Hugo Chavez begins shut down of 34 radio stations in Venezuela

[Maru Kitteh]

CARACAS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The first of 34 radio stations ordered shut by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday, part of President Hugo Chavez's drive to extend his socialist revolution to the media.

Government broadcasting watchdog Conatel delivered an order to CNB radio in Caracas before dawn, ordering its stations to stop transmitting by 8 a.m., an employee of the radio network told Globovision TV.

Diosdado Cabello, the public works minister who also oversees Conatel, said Friday night that 34 radio stations would be ordered closed because they failed to comply with regulations.

He said some of the stations did not have their broadcasting licenses renewed and others transferred them illegally to new owners.

"This government has turned into a mutilator of rights," Juan Carlos Caldera, of the opposition political party Primero Justicia, said on Globovision.

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN0146286320090801

[Maru Kitteh]

1. and from guardian.co.uk,

The move followed last week's introduction of a draft law to jail journalists and broadcasters who "harm the interests of the state", "cause panic" or "disturb social peace". Critics denounced the moves as a recipe for censorship. "What we are witnessing is the most comprehensive assault on free speech in Venezuela since Chávez came to power," said Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.

"With the exception of Cuba, Venezuela is the only country in the region that shows such flagrant disregard for universal standards of freedom of expression."

Several hundred protesters held a vigil outside one Caracas station, CNB 102.3 FM, for its final transmission on Saturday. "This is a government attack," said the station director, Zaira Belfort. "We want to keep living in democracy, and once again they've silenced us."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/02/venezuela-chavez-radio-station-licences

[timeforpeace]

13. He's very pissed about not succeeding with Zelaya in Honduras and looking to vent his anger.

[Usrename]

62. Or, they might just be taking back their media.

Something that we've been screaming about for years.

Community Media: The Thriving Voice of the Venezuelan People

July 31st 2009, by Liz Migliorelli and Caitlin McNulty


In Venezuela today a grass-roots movement of community and alternative media is challenging the domination of private commercial media. Community oriented, non profit, non commercial, citizen and volunteer run media outlets are a crucial part of the democratic transformation of society that is occurring throughout Venezuela. Part of this transformation is the understanding of freedom of speech as a positive and basic right. This right includes universal access to a meaningful space for communication in addition to freedom from censorship...

>

The 1999 Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was written and ratified by the people themselves, setting a societal precedent of democratic participation. The constitution contains articles that grant new rights to Venezuelans such as indigenous rights, access to education, healthcare, housing, employment, political participation and many others that make the Venezuelan Constitution one of the most progressive in the world in the area of human rights. Article 58 specifically states, "Communication is free and plural and must adhere to the obligations and responsibilities under the law. Every person has the right to objective, true and impartial information, without censorship...."

>

The Organic Telecommunications Law, which was passed in June 2000, states that there are three types of broadcast media in Venezuela: private, state and community. The law gives legal recognition to community broadcasting, enabling it to receive special tax breaks. In order to be recognized as a community broadcaster, the programming has to meet the following criteria. Principally, the station must be non-profit and dedicated to the community, with the requirement that 70% of its programming must be produced within the community. Also, there must be a separation between the station and its programming, which means that the station itself may only produce 15%, leaving the remainder to be produced by community volunteers. In addition, the station must provide training to community members so the production of media is accessible to everyone. The law also states that the directors of the community media cannot be party officials, members of the military, or work for private mass media.<3>

>

Before Chávez was elected president, participating in community media was a clandestine activity and a victimized form of freedom of speech; homes and offices that housed community radio stations were often raided and operators feared for their lives. Community media stations have since multiplied, amplifying the voices of individuals and communities, increasing community communication and cohesion, fostering cultural awareness and political participation, and increasingly meeting the positive freedom of speech rights of Venezuelans. A new form of participatory communication based on local experiential knowledge is gaining popularity and influence.<4>

more>

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4678

I'm actually a lot more terrified of our own media than anything Chavez can build down there. Just look at the way our media presents this story.


We are currently escalating our build up of military bases in Ecuador following the recent US backed coup there. How much free speech do you think Venezuelans will have on their airwaves after we blow them up and turn their stations over to the creators of FAUX News?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

132. What coup in Ecuador? What the hell are you talking about?

[Usrename]

140. I meant Honduras.

shees, my dad just got back from there

[tabatha]

2. Not good.

There is going to be a revolution.

[lpbk2713]

5. I get the impression that the shit is about to hit the fan.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Maru Kitteh]

6. It does look that way.

The shutting down of free press is never a harbinger of good.

[troubledamerican]

126. Chavez won the last election with 65%, verified by President Carter.

Whoops. I guess the U.S. media isn't serving you with all the facts.

[DutchLiberal]

3. The article 'forgets' to mention the coup plotters at RCTV...

Last paragraph of the article:

In 2007 Chavez did not renew the license for a widely watched private TV station, RCTV, that was a persistent critic of the government. (Editing by Eric Beech)

Suggesting RCTV was taken off the air because it criticized Chavez. Failing to mention it hosted the coup plotters of 2002. How serious should I take this article now?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. Yeah yeah yeah

Every single radio station was intimately involved in the coup against Chavez. This shit gets old. So tell me, do you have any evidence that any of these radio stations were involved in trying to overthrow the government?

[DutchLiberal]

36. I did not say that. Please read my post before trying to look smart...

I said the article falsely suggested RCTV being shut down for being critical of Chavez, while in fact, it was being shut down for engaging in a coup. So, my logical question is: if the article lies about RCTV, how can I trust this article?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

42. Waah.

Hugo ain't got one damn drop of moral authority juice on that subject, seeing as he was quite happy to try to overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela when it suited his purposes.

[Odin2005]

47. +1 People seem to forget THAT part.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DutchLiberal]

77. What has that got to do with the credibility of the article in the OP?

Oh wait... nothing.

[troubledamerican]

118. With a rebuttal like "Waah" your "moral authority juice" is lacking.

And your insight as to why the article would omit such a large fact as RCTV's active participation in a coup d'etat?

That insight is 404.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

157. Because the article has nothing to do with RCTV? n/t

[troubledamerican]

117. You're right. This article smells.

That's a big fact to omit: RCTV participated actively in the coup.

"Cessna Invesco Palin" offers the rebuttal of "Waah" rather than any thoughtful rebuttal to your fact.

What does that say about "Cessna Invesco Palin"?

[Odin2005]

11. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech even if you don't like it.

I don't agree with the lies and BS spewed on Fox News, but they have a right to spew it. Once you start censoring "dangerous" voices you start of the slippery slope to totalitarianism.

[DutchLiberal]

37. No, I don't think Fox has a 'right' to spew what they're spewing...

In fact, I think Fox and some ultra right-wing radio shows should be shut down. They would have been taken of the air a loooong time ago in The Netherlands, for inciting hatred and racism and calling for violence. We have laws that outlaw all that, so any media outlet that would violate those rules, as Fox and right-wing radio in the US does, it would have been shut down. We wouldn't need a Hugo Chavez to do that. Nor would we think of it as a dictatorship.

We, as a people, have experienced what hate speech and overt racism can build up to, here in The Netherlands, in the 1930's and '40's. We have seen what damage it can do in Rwanda. If Radio Libre des Mille Collines had been shut down, it could have prevented a whole lot of slaughtering and suffering. And where do you think nuts like the shooter and the Holocaust Museum get their ideas from? He was a 'birther'. We've seen more incidents like that. And on Fox, you have hosts talking about revolution, and overthrowing the US government. That's treason!

[Pavulon]

49. Freedom of speech is not freedom of action

for example I am free to criticize the practice of religion. I am not free to say..use a knife to attach a note to a persons body because they choose to offend me. I do not believe that problem is gone, only lurking.

The media is in the US , generally, full of shit. Most of what they produce is entertainment. Regretfully they have slumped into the sewer. I do not believe banning content is acceptable. I prefer a public forum to ease in identification of stupid people.

[DutchLiberal]

75. Fox News and talk radio have hosts calling for overthrowing the US government!

What about the meme that Obama "must be stopped"? What about all the talk about revolution, and secession. What about the fact that they feed the idea that Obama is not a legitimate president? That's harmful to your democracy. And those ideas cannot be 'debated' or 'discussed', because the people spewing the nonsense are not interested in discussion or facts. That's why I stand by what I said: they should be shut down.

[Odin2005]

52. The BS spewed by Fox and right-wing hate radio is not comparable to Rwanda

And in any case, Such incitement it is the price we pay for freedom, if they are incited to break the law they should be tried for their crimes, but not before, I don't want any though police. It got so bad in Rwanda because there was no one cracking down on the thugs when they started getting violent. He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither and will lose both. What you are espousing in your post is not liberal, it's authoritarian. You are letting fear get to you, which is what authoritarians want because the scared are easily manipulated by said authoritarians.

[DutchLiberal]

76. Please read my reply to 'Pavalon' above, so I don't have to repeat myself...

There's nothing "authoritarian" about protecting your democracy. If violence starts because of some media calling for it, it is already too late! There's no 'cracking down' anymore, then.

[eridani]

174. Only because our wingnuts don't have a very high death toll. Yet. n/t

[Rebubula]

84. Me Thinks...

...that you do not fully understand 'Freedom of the Press' and 'Freedom of Speech'.

Moreover, to compare Fauxnews to the propaganda of WWII and Rwanda is blatant hyperbole and does not argument any good.

[DutchLiberal]

110. Fox News hosts are calling for revolution, secession, overthrowing the government and...

..questioning Obama's legitimacy as president because he was supposedly born in Kenya. That's treason. That's not free speech and freedom of the press. Methinks you're full of shit.

[Maru Kitteh]

147. Cool.

Do you "as a people" have a strong-man who passes a law one week to confiscate the media of those who oppose him the next week?

Or do you have some kind of process that resembles measures that might/would/should be taken in a free country?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[DutchLiberal]

168. Can you make your next post coherent, so that I can understand it?

I didn't understand a thing about what you wanted to say.

[Don Hall]

154. What

Your kidding right?

[troubledamerican]

119. Freedom of speech does not include inciting assassination, does it, Odin2005?

Freedom of speech does not include active participation in coups d'etat, does it?

[endarkenment]

170. broadcast licenses are broadcast licenses, not matter how you spin it.

Nobody here or in Venezuela has a right to a broadcast license. The license renewal process in both countries is highly politicized.

[blondeatlast]

19. You either have freedom of the press--or you don't. If Bush could have done it,

do you think we'd all be communicating on this website?

I don't.

[bertman]

48. Bush didn't need to shut anything down. His cronies own the corporate media. Still do.

What kind of revolt do you see brewing on the internetz??

I can't seem to find any.

[Hannah Bell]

68. what freedom of the press? only if you own it. the owners have the "freedom" to ignore

the views & concerns of most of the population, which is what they do.

also the "freedom" to turn non-issues into "causes" (obama's birth certificate, saddam's wmd) while ignoring real crimes.

[troubledamerican]

120. Does freedom of the press include inciting assassination?

Does freedom of the press include active participation in a military coup? Including shooting civilians in the streets?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&ei=r3t3Sv2aDIX-qAO1usHmBA&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised

[onehandle]

4. President for Life and making damn sure of it. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. No matter how much of a fascist he needs to be.

[endarkenment]

171. except of course he isn't. but carry on.

[Odin2005]

7. Cue the apologists for the tyrant in 3... 2... 1...

[Maru Kitteh]

8. Too late.

[ecstatic]

15. ...

:popcorn:

[endarkenment]

172. So perhaps you think these articles should be posted without comment?

[mamaleah]

9. Really? And he thinks his people only want one line of thought

allowed to be broadcast?

Oh wait...I keep forgetting...groupthink is a-ok if it's the "correct" thought.

[Odin2005]

12. Authoritarianism isn't just a Right-Wing disease.

It's a sickness that infects plenty of posters here. It's disheartening. :(

[mamaleah]

14. It's the old idea of the ends justifying the means.

The belief that Chavez really wants to do good, so whatever he must do to get to the final good must be accepted or explained away.

I do not honestly believe that any poster here sincerely believes that shutting down contrary opinions is healthy or acceptable in a democracy. I think for them it's more about the end goal.

[Odin2005]

18. I like to use the comparison with the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings.

It is tempting to use, but it ALWAYS corrupts you, it should not be used, it needs to be destroyed.

[Maru Kitteh]

25. apt

I'm amazed at how many are so invested in believing that the maxim of absolute power does not apply to this individual.

[LittleClarkie]

87. Because they agree with his goals I suppose, and the end justifies the means

in that case.

As for me, this guy just reminds me too much of a Bush on the left.

[EFerrari]

112. But the means are spun in our media.

There's a bunch of articles about this topic, all you have to do is go see.

Look at this OP. When you drill down, it says the law is going to be enforced and that a new one is in development.

There's nothing about a rampage to squelch the opposition at all. That's spin.

Qui bono?

[troubledamerican]

121. So is your omitting facts of inciting assassinations on public airwaves. It's disheartening.

[Medusa]

44. And Chavez is a sacred cow here

so whatever he does we're supposed to "support" even if it's silencing free speech in his country.

[LittleClarkie]

78. And the only accepted source for news on this subject is this one

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com

Surely there is a more neutral site to get news on this country that is neither Fox nor a cheerleaders for the government.

[Peace Patriot]

16. Please see my discussion about free speech here and in Venezuela,

in one of the other OPs on this subject

Comment #58
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3995862#3997060

And in my DU Journal.

Generally it discusses the era here of the "Fairness Doctrine" and anti-news monopoly regulation, an era so different from today in which corpo/fascist propaganda spews from every TV/Radio channel (our public airwaves) with not even an nod to the public interest. Venezuela has a similar problem, arguably even worse than here. The Chavez government is seeking to assert the public interest in the use of the public airwaves. I wish we could do that here.

Just want to add two points.

1. The danger of another fascist coup in Venezuela.

The CIA, the Bushwhacks within and outside of the Obama government, private global corporate predators, and local fascist groups (funded by you and me, through John McCain's US taxpayer funded "International Republican Institute" and other USAID-NED budgets), are constantly conducting both psyops/disinformation campaigns to smear Chavez in particular and the entire leftist democracy movement in Latin America, but they are also actively seeking to destabilize Venezuela and other oil war targets (Ecuador, Bolivia and possibly others). With control of the media in Venezuela, fascist forces are able to trumpet fake 'news' stories to promote confusion and civil unrest in a coup situation. They have already done so. RCTV, for instance, broadcast outright lies and doctored video footage during the 2002 violent rightwing military coup, to make people believe that Chavez had resigned his office of president (he had not) and that Chavez supporters were shooting anti-Chavez protestors (they were not). This kind of power with no conscience or scruples, that multinational media corpos hold in Venezuela--and here--is very dangerous and needs to be curtailed. What RCTV executives did, during the 2002 coup attempt, deserved jail time. They merely lost their broadcasting license--which they also deserved.

The proposed law--from what I can tell from corpo/fascist 'news' stories (haven't read the original yet)--seems to be aimed at curtailing and preventing this kind of criminal behavior, by big 'news' corpos. Everything else the Chavez government has done--thus far--has been aimed at more diversity of information and opinion and public access to broadcasting--i.e., has positively enhanced the free speech rights of most people, rather than dampening such rights. It has been aimed at use of the public airwaves in the public interest, as we once had here, and at balancing a very unbalanced current situation in which big corporations and multinationals control the airwaves in their interest--whether it is to topple the elected government, or some purpose short of an outright coup. When corpo/fascists talk of "free speech," they are talking about a "right" they don't have, to propagandize on all channels, all the time, in their own private interest. They are not talking about the free speech of most people, nor of the wide spectrum of news and information that democracy requires. Further, they are talking about their own non-right to promulgate fascist coups--coups that, once in power (as with the Venezuelan coupsters), immediately suspend the Constitution and all civil rights. Their advocacy of "free speech" is entirely hypocritical, and so is that of the corpo/fascist-funded, or CIA or John McCain-funded (US taxpayer-funded) 'democracy' groups that they use to trumpet this bullshit.

2. Missing information needed to understand this 'news' item.

I don't know if I agree or disagree with the wording of this proposed Venezuelan law, or with the regulations that are being enforced on various licensees. I can have an opinion about specific laws or actions in Venezuela, but it is up to the Venezuelans to regulate their society as they see fit. They have quite a good democracy, with elections that are far, far more transparent than our own. They can handle it. It is none of our business--especially when our own house is in such disorder--and we should take care not to contribute to this intense psyops/disinformation campaign against Chavez and, by implication (not stated) against the people of Venezuela. How many radio stations have been denied licenses here, for failure to properly apply to the FCC, or failure to comply with our very weak, pro-corpo regulations? How many in England, Germany, France, Brazil, Peru, Sweden, Japan or other countries? Those are numbers that should have appeared in these articles, and do not, because the articles are propaganda and part of a concerted campaign with bad motives. Those numbers are essential to understanding this story about Venezuela. Also, comparative laws about the use of the public airwaves for treasonous purposes are not provided. That is another piece of information that I need to judge these actions and laws for myself. Is it not the case that most governments protect themselves, one way or another, from misuse of the public airwaves to create panic, disorder and foster criminal activity include overthrow of the government? How do their methods of self-protection compare with the Chavez government? Big black holes in these corpo/fascist "hit pieces" on Chavez, where information should be. They don't want us to understand. They want our brains to go to sleep, so they can ooze their viewpoint below facts and reason into the subsconscious minds of an oppressed population--us.

We have already been dragged into one oil war. Are we being dragged into another one, in this hemisphere? The intensification of this brainwashing campaign against Chavez--and other evidence--points that way. That is the prime purpose of this kind of propaganda--to abduct more of our young people for corporate resource wars, destroy our democracy and loot us blind. I think that's what we're looking at--not any loss of free speech in Venezuela, but Oil War II.

[boppers]

22. "psyops/disinformation" should be protected speech.

*Especially* when it's political speech. That's not a Venezuelan issue, that's a global human rights issue.

Otherwise, authoritarians like Chavez can abuse their power and declare any opposing perspectives as dangerous to the state.

That being said, there is a balance to be struck, lest a state devolve to the chaos of Rwanda, where the airwaves were being used to direct mass slaughter.

I've been looking for what the station's issues were, and haven't found much yet, any further research help (links?) would be appreciated for me to understand how this is being justified... best information I've found so far is that they didn't have paperwork in order to maintain their licenses, or transferred licenses without official approval?

While that's irregular, that certainly doesn't justify shutting them down, if they're given a chance to fix their paperwork, and aren't being targeted for disagreeing political speech.

[readmoreoften]

46. Psy-ops should be protected speech!!!?? Now that's Orwellian.

The Corporate CIA State should be allowed to hoard the airwaves and fill it with carefully crafted psychological messages of terror and lies--because they have "people" and they "have rights."

Yes, Bush had every right to use his influence to get 70% of the American people to believe that Iraq was connected to 9-11. After all, the truth came out EVENTUALLY through democratic discussion!!! TOO BAD A MILLION IRAQIS WERE SLAUGHTERED BY THEN.

:crazy:

[boppers]

54. All speech is psy-ops.

The gentler name for it is "on message". By using words in special ways, or repeating the same constructs, the general public can be controlled and manipulated. It doesn't matter who's pulling the levers, if anybody gets controls of all of the levers, free society falls. That's Orwell's message about media: that media control is population control.

"Hussein=Osama" is manipulation.
"public option" is manipulation.
"government takeover" is manipulation.
"Corporate CIA State" is manipulation.

In this context you could have also said::
'The Chavista State should be allowed to hoard the airwaves and fill it with carefully crafted psychological messages of terror and lies--because they have "people" and they "have rights."'

It's the same problem. Once an entity controls the bulk of the media, the population is controlled by that entity.

Sadly, what most people don't realize, consciously, when they're countering one slogan with another, is that they're engaging in the same game as their opposition. If you play that game (and most politicians have to), you have to not only play to win, you also have to craft the message in such a way that people aren't aware that they're being manipulated.

[Odin2005]

57. Exactly!

[Peace Patriot]

74. It is not the Left in Venezuela but the RIGHT who pose a danger of using the public airwaves

to create chaos and to kill people. In fact, the RIGHT has already done so. RCTV was providing lists of leftists to the coup's mobs, to go hunt them down in their homes or offices, during the 2002 coup. They are arguably directly responsible for the beatings and killings that occurred. And more would have occurred had the coup lasted more than three days, since the first act of the coupsters was to suspend the Constitution, the courts, the National Assembly and all civil rights. They were setting things up for a pogrom against the Left, such as had occurred in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Guatemala and many other countries, once the RIGHT, with US backing, got control of the levers of government. Horrible deaths, horrible tortures of thousands of people--terrorizing the country--is the history of the RIGHT in Latin America, and it is still occurring in Colombia--a country that both the Bushwhacks and the Clintonites fawn over as a "model of democracy."

The Chavez government has harmed no one, invaded no one, tortured no one, killed no one, has jailed no one unfairly, and has paid scrupulous attention to human and civil rights and the rule of the law. It furthermore enjoys a consistent 60% approval rating from the Venezuelan people, in all polls and virtually all elections (elections that are far more transparent than our own). To suggest that regulating the public airwaves is a step toward Rwanda genocide is absurd--wildly absurd--especially since all evidence points to the RIGHTWING as the perpetrators of disorder, destabilization and human rights violations.

I don't know the answer to your question about the political coloration of the stations that are having their licenses pulled. But it wouldn't matter to me if they were all rightwing, corporate-run stations. It is NOT political persecution to seek a balance of political views in the granting of broadcast licenses. It is good government. And considering corpo/fascist (not to mention multi-national) control of the entire commercial broadcast spectrum in Venezuela, they could easily lose half their rightwing stations and still not be adequately serving the people of Venezuela, as to the kinds of information and commentary that most Venezuelans would prefer. The market is not serving them (the same situation we have); it is instead imposing rightwing disinformation and extremist fascist views upon them. That is not democracy. And it IS the proper role of government to correct it.

[boppers]

81. "The Chavez government has harmed no one...".....riiiiiight.

Your thinking might be a tad.... biased. It's not a matter of left control, or right control, it's a problem of any one power entity being in absolute control.

Hugo's possibly a little more, uhm, colorful than you might realize. He's already been to prison for the murder of 14 people in his various attempts to gain power.

As far as your stance relates to the "fairness doctrine", I agree that the role of the state should be to ensure that media isn't dominated by the right, but I think it also shouldn't be dominated by *any* single perspective. Radio waves are part of the commons, and I'd go a bit further, and say that the government's role is to *encourage* the left, the right, the fascists, the statists, (etc.) to set up content and broadcasts.

What I'm still puzzling out is whether or not this is another coup orchestrated by by Chavez, eliminating opponents via bureaucracy, or simply folks using anti-Chavez sentiment to make noise while screaming "oppression!" for not filing their paperwork.

[EFerrari]

82. When one "power entity" is in control here

we call that "being in the majority".

When the Justice Department goes after illegal broadcasters here, we call that "law enforcement".

Notice this article doesn't tell you how many stations did get their act together after they were notified they had a problem? Or, what recourse they have if they are taken off the air? Because that would distract from their Palin-like victimhood.

And, btw, Primero Justicia is the extreme right wing, US funded, party in Venenzuela. They've accused Chavez of everything but starting the AIDS epidemic.

[boppers]

88. Interesting points.

I understand pirate radio, on an intimate level, and think that enforcement of radio wave law is a bit of a necessary evil.

Yeah, I've noted the complaints of victimhood.

On all sides.

[EFerrari]

91. Here's another example of the same bulleria. Do you remember

the thread in LBN over the weekend shouting that Chavez is arming FARC? He's been accused of that repeatedly. When a batch of rocket launchers turned up on record as sold to Ven from Sweden, iirc, the right wing had a field day.

The problem is, these weapons were sold in the 80s. And, wait, there's more! Apparently weapons from many countries have been found in FARC's possession:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x20549

But what gets broadcast in our media? CHAVEZ is arming FARC.

It's the same deal every time. And when you follow up, nada.

[boppers]

96. LOL, hadn't heard that one yet, oddly enough.

Actually, I might have heard it, but the whole "X is supporting Y" game is such obvious propaganda that it's easy for me to tune out, or otherwise dismiss.

Didja hear that the US is supporting FARC? You see, we're allies with Sweden...

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

98. LOL! I know.

We occasionally have "Let's just make shit up about Hugo Chavez" threads but nothing we post, no matter how bizarre, is really as bizarre as what gets printed all the time. lol

I think there will be more in this particular wave of baloney because the US wants to put five new bases in Colombia and they're getting a lot of resistance from the region and from the people of Colombia. So, time to do a little distracting.

[boppers]

101. Five new bases in Columbia?

Er... why?

Oh, and did you hear that Chavez's forces tossed babies out of incubators?

[EFerrari]

103. And then they sold the incubators to Iran!

:scared:

[boppers]

131. Are the using them as centrifuges?

The centrifuge BS always cracks me up, it's a confirmation that few on the bush team passed high school chemistry.

Ooh, maybe they could sell their baby-incubator-centrifuge technology to North Korea!

[EFerrari]

135. I hear the Kurds are on it!

lol

[boppers]

139. Dayum, are they selling it to religulous cells in the US?

Maybe Hillary's in on it!

[LittleClarkie]

86. With so many not having their paperwork together

I wonder how many were not allowed to re-apply or some such. Was the filing of paperwork obstructed in some way. How could so many stations have fucked up all at the same time?

[boppers]

92. The way I understand is a bit like this:

Laws were passed, and either never enforced, or only selectively enforced.

Chavez steps in, and, rightly or wrongly, starts enforcing the laws.

So, paperwork mishaps for the last 15 years (!) are now cause for a big, sweeping, action.

I don't have useful data yet for whether or not this is truly political in nature, but it sure looks like, sounds like, and quacks like, a duck.

Alternately, Venezuela might be transforming to a technical powerhouse that needs lots of spectrum, and control of spectrum.

[LittleClarkie]

95. May I as where you get most of your information on this subject?

I rather like your take on things. What sources do you consider reliable on this topic?

[boppers]

99. It's a bit of a mashup.

I use google news for most of my base searching, and try to hit at least 5-10 articles from a variety of countries and sources, so I get a bit of a mix of different opinions, from different state and media perspectives.

Depending on the topic, I may dig deeper and hit various wikis that contain other sources and opinions, and dig from there. Once I get 15-20 different "voices", I can usually synthesize from the crowd.

[EFerrari]

102. You should check out Eva Golinger at chavezcode.com

Eva is not non-partisan. She's an attorney in Ven and supports Chavez AND her stuff is pretty amazing.

She's the woman that was in Greg Palast's documentary about Chavez a few years ago. She traced US funds from our State Dept. and a host of others flowing to the right wing in Venezuela.

[boppers]

108. chavezcode.com is site-hosting spam.

www.chavezcode.com works, she's a white-hot partisan, but looks like another good perspective to consider.

Thanks for the pointer!

[EFerrari]

109. Yikes. Her stuff is reposted to the LatAm forum if you don't want to

go to her site. :hi:

[LittleClarkie]

166. Thank you

Like EFerrari. it seems you dig for information from many varied sources. That's always good to see. I want to be more like that myself.

[EFerrari]

93. For one thing, because most of these outlets are owned by wealthy people

who never have expected to follow the law. They bought their way out under right wing governments.

[LittleClarkie]

97. What is your main source for information on this subject.

I think I'm going to collect sources and try to come at this topic from both sides and see where that leads me.

[EFerrari]

100. I read just about everything because even hit pieces can give you

information by accident, right? I also read the articles posted from the LatAm press in the Latin America forum -- most of those outlets are also owned by conservatives, just like here but still, you can cull info. Eva Golinger's stuff in that forum is good. She is not neutral at all but I don't find her to be factually incorrect. Also the blogger Machetera is good. Ditto for her POV but also ditto for her accuracy.

I like narconews.com because they usaualy get it right and when they don't, they fess up. Amy Goodman and also Laura Flanders are good on these stories. They are progressives, not neutral but their reporting and their guests are much better than the outlets who claim to be neutral while delivering corporate spin.

[LittleClarkie]

165. Thank you for the information

I'm happy to see so many varied sources. You would seem to be well informed.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

134. Venezuela hasn't had a right-wing government in nearly two decades.

Stop making shit up.

[troubledamerican]

122. Colombia's Uribe has the Death Squads/mass graves -- not Chavez.

[boppers]

138. Uribe being scum doesn't vindicate Chavez.

The two probably shouldn't be conflated, or compared.

[troubledamerican]

141. Baloney -- Why is Chavez virtually a household name? But not Uribe?

"The two probably shouldn't be conflated, or compared."

Chavez is ONLY well-known because he is demonized as a Hitler-figure by the Far Right.

Uribe DOES kill his own citizens, but he is unmentioned by the Far Right except as an ally.

Funny how you think that doesn't merit comparison.

I would almost think you're a mole.

[boppers]

142. Spare me. Museveni.

If you have to look up Museveni, you've already proven that your argument is false, or, to be more charitable, you are being selectively poutraged.

[Peace Patriot]

173. Chavez did NOT murder anyone, when he was a young officer and participated in

a revolt within the military against a rightwing government that slaughtered hundreds of innocent, peaceful protesters, and was looting and grievously oppressing the Venezuelan people. Armed soldiers were fighting armed soldiers--some in defense of that government, some opposing it. Chavez went to jail for participating in that revolt, took responsibility for the actions of others, entirely disavowed violence as a means to right the wrongs that he and other officers saw, and became a hero in jail. He was neither charged with, nor convicted of, murder. He served a two-year sentence. He then took the political road to social justice. It was a turning point in his life--and an historical turning point in the leftist movement in Latin America--an admirable event. Would you call George Washington's actions murder? You would not. A soldier carrying a gun and pointing it at you, to enforce an oppressive government on you, is not an innocent party. It may not be a wise path to change, to shoot back, but it is a time-honored, justifiable right of the oppressed. Neither did Washington disavow violence. But we consider him a hero. He acted according to the ethics of the time. So did Chavez, in joining that revolt. But the ethics of the time were in transition. In fact, Chavez led that transition--and, after Venezuela established that desperately needed change could be accomplished democratically, country after country in Latin America followed that path, with leftist democratic governments now elected not only in Venezuela, but also in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.

All of these countries suffered violent rightwing regimes, and all experienced the phenomenon of oppressed people taking up arms to fight those regimes. Chavez changed that trend by his disavowal of violence in pursuit of social justice. Lula da Silva, president of Brazil, has called him "the great peacemaker." Your characterization of Chavez as a murderer is not only wrong, on the facts, it is an insult to the people who elected him, who know perfectly well what happened during the era of that revolt.

You have entirely mischaracterized Chavez's early history. But, in any case, I was speaking of his tenure as president and his government. Neither Chavez nor his government have harmed anyone, invaded anyone, tortured anyone, or jailed anyone unfairly, in the course of running the government, and they have scrupulously followed the Constitution written by, and voted on by, the people of Venezuela. And if you do not agree with this, then you had best provide names, events and links, because I have seen ZERO evidence that this is a harmful government in any respect, or that its president is harmful in any way, and I am widely read on the subject.

[LittleClarkie]

85. My GOD, they're PERFECT!

Even if they're better than most, I would think that the Chavez government has not done NOTHING wrong.

[EFerrari]

94. They've made mistakes but they haven't intentionally harmed

or ripped off the people which is a vast improvement over the actual right wing authoritarian governments to whom the life of common people was too cheap to count when they got gunned down by the government.

They're not perfect. There's still corruption all over the states, they have a violent crime problem and they need to diversify their economy more rapidly. But the Venezuelan government is not the cartoon that is presented in the US media.

[boppers]

130. Two questions:

1. Are people who are rich still people?
2. Are people who have power still people?

[DutchLiberal]

111. Aren't you amazed that so many MSM-hating 'liberals' are so eager to believe that same MSM...

...when it comes to Venezuela? The same DU-members who slam Fox News for making up shit about Obama (calling for secession, revolution or overthrowing the government), are more than happy to defend the same right-wing media doing the same to Hugo Chavez.

[boppers]

163. Not amazed, amused. Saddened. Disgusted.

Chavez is the kind of guy who likes to keep workers poor, blame others, and declare he will fix things.

NEVER AGAIN.

[DutchLiberal]

167. That's actually a good imitation of the baseless accusations from the MSM...

Congratulations.

[wroberts189]

156. "disinformation" should be protected speech" ...Whaaa ?????

Like yelling fire at a theater ?


You are drinking again right?

[Egalitariat]

34. Do you think he'll ever declare himself President for Life or something similar?

Or do you think he'll ride quietly into the sunset after he's term-limited out of office?

[Maru Kitteh]

43. Quietly into the sunset

:rofl:

[NoPasaran]

73. First, though, he will outlaw sunsets

[boppers]

144. Outlawing sunsets would be wrong.

He will reject the sun's license to set, instead.

More legal, that way.

[Pavulon]

50. 3 ways..

dead natural cause (heart attack, auto erotic asphy), retired by replacement (gsw head), quits on own. No way he is leaving. Looks like his sphere of influence did not make it to another state. hmm.

[Onceuponalife]

63. +1

Yup, consider the source of this article. Just another anti-socialism propaganda piece brought to you direct from TPTB. They will always try to fight national left-movements. If they can't win it with guns and bombs (coups) they will flood the media with this junk.

Great post Peace Patriot.

[Beacool]

17. And to think that so many here still defend this Castro wannabe.........

x(

[Forkboy]

24. Mark Penn chumming around with Uribe didn't seem to bother you.

[EFerrari]

105. And to think so many here just slurp up this right wing cr@p with a spoon.

:(

[wroberts189]

158. Then give us some facts ... He is Castro now is he??? nt

[bridgit]

20. Leave Hugo alone!

[Maru Kitteh]

21. *snarf*

:spray:

[blondeatlast]

31. Teh funny!

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. That's priceless.

[proteus_lives]

55. Good one!

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

59. lol

We're all thinking "LEAVE HIM ALONE!" in our heads :D

[Forkboy]

23. I'm always curious why Chavez gets so much attention while someone far worse is rarely brought up.

I'd take a lot more of the criticism of Chavez seriously if the same people who call him a tyrant or a dictator spent even 1/100th of the time they spend hand wringing over Hugo on Uribe.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. I can answer you only by saying that I did not see a story on Uribe in the news today.

In this case it has nothing to do with what I think is "worse," but rather what I happened to come across today.

[Forkboy]

27. Ever ask yourself why you don't see as many Uribe stories?

And if you do see a story about him how rarely it's in the mainstream press that you're seeing it? Now think about the amount of stories in the mainstream press on Hugo. Even if one accepts for the sake of argument that Chavez is as bad as Uribe, you would think the amount of stories would be somewhat equal. They're not even close. Ever wonder why?


I wasn't directing my response to you or any one person in particular, just noticing a trend among many of the more vociferous Chavez detractors.

[EFerrari]

40. LOL. We're trying to put five more bases into Colombia

and this new wave of bs is about distracting from that. No one in Latin America wants them there except the lapdogs in Colombia and Peru. And I'm out of this thread. :hi:

[Maru Kitteh]

41. There is one person who could do a great deal to remedy this imbalance on DU

You could.

I wouldn't, for the sake of argument, compare Chavez and Uribe because it doesn't have anything to do with my OP. In this thread, it would be off-topic and a distraction. You should post your concerns about Uribe in an OP, and I mean that sincerely. I would like to read about it. I enjoy your posts often.

Notice, if you would please, I am not one of the more vociferous Chavez detractors of DU. I'm not a fan, and I don't like the way I see things trending, but I'm pretty sure he's not quite Hitler yet, either.

[troubledamerican]

124. Uribe is "off-topic"? Are you kidding?

http://www.cpj.org/blog/2009/03/uribe-colombian-courts-hold-critical-journalists-i.php

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/defenders/reports/index.aspx

http://cpj.org/2009/02/colombian-intelligence-service-wiretapped-journali.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/world/americas/16colombia.html

Uribe shuts down journalists with DEATH SQUADS.

Where are the DEATH SQUADS of Chavez?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6629217.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6629217.stm

How convenient for you.

[Maru Kitteh]

143. Try to follow along.

I was flipping through headlines on the internets.

This headline caught my eye, so I posted it.

I posted excerpts from two different sources on the story, because two is always better than one.

The story is about Chavez closing down radio stations and confiscating property using tragically typical rubber-stamp, tin-pot dictator tactics.

***** PAY ATTENTION ***** THIS NEXT PART IS IMPORTANT ******

I did NOT post an OP positing that Chavez was the ... ... Worst Person .. In ... THE WORLD!

I did NOT post an OP asking, Who is the most oppressive state ruler?

I did NOT post an OP comparing the various methods world rulers use to squelch free media not suitably worshipful of them.

I did NOT post an article comparing the various demerits of Chavez and Uribe.

*********

THEREFORE: It is painfully obvious that while the transgressions of Uribe are undeniably worth discussion, they are clearly tangential to the original post.

[eridani]

175. Ever wondered WHY you always see more articles about Chavez than about Uribe?

Or Garcia of Peru? He and Uribe have both shut down plenty of media, and have killed quite a few of their own citizens as well. How many murders of union organizers occur in Venezuela?

[Odin2005]

28. Both are authoritarian bastards.

Uribe just doesn't comes up a lot because there aren't people here defending him.

[Forkboy]

29. Uribe just doesn't come up, full stop.

[Odin2005]

30. Just because the right-wingers whitewash Uribe doesn't excuse Chavez.

[Forkboy]

32. Never said it did.

But ever wonder why the one on the left wing is the only one that gets talked about? The only time Uribe came up in the last year was when the primary was going on and Mark Penn met with him. And that was only "newsworthy" because it could be used against Hillary. If McCain had met him it would barely have earned a passing mention.

Personally, I think the talk of Chavez on DU is cartoonish for the most part. He's neither the devil you seem to think he is, nor the savior some of his defenders seem to think he is. It's rare that I even talk about it on DU anymore because Chavez has become like Nader here. They're both great divide and conquer material, and many gobble the bait right up, on both sides.

[Odin2005]

35. Chavez's supporters disturb me far more than Chavez himself.

Chavez-types are a dime a dozen in non-Western societies in the process of becoming liberal democracies, typical populist dictators that starts out wanting to use his authority to better people's lives, but is eventually consumed by that authority and power as it goes to his head. They are a stage such societies have to pass through, and it is a dangerous passage because reactionaries will try to use such populist dictators as an excuse to stop democratization.

His Western supporters in Western democracies, however, are a different story. They betray authoritarian attitudes are are incompatible with Liberal Democracy, Human Rights, and Freedom of Speech and Association. They are the kind of people that would have had been happy with America becoming a dictatorship under Huey Long in the 30s, and would have been the people in the same time frame that dismissed evidence of Stalin's atrocities as "Capitalist Propaganda".

[EFerrari]

83. In fact, Chavez "types" are not a dime a dozen in non Western societies.

You're a young person, Odin. Bookmark this because in about ten or fifteen more years, they will be calling Hugo Chavez the most important politician in Latin America in the last 50 years for everything that he put together in Venezuela and in the region.

You keep saying that those of us who support Chavez support authoritarianism. My response to that is that you consume propaganda with an appetite and an ease that is alarming.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

64. If Uribe went around making an ass of himself on the teevee every few weeks...

...his name would probably come up here a lot more frequently. Also, nobody here likes Uribe. A lot of people here like Chavez. We tend not to argue about the stuff upon which we all agree.

[Judi Lynn]

89. Uribe does have a weekly program. Apparently you didn't take the time to know. n/t

[Name removed]

123. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wroberts189]

159. paid shills on this board .. thats my theory . nt

[TankLV]

33. Same shit - different asshole...

nice try...

[readmoreoften]

45. The airwaves belong to everyone, not corporate propaganda. If ABC was as bad as FoxNews

I wouldn't want it either. Cable news is one thing, public airwaves are another. Do the Venezuelan rich have a right to hoard public airspace for their pro-capitalist propaganda just because their parents made a mint off hoarding the nation's oil?

Cry me a river. When he stops them from selling newspapers in the street, let me know.

[bertman]

51. To me, the difference in FAUX and ABC is more quantitative than qualitative. Both are

shilling for the corporatist agenda. FAUX is just non-stop, 24-hour shilling; whereas, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc. are not quite so blatant about it. MSNBC even throws in a few token liberals to make them look better, but they are all basically pro-corporate, anti-democratic (little "d").

[woo me with science]

53. But the people WAAAAANT this, because they VOOOTED for him!

:banghead:

[L. Coyote]

56. Reuters n/t

[EFerrari]

58. Law enforcement is bad when it happens in Venezuela.

And the OP quotes Primero Justicia, the biggest, most corrupt freepers in Venezuela.

lol

Embarrassing.

[L. Coyote]

80. DU is living proof, propaganda is very effective and

'critical reasoning' is a vegetable on Mars :rofl:

[HughMoran]

60. Why does shit like this (dictatorial tendencies) always seem to happen after a socialist revolution?

I have nothing against socialism, but there all too often seems to be an excess reliance on the government to distribute wealth, which in turn leads to abuse of that power (to manipulate public opinion or more likely, squelch opposition.

[boppers]

61. Because capitalistic forces often control the media.

As far as abuse of power goes, I think that folks who abuse power have the best of intent, and motivations.

Once they start seeing kickback from existing power structures, they tend to want opposition mitigated.

[Odin2005]

67. Power corrupts. Authoritarian populists degenerating into tyrants is a common historical theme...

...Going all the way back to Greece and Rome. It's so common and predictable it's pathetic.

[wroberts189]

161. because the conserva whacknuts soon resort to violence ..as is happening here. nt

[democracy1st]

65. Low life fascist

[EFerrari]

107. Low life fascist government, enforcing their own laws. What a NERVE.

LOL

[troubledamerican]

125. Excatly. It's OK to incite assassinations on public airwaves, say DUers.

[Clintonista2]

66. K&R. Here's to hoping this scumbag dies a painful death

[UTUSN]

69. K&R to undo the UnRekkk-ing Huguito cadre (for now). n/t

[BolivarianHero]

70. More neocon spin from the corporate propaganda machine...

Some media outlets are not getting their licenses to use public airwaves renewed because they have hundreds of outstanding regulatory violations, many of which predate Chavez's 1998 election and even more of which are as a result of laws and regulation passed by previous government. One network, RCTV, has also been relegated to cable and satellite only because of a combination of regulatory violations and complicity in a right-wing coup against the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Venezuela.

The CRTC has similar regulatory powers here in Canada, and I guarantee you that if CTV or Global were to back a military coup against Stephen Harper's government they wouldn't be facing the CRTC; they would be dealing with CSIS, the RCMP, and perhaps the military.

[NoSheep]

72. But but but....I'd rather just assume everything I hear is true.

2 stolen elections in our country aren't nearly as bad as Chavez. The right wing media told me so.:eyes:

[LittleClarkie]

79. I reckon it's better to not assume the news I get from either side is true

Esp. if I can see the bias of each.

My mass media professor used to say that there was no such thing as THE history of something, only A history, and you'd have to read several of those to start to see what REALLY happened.

[backscatter712]

90. Taking down the Venezuelan equivalent of FOX News and Rush Limbaugh?

Excuse me for not shedding tears...

[cali]

104. here's an easy exercise: A government with the power to shut down

fox and rush, has the power to shut down Amy Goodman and Keith Olberman. Bad idea.

[EFerrari]

106. Yeah. That's called regulation.

lol

[cali]

113. so you think shutting down media for their pov is about regulation.

how very odd.

[Dreamer Tatum]

116. Forget it, cali

She's either a simpleton, a paid stooge, or a Stalinist. None are worth your time.

(ps - Beth, choose which of the three you are. Makes no difference.)

[EFerrari]

128. Yet another scholarly contribution from you, Dreamer.

I can't thank you enough. :)

[Dreamer Tatum]

136. Guess I didn't get my PhD from the University of Hugo Good, USA Bad

Sorry.

[EFerrari]

137. Or from anywhere else for that matter. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

145. Care to bet?

How about $50,000 of my dollars against $5,000 of yours?

Official transcripts and notarized identification are all yours as soon as your dough is in escrow. I recommend you
kiss it goodbye.

[EFerrari]

146. In that case, you should demand a refund.

:)

[Dreamer Tatum]

148. Maybe I'll work for Hugo instead

Does he pay you by the word, or by the post?

[EFerrari]

127. And what is your evidence that happened? Thanks, cali!

I'd really like a run down. :)

[DutchLiberal]

169. Radio Libre des Mille Collines also had a 'pov'...

[wroberts189]

155. Apples and oranges ..lies versus truth. nt

[wroberts189]

151. Cheers to that. :) nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

114. "failed to comply with regulations"

I haven't been able to find specifically WHICH regulations though. I guess that doesn't matter?

[anonymous171]

115. Can he just kill all the coup plotters already? Why is he beating around the bush with this shit?

[EFerrari]

129. I don't know. Law and shit.

lol

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

133. According to his backers, something like 40% of the population of Venezuela...

...has literally held a gun to Hugo's head at one point or another. You disagree, you were in on the coup. Such typical bullshit.

[wroberts189]

152. He does not have a Yoo or a Rove or a Cheney to. Like we did :) . /sarc nt

[Peace Patriot]

149. The trouble with anti-Chavez posters is that they can never come up with any

credible facts about Chavez's abuse of power, and rely solely on manipulated, propagandistic 'news' stories from the corporate monopoly press. While they have been doing this for some time at DU, and while we ourselves have suffered the most insane, tyrannical, murderous and filthy thieving government in the history of our country, the Chavez government has proceeded to cut extreme poverty in half, wipe out illiteracy, meet their Milllenium goals, foster awesome levels of public participation, run clean elections that are far, far more transparent than our own, re-negotiate the oil contracts with multinationals to give Venezuelans a far better deal, and preside over a nearly 10% economic growth rate, most of it in the private sector (not including oil), and, while doing all of this and more, they socked away some $140 billion in international cash reserves for a "rainy day" (drops in oil prices, or Bushwhack Financial 9/11s). Furthermore, the Chavez government has enjoyed consistent approval ratings in the 60% range, as well as high marks from Venezuelans on the direction of their country and approval of their democracy.

The real story of Venezuela is not about Hugo Chavez--the sole obsessive focus of our insane media; it is about the people of Venezuela who are as much responsible for these achievements as Chavez is. Why don't anti-Chavez posters trust them--the people of Venezuela, the voters, the community organizers, the union leaders, the political activists, the workers, the organized poor, and also the elected members of the National Assembly, and the many professionals working in the Chavez government, or who support its goals? They are all ignored, in favor of this ridiculous creation of our corporate media, "Chavez the dictator."

It drives me nuts. Chavez is NOT a dictator. He is not even close to being a dictator. He is doing what the people of Venezuela asked him to do: help the poor, improve education and medical care, stop giving the oil profits (nationalized long before Chavez) away to corporate monsters like Exxon Mobil, encourage local manufacturing, set up a decent, well-regulated land reform program, protect Venezuela's interests, tell the US "free tradists" and the "neoliberals" and the loan sharks at the World Bank/IMF to fuck off, and represent all of the people of Venezuela--not just the rich, and not foreign powers and global corporate predators.

To return to the issue of the licensing of the public airwaves: It is a dangerous thing, indeed, to challenge the power of multinational corporations when they get control of your airwaves. That is the situation in Venezuela (as it is here). We saw what happened here, with all the corpo/fascists on our public airwaves rah-rahing the Bush Junta's war, fawning over these real tyrants who slaughtered one hundred thousand people in one week of bombing alone, to steal their oil, and disgraced the United States of America with torture and indefinite detention without trial, secret torture dungeons around the world, massive domestic spying, politicalization of the Justice Department and a host of other crimes including treason. The corporate media colluded in all of these crimes. That is the tremendous peril that corporate control of the media puts countries in. In Venezuela, the corporate media is not just "the opposition"--as if it were okay for "the opposition" to control the public airwaves--it is run by a handful of rich fascists and distant billionaire CEOs who actively supported the 2002 coup and are fomenting the next one. They are not, for the most part, a "loyal opposition." They are traitors just like the Bushwhacks--powerful rich people who don't believe in democracy, and who cynically lie, and twist the 'news,' and propagandize in their own greedbag interest. Thank God these corpo/fascists haven't gained control of the vote counting in Venezuela--as they have here! Venezuela has honest, transparent elections. That is why Chavez is president, and not some slimebag toady of the US or some US/coup-appointed dictator.

Corporate control of the media corrodes and ultimately destroys democracy--as we see happening here. An informed citizenry is one of two bottom lines of democracy. The other is transparent vote counting. Venezuela has one of these, and is trying to achieve the other. We have neither. Who has the better democracy? Who has suffered real--as opposed to corporate bogeyman--tyranny? Not Venezuelans! They are mostly happy with their government. Are we--even with a Democrat in the White House? And what in god's name have we just been through, these last eight years, if not the very picture of what they are trying to create, and brainwash us into believing: "Chavez the dictator"? How has Chavez "dictated" to the Venezuelan people? Who are the true victims of tyranny--Venezuelans or us?

Our corpo/fascists are afraid of Chavez, that's for sure. But NOT because he is a "dictator." They LOVE dictators! They loved Bush! They loved Cheney! They love corporate resource wars--our young people dying for Exxon Mobil, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying. They couldn't get enough of it. They cheered. They waved the flag. They hailed their stolen elections. They lied to us. They propagandized us. And they hid the truth, on every front.

And now they are doing this to Venezuela! They hate Chavez precisely because he is NOT a dictator. Who they really hate are the people of Venezuela.

But the people of Venezuela never enter into the discussion, do they?, when the dupes of corpo/fascist 'news' monopoly propaganda trumpet that propaganda here at DU.

The people of Venezuela want and need better control of their public airwaves. They need balance, wider spectrum discussion, more diversity, better information, and they do not need 24/7 fascist propaganda and coup-mongering. They can work this out for themselves. It is none of our business. We have our own fouled house to put in order. The maniacal focus on "bogeyman" Chavez is propagandistic, and it may be much more than that: it may be the preliminary to Oil War II.

Front page of the New York Times today: "Curveball"...er, obscure operatives in the Colombian government say Chavez has aluminum...er, supports FARC terrorists. It has begun. Deja vu all over again. Simon Romero = Judith Miller.

This crap about the Chavez government's regulation of the public airwaves is just more of the same.

[wroberts189]

153. It amazes me the anti-Chazez posters here. I smell money. nt

[wroberts189]

150. Good riddance to hate radio. Lets do the same here. nt

[wroberts189]

160. I got an idea ..lets shutdown Clear Channel and the rest of the ..

clearly right wing wack job birther teabag republican political sounding boards.


Move us faster in a better direction I say.

[Peace Patriot]

162. My sentiments exactly! It's time we did this HERE--pulled their goddamned licenses

to use OUR public airwaves. They have not only failed to serve the public interest, they have fomented horrendously unjust war and many other crimes including massive, unprecedented thievery by the kleptomaniac class. We still have regulatory power over the public airwaves--thin and useless as it has become. Time we put it to use, to bust up these corpo/fascist 'news' monopolies and re-create a decent public discussion of vital issues.

Corporatespeak is NOT "free speech." Not even close.

[boppers]

164. If bush had his way...all stations would be clear channel.

Power over the media, over the commons, is not a thing to joke about.