Real World Event Discussions

Venezuela imposes more media controls. Chavez plays maracas.

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Monday, September 29, 2025 15:29
VIEWED: 6022
PAGE 1 of 7

Friday, July 10, 2009 12:17 PM

Quote:

New regulations in Venezuela will require cable and satellite TV channels to carry speeches by President Hugo Chavez on a regular basis.

The measures will apply to those stations that produce more than 70% of their content within Venezuela.

The BBC correspondent in Caracas says this will apply to dozens of international broadcasters, which will be considered national stations.

Government opponents said it was an attack on freedom of speech.

...

The broadcasts, known as "cadenas", are part of Venezuelan life under Mr Chavez and can last up to five hours.

...

The minister overseeing broadcast licensing, Diosdado Cabello, said it was all part of bringing greater democracy to Venezuela's media landscape.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8143941.stm

This must be a definition of "Democracy" with which I was not previously familiar.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 3:14 PM

Unlike the new Micheletti regime in Honduras, which has allowed the media to freely broadcast images of pro-Zelaya demonstrations?

Er... no.

Quote:

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — At the Channel 36 TV station in this sweltering capital, the buzzing, hectic atmosphere of a news network has been replaced by an ominous silence. The doors are held shut with huge industrial padlocks, bored-looking soldiers stand on the sidewalk and the journalists are nowhere to be seen. Since taking power Sunday after a coup against elected-president Manuel Zelaya, the new administration has shut down a major TV station, several radio stations and a newspaper. It has also cut off signals from some international networks, including Venezuela-based Telesur.

Meanwhile, those media outlets still running heap praise on the regime of Roberto Micheletti. "Defending the Constitution," blears the headline in one newspaper reporting the consolidation of the new government. "Zelaya Out, We Want Peace," says another. Such control of the media is perhaps a predictable development from a government that came to power after the elected head of state was forced out of his home at gunpoint and taken on a plane to neighboring Costa Rica. But the media battle over the Honduras coup also reflects larger news-related issues as leftist governments have risen to power in the region.

Longstanding commercial networks controlled by wealthy families have often had head-on collisions with leftist leaders, who accuse them of undermining their governments. In reaction, business interests accuse stations controlled by leftist presidents of demonizing the rich and dividing nations along class lines.

"The media across Latin America has become much more polarized in recent years. There is more of an atmosphere of saying, "You have to be with us or against us," said Elan Reyes, president of Honduras' journalist association.

In power, the left-leaning Zelaya had a fiery relationship with the dominant TV channels in Honduras, which are controlled by some of the nation's richest families. {NOTE: Now we know who wanted this coup} When they criticized him for raising the minimum wage by more than 50 percent, saying he was clobbering business, he lashed back, alleging that they were part of an "elite group" of oligarchs who want to keep the poor downtrodden. {NO SHIT}

Fighting for control of the airwaves, he set up a government Channel 8, which celebrated his achievements and loyally showed him traipsing through poor villages hugging corn growers and banana workers. "The big channels had always focused on the lives and opinions of the rich. Channel 8 started looking at the stories and struggles of poor people," said Cesar Fernandez, a TV producer who worked with the station. The privately owned Channel 36 also gave favorable coverage to Zelaya, a friend and ally of its owner. Within hours of the coup, soldiers had swept on Channel 36 installations and cut its signals from the air. In the days since, the government Channel 8 has radically changed its tune, and has been pumping out messages all day calling on Hondurans to take to the streets in demonstrations in favor of the new regime.

"Honduras needs you participate now!" says one message flashing on the screen. "We have a legitimate government supported by all Hondurans," says another. The battle lines over TV coverage here were strikingly similar to the south, in Venezuela, under President Hugo Chavez, a staunch Zelaya ally. Chavez also accused commercial TV stations of being pawns of the rich and said they backed an attempted coup against him in 2002. In 2007, Chavez refused to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television Internacional, the nation's most popular station, accusing it of irresponsible anti-government coverage. He has also helped form the cable group Telesur, which provides left-leaning coverage across the region.

On Monday, troops in Honduras stormed into a hotel and detained a Telesur crew as its members were conducting a live broadcast. The crew was released af

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 3:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Unlike the new Micheletti regime in Honduras, which has allowed the media to freely broadcast images of pro-Zelaya demonstrations?



So both Chavez and Micheletti are wrong to try and control the media? I'll go along with that. Wanna bet which one releases control first?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 4:27 PM

It's not just a question of whether "the government" controls the media but WHO ELSE controls the media. It does no good if "the government" relinquishes control, only to be replaced by an equally biased, unrepresentative faction, whether that faction is a group of wealthy landowners or a extremist group of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Does the media represent the broad swath of the population? Is it unbaised and in-depth in its reporting? THAT'S what I judge it on.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 7:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
It does no good if "the government" relinquishes control, only to be replaced by an equally biased, unrepresentative faction, whether that faction is a group of wealthy landowners or a extremist group of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.



Or the Chavistas? Not that the Chavez government is gonna relinquish control of the media anyway.

Or Zelaya and his friends?

Quote:

Fighting for control of the airwaves, he set up a government Channel 8, which celebrated his achievements and loyally showed him traipsing through poor villages hugging corn growers and banana workers...The privately owned Channel 36 also gave favorable coverage to Zelaya, a friend and ally of its owner.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 8:15 PM

I believe media should accurately represent "facts on the ground". If Venezuelan media as currently constituted is biased that's a problem. If you can make that case, I'll toss them into the pile along with the rest of the bad actors.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I believe media should accurately represent "facts on the ground". If Venezuelan media as currently constituted is biased that's a problem. If you can make that case, I'll toss them into the pile along with the rest of the bad actors.



Failure to renew licensing for opposition media in Venezuela is pretty well known, but I'll check farther. I could ask you to do the same about the Honduran media.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 11:15 PM

If an "opposition" is broadcasting lies, I'm not sure if I care that they're shut down.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Friday, July 10, 2009 11:15 PM

Quote:


Or Zelaya and his friends?

Quote:
Fighting for control of the airwaves, he set up a government Channel 8, which celebrated his achievements and loyally showed him traipsing through poor villages hugging corn growers and banana workers...The privately owned Channel 36 also gave favorable coverage to Zelaya, a friend and ally of its owner.



Yeah, who the hell does that guy think he is? George W. Bush? Rupert Murdoch? The NERVE of somebody trying to set up a network, or get in bed with such a network, to give favorable coverage to their side!

Good thing nothing like that could ever happen here!

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Saturday, July 11, 2009 1:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
If an "opposition" is broadcasting lies, I'm not sure if I care that they're shut down.



Not a big fan of the First Amendment, then?

So who gets to decide that they're "lies"? The government? When does "lies" become "Things we'd rather not have the people hear"? Is it too dangerous to allow everyone to broadcast and let the people make up their own minds?





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME