Venezuelan TV Station Goes Off the Air

The FCC close down stations and would certainly have closed down RCTV, given their record. Isn't the FCC a government body however, and is it really just Chavez doing this without his government being involved? I seem to remember that the Venezuelan high court upheld this decision. I'm sad for the RCTV workers, but who is to blame: Chavez or their seditious boss?

Chavez was given powers to rule by decree in January and he pretty much controls the assembly, the supreme court and the military. The closing of RCTV is as much a part of his consolidation of power and communications (reducing any outlets for opposition voices to the masses) following his nationalization of the Oil Sector, price controls in grocery distribution, seizing of private farms, etc. From the linked article:

Chavez has said he wants to nationalize key sectors of the economy and scrap limits on the terms a president can serve. ... Venezuela's political opposition has no representation in the National Assembly since it boycotted elections in 2005.

The Supreme Court actually did not make a ruling to close but left it up to the National Telecommunications Commission to make the decision.

Chavez announced in December that the government would not renew the station's license, accusing it of supporting a failed 2002 coup against him. The government also accuses RCTV of violating broadcast laws, and Chavez says it produces "grotesque shows" that promote consumerism and violence.

That last line is probably referring to "Who's Wants to be a Millionaire." RCTV was the most popular station in Vz and had been on the air for more than 50 years.

reducing any outlets for opposition voices to the masses

Media Ownership in Venezuela

Television Of 81 stations … 79 (97%) are privately owned Radio Of 709 stations … 706 (99%) are privately owned NewspapersOf 118 companies … 118 (100%) are privately owned

RCTV was one of the oldest and the most popular media in Venezuela and by far the most willing to present opposing views and perspectives to Chavez and his march toward dictatorship. It had the greatest reach to the masses of Venezuela. So by closing down RCTV and confiscating their private equipment, it sends a very strong and chilling message to all the other smaller media that if it could happen to the most popular TV outlet (and affiliate to Telemundo) in the country then they will be next if they push the line in criticizing the government. It would be like the FCC closing The New York Times.

The FCC can not close the NYT... the FCC can only revoke licenses of over the air TV and Radio stations.

And Rollie... we have very scant information on teh situation. I don't care how old or popular or pervasive the station was If it broke laws, then it should have its license revoked. I was pretty clear that there were better ways to get the same results.

(it could not have been that popular since the entire government is controlled by Chavez's political party due to popular vote.... Oh.. you mean popular amount the people who can afford TVs and electricity)

Run the channel in a racist fashion? Someone explain this to me. Is Saturday Night Live a show that is racist? Should NBC be shut down for airing SNL where fun is poked at the current president, be it who it may? Should be ABC be shut down for airing All My Children where there is a lesbian character? Is that racist? I don't understand how RCTV ran a racist business. they employed over 3,000 people, all who form a family of hard working people, be the actors, the reporters, the cleaning ladies, the wardrobe people, or the engineer's behind the technical aspect of a tv channel. Their only wrong doing is not being in line with the current government. They might have been racist towards ignorant, greedy, egotistical leaders, such as Chavez.

Excuse me Freegirl.. read what I said again... I was criticizing the station for running itself in an attackable manor... I did not say that it was a reason to be shut down... I even criticized Chavez for the way he handled this... IF the channel had broken the law.... then it should pay for it... but Chavez should not be acting unilaterally as he is. His actions are causing me to doubt his motives for being in power.

I would like to point out though... had Venezuela been taken over by a right wing (corporatist) dictator, none of you would be saying a thing.

Excuse me for my misinterpretation Bhind My Screen. Now, what do yo mean if the country would have been taken over by a right wing dictator "we" wouldn't be saying anything? I have no idea if others would have not said a thing, but you can be sure I would have. I am a strong believer of freedom of speech, I believe I have the right to think independently to the government, it be what it may be. I believe in the right to individualism, in the right to private property, in the right to better yourself with education, the education you choose, not what the government decides you should receive. I don't believe in dictatorship, right or left. i think man kind is too addicted to power and any kind of dictator is dangerous, so again, if the dictator of Venezuela were right winged, YES, I would be saying exactly the same I have been saying for the last 8 years.

You make it sound like Chavez is doing it himself! How should police deal with a riot?!

Knocking innocent, unarmed people down in the streets with water guns - protesters holding home-made signs and singing protest songs - seems like there should be a better way.

You just said they were rioting...

Riot control using water canons is better than beating rioters over teh head and shooting them with rubber bullets (or lead ones) like Our fine US president did to the protesters back in 2003 during the wto conference in Seattle.

How about another 'fine US president' sending the national guard in to kill four peacefully protesting students. (Kent State May 4, 1970)

How about another "fine US president" sending the military to blow up a civilian compound (Waco) or a SWAT team to kidnap a child (Elian Gonzalez) from his family?

You just said they were rioting...

Lo siento mucho, Yo estuve emocionado! I misspoke in using the word "riot" because the protests have been very peaceful through the week and the mayhem was caused last night by the police shooting off their water guns into peaceful crowds who were singing along with the RCTV workers who closed with a very moving song in the last 10 mintues of heir broadcast. Univision covered this all in the last half hour of their Ultima Hora, su programa de notícias anoche.

I understand the emotion Rollie.

Elian rightfully belonged with his father... His father chose to stay in Cuba. It was not a kidnapping by the government.. it was a child being held unlawfully and the US government going in to remove him in order to comply with court orders. The extended family is lucky they were not sent to prison.

As for Waco... It started out as a simple ATF police action. They killed some ATF officers and that sent in teh feds in full force... It ended badly and those responsible for the tear gas attack were held accountable... also... the ATF could have been smart about it and simply arrested Koresh when he went into town.

2.8 I did so enjoy this rendition of events during the Clinton years. You managed to avoid mentioning Clinton or assigning blame to him for any of it.

Yet, President Bush, according to the Democrats, should be held responsible for every sparrow that falls.

My "rendition" is exactly what happened.

The Elian issue was a court problem and was being enforced... I sure hope you child is not taken to another country by its other parent only to have that parent die on the way and have some family member you never met attempt to keep him from you.

And as for Waco... Clinton did not give the orders to kill any one or attack the compound. The FBI made that decision. Clinton is responsible in that he was president at the time and should have stepped in and stopped the insanity, but that is it. Those in the compound were rightful targets of police action and killed two officers while they were attempting to deal with the situation in a much less violent manor.

ANd no... your hyperbole is not in the least bit accurate... I do hope it helps you sleep at night though.

So it wasn't all riots then?

Of course not. Chavez has the petrol dollars to pay for a very orderly crowd all dressed in red with fanciful produced flags and banners in a nice stadium all mesmerized by a large screen TV transmitting the first images of the government's new TVes channel at 12 midnight. Which by the way, is being broadcast with confiscated RCTV broadcasting equipment.

LOL, Chavez pays people to form an orderly crowd - now there's a headline the Miami Herald would be proud of.

Even the rabid anti-Chavez media in Venezuela report that

the government is to take control temporally (sic.) of the broadcast equipment of private TV channel RCTV, according to a rule by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ). The action is aimed at ensuring the new TV channel Televisora Venezolana Social -replacing RCTV - can be watched all over the country.

the government is to take control temporally (sic.)

Temprary....... Famous last words.

I have no idea where anyone can say there were RIOTS in the streets of Caracas. Were any of you watching what was really going on? Or are you just speaking out of pure ignorance? People were PEACEFULLY demonstrating outside of CONATEL, they were NOT rioting. Not being armed at all but with just banners that spoke much louder than any gun,and they were attacked by the police. Its all on video, and I saw it LIVE, not distorted by ANY media, be it American or Venezuelan. Those of you who still believe the supposed democratic leader of Venezuela is not shutting a TV channel down in order to control the airways and restrict the freedom of speech, are just ignorant, and have no idea of what the value of true freedom is, because you have it and it has never been threatened.

Yes, you are exactly right. I was watching UNIVISION last night and watched those protesters in the streets being pummeled by watercannons and tear gas. (I unfortunately used the word "riot" in a previous post, but I should have used the word "protestors" because they were indeed not armed except for their pots and pans, banners and some spray paints cans, nor were they being violent).

Univision is owed in part by the Cisneros group, also the owners of Venevision (another tv station in Venezuela who had the Garfield moving on during the demonstrations and police attacks, as if nothing were happening, just as Chavez wanted it). Univision didn't show you 1/3 of what was really going on. I had RCTV on one tv and Globovision on the other, and I saw 8 hours straight of what was going on, up to the last minute and even later. No one was armed, no one had any weapons, and yes, you are right as well, Chavez has a lot of money to pay his "demonstrators". Thanks in part to Citgo, Chavez pays his "supporters" anywhere from Bs10,000 - Bs 50,000. to attend his rallies. They are given a red shirt and a beer and are told what to say. This is no secret and it isn't something Bush made up or any "bios American media" made up, as djd may want to claim. This is the reality in Venezuela, the one ignorance and social complexes of inferiority have not wanted to admit.

I was shocked when the police turned the water canons on the Univision reporter. The picture went crazy but it looked as if the cameraman lost his footing and the Univision reporter went down.
l

And Bush (well his attempt at taking control of PBS)

And Bush (well his attempt at taking control of PBS)

Other way around. PBS, through the Corporation for Public Broadcast, is already a government sponsored entity. The GOP wants to cut the governmental strings and make the whole thing private.

Bush taking control of PBS... for goodness sakes, lets be real.

Hitler doesn't fit in with the anti-leftie rhetoric though does it?

djd, your aprobation and excuse-making for Chavez's totalitarian moves are noted.

The most amusing one was 2.1. Police brutality is the fault of the rioters. The subtext being that the "rioters" should learn to acquiesce to repression instead of protesting about it.

Not approbation epiphany sorbet - just an attempt to put some balance to a story that has been framed by the US media. I'm not pro-Chavez, I'm anti-biased reporting. How is non-renewal of a TV station's license a totalitarian move, given their past record? It happens here in the UK when licenses come up for renewal. There is a difference between protesting and rioting.

Well, if it was not a totalitarian move, then the TV station's equipment would have been left in the hands of the owners so that it could be sold, instead of being confiscated and taken to Hugo's new vanity station.

But did the people vote in Chavez? Despite Jimmy Carter's seal of approval, there are still great questions towards the legitimacy of that election.

Prediction: now some leftist will of course mention 2000 or 2004, because they have no strategy other than to change topics.

Jimmy Carter... he raises the air on my arms. Jimmy Carter saw what was going on during the elections. he saw people in line for over 15 hours to get their votes counted. he saw people complaining that they had voted one way and that the machine had printed out the opposite. He later went into a meeting with Chavez and Gustavo Cisneros and all three walked out with one thing in mind... after that meeting, Jimmy Carter never saw anything wrong with the elections in Venezuela. wonder how much money was exchanged in that meeting that day?

Hey... lets get back to what Left and Right really mean... Left == Lockeian ideals of governance.... Right = Hobbsian (not Adam Hobbs) ideals.

Both extremes are untenable and it is a mixture (more of Locke than Hobbs... Hobbs should be applied to powerful entities and Locke should be applied to individuals as a rule of thumb) that makes for good governance.

Hittler, Stalin, Chavez are all examples of Hobbsian governance.

freegirl... Carter is one of the most honest men who has ever been in politics... why do you think he was so bad at it?

I don't believe in Jimmy Carter at ALL and don't believe he is as honest as he wants people to think. Once again, I experienced first hand how people were in line for over 15 hours to vote because Chavez had voting sites closed for hours on end. I experienced first hand how one would vote one way and the voting machine printed out the exact opposite. I experienced first hand how people were taken off the voting list right before the elections, and later got letters in the mail thanking them for voting for the president Hugo Chavez Frias, in another state. I am not a "special" person who saw this and no one else saw it, no one else said anything, no one else experienced it. it was all around, and Jimmy Carter said NOTHING and after a 3 hour meeting with Chavez and Gustavo Cisneros, behind closed doors, Carter walked out saying everything was conducted in an orderly and democratic way. NO, I don't think Jimmy Carter is an honest man.

From that same article:

Venezulea's Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, passed in 2004, permits the government to suspend and even close stations that "promote, defend or incite breaches of public order or that are contrary to the security of the nation." Other laws, echoing official disparagement laws in several neighboring countries, prohibit insulting the president and other high officials. These laws have already resulted in a small number of legal actions (Washington Post, 7/15/05), and, as critics point out, the larger threat is the self-censorship these laws engender in journalists who may avoid controversial issues in fear of official sanction (Knight Ridder, 10/18/05; AP, 10/9/05).

As of 12:01 this morning , the Muzzling has begun!

... and immediately below that ...

While these laws continue to be a concern and should be removed from the books, there is little evidence that Venezuela's opposition media is being stifled.

And you truly don't believe that if you were a media owner, editor or journalist in Venzuela today that the closing of RCTV would not have a stifling impact on their activities?

How is non-renewal of a TV station's license a totalitarian move, given their past record?

djd, where did you get this? What is RCTV's past record you speak of? What did a TV channel who transmits Who Wants to be a Millionaire do wrong to deserve to be silenced? Were the soaps too sexy? Then why didn't Chavez shut down Venevision who also has sexy girls in their soaps? Did RCTV's Radio Rochela comedy show go too far by making fun of the Miss Venezuela pageant? Have you EVER watched Venezuelan tv? The only hing RCTV is at fault is at not bowing down to Chavez and his communist ways and reporting only what was in Chavez's best interest but in what was in the best interest of the people of Venezuela. I wonder how you would feel if Bush, or any other Republican president descided to shut down NBC for not being Republican enough and using DEAL OR NO DEAL as an excuse. Or a Democrat president shutting FOX down for airing the Simpsons. Then what would you say?....

Here for example.

I thought you didn't believe in bios articles? The only way RCTV acted "against" the government was by allowing private organizations to air their paid commercials on the dates and reasons for the peaceful marches held through out the country for 3 years in a row. My father was part of a group of well known business people who paid for great propaganda for some these peaceful gatherings. This is what the government saw as attempts against them. RCTV never stopped airing what the government wanted. In fact, today, REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS held a press conference in Venezuela and expressed the fact that Chavez says RCTV did not air what the government wanted and on tape, they had in their possession over 1000 hours of Chavez on air, talking CRAP, telling jokes, insulting other world leaders, and talking about the wonderful thing the democracy in Cuba is. If yo are getting your information from ONE bios article, first at least go on YouTube and watch a bit of RCTV, watch Univision for a while and watch some of the soaps that aired on RCTV. Talk to someone who lived in Venezuela and watched the channel for over 50 years, then you can talk with such authority.

Of course Le Monde is an incredibly biased newspaper.

If you are going to claim to be for civil liberties then you have to be for them even when your favored dictators step all over them.

Like the Patriot Act for instance?

Oh wow, the old, "the other side did it, so we can do it too" excuse. Why not address this current issue on the table rather than making excuses?

As to the Patriot Act, I'll admit that I haven't studied it all that closely, but I do know that it has yet to make any wide society altering changes like shutting down CBS or anything. The few cases I know of where civil liberties were infringed was when the Patriot Act was being abused and not used as intended.

If you would like to write or seed an article on the Patriot Act, then I'm there. For now, I'm sticking to Venezuela and their loss of a free voice.

In our country, the Supreme Court ruled that mere advocacy as distinguished from speech that incites imminent lawless action is permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. One listening to the right-wing commentators such as O'Reilly and Russ Limbaugh has heard anything and everything contrary to law and reason advocated but so far their ravings have not been determined to have incited imminent lawless action. They can falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

Adam... I think the problem DJD has is the failure to violently attack our current administration when they act in a negative fashion towards freedom. Many conservatives here love attacking "leftist" leaders of other countries but when Bush does something similar... it is silent... or apologetic from those same people.

Are you imply that the CIA had something to do with the soap MI CIELA? That is just hilarious! Or did the CIA have something to do with Do You Want to be a Millionaire? I thought this was a serious discussion, not the try outs for Last Comic Standing!

Tim, the sad thing is those who support the supression of free speech are those who don't even understand that the fact that they can make such ignorant comments is exactly that, freedom of speech. Sadly, those will never understand what they say until they lose that right.

Can't really stay on topic can you? We're talking about a Venezuelan TV station.