaders] were kind of shocked. Even though they will continue to find ways to promote their agenda, that is definitely a lost battle.
Anyone who looks at it in a dry legal way sees that there is no issue — like the Organisation of American States did. Its secretary general said “that’s an administrative matter in the country, it has nothing to do with freedom of expression” and that’s true. You can make a scene about anything you want but in the end the government did not violate absolutely anything.
The issue of universities is kind of ridiculous because this is a government that has created more autonomy for universities than ever before. It has created more in the sense of providing more funding, opening more universities, providing more access to education, providing more alternative education in the sense that it is not following traditional state structures of rigid or very limited operating structures in the universities. We’ve got universities that are in the communities, all kinds such as the Bolivarian University … So I think that issue [is lost].
Q: Has the opposition had to abandon any serious attempts to destabilise the political situation in the immediate future?
Yes and no. They have a big march planned for the 27th [of June], which is International Journalists’ Day. Whenever they try to plan these marches, there is always the moment of concern that there could be further aggression, especially because at that point the America Cup [football competition] will have started. That provides them with another scenario to try and make a scene, and there is a lot of concern that extremist groups might try to use terrorism or some kind of violence against the America Cup so that again the international community would want to get involved.
It’s a very strange objective for a student movement or any movement to try to encourage international intervention. Not only is that a betrayal of your country but it is incredibly dangerous, especially when you are trying to encourage the international intervention from the United States, with a warmongering government that would love to come in here and take over everything, especially the oil industry, and militarise the entire country. I think that a lot of people don’t understand — they think that US intervention means more McDonald’s and restaurants and shops, or something like that. I don’t understand why anyone would be calling for that. It’s outrageous. The danger still exists certainly.
More at the forefront is the possibility of an assassination attempt against the president. As ridiculous as that may sound, not only has it been used in the past against other foreign leaders, but here it almost seems to be the only way out. Chavez just keeps winning, keeps getting more support, more people are with [the revolution], the country is improving, things are getting better, regionally people are integrating with Venezuela. Around the world people are starting to pay attention to Venezuela and they’re interested in what is happening. Every attempt to defeat Chavez and the revolution is stopped and Chavez comes out stronger and the revolution comes out stronger, the people come out more conscious.
We are denouncing things here that have never been talked about, even though they exist in other countries. On a public level, this puts the US in a really difficult position. They always do this sort of risk-benefit analysis. If they do assassinate Chavez what would happen? Would there really be a reaction around the world? … People would be up in arms, but would there be any sort of a unified reaction that could somehow harm the US? It’s probably not likely. What could countries do? Cripple the US economy? Militarily damage the US? No. So the other issue is what would happen in Venezuela? It would go into civil war. Does the US care? They care about the oil so what would they do? They would militarise [the country] just like they have done in Iraq.
Q: The US would care what the outcome is. They would be thinking, who is going to win a civil war?
Look what they have done in Iraq. The same thing happened in Iraq and now Iraq is in a civil war and [the US is] controlling pretty much the oil industry there — but it is a constant risk situation. As different as Venezuela and Iraq are, I think that is almost the study of what would happen here. So I think [assassination is] a very likely scenario that Chavez talks about all the time and the government is constantly investigating and taking security measures to prevent it.
Q: Chavez talks about assassination attempts all the time?
Sure, because it’s true. One, it’s true that [the Venezuelan government has] stopped a few of them, found evidence and things like that. Also because the more that you talk about it the less likely that it will happen. The more people who are aware, the more people who are consciously considering what would happen, what we would do, how we would react, and therefore preparing for that kind of scenario, which makes it more difficult because then it would be obvious if anything happened to Chavez what the source was.
From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #716 4 July 2007.
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. -- Edward R. Murrow
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Chavez and RCTV - Tilting the Balance against 'The Bad Guy'
As we have previously reported* Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has long been demonised by the Western media as a "leftist firebrand" (The Independent), "Venezuela's demagogue" (Washington Post), and as a "militaristic strongman" (Financial Times).
No surprise, then, that Chavez's decision not to renew the licence of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) has elicited outrage across Britain and America. In an article titled, '"He is losing the country's respect",' Catherine Philp wrote in the Times:
"The move has fuelled accusations that Mr Chavez is moving towards an increasingly authoritarian rule and is quashing dissent against his 'socialist revolution'." (Philp, '"He is losing the country's respect",' The Times, May 29, 2007)
The Washington Post described the action as an attempt to silence opponents, supplying further "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator". (FAIR, Media Advisory, 'Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs - Distorting the Venezuelan media story,' May 25, 2007; click here)
One might think from these comments that Chavez is indeed behaving like a stereotypical "strongman". So why is he refusing to renew the licence?
According to CNN reporter TJ Holmes the motive lies in the fact that RCTV "has been critical of his government" (Ibid). The Associated Press also stressed that RCTV "has been critical of Chávez". (Ibid) A Guardian headline carried the same emphasis: "Chavez silences critical TV station - and robs the people of their soaps." (Rory Carroll, The Guardian, May 23, 2007) A Financial Times news report was titled: "Chavez pulls plug on dissenting TV station." (Benedict Mander, Financial Times, May 9, 2007)
These and similar claims have given the impression that Chavez is simply crushing dissent. An Independent leader came closer to the truth:
"President Chavez has long detested RCTV, accusing it of helping to incite a coup against him in 2002." (Leader, 'A show of intolerance,' The Independent, May 30, 2007)
As this suggests, the problem with RCTV does not revolve around political differences with Chavez; it revolves around RCTV's attempts to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela.
A consistent theme of media reporting has been to ascribe this "accusation" to Chavez personally. Thus the Independent wrote of the "station, which Mr Chavez believes was plotting against him". ('Anti-Chavez protesters clash with police,' The Independent, May 29, 2007)
The Times reported: "President Chavez withdrew its licence, accusing the network of 'coup plotting'". (Philp, op. cit)
Likewise the Financial Times: "Chavez has repeatedly alleged that it supported the [2002] coup..." (Richard Lapper, 'TV channel axed in latest Chavez drama,' Financial Times, May 26, 2007)
And the BBC: "He [Chavez] says they were involved in a coup that nearly toppled him five years ago." (James Ingham, 'Venezuelans protest over TV issue,' BBC Online, May 27, 2007; click here)
These media reports thus all distort the truth by attributing a mere "claim" to Chavez, someone they have all previously demonised as an authoritarian "strongman". This earlier demonisation acts to undermine the credibility of the charge against RCTV in readers' minds, so reinforcing the bias of ostensibly balanced reporting against the Venezuelan government. Robert McChesney and Mark Weisbrot explain:
"This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit." (McChesney and Weisbrot, 'Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction,' Common Dreams, June 1, 2007; click here)
Consider, for example, that the BBC's Ben Brown said of Saddam Hussein:
"He claims UN sanctions have reduced many of his citizens to near starvation - pictures like these [of a malnourished baby and despairing mother] have been a powerful propaganda weapon for Saddam, which he'll now have to give up." (Brown, BBC News, June 20, 1996)
And ITN's John Draper:
"The idea now is targeted or 'smart' sanctions to help ordinary people while at the same time preventing the Iraqi leader from blaming the West for the hardships they're suffering." (Draper, ITN, 22:30 News, February 20, 2001)
And the Observer:
"The Iraqi dictator says his country's children are dying in their thousands because of the West's embargoes." (John Sweeney, 'How Saddam "staged" fake baby funerals,' The Observer, June 23, 2002)
Viewed from the perspective of honest reporting, the opinion of Saddam Hussein - a thoroughly demonised and non-credible source - was irrelevant to an analysis of the effects of sanctions. A range of very credible reports from the United Nations, aid agencies and human rights groups all blamed mass death in Iraq on sanctions. These were the views that mattered for anyone who cared about the truth.
Likewise, it is a simple fact, not a claim, that RCTV was deeply complicit in the 2002 military coup - and the views of the West's Venezuelan bete noire should be placed front and centre only if we are content for media demonisation to undermine this truth.
A Climate Of Transition - Overthrowing Chavez
In a rare example of media honesty, the Los Angeles Times reported last month that RCTV had initially been focused on providing entertainment:
"But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavour: ousting a democratically elected leader from office." (Bart Jones, 'Hugo Chavez versus RCTV - Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup,' Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2007; click here)
Controlled by members of the country's ruling elite, including station chief Marcel Granier, the channel saw Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" in defence of Venezuela's poor as a threat to established privilege and wealth.
Thus, for two days before the April 11, 2002 coup, RCTV cancelled regular programming and instead ran constant coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators delivered fierce criticism of the president with no response allowed from the government. RCTV also ran non-stop adverts encouraging people to attend an April 11 march aimed at toppling the government and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV ran manipulated video footage falsely blaming Chavez supporters for the many 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." (Fair, op. cit)
RCTV news director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he had received clear orders from superiors at the station:
"Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters... The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." (Bart Jones, op. cit)
While the streets of Caracas erupted with public outrage against the coup, RCTV turned a blind eye and showed soap operas, cartoons and old movies instead.
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, at a stroke, demolished Venezuela's democratic institutions - eliminating the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.
Finally, when Chávez returned to power (April 13, 2002), the commercial stations again refused to cover the news.
In a leader titled, 'Chavez clampdown: Closing TV station is part of pattern of authoritarianism,' the Financial Times observed last month:
"The closure limits freedom of expression and reflects the arbitrary and authoritarian approach that has come to characterise Mr Chavez's government. In a region where the media have been becoming more open in recent years after the dark period of military rule in the 1970s and 1980s, this is a backward and worrying step." (Leader, Financial Times, May 29, 2007)
The irony is bitter indeed. It was a "backward and worrying step" of exactly this kind that RCTV attempted to impose on Venezuela by means of a military coup. As the coup appeared to have succeeded in April 2002, the Financial Times helped create "a climate of transition" for British readers:
"But while the Chavez administration was hobbled by inefficiency, a lack of support across class lines and an inability to tackle the country's economic problems and rising crime rate, it was Mr Chavez's overbearing and authoritarian style that analysts said transformed the public's resigned acceptance of an ineffectual government into an active desire among a majority to see it removed." (Richard Lapper and Andy Webb-Vidal, 'Militaristic president falls victim to military revolt,' Financial Times, April 13, 2002)
As for the Venezuelan media's involvement in this "backward and worrying step", the Financial Times had no complaints, other than to comment:
"An example of Mr Chavez's militaristic style has been his confrontational relationship with the local media, particularly television. On Tuesday, when the business sector and union confederation began what was then a 24-hour strike, the state began interrupting broadcasts that showed the success of the work stoppage with turgid interviews with ministers and old video footage of oil wells operating normally." (Andy Webb-Vidal, 'Chavez tests limits of nation's patience,' Financial Times, April 12, 2002)
The liberal media - often considered great bastions of democracy and honest reporting - queued up to present the overthrow of Chavez as an inevitable response to his alienating authoritarianism and multiple failures. With Chavez apparently gone for good, Alex Bellos wrote in the Guardian of "the leftwing firebrand":
"Mr Chavez was elected in 1998 on a wave of popular support and quickly established a reputation as Latin America's most charismatic leader. But his popularity plummeted as he antagonised almost every sector of society and failed to improve the lot of the poor."
Bellos concluded:
"Mr Chavez polarised the country by his attacks on the media and Roman Catholic church leaders, his refusal to consult with business chiefs and his failed attempt to assert control on the unions. The US accused his government of provoking the crisis by ordering its supporters to fire on peaceful demonstrators." (Alex Bellos, 'Ousted Chavez detained by army,' The Guardian, April 13, 2002)
In fact it turned out that the US had conspired with the coup plotters to overthrow the government. Likewise, Chavez supporters had been +defending+ themselves against sniper attack. The Venezuelan media had misrepresented film footage to present the required version of events.
In similar vein, the Independent wrote of Chavez:
"His authoritarian style, his friendship with Fidel Castro and his inability to reverse Venezuela's 20-year slide into poverty and corruption, took their toll on his popularity ratings... Convinced he was embarked on a 'Bolivarian revolution', inspired by the ideals of his hero, independence leader Simon Bolivar, Mr Chavez was messianic in his fervour. He alienated every organised group from the former leftist guerrillas of Bandera Roja to the employers' federation, Fedecamaras." (Phil Gunson, 'Deposed Chavez to be exiled as anti-coup rebels speak out,' The Independent on Sunday, April 14, 2002)
And The Observer weighed in:
"In almost four years in office Chavez alienated most sections of Venezuelan society and was fast becoming as much of an irritant to the US as Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader."
The conclusion:
"His popularity waned in recent months as he became more autocratic, pushing through constitutional changes and alienating former supporters. He exasperated many Venezuelans by implementing economic policies by decree, and accused the news media and Roman Catholic leaders of conspiring to overthrow him." (Faisal Islam, 'Venezuelan civil war fears as ousted president leaves,' The Observer, April 14, 2002)
Even after days of non-stop media broadcasts had succeeded in working for the overthrow of Chavez, for this Observer journalist talk of a media conspiracy remained merely Chavez's accusation.
The opinions of these ostensibly well-informed, highly-trained professional journalists were instantly rubbished by the vast popular uprising that restored Chavez to power, and in the longer term by Chavez's eleven election wins in nine years. In truth the coup was a class-based revolt by and for privileged elites, led by Pedro Carmona who, as the BBC reported, was "head of Venezuela's biggest business organisation, Fedecamaras". Carmona, it was, who "marshalled business and trade union opposition to Mr. Chavez's economic policies". ('Profile: Pedro Carmona,' BBC Online, May 27, 2002; click here)
Genuine Attacks On Free Speech That Go Unnoticed
A May 30 Independent leader declared:
"RCTV was the sole opposition-aligned station with a national reach. Now it has gone. All governments need media opposition to keep them honest. But it appears that President Chavez does not have much time for this concept." (Leader, 'A show of intolerance,' The Independent, May 30, 2007)
Refusing to renew the licence of a TV channel complicit in the demolition of democracy described above is somehow "a show of intolerance" for the Independent. In fact RCTV has not "gone" - it is being allowed to continue operating by satellite and cable.
The Venezuela Information Centre (VIC) notes:
"In Britain, TV and radio must adhere to the Broadcasting Code which embodies objectives that Parliament set down in the Communications Act of 2003. This states that 'Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services' and that 'Broadcasters must use their best endeavours so as not to broadcast material that could endanger lives.' RCTV's role in the coup would have clearly violated these laws." ('The truth about RCTV - VIC briefing,' click here)
FAIR also makes the obvious point: "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." (FAIR, op. cit)
The BBC reported: "The decision to close RCTV has received international condemnation, including from the EU, press freedom groups, Chile and the US, which urged Mr Chavez to reverse the closure." ('Venezuela head in new TV warning,' BBC Online, May 29, 2007; click here)
Almost unmentioned anywhere in the media are the statements of support made by a number of countries and leaders, such as Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil. The BBC report cited RCTV's general manager Marcel Granier who described the "closure" as "abusive" and "arbitrary" - not a word was written of Granier's role in the 2002 coup.
In a letter published in the Guardian (May 26, 2007), Gordon Hutchinson of VIC noted that despite claims made by opponents of Chavez, there is no 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 held in private hands, as are 706 out of 709 radio stations.
While the British and American press focus intensely on the alleged crushing of free speech in Venezuela, little is written about comparable actions elsewhere. A report on 21 countries, including the US and in Europe, by J. David Carracedo published in the magazine Diagonal, found that there have been at least 236 closures, revocations, and non-renewals of radio and TV licences. (See: VIC, 'The truth about RCTV,' op. cit)
There is also little media interest in genuine attacks on media freedom elsewhere in Latin America.
In Honduras, beginning May 28, 2007, President Manuel Zelaya ordered all TV and radio stations to broadcast daily one-hour prime-time programmes for ten days to counteract what he called "misinformation" on his administration provided by the press. (Ibid)
The BBC reported Zelaya's actions on May 25 (Will Grant, 'Honduras TV gets government order'; click here) A June 11 media database search found that in the previous two weeks the US press had mentioned Zelaya's actions in four articles - the highest-profile outlet being the Miami Herald. Over the same period, the US press had mentioned the words "Chavez" and "RCTV" in 207 articles. The British press had not mentioned Zelaya's actions at all - Chavez and RCTV had been mentioned in 23 articles.
In Colombia, President Álvaro Uribe was asked if he would have refused to renew RCTV's licence. Uribe replied: "I would not do that to anybody."
The Inter Press Service News Agency commented wryly:
"But the rightwing Uribe cannot shut down opposition TV stations for the simple reason that there aren't any." (Diana Cariboni, 'Easy to See the Speck in the Other's Eye,' May 30, 2007; click here)
In October 2004, Uribe closed the public Instituto de Radio y Televisión (Inravisión). The Colombian government argued that Inravisión was "inefficient." But the underlying problem "was the strength of the union" of Inravisión employees, according to Milciades Vizcaíno, a sociologist who worked for nearly 27 years in educational programming for the channel. (Ibid)
In Nicaragua in 2002, La Poderosa radio station lost its licence and had its equipment seized without any legal proceedings by the Enrique Bolaños administration. La Poderosa was an outspoken critic of the government.
These and many other attacks on free speech across the region do not make the front pages of the British and American press. As usual, alleged concerns for democracy and human rights mask deeper priorities: protecting governments that toe the line dictated by Western power, and undermining those that do not.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Ask the following journalists why, for example, they cite Chavez as the source for a mere "claim" that RCTV was deeply involved in the military coup to overthrow Chavez. Why do they not state RCTV's involvement in the coup as an undeniable fact?
Write to Catherine Philp
Email: catherine.philp@thetimes.co.uk
Write to Richard Lapper at the Financial Times
Email: richard.lapper@ft.com
Write to James Ingham at BBC
Email: james.ingham@bbc.co.uk
Write to Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor
Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
Write to Simon Kelner, Independent editor
Email: s.kelner@independent.co.uk
Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org
This media alert will shortly be archived here:
www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070613_Chavez_and_rctv.php
*
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. -- Edward R. Murrow
No surprise, then, that Chavez's decision not to renew the licence of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) has elicited outrage across Britain and America. In an article titled, '"He is losing the country's respect",' Catherine Philp wrote in the Times:
"The move has fuelled accusations that Mr Chavez is moving towards an increasingly authoritarian rule and is quashing dissent against his 'socialist revolution'." (Philp, '"He is losing the country's respect",' The Times, May 29, 2007)
The Washington Post described the action as an attempt to silence opponents, supplying further "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator". (FAIR, Media Advisory, 'Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs - Distorting the Venezuelan media story,' May 25, 2007; click here)
One might think from these comments that Chavez is indeed behaving like a stereotypical "strongman". So why is he refusing to renew the licence?
According to CNN reporter TJ Holmes the motive lies in the fact that RCTV "has been critical of his government" (Ibid). The Associated Press also stressed that RCTV "has been critical of Chávez". (Ibid) A Guardian headline carried the same emphasis: "Chavez silences critical TV station - and robs the people of their soaps." (Rory Carroll, The Guardian, May 23, 2007) A Financial Times news report was titled: "Chavez pulls plug on dissenting TV station." (Benedict Mander, Financial Times, May 9, 2007)
These and similar claims have given the impression that Chavez is simply crushing dissent. An Independent leader came closer to the truth:
"President Chavez has long detested RCTV, accusing it of helping to incite a coup against him in 2002." (Leader, 'A show of intolerance,' The Independent, May 30, 2007)
As this suggests, the problem with RCTV does not revolve around political differences with Chavez; it revolves around RCTV's attempts to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela.
A consistent theme of media reporting has been to ascribe this "accusation" to Chavez personally. Thus the Independent wrote of the "station, which Mr Chavez believes was plotting against him". ('Anti-Chavez protesters clash with police,' The Independent, May 29, 2007)
The Times reported: "President Chavez withdrew its licence, accusing the network of 'coup plotting'". (Philp, op. cit)
Likewise the Financial Times: "Chavez has repeatedly alleged that it supported the [2002] coup..." (Richard Lapper, 'TV channel axed in latest Chavez drama,' Financial Times, May 26, 2007)
And the BBC: "He [Chavez] says they were involved in a coup that nearly toppled him five years ago." (James Ingham, 'Venezuelans protest over TV issue,' BBC Online, May 27, 2007; click here)
These media reports thus all distort the truth by attributing a mere "claim" to Chavez, someone they have all previously demonised as an authoritarian "strongman". This earlier demonisation acts to undermine the credibility of the charge against RCTV in readers' minds, so reinforcing the bias of ostensibly balanced reporting against the Venezuelan government. Robert McChesney and Mark Weisbrot explain:
"This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit." (McChesney and Weisbrot, 'Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction,' Common Dreams, June 1, 2007; click here)
Consider, for example, that the BBC's Ben Brown said of Saddam Hussein:
"He claims UN sanctions have reduced many of his citizens to near starvation - pictures like these [of a malnourished baby and despairing mother] have been a powerful propaganda weapon for Saddam, which he'll now have to give up." (Brown, BBC News, June 20, 1996)
And ITN's John Draper:
"The idea now is targeted or 'smart' sanctions to help ordinary people while at the same time preventing the Iraqi leader from blaming the West for the hardships they're suffering." (Draper, ITN, 22:30 News, February 20, 2001)
And the Observer:
"The Iraqi dictator says his country's children are dying in their thousands because of the West's embargoes." (John Sweeney, 'How Saddam "staged" fake baby funerals,' The Observer, June 23, 2002)
Viewed from the perspective of honest reporting, the opinion of Saddam Hussein - a thoroughly demonised and non-credible source - was irrelevant to an analysis of the effects of sanctions. A range of very credible reports from the United Nations, aid agencies and human rights groups all blamed mass death in Iraq on sanctions. These were the views that mattered for anyone who cared about the truth.
Likewise, it is a simple fact, not a claim, that RCTV was deeply complicit in the 2002 military coup - and the views of the West's Venezuelan bete noire should be placed front and centre only if we are content for media demonisation to undermine this truth.
A Climate Of Transition - Overthrowing Chavez
In a rare example of media honesty, the Los Angeles Times reported last month that RCTV had initially been focused on providing entertainment:
"But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavour: ousting a democratically elected leader from office." (Bart Jones, 'Hugo Chavez versus RCTV - Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup,' Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2007; click here)
Controlled by members of the country's ruling elite, including station chief Marcel Granier, the channel saw Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" in defence of Venezuela's poor as a threat to established privilege and wealth.
Thus, for two days before the April 11, 2002 coup, RCTV cancelled regular programming and instead ran constant coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators delivered fierce criticism of the president with no response allowed from the government. RCTV also ran non-stop adverts encouraging people to attend an April 11 march aimed at toppling the government and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV ran manipulated video footage falsely blaming Chavez supporters for the many 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." (Fair, op. cit)
RCTV news director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he had received clear orders from superiors at the station:
"Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters... The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." (Bart Jones, op. cit)
While the streets of Caracas erupted with public outrage against the coup, RCTV turned a blind eye and showed soap operas, cartoons and old movies instead.
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, at a stroke, demolished Venezuela's democratic institutions - eliminating the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.
Finally, when Chávez returned to power (April 13, 2002), the commercial stations again refused to cover the news.
In a leader titled, 'Chavez clampdown: Closing TV station is part of pattern of authoritarianism,' the Financial Times observed last month:
"The closure limits freedom of expression and reflects the arbitrary and authoritarian approach that has come to characterise Mr Chavez's government. In a region where the media have been becoming more open in recent years after the dark period of military rule in the 1970s and 1980s, this is a backward and worrying step." (Leader, Financial Times, May 29, 2007)
The irony is bitter indeed. It was a "backward and worrying step" of exactly this kind that RCTV attempted to impose on Venezuela by means of a military coup. As the coup appeared to have succeeded in April 2002, the Financial Times helped create "a climate of transition" for British readers:
"But while the Chavez administration was hobbled by inefficiency, a lack of support across class lines and an inability to tackle the country's economic problems and rising crime rate, it was Mr Chavez's overbearing and authoritarian style that analysts said transformed the public's resigned acceptance of an ineffectual government into an active desire among a majority to see it removed." (Richard Lapper and Andy Webb-Vidal, 'Militaristic president falls victim to military revolt,' Financial Times, April 13, 2002)
As for the Venezuelan media's involvement in this "backward and worrying step", the Financial Times had no complaints, other than to comment:
"An example of Mr Chavez's militaristic style has been his confrontational relationship with the local media, particularly television. On Tuesday, when the business sector and union confederation began what was then a 24-hour strike, the state began interrupting broadcasts that showed the success of the work stoppage with turgid interviews with ministers and old video footage of oil wells operating normally." (Andy Webb-Vidal, 'Chavez tests limits of nation's patience,' Financial Times, April 12, 2002)
The liberal media - often considered great bastions of democracy and honest reporting - queued up to present the overthrow of Chavez as an inevitable response to his alienating authoritarianism and multiple failures. With Chavez apparently gone for good, Alex Bellos wrote in the Guardian of "the leftwing firebrand":
"Mr Chavez was elected in 1998 on a wave of popular support and quickly established a reputation as Latin America's most charismatic leader. But his popularity plummeted as he antagonised almost every sector of society and failed to improve the lot of the poor."
Bellos concluded:
"Mr Chavez polarised the country by his attacks on the media and Roman Catholic church leaders, his refusal to consult with business chiefs and his failed attempt to assert control on the unions. The US accused his government of provoking the crisis by ordering its supporters to fire on peaceful demonstrators." (Alex Bellos, 'Ousted Chavez detained by army,' The Guardian, April 13, 2002)
In fact it turned out that the US had conspired with the coup plotters to overthrow the government. Likewise, Chavez supporters had been +defending+ themselves against sniper attack. The Venezuelan media had misrepresented film footage to present the required version of events.
In similar vein, the Independent wrote of Chavez:
"His authoritarian style, his friendship with Fidel Castro and his inability to reverse Venezuela's 20-year slide into poverty and corruption, took their toll on his popularity ratings... Convinced he was embarked on a 'Bolivarian revolution', inspired by the ideals of his hero, independence leader Simon Bolivar, Mr Chavez was messianic in his fervour. He alienated every organised group from the former leftist guerrillas of Bandera Roja to the employers' federation, Fedecamaras." (Phil Gunson, 'Deposed Chavez to be exiled as anti-coup rebels speak out,' The Independent on Sunday, April 14, 2002)
And The Observer weighed in:
"In almost four years in office Chavez alienated most sections of Venezuelan society and was fast becoming as much of an irritant to the US as Fidel Castro, the Cuban leader."
The conclusion:
"His popularity waned in recent months as he became more autocratic, pushing through constitutional changes and alienating former supporters. He exasperated many Venezuelans by implementing economic policies by decree, and accused the news media and Roman Catholic leaders of conspiring to overthrow him." (Faisal Islam, 'Venezuelan civil war fears as ousted president leaves,' The Observer, April 14, 2002)
Even after days of non-stop media broadcasts had succeeded in working for the overthrow of Chavez, for this Observer journalist talk of a media conspiracy remained merely Chavez's accusation.
The opinions of these ostensibly well-informed, highly-trained professional journalists were instantly rubbished by the vast popular uprising that restored Chavez to power, and in the longer term by Chavez's eleven election wins in nine years. In truth the coup was a class-based revolt by and for privileged elites, led by Pedro Carmona who, as the BBC reported, was "head of Venezuela's biggest business organisation, Fedecamaras". Carmona, it was, who "marshalled business and trade union opposition to Mr. Chavez's economic policies". ('Profile: Pedro Carmona,' BBC Online, May 27, 2002; click here)
Genuine Attacks On Free Speech That Go Unnoticed
A May 30 Independent leader declared:
"RCTV was the sole opposition-aligned station with a national reach. Now it has gone. All governments need media opposition to keep them honest. But it appears that President Chavez does not have much time for this concept." (Leader, 'A show of intolerance,' The Independent, May 30, 2007)
Refusing to renew the licence of a TV channel complicit in the demolition of democracy described above is somehow "a show of intolerance" for the Independent. In fact RCTV has not "gone" - it is being allowed to continue operating by satellite and cable.
The Venezuela Information Centre (VIC) notes:
"In Britain, TV and radio must adhere to the Broadcasting Code which embodies objectives that Parliament set down in the Communications Act of 2003. This states that 'Material likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder must not be included in television or radio services' and that 'Broadcasters must use their best endeavours so as not to broadcast material that could endanger lives.' RCTV's role in the coup would have clearly violated these laws." ('The truth about RCTV - VIC briefing,' click here)
FAIR also makes the obvious point: "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." (FAIR, op. cit)
The BBC reported: "The decision to close RCTV has received international condemnation, including from the EU, press freedom groups, Chile and the US, which urged Mr Chavez to reverse the closure." ('Venezuela head in new TV warning,' BBC Online, May 29, 2007; click here)
Almost unmentioned anywhere in the media are the statements of support made by a number of countries and leaders, such as Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil. The BBC report cited RCTV's general manager Marcel Granier who described the "closure" as "abusive" and "arbitrary" - not a word was written of Granier's role in the 2002 coup.
In a letter published in the Guardian (May 26, 2007), Gordon Hutchinson of VIC noted that despite claims made by opponents of Chavez, there is no 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 held in private hands, as are 706 out of 709 radio stations.
While the British and American press focus intensely on the alleged crushing of free speech in Venezuela, little is written about comparable actions elsewhere. A report on 21 countries, including the US and in Europe, by J. David Carracedo published in the magazine Diagonal, found that there have been at least 236 closures, revocations, and non-renewals of radio and TV licences. (See: VIC, 'The truth about RCTV,' op. cit)
There is also little media interest in genuine attacks on media freedom elsewhere in Latin America.
In Honduras, beginning May 28, 2007, President Manuel Zelaya ordered all TV and radio stations to broadcast daily one-hour prime-time programmes for ten days to counteract what he called "misinformation" on his administration provided by the press. (Ibid)
The BBC reported Zelaya's actions on May 25 (Will Grant, 'Honduras TV gets government order'; click here) A June 11 media database search found that in the previous two weeks the US press had mentioned Zelaya's actions in four articles - the highest-profile outlet being the Miami Herald. Over the same period, the US press had mentioned the words "Chavez" and "RCTV" in 207 articles. The British press had not mentioned Zelaya's actions at all - Chavez and RCTV had been mentioned in 23 articles.
In Colombia, President Álvaro Uribe was asked if he would have refused to renew RCTV's licence. Uribe replied: "I would not do that to anybody."
The Inter Press Service News Agency commented wryly:
"But the rightwing Uribe cannot shut down opposition TV stations for the simple reason that there aren't any." (Diana Cariboni, 'Easy to See the Speck in the Other's Eye,' May 30, 2007; click here)
In October 2004, Uribe closed the public Instituto de Radio y Televisión (Inravisión). The Colombian government argued that Inravisión was "inefficient." But the underlying problem "was the strength of the union" of Inravisión employees, according to Milciades Vizcaíno, a sociologist who worked for nearly 27 years in educational programming for the channel. (Ibid)
In Nicaragua in 2002, La Poderosa radio station lost its licence and had its equipment seized without any legal proceedings by the Enrique Bolaños administration. La Poderosa was an outspoken critic of the government.
These and many other attacks on free speech across the region do not make the front pages of the British and American press. As usual, alleged concerns for democracy and human rights mask deeper priorities: protecting governments that toe the line dictated by Western power, and undermining those that do not.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Ask the following journalists why, for example, they cite Chavez as the source for a mere "claim" that RCTV was deeply involved in the military coup to overthrow Chavez. Why do they not state RCTV's involvement in the coup as an undeniable fact?
Write to Catherine Philp
Email: catherine.philp@thetimes.co.uk
Write to Richard Lapper at the Financial Times
Email: richard.lapper@ft.com
Write to James Ingham at BBC
Email: james.ingham@bbc.co.uk
Write to Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor
Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
Write to Simon Kelner, Independent editor
Email: s.kelner@independent.co.uk
Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org
This media alert will shortly be archived here:
www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070613_Chavez_and_rctv.php
*
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. -- Edward R. Murrow
Monday, June 11, 2007
Periodista chileno defiende autonomía del gobierno venezolano en el caso RCTV
http://www.radioagencianp.com.br/images/stories/notplan/mp3/2007/junho/110607periodista.mp3
Mientras diversos vehículos de comunicación del mundo persisten en atacar la reciente decisión del gobierno venezolano de no renovar la licencia de la Red RCTV, el presidente del Colegio de Periodistas de Chile, Ernesto Carmona, puso en evidencia que diversos países ya tomaron la misma actitud. En un artículo publicado la última semana – resultado de un estudio realizado por él – Carmona señala, por ejemplo, que la Administración Federal de Comunicaciones (FCC), órgano del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, cerró 141 concesionarias de radio y televisión entre los años de 1934 y 1987. En Inglaterra, él recuerda que el gobierno de Margareth Thatcher canceló la concesión de una de las mayores estaciones de televisión del país, que difundió noticias desagradables, pero verdaderas. El periodista aun cita el ejemplo de Canadá que revocó en 1999 la concesión de la Country Music Television, y de España que en julio de 2004 revocó la concesión de la Televisión Laciana (canal de cable) y un año después determinó el cierre de la Televisión Católica. En América Latina él cita países como Perú, donde en el año pasado fueron cerrados dos canales de televisión y tres de radio por no cumplir la ley local.
Ernesto aun recuerda que la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones (UIT) – órgano de cooperación entre los países para el uso racional de las telecomunicaciones – reconoce el derecho soberano de cada Estado de imponer reglas a ese servicio. La RCTV estaba en el aire hace más de 30 años y ya había sido punida varias veces por transmitir programación inadecuada.
De San Pablo, Brasil, de la Radioagencia NP, Silvia Adoue
Mientras diversos vehículos de comunicación del mundo persisten en atacar la reciente decisión del gobierno venezolano de no renovar la licencia de la Red RCTV, el presidente del Colegio de Periodistas de Chile, Ernesto Carmona, puso en evidencia que diversos países ya tomaron la misma actitud. En un artículo publicado la última semana – resultado de un estudio realizado por él – Carmona señala, por ejemplo, que la Administración Federal de Comunicaciones (FCC), órgano del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, cerró 141 concesionarias de radio y televisión entre los años de 1934 y 1987. En Inglaterra, él recuerda que el gobierno de Margareth Thatcher canceló la concesión de una de las mayores estaciones de televisión del país, que difundió noticias desagradables, pero verdaderas. El periodista aun cita el ejemplo de Canadá que revocó en 1999 la concesión de la Country Music Television, y de España que en julio de 2004 revocó la concesión de la Televisión Laciana (canal de cable) y un año después determinó el cierre de la Televisión Católica. En América Latina él cita países como Perú, donde en el año pasado fueron cerrados dos canales de televisión y tres de radio por no cumplir la ley local.
Ernesto aun recuerda que la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones (UIT) – órgano de cooperación entre los países para el uso racional de las telecomunicaciones – reconoce el derecho soberano de cada Estado de imponer reglas a ese servicio. La RCTV estaba en el aire hace más de 30 años y ya había sido punida varias veces por transmitir programación inadecuada.
De San Pablo, Brasil, de la Radioagencia NP, Silvia Adoue
Friday, June 08, 2007
Venezolanos demuestran su apoyo al proceso revolucionario mediante mega marcha
Caracas, 02 Jun.- El ministro del Poder Popular para la Información y la Comunicación (Minci), Willian Lara, señaló que la marcha de este sábado en la ciudad capital es una demostración más del apoyo de los venezolanos al proceso revolucionario para defender la soberanía.
Asimismo, reiteró que la marcha en apoyo a la decisión soberana tomada por el Gobierno servirá de escenario para demostrar al mundo que la no renovación de la concesión al grupo 1 Broadcasting Caracas (1BC), propietario de Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) es democrática.
Lara, quien se encontraba desde el Parque del Este Generalísimo Francisco de Miranda, aclaró que no es asunto del Estado si RCTV decide salir por cable sino del grupo 1BC y de quienes prestan ese servicio.
'Lo único que exige el Estado venezolano es que cumplan con la Ley de Responsabilidad en Radio y Televisión, con La Ley Orgánica de Protección al Niño, Niña, y Adolescente y con la Constitución nacional', apuntó el titular del Minci.
RCTV fue sancionado seis veces, a lo largo de toda su historia, con lo cual se convirtió en el canal más sancionado de Venezuela.
Lara dijo que el nuevo canal de servicio público, la Televisora Venezolana Social (TVes), abre los espacios para la participación a 'todos los sectores de la sociedad venezolana y no sólo a la élite'.
Por otra parte, hizo referencia a las pruebas que presentó este viernes la vicepresidenta de la Asamblea Nacional (AN), Desirée Santos Amaral, sobre el plan desestabilizador que adelantan factores de la oposición.
Dichas pruebas 'son inapelables y demuestran que los mismos que participaron en la insurrección del 11 de abril son los mismos que ahora están detrás de los grupos de estudiantes que han perturbado la vida de algunos sectores de Caracas en días pasados'.
En rueda de prensa desde la AN, realizada el pasado a jueves, Santos Amaral denunció que el Comando Nacional de la Resistencia, el partido derechista Un Nuevo Tiempo y la Organización de Venezolanos en el Exilio (Orvex), esta último a cargo de Róger Alonso, son financiados por la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA, por sus siglas en inglés) de Estados Unidos, para impulsar las manifestaciones con fines desestabilizadores en el país.
Asimismo, reiteró que la marcha en apoyo a la decisión soberana tomada por el Gobierno servirá de escenario para demostrar al mundo que la no renovación de la concesión al grupo 1 Broadcasting Caracas (1BC), propietario de Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) es democrática.
Lara, quien se encontraba desde el Parque del Este Generalísimo Francisco de Miranda, aclaró que no es asunto del Estado si RCTV decide salir por cable sino del grupo 1BC y de quienes prestan ese servicio.
'Lo único que exige el Estado venezolano es que cumplan con la Ley de Responsabilidad en Radio y Televisión, con La Ley Orgánica de Protección al Niño, Niña, y Adolescente y con la Constitución nacional', apuntó el titular del Minci.
RCTV fue sancionado seis veces, a lo largo de toda su historia, con lo cual se convirtió en el canal más sancionado de Venezuela.
Lara dijo que el nuevo canal de servicio público, la Televisora Venezolana Social (TVes), abre los espacios para la participación a 'todos los sectores de la sociedad venezolana y no sólo a la élite'.
Por otra parte, hizo referencia a las pruebas que presentó este viernes la vicepresidenta de la Asamblea Nacional (AN), Desirée Santos Amaral, sobre el plan desestabilizador que adelantan factores de la oposición.
Dichas pruebas 'son inapelables y demuestran que los mismos que participaron en la insurrección del 11 de abril son los mismos que ahora están detrás de los grupos de estudiantes que han perturbado la vida de algunos sectores de Caracas en días pasados'.
En rueda de prensa desde la AN, realizada el pasado a jueves, Santos Amaral denunció que el Comando Nacional de la Resistencia, el partido derechista Un Nuevo Tiempo y la Organización de Venezolanos en el Exilio (Orvex), esta último a cargo de Róger Alonso, son financiados por la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA, por sus siglas en inglés) de Estados Unidos, para impulsar las manifestaciones con fines desestabilizadores en el país.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Venezuela and freedom of speech – 4 lies, 4 answers
By Alessandro Villari - HOV Italy
Since the Venezuelan president announced a few months ago that the Bolivarian government would not renew the broadcast concession to the TV station RCTV, a ferocious campaign has been unleashed in Italy (as well as in all the Western countries), accusing Hugo Chavez of attacking freedom of information in order to "shut up the Opposition".
Most of the mainstream Italian newspapers have joined the campaign, however the arguments used to back this campaign are definitely groundless and based on false assumptions.
One of the most frequent accusations is that the Venezuelan government has turned off one of the few private Venezuelan TV stations, thus silencing one of the few independent sources of information. This is supposedly because this TV station "was an obstacle to Chavez' populist project". These are utter falsifications and we can easily prove this:
"Hugo Chavez shut down RCTV"
Hugo Chavez has not shut down RCTV. RCTV was allowed to broadcast its programmes through TV frequencies, which are a public good, and which are periodically assigned by the government to one TV station or another. When the licence expires on May 28, the licence will not be renewed to RCTV. Venezuelan law (and it must be noted - the law of any other country) does not say that the government should assign TV frequencies to the same companies all the time, but allows it to choose. We are going to deal in a moment with the reasons why the Bolivarian government decided to deny the renewal of the licence.
"RCTV is one of the few Venezuelan private TV stations"
According to an official June 2006 report from the Venezuelan Ministry of Communications and Information, the vast majority of Venezuelan mass media (TV and Radio channels, newspapers) are today in the hands of private owners. In particular, as far as the television sector is concerned, 90% of the market is in the hands of 4 private TV companies: RCTV, Globovision, Televen and Venevision. The owner of RCTV, Marcel Granier, owns another 40 TV stations throughout Venezuela (most of them of course are local TV channels). To be accurate 79 out of a total of 81 TV channels (or 97%) are private; 706 out of 709 Radio channels (or 99%) and all 118 newspapers are in private hands.
"RCTV was an obstacle for Chavez' populist project"
It is not the purpose of this article to deal with definitions of Hugo Chavez' project. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that the media owned by our local entrepreneurs, tend to label as "populist" each and every political project that does not base itself on the support or acceptance of the exploitation of labour.
It might be better to spell out what is meant when it is said that RCTV was an obstacle for the policies of the Bolivarian government. The plain truth is that RCTV had been directly and openly involved in the April 11, 2002 coup that attempted to oust the democratically elected president Hugo Chavez. The participation of RCTV in the coup plot was so blatant that the Production Manager f RCTVat the time o, Andres Izarra, who opposed the coup, resigned hastily in order not to be a party to a crime. In an official testimony to the Venezuelan National Assembly, Izarra reported that he was instructed formally by Granier the same day of the coup and during the following days not to broadcast any information on Chavez, his personnel, the ministers or whoever could be related to him.
This is exactly what happened. RCTV only reported that President Chavez had resigned from office (which was a blatant lie - as he had been kidnapped by the coup plotters...). And when two days later millions of Venezuelans took the streets demanding that the legitimate president they elected should come back, RCTV broadcasted just cartoons!
An inspiring account of those days is the documentary made out of the footage shot by an Irish troupe that was "trapped" in the Miraflores presidential palace during the coup. The documentary carries a significant title: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".
"Shutting down RCTV means silencing one of the few sources of information which do not depend directly on the state"
As we already explained, this is not the case - at all! The majority of the media in Venezuela side openly with the Opposition to Chavez' government. It's a curious paradox that in a country where the Government is supported by nearly two thirds of the population (according to the December 2006 presidential elections), the vast majority of the media are actively campaigning against it.
In 2002 even Human Rights Watch, which otherwise supports the mainstream campaign against the Venezuelan Government, had to admit that "Far from providing fair and accurate reporting, the media by and large seek to provoke popular discontent and outrage in support of the hard-line opposition" (Venezuela's Political Crisis," Human Rights News, Human Rights Watch, October 9, 2002).
In spite of this, the Venezuelan government has been so tolerant on opposition media that no TV stations, radios or newspapers have been closed, and just now, after five years, the government decided not to renew the frequency licence to RCTV. We ask, which other "democratic" country could accept that a TV channel openly supporting a coup plot would go on broadcasting after the failure of such an attempt? Which other country would accept that the owner of such a TV channel should not face trial for having supported a coup?
In Italy, for example, we had the Prime Minister of a so-called democratic country, Berlusconi, banning through a "diktat" from the TV screens of both the state and private TVs two popular journalists (Biagi and Santoro) and a satirical actor (Luttazzi), just because they were criticising his government!
Simon Bolivar said that a people could never be free if freedom of speech is not granted. That is definitely true. But we should ask ourselves whether this freedom of speech is really granted by a system where the mass media are in the hands of a clique of a few wealthy people and serve the interests of those few against the interests of the majority of the people.
Since the Venezuelan president announced a few months ago that the Bolivarian government would not renew the broadcast concession to the TV station RCTV, a ferocious campaign has been unleashed in Italy (as well as in all the Western countries), accusing Hugo Chavez of attacking freedom of information in order to "shut up the Opposition".
Most of the mainstream Italian newspapers have joined the campaign, however the arguments used to back this campaign are definitely groundless and based on false assumptions.
One of the most frequent accusations is that the Venezuelan government has turned off one of the few private Venezuelan TV stations, thus silencing one of the few independent sources of information. This is supposedly because this TV station "was an obstacle to Chavez' populist project". These are utter falsifications and we can easily prove this:
"Hugo Chavez shut down RCTV"
Hugo Chavez has not shut down RCTV. RCTV was allowed to broadcast its programmes through TV frequencies, which are a public good, and which are periodically assigned by the government to one TV station or another. When the licence expires on May 28, the licence will not be renewed to RCTV. Venezuelan law (and it must be noted - the law of any other country) does not say that the government should assign TV frequencies to the same companies all the time, but allows it to choose. We are going to deal in a moment with the reasons why the Bolivarian government decided to deny the renewal of the licence.
"RCTV is one of the few Venezuelan private TV stations"
According to an official June 2006 report from the Venezuelan Ministry of Communications and Information, the vast majority of Venezuelan mass media (TV and Radio channels, newspapers) are today in the hands of private owners. In particular, as far as the television sector is concerned, 90% of the market is in the hands of 4 private TV companies: RCTV, Globovision, Televen and Venevision. The owner of RCTV, Marcel Granier, owns another 40 TV stations throughout Venezuela (most of them of course are local TV channels). To be accurate 79 out of a total of 81 TV channels (or 97%) are private; 706 out of 709 Radio channels (or 99%) and all 118 newspapers are in private hands.
"RCTV was an obstacle for Chavez' populist project"
It is not the purpose of this article to deal with definitions of Hugo Chavez' project. Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that the media owned by our local entrepreneurs, tend to label as "populist" each and every political project that does not base itself on the support or acceptance of the exploitation of labour.
It might be better to spell out what is meant when it is said that RCTV was an obstacle for the policies of the Bolivarian government. The plain truth is that RCTV had been directly and openly involved in the April 11, 2002 coup that attempted to oust the democratically elected president Hugo Chavez. The participation of RCTV in the coup plot was so blatant that the Production Manager f RCTVat the time o, Andres Izarra, who opposed the coup, resigned hastily in order not to be a party to a crime. In an official testimony to the Venezuelan National Assembly, Izarra reported that he was instructed formally by Granier the same day of the coup and during the following days not to broadcast any information on Chavez, his personnel, the ministers or whoever could be related to him.
This is exactly what happened. RCTV only reported that President Chavez had resigned from office (which was a blatant lie - as he had been kidnapped by the coup plotters...). And when two days later millions of Venezuelans took the streets demanding that the legitimate president they elected should come back, RCTV broadcasted just cartoons!
An inspiring account of those days is the documentary made out of the footage shot by an Irish troupe that was "trapped" in the Miraflores presidential palace during the coup. The documentary carries a significant title: "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".
"Shutting down RCTV means silencing one of the few sources of information which do not depend directly on the state"
As we already explained, this is not the case - at all! The majority of the media in Venezuela side openly with the Opposition to Chavez' government. It's a curious paradox that in a country where the Government is supported by nearly two thirds of the population (according to the December 2006 presidential elections), the vast majority of the media are actively campaigning against it.
In 2002 even Human Rights Watch, which otherwise supports the mainstream campaign against the Venezuelan Government, had to admit that "Far from providing fair and accurate reporting, the media by and large seek to provoke popular discontent and outrage in support of the hard-line opposition" (Venezuela's Political Crisis," Human Rights News, Human Rights Watch, October 9, 2002).
In spite of this, the Venezuelan government has been so tolerant on opposition media that no TV stations, radios or newspapers have been closed, and just now, after five years, the government decided not to renew the frequency licence to RCTV. We ask, which other "democratic" country could accept that a TV channel openly supporting a coup plot would go on broadcasting after the failure of such an attempt? Which other country would accept that the owner of such a TV channel should not face trial for having supported a coup?
In Italy, for example, we had the Prime Minister of a so-called democratic country, Berlusconi, banning through a "diktat" from the TV screens of both the state and private TVs two popular journalists (Biagi and Santoro) and a satirical actor (Luttazzi), just because they were criticising his government!
Simon Bolivar said that a people could never be free if freedom of speech is not granted. That is definitely true. But we should ask ourselves whether this freedom of speech is really granted by a system where the mass media are in the hands of a clique of a few wealthy people and serve the interests of those few against the interests of the majority of the people.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
EEUU: Arrestado periodista por hacer pregunta incómoda sobre el 11 S a personal de candidato Rudolph Giuliani
Mientras tanto EEUU critica medidas de Venezuela contra TV golpista RCTV
Mientras EEUU critica a Venzuela por el caso de la televisora golpista RCTV, en EEUU, periodistas son arrestados en pleno ejercicio de sus funciones si hacen preguntas incómodas a políticos poderosos.
6 de junio de 2007.- En clara violación de la libertad de expresión, el reportero estadounidense Matt Lepacek fue arrestado por la policía de Manchester, New Hamshire, luego de preguntarle de manera insistente a miembros del entorno político del candidato a la presidencia por el partido republicano, Rudolph Giuliani, en relación a su supuesto conocimiento previo del colapso de las torres gemelas y el edificio 7 en Nueva York, luego del impacto de los dos aviones durante los hechos del 11 de septiembre de 2002.
Los periodistas preguntaron igualmente en relación al supuesto desconocimiento del candidato Giuliani del reporte de la comisión especial para estudiar los hechos.
El derechista Giuliani se posiciona como el candidato con más experiencia en llamada "lucha contra el terrorismo," debido a que para el momento de los hechos del 11S, era alcalde de la ciudad de Nueva York.
El arresto tuvo lugar durante el debate entre los pre-candidatos republicanos a la presidencia de EE.UU. La información fue dada a conocer por Aaron Dykes y Alex Jones del sitio web alternativo Jonesreport.com, medio de izquierda creado en oposición al derechista Drudgereport.com.
Según otro periodista, Jason Bermas, de Infowars.com, el reportero arrestado poseía una credencial oficial de CNN para estar presente en el debate. A pesar de esto, unos vigilantes le confiscaron su cámara, de acuerdo a Luke Rudkowski, otro reportero de Infowars.com quien estaba allí presente. Personal de CNN presente, trató de evitar el arresto. El arresto se produjo a petición del secretario de prensa del candidato.
De acuerdo a Bermas, la policía atacó físicamente a ambos periodistas después de que Rudkowski les reafirmara que ellos eran miembros acreditados de la prensa y que no había sucedido nada ilegal.
Una de las cámaras de Infowars resultó dañada en el forcejeo con la policía.
Según afirmó Lepacek telefónicamente desde la cárcel, se le acusaría de "espionaje" por portar una cámara web (webcam) en el recinto, la cual fue usada para transmitir en vivo por internet.
El reportero alternativo Samuel Ettaro del sitio web Freedom to Fascism, fue también removido del recinto por personal de seguridad.
El incidente en ningún momento interrumpió los debates, ya que éstos se realizaban en un recinto adyacente.
Preguntas dolorosas
Según estudiosos de teorías alternativas a la versión oficial de los hechos del 11S, las torres gemelas y el edificio 7 (WTC 7) colapsaron producto de una demolición controlada, no como consecuencia del impacto de los aviones. Según reportes, altos oficiales de la ciudad ordenaron dejar de intentar apagar los incendios en el edificio 7 y evacuar el área adyacente de manera anticipada. Esto, aunado al hecho de que los tres edificios colapsaron en si mismos de manera perfecta, ha hecho a muchos pensar que el edificio fue demolido con explosivos de manera controlada. En el edificio 7 estaban localizadas varias oficinas de la Agencia Nacional de Seguridad (NSA), cuerpo secreto mucho más poderoso que la CIA.
Las teorías alternativas a la versión oficial fueron dadas a conocer en Venezuela por el periodista Carlos Sicilia.
No es la primera vez que periodistas con preguntas incómodas son arrestados en los EE.UU. Alex Jones fue arrestado en un evento del entonces gobernador de Texas, George W. Bush, luego de preguntarle al gobernador si él pensaba eliminar la reserva federal estadounidense. Tal como puede apreciarse en el siguiente video.
Los hechos se producen en momentos en que el gobierno de EE.UU. lidera una campaña internacional en contra del gobierno venezolano en relación a la no-renovación de la concesión para transmitir en señal abierta a la televisora RCTV, la cual participó de manera activa en el golpe de estado de 2002 en contra del gobierno democráticamente electo del Presidente Hugo Chávez.
Vea también:
Carlos Sicilia: El 11-S las torres gemelas cayeron por efecto de explosivos
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/StevenJonesMs_Espa.html
Mientras EEUU critica a Venzuela por el caso de la televisora golpista RCTV, en EEUU, periodistas son arrestados en pleno ejercicio de sus funciones si hacen preguntas incómodas a políticos poderosos.
6 de junio de 2007.- En clara violación de la libertad de expresión, el reportero estadounidense Matt Lepacek fue arrestado por la policía de Manchester, New Hamshire, luego de preguntarle de manera insistente a miembros del entorno político del candidato a la presidencia por el partido republicano, Rudolph Giuliani, en relación a su supuesto conocimiento previo del colapso de las torres gemelas y el edificio 7 en Nueva York, luego del impacto de los dos aviones durante los hechos del 11 de septiembre de 2002.
Los periodistas preguntaron igualmente en relación al supuesto desconocimiento del candidato Giuliani del reporte de la comisión especial para estudiar los hechos.
El derechista Giuliani se posiciona como el candidato con más experiencia en llamada "lucha contra el terrorismo," debido a que para el momento de los hechos del 11S, era alcalde de la ciudad de Nueva York.
El arresto tuvo lugar durante el debate entre los pre-candidatos republicanos a la presidencia de EE.UU. La información fue dada a conocer por Aaron Dykes y Alex Jones del sitio web alternativo Jonesreport.com, medio de izquierda creado en oposición al derechista Drudgereport.com.
Según otro periodista, Jason Bermas, de Infowars.com, el reportero arrestado poseía una credencial oficial de CNN para estar presente en el debate. A pesar de esto, unos vigilantes le confiscaron su cámara, de acuerdo a Luke Rudkowski, otro reportero de Infowars.com quien estaba allí presente. Personal de CNN presente, trató de evitar el arresto. El arresto se produjo a petición del secretario de prensa del candidato.
De acuerdo a Bermas, la policía atacó físicamente a ambos periodistas después de que Rudkowski les reafirmara que ellos eran miembros acreditados de la prensa y que no había sucedido nada ilegal.
Una de las cámaras de Infowars resultó dañada en el forcejeo con la policía.
Según afirmó Lepacek telefónicamente desde la cárcel, se le acusaría de "espionaje" por portar una cámara web (webcam) en el recinto, la cual fue usada para transmitir en vivo por internet.
El reportero alternativo Samuel Ettaro del sitio web Freedom to Fascism, fue también removido del recinto por personal de seguridad.
El incidente en ningún momento interrumpió los debates, ya que éstos se realizaban en un recinto adyacente.
Preguntas dolorosas
Según estudiosos de teorías alternativas a la versión oficial de los hechos del 11S, las torres gemelas y el edificio 7 (WTC 7) colapsaron producto de una demolición controlada, no como consecuencia del impacto de los aviones. Según reportes, altos oficiales de la ciudad ordenaron dejar de intentar apagar los incendios en el edificio 7 y evacuar el área adyacente de manera anticipada. Esto, aunado al hecho de que los tres edificios colapsaron en si mismos de manera perfecta, ha hecho a muchos pensar que el edificio fue demolido con explosivos de manera controlada. En el edificio 7 estaban localizadas varias oficinas de la Agencia Nacional de Seguridad (NSA), cuerpo secreto mucho más poderoso que la CIA.
Las teorías alternativas a la versión oficial fueron dadas a conocer en Venezuela por el periodista Carlos Sicilia.
No es la primera vez que periodistas con preguntas incómodas son arrestados en los EE.UU. Alex Jones fue arrestado en un evento del entonces gobernador de Texas, George W. Bush, luego de preguntarle al gobernador si él pensaba eliminar la reserva federal estadounidense. Tal como puede apreciarse en el siguiente video.
Los hechos se producen en momentos en que el gobierno de EE.UU. lidera una campaña internacional en contra del gobierno venezolano en relación a la no-renovación de la concesión para transmitir en señal abierta a la televisora RCTV, la cual participó de manera activa en el golpe de estado de 2002 en contra del gobierno democráticamente electo del Presidente Hugo Chávez.
Vea también:
Carlos Sicilia: El 11-S las torres gemelas cayeron por efecto de explosivos
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/StevenJonesMs_Espa.html
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Revolución Bolivariana vs. RCTV - La pelea del siglo XXI
por Juan Carlos Camaño*
Hace unos meses el presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, dijo, sin temor al que dirán, ni a lo que harán sus enemigos, que el proceso que él lidera se inscribe, decididamente, en la construcción del Socialismo del Siglo XXI. Más claro –según se acostumbra a decir- echarle agua. Eso dijo Chávez, triunfador incuestionablemente democrático en cuanto acto electoral haya sido atravesado por los venezolanos en la última década.
30 de mayo de 2007
Sin embargo, como era de esperar –siempre es de esperar- saltándose la constitución e infinidad de argumentos jurídicos internacionales, los dueños de Radio Caracas de Televisión Venezolana (RCTV), a los que se le acabó el tiempo de “su propiedad” sobre una franja del espacio radioeléctrico, pusieron el grito en el cielo, reclamando seguir siendo dueños del aire. Algo que, cada vez es más escaso y, por cierto, más contaminado, pero así y todo propiedad social, propiedad de todos y de nadie en especial.
En la apertura de las recientes jornadas –convocadas por Telesur- para debatir sobre el derecho que tiene todo ciudadano a informar y estar informado, Chávez –en su discurso de apertura de las jornadas- dijo, de viva voz, que la renovación de la concesión pretendida por los dueños de RCTV solo sería posible si él dejara de ser presidente. En buen romance: “tendrán que pasar por sobre mi cadáver”. Socialismo Siglo XXI o continuidad del Capitalismo Salvaje. Ni más, ni menos.
Sin lugar a dudas, asistimos a un combate que no admite medias tintas. Es a todo o nada. Porque lo que hace al centro de la disputa, tal cual lo saben y lo ejercitan los dueños de RCTV, es el futuro de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela y no el futuro de un canal de televisión. La sociedad será “Socialista”, como alienta Chávez y una importante mayoría del pueblo que lo vota, acompaña y respalda, o la sociedad recreará de lleno el “Capitalismo” voraz y rapaz, gobierno de los ricos, por los ricos y para los ricos. Al cabo, el habitat en el que se movían, como peces en el agua, las ocho familias adueñadas de RCTV, hasta el pasado día 27 de mayo: día en que cayó –como en cualquier lugar del mundo- una concesión que duró más de cincuenta años.
El destino de RCTV incluye, claro que sí, la discusión sobre la propiedad del espacio radioeléctrico y las atribuciones de un estado respecto de cuáles son los límites de uso de la propiedad social y/o privada del aire. Pero sería francamente mezquino pretender que el tenor de la disputa citada obedece a un quitame, o no, de allí un canal de televisión. Tan mezquino como absurdo sería aceptar que los dueños de RCTV se propongan –como lo hacen- y se les crea que lo son, los adalides de la libertad de expresión. Son, porque las evidencias del año 2002 todavía están a la vista, golpistas contra Chávez. Son los golpistas que golpearon, junto a otros empresarios y políticos históricamente dedicados a rifar vilmente la vida de millones de niños, mujeres y hombres de Venezuela, a Chávez y a su gobierno.
Y serán, a no dudarlo, los que jamás dejarán de conspirar a favor de sus privilegios junto a sus socios internacionales, hoy preocupadísimos porque “la libertad de expresión” de los dueños del dinero ha sufrido un revés a manos del “atrevimiento” popular. Y, también a no dudarlo, seguirán adelante con su ideología -pretendiendo disimularla en el apoliticismo del “profesionalismo objetivo”- para que caiga Chávez, quien tanto dolor de cabeza les trae a ellos y a sus mandantes: las cúpulas del Pentágono y del petróleo, en EE.UU.
A no olvidarse que la llegada de Chávez al gobierno de Venezuela abortó, entre otras supuestas pequeñeces, de similar porte, que la fuente de recursos más importante del país –el petróleo- le fuera concedida definitivamente a empresas estadounidenses, piloteadas por hombres de negocios pertenecientes, algunos de ellos, a la tristemente famosa CIA. O sea, la feroz central de inteligencia norteamericana que, además de alentar y participar de golpes de estado en la región, y el mundo entero, sigue su macabra tarea de espionaje y torturas en pequeños y sofisticados campos de concentración desparramados en distintos puntos de la globalización neoliberal: especialmente en Europa.
Por eso –y a falta de políticos que puedan derrotar a Chávez democraticamente- los dueños de RCTV se encaraman en la cresta de la ola antichavista sumando al interior de Venezuela toda la adhesión que pueden mediante el dinero y la defensa, efectista y ramplona, de programaciones populares; y por fuera, en la arena internacional, sumando lo que les permita el largo brazo de su ideología sistémica y el para nada desdeñable brazo armado del Pentágono y la mismísima Casa Blanca.
Entonces, de un lado del cuadrilatero la aparatología mediática de la globalización neoliberal, de las transnacionales informativas-comunicacionales, y sus apoyaturas logísticas, con significativo poder de fuego, conscientes de que su pupilo –RCTV- debe salir airoso: si no es hoy, mañana. Por él, por un pupilo alzado por las calles de Caracas, se hacen flamear banderas de “libertad de expresión”, un abstracto esgrimido como paradigma de derecho universal, aunque lo gocen no muchos más que los amos del dinero.
Y en el otro rincón, la mayoría del pueblo de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela y su presidente. Ambos, pueblo y gobierno, con la decisión de caminar el camino del Socialismo del Siglo XXI hartos del desplante, las mentiras y las violaciones de aquellos que se erigen –en defensa de sus privilegios- en el poder de facto y en protectores de libertades que no son más que cárceles de la conciencia de las mayorías y alimento de la alienación consumista.
Juan Carlos Camaño
Periodista. Presidente de la Federación Latinoamericana de Periodistas (FELAP)
Hace unos meses el presidente de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, dijo, sin temor al que dirán, ni a lo que harán sus enemigos, que el proceso que él lidera se inscribe, decididamente, en la construcción del Socialismo del Siglo XXI. Más claro –según se acostumbra a decir- echarle agua. Eso dijo Chávez, triunfador incuestionablemente democrático en cuanto acto electoral haya sido atravesado por los venezolanos en la última década.
30 de mayo de 2007
Sin embargo, como era de esperar –siempre es de esperar- saltándose la constitución e infinidad de argumentos jurídicos internacionales, los dueños de Radio Caracas de Televisión Venezolana (RCTV), a los que se le acabó el tiempo de “su propiedad” sobre una franja del espacio radioeléctrico, pusieron el grito en el cielo, reclamando seguir siendo dueños del aire. Algo que, cada vez es más escaso y, por cierto, más contaminado, pero así y todo propiedad social, propiedad de todos y de nadie en especial.
En la apertura de las recientes jornadas –convocadas por Telesur- para debatir sobre el derecho que tiene todo ciudadano a informar y estar informado, Chávez –en su discurso de apertura de las jornadas- dijo, de viva voz, que la renovación de la concesión pretendida por los dueños de RCTV solo sería posible si él dejara de ser presidente. En buen romance: “tendrán que pasar por sobre mi cadáver”. Socialismo Siglo XXI o continuidad del Capitalismo Salvaje. Ni más, ni menos.
Sin lugar a dudas, asistimos a un combate que no admite medias tintas. Es a todo o nada. Porque lo que hace al centro de la disputa, tal cual lo saben y lo ejercitan los dueños de RCTV, es el futuro de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela y no el futuro de un canal de televisión. La sociedad será “Socialista”, como alienta Chávez y una importante mayoría del pueblo que lo vota, acompaña y respalda, o la sociedad recreará de lleno el “Capitalismo” voraz y rapaz, gobierno de los ricos, por los ricos y para los ricos. Al cabo, el habitat en el que se movían, como peces en el agua, las ocho familias adueñadas de RCTV, hasta el pasado día 27 de mayo: día en que cayó –como en cualquier lugar del mundo- una concesión que duró más de cincuenta años.
El destino de RCTV incluye, claro que sí, la discusión sobre la propiedad del espacio radioeléctrico y las atribuciones de un estado respecto de cuáles son los límites de uso de la propiedad social y/o privada del aire. Pero sería francamente mezquino pretender que el tenor de la disputa citada obedece a un quitame, o no, de allí un canal de televisión. Tan mezquino como absurdo sería aceptar que los dueños de RCTV se propongan –como lo hacen- y se les crea que lo son, los adalides de la libertad de expresión. Son, porque las evidencias del año 2002 todavía están a la vista, golpistas contra Chávez. Son los golpistas que golpearon, junto a otros empresarios y políticos históricamente dedicados a rifar vilmente la vida de millones de niños, mujeres y hombres de Venezuela, a Chávez y a su gobierno.
Y serán, a no dudarlo, los que jamás dejarán de conspirar a favor de sus privilegios junto a sus socios internacionales, hoy preocupadísimos porque “la libertad de expresión” de los dueños del dinero ha sufrido un revés a manos del “atrevimiento” popular. Y, también a no dudarlo, seguirán adelante con su ideología -pretendiendo disimularla en el apoliticismo del “profesionalismo objetivo”- para que caiga Chávez, quien tanto dolor de cabeza les trae a ellos y a sus mandantes: las cúpulas del Pentágono y del petróleo, en EE.UU.
A no olvidarse que la llegada de Chávez al gobierno de Venezuela abortó, entre otras supuestas pequeñeces, de similar porte, que la fuente de recursos más importante del país –el petróleo- le fuera concedida definitivamente a empresas estadounidenses, piloteadas por hombres de negocios pertenecientes, algunos de ellos, a la tristemente famosa CIA. O sea, la feroz central de inteligencia norteamericana que, además de alentar y participar de golpes de estado en la región, y el mundo entero, sigue su macabra tarea de espionaje y torturas en pequeños y sofisticados campos de concentración desparramados en distintos puntos de la globalización neoliberal: especialmente en Europa.
Por eso –y a falta de políticos que puedan derrotar a Chávez democraticamente- los dueños de RCTV se encaraman en la cresta de la ola antichavista sumando al interior de Venezuela toda la adhesión que pueden mediante el dinero y la defensa, efectista y ramplona, de programaciones populares; y por fuera, en la arena internacional, sumando lo que les permita el largo brazo de su ideología sistémica y el para nada desdeñable brazo armado del Pentágono y la mismísima Casa Blanca.
Entonces, de un lado del cuadrilatero la aparatología mediática de la globalización neoliberal, de las transnacionales informativas-comunicacionales, y sus apoyaturas logísticas, con significativo poder de fuego, conscientes de que su pupilo –RCTV- debe salir airoso: si no es hoy, mañana. Por él, por un pupilo alzado por las calles de Caracas, se hacen flamear banderas de “libertad de expresión”, un abstracto esgrimido como paradigma de derecho universal, aunque lo gocen no muchos más que los amos del dinero.
Y en el otro rincón, la mayoría del pueblo de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela y su presidente. Ambos, pueblo y gobierno, con la decisión de caminar el camino del Socialismo del Siglo XXI hartos del desplante, las mentiras y las violaciones de aquellos que se erigen –en defensa de sus privilegios- en el poder de facto y en protectores de libertades que no son más que cárceles de la conciencia de las mayorías y alimento de la alienación consumista.
Juan Carlos Camaño
Periodista. Presidente de la Federación Latinoamericana de Periodistas (FELAP)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)