Venezuela's RCTV Acts of Sedition - by Stephen Lendman
On December 28, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias delivered his annual "greeting speech" to the National Armed Forces (FAN) and announced the operating license of TV station Radio Caracas Television (known as RCTV) broadcasting on VHF Channel 2 won't be renewed when it expires on May 27, 2007. The station played a leading role, along with the other four major commercial private television channels in the country controlling 90% of the TV market, in instigating and supporting the 2002 aborted two-day coup against President Chavez. Later in the year they acted together again in similar fashion as an active participant in the economically destructive 2002-03 main trade union confederation (CTV) - chamber of commerce (Fedecameras) lockout and industry-wide oil strike that included sabotage against the state oil company PDVSA costing it overall an estimated $14 billion in lost revenue and damage.
A collaborative alliance of the five media "majors" that include Globovision, Televen, CMT and Venevision (owned by billionaire strident anti-Chavista Gustavo Cisneros who's called the Rupert Murdoch of Latin America because of his vast media holdings) along with RCTV began their anti-Chavez campaign soon after Hugo Chavez assumed office in 1999. In addition, 9 of the 10 major national dailies were part of the joint corporate effort to harm Chavez's popular support and undermine his legitimacy even before he had a chance to implement his socially democratic agenda now flourishing under his Bolivarian Revolution. It included the country's new Constitution and all vital social missions it gave birth to and now deliver essential services to the people who never had them before including free health and dental care and education to the highest level - for everyone mandated by law.
The corporate media alliance, that included RCTV, had prior knowledge of the April, 2002 coup plot that was apparent from the front page of national daily El Nacional in a special day of the coup April 11 edition of the paper printed before it began and headlined: The Final Battle Will Be in Miraflores (the presidential palace). The same day, another daily, The Daily Journal (an English language paper), headlined on its front page (also printed in advance of the coup's initiation): State of Agony Stunts Government.
In the days leading up to April 11, 2002, Venevision, Globovision, Televen and RCTV suspended regular programming replacing it with anti-Chavez speeches and virulent propaganda featuring strong rhetoric and calling on the Venezuelan people to take to the streets on that day they knew in advance had been scheduled for the coup. They blared it was "For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." This went on continuously in tone and content practically announcing a call to arms insurrection on the scheduled coup date asking people to participate supporting the overthrow of their democratically elected president and government.
On April 10, one day before the coup, General Nestor Gonzales got air time on the major corporate broadcast media announcing the high military command demanded Hugo Chavez step down from office or be forcibly removed. The day following the coup, the dominant commercial media revealed their involvement in it, and on one April 12 Venevision morning program military and civilian coup leaders appeared on-air to thank the corporate media channels for their important role, including the images they aired while it was in progress, stating how important their participation was to the success of the plot. It failed two days later largely because of mass public opposition to it with huge crowds on the streets supporting their president in far greater numbers than those favoring the coup-plotters.
It was also later revealed the two-day only installed Venezuelan president Pedro Carmona had used the facilities of Gustavo Cisneros' Venevision as a "bunker" or staging area base of operations and was seen leaving its building heading for the Miraflores to take office as president of Venezuela on April 11 in flagrant violation of the law.
The dominant private corporate media clearly and unequivocally were part of the coup plot. They colluded to promote it in advance and then incited the public with anti-Chavez propaganda encouraging it while suppressing all news and information supporting Hugo Chavez that might have helped prevent it. It's likely RCTV alone is being singled out at this time because it's VHF license expiration is imminent in a few months. But it's also known a managing producer of the station's El Observer news program testified to the Venezuelan National Assembly that he and others at the station got orders on the day of the coup from RCTV's owner that on April 11 and the following day: "No information on Chavez, his followers, his ministers, and all others" was to be allowed on-air on the station. Instead the corporate media falsely reported Hugo Chavez had resigned when, in fact, he'd been forcibly removed and was being held against his will. They all knew it because they were told in advance and were part of the scheme.
On April 13, when hundreds of thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets, the corporate media TV stations ignored them and instead broadcast old movies and cartoons like nothing of importance was happening. Even when the coup was aborted and pro-Chavez cabinet members returned to the presidential palace, it got no coverage on corporate-run TV or in the dominant print media. In addition, state television was taken off the air suppressing any truth coming out that lasted until Chavez supporters took over the station and began broadcasting real information to the public for the first time after the coup and until things returned to normal following it.
Even after Hugo Chavez was freed and returned to the Miraflores, the only station broadcasting it was the state-owned channel. The dominant private media instead maintained strict censorship in a further collaborative act of defiance. They refused to admit or inform the public that Hugo Chavez was returned to office because the people of Venezuela demanded it and succeeded in spite of all obstacles impeding them. It was an impressive moment in Venezuela's history that will long be remembered and is an important lesson to free people everywhere that mass people power fighting for their rights and freedom can prevail even against great odds.
It's also a testimony to Hugo Chavez and how the country has prospered under him benefitting everyone, including those behind the plot to oust him who might consider the 2006 preliminary year end economic growth numbers showing the Venezuelan economy grew at least 10% for the third straight year, including in 10 of the last 11 quarters. These impressive results were aided by record oil income. With it, government spending and subsidies increased sparking a jump in overall consumer demand. It boosted income for the country's most in need but also made the rich even richer. Instead of trying to oust Hugo Chavez, the anti-Chavistas might want to reconsider and thank him instead, but that wasn't their intent in 2002, and it isn't now either.
Venezuelan Corporate Media Defiant and Undeterred Even After the Coup Plot Failed
The dominant Venezuelan corporate media remained defiant even in defeat and showed it only months later that year in December, 2002 when a second de facto planned coup plot against Hugo Chavez began. This time it took the form of the opposition declaring a "general strike" that was reported that way by the corporate media even though, in fact, it was a management-imposed lockout workers had no part in or wanted. News reports falsely portrayed it as an oil industry workers' strike supported by laborers and management. It was not as it was planned and implemented by high level managers and executives in the oil industry who sabotaged equipment, changed access codes, and locked workers out of computer information systems halting production. The action devastated the Venezuelan economy. It threw many thousands out of work, affected other businesses, caused many to go bankrupt, and effectively destabilized the country for over two months.
During this period, the corporate media took full advantage launching an information war against the Chavez government. Again the four main TV stations suspended all regular programming replacing it with pro-opposition propaganda round the clock non-stop for the 64 day strike period denouncing Chavez and only stopping when the strike ended.
Hugo Chavez's Justification to Act Against RCTV
After Hugo Chavez announced RCTV's VHF license wouldn't be renewed, 1BC president (and owner of RCTV) Marcel Granier responded: "We all know what this is all about. They are trying to abolish freedom of speech and force the media to obey Government rules." He also falsely tried claiming his license ran until 2012 because it was renewed for 10 years in 2001. William Lara, head of Venezuela's Ministry of Information and Communications, explained the license, in fact, was gotten in May, 1987 and had only been resubmitted in 2001 because of the passage of a new communications law that year. Lara also said in a subsequent press conference Chavez's move against RCTV should come as no surprise and added this move is not a "revocation or expropriation" of the privately-owned RCTV but just the "termination" of its license.
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
"Fighting for Air: The Battle To Control America's Media"
is the title of a book by Eric Klinenberg that I've just started reading.
How many Americans are aware that people have died since reregulation of the media made it impossible in some cases for emergency alerts to be broadcast?
Imagine what would happen if there was a large explosion in your community that released toxic gasses or radioactivity, and nobody could be warned about it because the local TV and radio stations were broadcasting canned programs sent out by their absentee corporate owners and there was no way to override them with local alerts?
The Fairness Doctrine wasn't the only thing that was thrown out with reregulation -- community responsibility was also lost. To Clear Channel and its ilk, you aren't a city or town, you're a market or niche. As long as they control the right to bombard you with advertising and propaganda, they don't really care if you live or die.
Chavez should have taken those U.S.-backed corporate propaganda stations off the air a long time ago. Except for Keith Olbermann, I don't think there has been a single liberal voice on mainstream radio and TV in this country for over a decade. Even a centrist like Dan Rather was forced out for daring to criticize Bush.
Beer and ballgames are today's bread and circuses, but even with mega-distractions and government disinformation dominating the airwaves, Bush still can't poll more than a 28% approval rating among mainstream media viewers.
In Oaxaca, one of the first things the repressive forces of their fraudulently elected government did was shut down Radio APPO, the only media voice that the people had. And I sure didn't hear our State Department screaming about censorship.
I'm sorry to hear that Human Rights Watch is on the wrong side of this issue. They are supposed to be opposed to torture, so if they are siding with the neoliberal (U.S. and corporate) sponsors of torture, they're never getting another dime from me.
Thank you for another insightful, informative, and illuminating article, Stephen. I hope that some of the writers on opednews who attended the recent Media Reform conference in Memphis will chime in with their views also.
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 9:21:37 AM
Indeed I agree but you meant to say DEregulation with an anything goes environment crushing the public interest all ways. I fundamentally believe these are our airwaves and we need to get them back for our use and put on them socially responsible programing and REAL news and info.
by
Stephen Lendman (357 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 84 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 9:29:59 AM
The government did not so much "deregulate" the market, because broadcasters depend on tight state supervision to protect their exclusive domains in the airwaves. Instead, the federal government "re-regulated" the industry so that Big Media companies could expand and consolidate ownership across outlets, even though such arrenagements threatened the localism, diversity, and competition that are supposed to drive U.S. media policy, and resulted in massive downsizing of the local reporters, editors, and DJs who produce original content for cities and towns.
I copied his usage because I think I get his point, that deregulation would have opened the airwaves up to everyone, but reregulation did not, it just expanded the rights of the big corporations at the expense of small media outlets.
Here in San Diego, I can listen to Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" online, or on one of our two illegal local pirate stations, the one that the FCC has busted frequently. Their cost of staying in business includes replacing all their broadcasting equipment every time the FCC confiscates it, plus facing enormous fines and prison sentences. So from my point of view, there hasn't been any deregulation, as the regulations protecting the corporate media are stronger than ever. There has been some discussion about the possibility of acquiring a legal low power station, but I don't know if anything came of it as the costs of the application process were prohibitive. The FCC has apparently allowed more low-power stations, but made their acquisition something that ordinary citizens are unlikely to be able to afford. Large churches might, but they seem to have sufficient airtime on the mainstream media.
At any rate, I agree with Klinenberg that there hasn't been any deregulation that I know of, only a reregulation that has strengthened the regulations in favor of the corporate (mainly the military-industrial complex, as I understand it) media.
The lowering of public responsibility, such as the Fairness Doctrine and emergency broadcasting, which was originally the quid pro quo for access to the public airwaves, could be seen as deregulation, but it could also be seen as part of regulation by the FCC to protect corporate media from public obligations or local competition.
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 30 quicklinks, 100 diaries, 1325 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:05:02 AM
Hi Stephen- thanks for a great article, as usual. I just saw in Aporrea.org today that they are comparing Chavez to the dictator Trujillo (friend of Franco and Hitler.) Vargas Llosa has just written a movie starring Isabella Rosselini called La fiesta del Chivo about Trujillo's dictatorship. I hate Vargas Llosa, but I want to see it, since I have been in Dominican Republic. Did you see The Time of the Butterflies? I recommend it. Antonio
by
Guajolotl (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 131 comments) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 3:55:04 PM
There are some who disagree with Chavez and GW and see a cahoots in manipulating oil prices between them. Definitely they share a politicizing of Energy policy. Not always evident as good for the "common" welfare.
I enjoy the comment string where you two guys try to make sense out of classic double speak.
Between Corporate and State run media, I often wonder if the Truth is ever really out there/
by
"Hoss" David P. (51 articles, 5 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 338 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 25, 2007 at 5:07:21 PM
Contact Author
View Authors' Articles
(0+)
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) 
