- On December 28, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias
delivered his annual "greeting speech" to the National Armed
Forces (FAN) and announced the operating license of TV station Radio Caracas
Television (known as RCTV) broadcasting on VHF Channel 2 won't be renewed
when it expires on May 27, 2007. The station played a leading role, along
with the other four major commercial private television channels in the
country controlling 90% of the TV market, in instigating and supporting
the 2002 aborted two-day coup against President Chavez. Later in the year
they acted together again in similar fashion as an active participant in
the economically destructive 2002-03 main trade union confederation (CTV)
- chamber of commerce (Fedecameras) lockout and industry-wide oil strike
that included sabotage against the state oil company PDVSA costing it overall
an estimated $14 billion in lost revenue and damage.
-
- A collaborative alliance of the five media "majors"
that include Globovision, Televen, CMT and Venevision (owned by billionaire
strident anti-Chavista Gustavo Cisneros who's called the Rupert Murdoch
of Latin America because of his vast media holdings) along with RCTV began
their anti-Chavez campaign soon after Hugo Chavez assumed office in 1999.
In addition, 9 of the 10 major national dailies were part of the joint
corporate effort to harm Chavez's popular support and undermine his legitimacy
even before he had a chance to implement his socially democratic agenda
now flourishing under his Bolivarian Revolution. It included the country's
new Constitution and all vital social missions it gave birth to and now
deliver essential services to the people who never had them before including
free health and dental care and education to the highest level - for everyone
mandated by law.
-
- The corporate media alliance, that included RCTV, had
prior knowledge of the April, 2002 coup plot that was apparent from the
front page of national daily El Nacional in a special day of the coup April
11 edition of the paper printed before it began and headlined: The Final
Battle Will Be in Miraflores (the presidential palace). The same day,
another daily, The Daily Journal (an English language paper), headlined
on its front page (also printed in advance of the coup's initiation): State
of Agony Stunts Government.
-
- In the days leading up to April 11, 2002, Venevision,
Globovision, Televen and RCTV suspended regular programming replacing it
with anti-Chavez speeches and virulent propaganda featuring strong rhetoric
and calling on the Venezuelan people to take to the streets on that day
they knew in advance had been scheduled for the coup. They blared it was
"For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will
defeat us." This went on continuously in tone and content practically
announcing a call to arms insurrection on the scheduled coup date asking
people to participate supporting the overthrow of their democratically
elected president and government.
-
- On April 10, one day before the coup, General Nestor
Gonzales got air time on the major corporate broadcast media announcing
the high military command demanded Hugo Chavez step down from office or
be forcibly removed. The day following the coup, the dominant commercial
media revealed their involvement in it, and on one April 12 Venevision
morning program military and civilian coup leaders appeared on-air to thank
the corporate media channels for their important role, including the images
they aired while it was in progress, stating how important their participation
was to the success of the plot. It failed two days later largely because
of mass public opposition to it with huge crowds on the streets supporting
their president in far greater numbers than those favoring the coup-plotters.
-
- It was also later revealed the two-day only installed
Venezuelan president Pedro Carmona had used the facilities of Gustavo Cisneros'
Venevision as a "bunker" or staging area base of operations and
was seen leaving its building heading for the Miraflores to take office
as president of Venezuela on April 11 in flagrant violation of the law.
-
- The dominant private corporate media clearly and unequivocally
were part of the coup plot. They colluded to promote it in advance and
then incited the public with anti-Chavez propaganda encouraging it while
suppressing all news and information supporting Hugo Chavez that might
have helped prevent it. It's likely RCTV alone is being singled out at
this time because it's VHF license expiration is imminent in a few months.
But it's also known a managing producer of the station's El Observer news
program testified to the Venezuelan National Assembly that he and others
at the station got orders on the day of the coup from RCTV's owner that
on April 11 and the following day: "No information on Chavez, his
followers, his ministers, and all others" was to be allowed on-air
on the station. Instead the corporate media falsely reported Hugo Chavez
had resigned when, in fact, he'd been forcibly removed and was being held
against his will. They all knew it because they were told in advance and
were part of the scheme.
-
- On April 13, when hundreds of thousands of Chavez supporters
took to the streets, the corporate media TV stations ignored them and instead
broadcast old movies and cartoons like nothing of importance was happening.
Even when the coup was aborted and pro-Chavez cabinet members returned
to the presidential palace, it got no coverage on corporate-run TV or in
the dominant print media. In addition, state television was taken off
the air suppressing any truth coming out that lasted until Chavez supporters
took over the station and began broadcasting real information to the public
for the first time after the coup and until things returned to normal following
it.
-
- Even after Hugo Chavez was freed and returned to the
Miraflores, the only station broadcasting it was the state-owned channel.
The dominant private media instead maintained strict censorship in a further
collaborative act of defiance. They refused to admit or inform the public
that Hugo Chavez was returned to office because the people of Venezuela
demanded it and succeeded in spite of all obstacles impeding them. It
was an impressive moment in Venezuela's history that will long be remembered
and is an important lesson to free people everywhere that mass people power
fighting for their rights and freedom can prevail even against great odds.
-
- It's also a testimony to Hugo Chavez and how the country
has prospered under him benefitting everyone, including those behind the
plot to oust him who might consider the 2006 preliminary year end economic
growth numbers showing the Venezuelan economy grew at least 10% for the
third straight year, including in 10 of the last 11 quarters. These impressive
results were aided by record oil income. With it, government spending
and subsidies increased sparking a jump in overall consumer demand. It
boosted income for the country's most in need but also made the rich even
richer. Instead of trying to oust Hugo Chavez, the anti-Chavistas might
want to reconsider and thank him instead, but that wasn't their intent
in 2002, and it isn't now either.
-
- Venezuelan Corporate Media Defiant and Undeterred Even
After the Coup Plot Failed
-
- The dominant Venezuelan corporate media remained defiant
even in defeat and showed it only months later that year in December, 2002
when a second de facto planned coup plot against Hugo Chavez began. This
time it took the form of the opposition declaring a "general strike"
that was reported that way by the corporate media even though, in fact,
it was a management-imposed lockout workers had no part in or wanted.
News reports falsely portrayed it as an oil industry workers' strike supported
by laborers and management. It was not as it was planned and implemented
by high level managers and executives in the oil industry who sabotaged
equipment, changed access codes, and locked workers out of computer information
systems halting production. The action devastated the Venezuelan economy.
It threw many thousands out of work, affected other businesses, caused
many to go bankrupt, and effectively destabilized the country for over
two months.
-
- During this period, the corporate media took full advantage
launching an information war against the Chavez government. Again the
four main TV stations suspended all regular programming replacing it with
pro-opposition propaganda round the clock non-stop for the 64 day strike
period denouncing Chavez and only stopping when the strike ended.
-
- Hugo Chavez's Justification to Act Against RCTV
-
- After Hugo Chavez announced RCTV's VHF license wouldn't
be renewed, 1BC president (and owner of RCTV) Marcel Granier responded:
"We all know what this is all about. They are trying to abolish freedom
of speech and force the media to obey Government rules." He also falsely
tried claiming his license ran until 2012 because it was renewed for 10
years in 2001. William Lara, head of Venezuela's Ministry of Information
and Communications, explained the license, in fact, was gotten in May,
1987 and had only been resubmitted in 2001 because of the passage of a
new communications law that year. Lara also said in a subsequent press
conference Chavez's move against RCTV should come as no surprise and added
this move is not a "revocation or expropriation" of the privately-owned
RCTV but just the "termination" of its license.
-
- Lara said Chavez intends to "rescue" the channel
for the Venezuelan people. RCTV will still be able to operate on public
airwaves via cable and satellite, and Channel 2's concession will either
be given to an RCTV worker cooperative, a public-private consortium, or
to the state for use as an entertainment channel with state Channel 8 (VTV)
becoming a 24 hour news channel and both channels henceforth airing a better
mix of socially responsible programming.
-
- The result will be greater democratization of the public
airwaves with less control of them in the hands of media oligarchs and
more of it given to the people of Venezuela. This is how a functioning
democracy is supposed to work. It can't if public airwaves are controlled
by corporate media giants operating in their own self-interest while ignoring
issues vital to the public welfare the way oligarchs do it in Venezuela.
-
- Chavez wants to promote more openness and diversity,
an initiative that should be championed, not denouced. The issue is not
a denial of free speech. It promotes it and advocates social responsibility
and adherence to the law. RCTV was in flagrant violation on both counts,
and with its VHF license shortly up for renewal will now be held to account
for violating the public trust as it should be. It has only itself to
blame for the impending action against it that's fully justified and long
overdue.
-
- Lara and his government also defended the license termination
action against the baseless Organization of American States (OAS) January
5 accusation issued by its Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza that "The
closing of a mass communications outlet....has no precedent in the recent
decades of democracy." By making it, Insulza shows he's complicit
with Venezuelan media oligarchs and the Bush administration acting in their
behalf supporting RCTV's right to violate Venezuelan law and get away with
it.
-
- That was the message from the Venezuelan foreign ministry
in its statement issued in response saying Insulza was "improperly
meddling in a matter that is the strict competency of Venezuelan authorities
and denied its decision had any appearance of censorship (and that Insulza)
should retract a series of comments that go against the truth." The
foreign ministry directly accused Insulza of being influenced by Venezuelans
and foreigners wishing to discredit Hugo Chavez and that his statement
showed an "unfortunate ignorance of reality" in Venezuela. Hugo
Chavez was even more direct in comments he made at the swearing-in of his
new cabinet on January 8 saying Insulza is an "idiot" (pendejo)
and called for his resignation. He added a Secretary-General "who
reaches this level must, out of dignity, leave his office unless someone
wants to once again convert the OAS into what Fidel Castro once called....the
ministry of the colonies (with its HQ in Washington.)"
-
- Several NGOs of note also voiced baseless and disingenuous
criticism claiming Chavez violated standards of free speech and freedom
of the press. They know better and acted shamelessly doing it. They include
Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders (RSF), and Peruvian-based
Press and Society Institute monitoring Andean region free press attacks
and funded by the US National Endowment of Democracy (NED) that only supports
media allied with its neoliberal right wing agenda.
-
- These organizations ignored the facts and dangers of
a private media monopoly controlling the public airwaves. Instead they
chose to ally themselves with corporate interests with comments like calling
Chavez's freedom of the press record a "serious (abuse of power and)
attack on editorial pluralism (and he should) reconsider (his) stance and
guarantee an independent system of concessions and renewal of licenses."
Based on the facts, these kinds of comments are unwarranted and indefensible.
-
- RCTV began broadcasting in 1953, airs Venezuela's most
hard right yellow journalism and consistently shows a lack of ethics, integrity
or professional standards in how it operates as required by law. It's current
license was granted for a 20 year period expiring on May 27, 2007. At
that time, the government may choose to renew it or not, and Hugo Chavez
announced the latter choice was made, and it won't be reversed. Minister
Lara added pointed comments about the state of the corporate media in Venezuela
along with the Chavez government's commitment to the right of free expression.
He said: "Journalism in this country is plagued with lies. They
lie when they talk about revocation and expropriation....The country with
the highest standards of freedom of speech in our continent - with all
due respect for the rest of Latin America - is Venezuela. The degree of
freedom of speech is so high that lies are spread throughout the country
and no penalty is imposed."
-
- The minister is right as was evidenced in the 2006 presidential
campaign when the corporate media reported one-sided pro-opposition support
for Manuel Rosales along with strident anti-Chavez propaganda throughout
the pre-electoral period. Hugo Chavez tolerated it all and threatened
no retaliation or intent to revoke or act against any media outlet unfairly
hostile to him. This is not the behavior of a tyrant. It's the way a
democrat acts, but even democrats like Chavez can and should demand the
media and all others obey the law. His decision affecting RCTV shows he's
doing it and nothing else. He's in full compliance with Venezuelan law
as explained below.
-
- Venezuela's Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and
Television (LSR)
-
- Most countries (including the US) have laws and/or regulations
setting standards of acceptable practice for the media especially the radio
and television broadcast parts of it reaching large audiences including
children exposed to them and who don't read print publications. Venezuela
has such a law called the Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television
(LSR). Enforcement of it is handled by the National Telecommunications
Commission, an independent regulatory body with authority to issue broadcasting
licenses. The law's intent is to define and "establish the social
responsibility of radio and television service providers, related parties,
national independent producers, and users in the process of broadcasting
and reception of messages, promoting a democratic equilibrium between their
duties, rights, and interests, with the goal of seeking social justice
and contributing to citizenship formation, democracy, peace, human rights,
education, culture, public health, and the social and economic development
of the Nation, in conformity with constitutional norms and principles,
legislation for the holistic protection of boys, girls, and adolescents,
education, social security, free competition, and the Organic Telecommunications
Law."
-
-
- Quite a mouthful, but indeed a worthy list of guidelines
and principles the electronic media are mandated to follow and be held
accountable for if they don't.
-
- The LSR guarantees:
-
- -- Freedom of expression without censorship.
-
- -- Judicial mechanisms for families and the whole population
to develop socially responsibly as an audience.
-
- -- The exercise and respect for human rights.
-
- -- An emphasis on social and cultural information and
material for children and adolescents to aid their development and social
conscience.
-
- -- To encourage domestic independent productions.
-
- -- To achieve a balance between the duties, rights, and
interests of the people and the radio and television providers and related
parties.
-
- -- To disseminate Venezuelan cultural values.
-
- -- To meet the needs of the hearing-impaired.
-
- -- To promote active citizen participation in affairs
of the country.
-
- Failure to conform to these standards and principles
may result in fines, the denial of broadcast spaces, suspension or revocation
of broadcast licenses or refusal to renew the right to continue broadcasting.
Any of these punitive measures may be imposed by the institutions having
authority to enforce the law including the Directorate's Counsel on Social
Communication and the National Commission on Telecommunications. They
can act against broadcasters violating these required standards and practices
if they do any of the following:
-
- -- Transmit messages that illegally promote, apologize
for, or incite disobedience to the law (that certainly include any television
programming intended to enlist public support to overthrow the democratically
elected president or others in the government).
-
- -- Transmit messages that impede the actions of citizen
security organisms and the judicial branch necessary to guarantee everyone
the right to life, health and personal integrity.
-
- -- Transmit propaganda or advertisements violating what's
deemed lawful under the LSR (that would also include any television programming
intending to incite violence, public disorder or the unseating of government
officials).
-
- -- Are non-compliant with the obligation to offer free
spaces to the State including to the Executive Branch's Information and
Communication Ministry.
-
- Committing any of the above violations may result in
a suspension of license for up to 72 hours when messages transmitted are
intended to: incite war, adversely affect public order and crime, or are
against the national security. A license may be revoked for up to five
years when a penalty for any of the above violations is repeated following
suspension and within five years of the first penalty.
-
- Venezuela's five dominant corporate television broadcasters
are repeat offenders having violated LSR provisions by their on-air programming
with intent to incite violence and public support to destabilize and overthrow
the Chavez government. Because RCTV's operating license expires in May,
2007, the Venezuelan government is entitled and even obligated to refuse
renewal for the channel's repeated violations of the law as a way to protect
public safety and the welfare of all Venezuelan people. Information and
Communication Minister William Lara denounced those in the media and the
country distorting the facts leading to the government's decision. He
explained RCTV's practices in recent years have promoted intolerance, disobedience,
and disrespect for the law. In a word, this broadcaster openly defies
the law, its actions are flagrant and deplorable, and it must not be allowed
to continue in the interest of the country nor should any other broadcaster
acting irresponsibly.
-
- How the Venezuelan Corporate Media Would Fare Under US
Law
-
- Fortunately for their owners and managers, the dominant
Venezuelan broadcast and print corporate-controlled media don't operate
under US laws. If they did, they'd be in very serious trouble with the
likely suspension of their operating licenses the least of their woes.
-
- If any part of the US media - corporate run, controlled
or otherwise - reported the kind of strident anti-government propaganda
intended to incite public hostility, violence and rebellion the way the
Venezuelan dominant media do, they'd be subject to indictment on charges
of sedition and possibly treason against the state - offenses far more
serious than just the right to remain operating. During the 2002 April
aborted coup and later anti-Chavez insurrection in the form of a general
strike and management-imposed oil industry lockout, the Venezuelan corporate
media acted in league with the oligarch opposition coup-plotters trying
to overthrow democratically elected Hugo Chavez and his government.
-
- In the US, this would be a violation of several laws
at least including seditious conspiracy under Section 2384 of the US Code,
Title 18 which states: "If two or more persons in any State or Territory
(of the US)....conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force
the (elected) Government of the United States, or to levy war against them,
or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to seize, take,
or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority
thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than 20 years, or both.
-
- They might also be charged with treason under Article
3, Section 3 of the US Constitution that defines this crime that's a far
more serious offense and may be subject to capital punishment for those
found guilty. Its definition under Section 3 states: "Treason against
the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in
adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." It would
then remain for the courts to decide whether any individuals by their actions
of trying to subvert and overthrow a duly constituted government would
be guilty of this crime or any sub-category under it explained below.
-
- That might, in fact, happen, especially in the current
US climate where the law is what the chief executive says it is, and the
courts are stacked with supportive judges willing to go along. Consider
what crimes are related to treason in the US and how easily Venezuelan
corporate media actions to subvert Hugo Chavez might fall under them.
They include the following:
-
- -- Insurrection or rebellion involving armed groups creating
a reasonable expectation that force or violence may be used against the
sitting government.
-
- -- Mutiny or unlawfully taking over command of the US
government, or any part of it, or any part of the military.
-
- -- Sabotage to include damaging or tampering with any
national defense material or national defense utilities that in Venezuela
could include state oil company facilities vital to the operation and viability
of the country and welfare of the people.
-
- -- Sedition, already covered above, that includes any
communication (like inflammatory TV or newspaper headlines and stories)
intended to stir up treason or rebellion against the government.
-
- -- Subversion that's defined as free speech gone much
too far that includes transmitting blatantly false information aiding the
enemy or opposition.
-
- -- Syndicalism that is the act of organizing a political
party or group advocating the violent overthrow of the government.
-
- -- Terrorism defined as the systematic use of violence
or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce the government or whole
societies by targeting innocent noncombatants.
-
- A strong case can be made that RCTV and the rest of the
dominant broadcast and print corporate media in Venezuela are guilty of
most or all these related acts of treason under US law. If so and if their
owners and managers committed any of these offenses in the US, they could
be charged at least with sedition and possibly treason, brought to trial
and if found guilty be in very serious trouble.
-
- It can reasonably be argued that attempting to forcibly
overthrow a democratically elected government is treason under Article
3, Section 3 of the US Constitution and is no different than an act of
war to accomplish the same thing. If a judge and jury agreed and it held
up on appeal, the person or persons found guilty would likely either face
the death penalty or life in prison without parole for what the US considers
the most egregious of all crimes against the state and thus imposes its
harshest penalties.
-
- The oligarchs running the Venezuelan corporate media
might contemplate that fate and be grateful they operate in democratic
Venezuela and not in the truly harsh environment of the United States.
Of course, they won't, their anti-Chavez campaign will go on unabated,
and it will be supported by their counterparts in the US and Bush administration
labeling Hugo Chavez a ruthless tyrant trying to destroy free speech and
democracy and calling for his head.
-
- It doesn't matter to those in the US power structure
and their Venezuelan counterparts that they're the guilty ones and their
charges against Hugo Chavez are disingenuous and baseless. Chavez is a
true democrat with every right to expect all Venezuelans behave responsibly
in conformity with the law.
-
- Things aren't that way in the US where respect for the
law and rights of ordinary people went out the window with the election
of George Bush and his thuggish neocon administration. They condemn Hugo
Chavez because he respects law and order and courageously supports the
rights of all Venezuelans under it. In contrast, George Bush acts as a
tyrant, claims the law is what he says it is, and defiles the US Constitution
audaciously saying "It's just a goddamned piece of paper." He
also flaunts international norms and standards and respect for human beings
and their dignity he doesn't care about. Some difference, and readers
can choose which leader they prefer. They can also choose the kinds of
media they prefer getting their news and information from. Those opting
for this web site have chosen well.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
|
