Hugo Chavez may or may not be the man who can turn Venezuela into a thriving pluralist democracy, but he is certainly a man who closes down TV stations and has reduced media freedom. You would think that even his supporters among journalists would be concerned about that. I first went to Venezuela 15 years ago and my friend is now minister for higher education. So it was sad to hear journalists at a debate happily accepting the trade off between Chavez being in power and a loss of freedom of expression.
I don’t know if Richard Gott claims the title of journalist any more but this man who once chronicled the actions of Che Guevara has obviously fallen in love with Chavez and can’t conceive of any reason to doubt him. He peddles the nastiest line in denounciation of anyone who dares to question his hero, including a Venezuelan at the debate who pointed out how Gott and many others on the left fell for Stalin and the Soviet communists in exactly the same way. The discussion was centred around the closure by Chavez of opposition TV station RCTV which is owned by an unpleasant right-winger who joined in with a coup attempt against Chavez five years ago. Venezuelan journalist Yolande Valery pointed out that journalists have always had to duck and dive to avoid censure or pressure from the authorities in Venezuela. But as she also said, there is no reason why they should have to accept that, and if Chavez wants to claim moral superiority then he should allow journalists to do what they do best: criticise those in power.
But I am afraid that Gott and his friends in the Orwellian-sounding Venezuelan Information Service are not interested in defending journalists, they are too busy with promoting the latest pin-up of the far left. It sends a chill down my spine when they talk about ‘democratising’ the media. It strikes me that Chavez is a hugely able communicator who would thrive in an open debate. I only wish he and (some of) his supporters really wanted one.
Allow me to address a few issues:
1. The US via its various organs (NED, NDI, USAID…) and affiliated
companies have interfered in Venezuela. Eva Gollinger via the FOI has been able to obtain thousands of documents that prove that most of the US effort at undermining and subverting Chavez/Venezuela has been via the media.
These groups have provided technical assistance, helped set up new TV/Radio channels, etc. The US and its Venezuelan allies viewed TV propaganda as the principal means of pulling off the coup (2002) — an act that was coordinated with the US and had its full support. (NB: all of the unsuccessful coup leaders are in the US at present). Now, RCTV was the principal TV station trumpeting Chavez’s overthrow. What do you think would have been a reasonable response by the Venezuelan government to a propaganda organ allied with a foreign power trying to subvert the country? What would you think would happen if any TV station were to broadcast hostile material in the UK and if it were found that a foreign power funded the TV or radio station? I suspect that the British govt would shut it down immediately.
If so, why do suggest that a different standard should apply to the Venezuelans? The issue of media in Venezuela is not only an internal issue but also one of foreign (US) interference in Venezuelan affairs; unfortunately, your comments neglect completely the latter. If the foreign subversion were not part of the equation I would mostly agree with your statements about press freedom etc.
2. In most of Latin America the principal media companies thrived
during dictatorship — they received massive funding and a quasi-monopoly status. This is the case of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Argentina… Out of this development emerged huge companies that are currently firmly in control of the main TV/radio and newspapers, and are usually aligned with the right-wing forces in those countries. Globo in Brasil is a classic case — it thrived under the dictatorship, it became the military’s principal propaganda arm, and out of it came a very important company that wasn’t restructured or purged after the dictatorship was gradually removed. The Globo group was untouched and it continues its hostile pro-rightwing stance
— although it does this in a smooth subtle way. Its bias is primarily evident in the run-up to the elections when the mildly left-wing opposition is intentionally ignored, disparaged or smeared. Could you tell me what you would propose to do in such countries where the main media groups are hostile to the wave of democratization taking place there? Should the media companies that benefited from the dictatorship period be restructured or purged?
3. Please clarify: why do fear “democratizing” the media? That is, should the media be representative of a broader public than just the interests of the Murdoch, Marcel Granier (RCTV), Marinho (Globo), Berlusconi, and similar hegemonic groups?
I really look forward to your reply. I hope that your blog is not simply a place where you merely pontificate.
Do the foreigners still think that “democratizing” the media is equaly to put it in Chavez hands? Because for me to focusing the hands of the media into one man choice is not exactly equal to democracy.
Venevision played a similar role during the events of 1998, and yet, has been not touched by the government. I ask the foreigners to wonder why.
I honestly think this is a good article of someone who doesnt let its fears for the madness of the right makes it act blind in front of the equal madness of the extreme left. So I wont waste my time telling what it was already written here.
Regards and excuses for my bad english, I’m Venezuelan and still managing to speak this language properly
*is not 1998….Its the events of 2002 even
Paul,
Thanks for your comments – you asked for a reply, so here’s a brief one. The fundamental point of my post was to criticise the readiness of journalists in particular (I don’t know if you are one) to accept restrictions on freedom of the press. In Points 1 and 2 your rationale is political, which is understandable if you are a politico, but none of it is justifies censorship. On ‘Democratisation’ of the media: I fear it because in just about every single case that i can think of where that term has been used it has ended up with less freedom for journalists. Again, you can argue for that in political terms, but as a journalist I reject it in principle and in practice. What you really mean by ‘democratisation’ of the media is that the news media should agree with you.
I am afraid that you didn’t address the issues I raised about RCTV broadcasting license removal and your comments about the recent panel of journalists on the issue. You ignore the questions by simply stating that my objections are “political”; this is a rather glib way of dismissing the questions. You seem to think that journalists should reject any restrictions on “freedom of expression” — and that this somehow is not a political stance. Allow me to suggest that this is a rather shallow understanding of this freedom. When powerful interests control the media, e.g., Murdoch, Marinho, etc., the freedom of the press is determined by the ones owning the media companies — they are the only ones benefiting from the “freedom”. When societies are not satisfied with that outcome and desire a more representative, non-commercial and open medium, then there are grounds to change media ownership, legislation, and regulation. You seem to suggest that any such action is censorship. You also ignore the role of media companies in countries that have been threatened by the United States. When newspapers or TV become manipulated propaganda organs then whatever they produce ceases to be journalism, and I hope you accept that there is a case to be made in shutting down such operations.
I operate on the following premise: a representative and open media resulting in an informed body politic are essential for a functioning democracy. When the media merely become commercial operations with a principal aim to sell advertising or to represent entrenched interests, then there is a case to do something about it. It seems that you are unaware of the current debates taking place in the United States where their so-called free media has serious systemic problems. Our American friends are dissatisfied with the current media landscape and aim to change it — if anything they aim to obtain freedom of the press that is more meaningful than the narrow interpretation that you seem to defend. The same debate is taking place in Venezuela where alternative media is being set up and one of the oligarchy’s TV licenses was not renewed.
Finally, in your original article you dismiss Richard Gott’s comments and observations by first questioning whether he “claims the title of journalist” and suggesting that he utters “nasty denunciations”. I just listened to his comments online, and I find no such “nastiness”. It would be more useful if you would discuss the issues with which you disagree instead of smearing him.
And of course, CharlieB has not chosen to reply to the exchange. What is the point of this silly blog then? Pontificate is the generous term for it.