International groups worry over Venezuela's stance on free press

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- The United Nations and the Organization of American States said Saturday they are worried over Venezuelan government statements about an independent TV station that has criticized President Hugo Chavez.

In a joint release, freedom of expression investigators Frank LaRue of the U.N. and Catalina Botero of the O.A.S. "express their concern in light of the statements made by the highest-level government authorities, which generate an atmosphere of intimidation in which the right to freedom of expression is seriously limited."

Venezuela denied the allegations.

"We reject and condemn use of the name of such institutions as the U.N. and the O.A.S to attack member states while defending private monopolies that are accustomed to abuse of power and violating human rights," said Venezuela's U.N. Ambassador Jorge Valero.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/05/23/venezuela.globovision/index.html

---

And Chavez says there's no political motiviation in his government's actions against the TV station? Okay....For those who would buy that hook, line, and sinker I have several Mississippi River bridges for sale along with some prime Florida real estate.

but there are those that argue that Globovision supported a coup against Chavez, and those that simply will support anything that Chavez does. They will attack the messenger as well as defending the Chavez government for these actions. Then there are those who will attack Chavez as a dictator because of this. Neither side is using critical thinking skills. They're just reacting based on closely held beliefs.

The country will only go down hill from here. These things alwways start out with the right ideas but the thirst for unchallenged power eventually wins.

certainly create incrementally more traction.

It has to be true!

Chavez is a greedy, heartless dictator, don't you know?

Yup...

Actually I believe nothing contained in this "news". The Venezuelan ambassador had it absolutely correct, IMHO.

What a crock of Bull Shit reactionary propaganda.

And a horrible indication of the obvious widespread ignorance about political realities endemic even here on DU!

Chavez gets a free pass by many on DU who are extremely critical of Obama. It just seems like Chavez does no wrong in many DUers eyes. I find this very curious.

except when some Democrats like Clinton jump on board and attack Chavez. For example, some DUers were skeptical when they were shown that Human Rights Watch was meddling in Venezuela and attacking Chavez until the director of HRW joined in a WaHo opinion piece where Obama was attacked in exactly the same way with right wing nuttery posing as neutrality.

We have bigger fish to fry in the United States, and this continual focus on the activities of Venezuela stinks of Unconventional Warfare in order to push Americans for more unwarranted intervention into other countries.

They wan't a war/coup in Venezuela, or haven't you been paying attention since 2002? The Bush Administration tried and failed. It's time to give up and let them figure it out for themselves. Cargill and ADM be damned.

And while Chavez has been the revolution Venezuelans voted for, Obama so far is still just president of the same system and empire as before - at least, dating back to the new world order established in the immediate post-war years. I hope Obama can do nearly as well.

Most DUers are smart and ethical enough not to take the bait of the incessant right-wing propaganda attacks on Chavez as a quasi-official enemy of the US empire. DUers are mostly US citizens and critical of business as usual in the United States, even when Obama hands it down. That's exactly what we should be doing: working for change in our own country. Among other things that means opposing those in the US who want to catapult Venezuela backwards to the time when the military fired on the people and the majority were powerless.

Then how do you find out things? How will you ever know if there is something out there that overturns what you already believe to be true?

from credible sources.

There's probably a library's worth of writing on how the US corporate media has tried to tank Chavez. At this point, if you're not skeptical, you're not paying attention.

for Christ sake

corporate media propaganda

I remember early in Chavez's first term, they had rallies for Chavez, they also had counter rallies against him. The corp media including CNN mentioned the counter rallies but not the pro rallies which were 5 times as large. The pro rallies were reported by people like Greg Palast, who was one of the few that reported the bush theft in Florida.

don't you remember the anti war protests in 2003? Millions worldwide, yet you barely heard about it on CNN, and they gave near equal time to pro war rallies which had dozens.

The US corps hate Chavez cuz he grabbed the oil business and is using it for the people. The average working person's standard of living in Venezuela has gone up. Gas is something like 12 cents a gallon.


THE INTERNET

Orwell was prescient. Junk you're television, it's controlling you.

I don't trust Palast either. Where are his 500 E-mails and list of 70,000 caged voters that were the keys to the kingdom of the US attorneys scandal?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/26/83915/0129

I remember seeing anti-war rallies on TV.

Its possible for networks to be out to get Chavez and also report true facts about him. Shutting off possibilities based on ideological fit with world veiws leads one astray of the real truth.

sad but true

Orwell was prescient, kill your television.

and from the same characters, just a different day.

The station is accused of running a report on an earthquake ahead of the official announcement . They also faulted the government for taking too long to issue a report. Isn't that what the media is supposed to do? Provide an alternative to the official line?

The government accused the station of "hate speech" and "terrorism" and "destabilizing intent." The charges aren't at all supported by the facts. This is just another step toward dictatorship. Sure, Chavez wins elections, but what will that mean if he wins with complete control of the media?

Chavez apologists keep excusing his power grabs. It will be hard to defend this one.

and should more correctly read "Right wing owned TV Station"

their corporate whoremasters.

My apologies to actual whores, who provide an actual service for money, unlike corporate thieves who hold us up with laws and regulations while the media finds the latest white woman with breast implants who's being oppressed or reports the latest life or death drama on American Idle.....

as if they have credibility; as if it hasn't already been revealed that they accept money from the U.S. government to promote its foreign policy agenda in Cuba, Haiti and elsewhere in Latin America.

Just like Miami based Cubanet. Cubanet pays so called "independent journalists" in Cuba to produce hearsay and RW product (misrepresented as "reports") for AI, HRW, and RSF who have none of their own people in Cuba to verify anything. These international groups are extensions of the plethora of RW think tanks and foundations that create the ever self reenforcing echo chambered drumbeat that poses as journalism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man

---

Why on earth would anybody on DU, a staunchly Democratic forum, believe anything RSF has to say?

Absolutely astonishing.

On edit, an excellent source of info on the Mellon Scaife foundations is The Hunting of the President, by Joe Conason and Gene Lyons. Doubtless, many of the Chavez bashers here are Bill Clinton supporters.

was taking over American media?

any media outlets? Anyway, the corpmedia in this country scarcely needed taking over.

why in the HECK would he shut down those who put him in power?

try reading next time. I said that the corpmedia scarcely needed taking over. you need help grasping the obvious.

Venezuelan private media, conservative owned, supported the coup plotting against Chavez in 2002 and urged their conservative middle and upper class viewers to get out into the streets to support the coup against Chavez over and over again.

In 2008, they ignored evidence of further coup plotting uncovered. So even with clear attempts to support the overthrow of the President, the conservative media were still freely operating following their own agenda. But whenever President Chavez complains about the media opposing him, we have another chance to create international news stories expressing "sincere concern" about Venezuela restricting the freedom of the press.

Even though the US media is dominated by conservative conglomerates who own the major broadcast networks and regularly include only a few leftist perspectives for every 100 moderate or right wing ones, we like to think we have a free press because we can buy leftist magazines and visit their websites. Well, Venezuelans can watch opposition news on TV, like we do when our conservative media keep foisting idiotic Republicans upon us, even after their policies bankrupted our country in a few different ways. Just as Venezuelans can watch conservative TV media that ignore news about plots to overthrow their government, we can watch our conservative media give a lot of air time to Republican leaders with ideas that destroyed our financial and national security to criticize our current Democratic government.

It is tough for the middle and upper class in Venezuela to adjust to their leftist government's attempts to balance out an economy that heavily favored them into one that shares more of the national wealth with the poor. It is also difficult for them that the government has worked hard to empower the poor and get them to vote. There are so many more poor people who are glad to have a few more safety nets like education and free health care that the current government keeps winning at the ballot box. Let's hope they don't change to electronic voting systems with proprietary software.

Democratic citizens in the USA are having trouble just trying to pass EFCA, to give the poorest workers more freedom to unionize and be protected from the increasingly strident efforts of many corporations to oppose unionization. Our conservative owned media will be letting large corporations PR firms form small anonymous groups to buy lots of ads to scare the public into thinking EFCA is a bad idea. Corporations will also encourage legislators to vote down the law with generous campaign donations. Of course, pro-union groups will buy some ads, too; it is just that they will be outspent by a large margin, as usual. Cash is king. And U.S. broadcast media conglomerates will give lots of free time to right wingers to deride the legislation, with a few union voices slipped into the mix to pretend they are presenting balanced news and commentary.

So we are hardly in a great position to criticize the Venezuelan duly-elected government about freedom of the press. While the Bush administration was breaking international laws and violating basic human rights, we didn't have broadcast media urging people to get into the streets to demand his impeachment. Those voices were pushed aside to smaller publications and websites. But some Venezuelan TV stations in 2002 freely urged their viewers to go out and support attempts to overthrow their government.

We are having trouble getting universal health coverage for American citizens who have been longing for it for years. Our "free market" (i.e. cash dominated) media participated in crushing the last attempt by a Democratic president to push for health care as a right rather than a privilege by running multimillion dollar ad campaigns against it. Our "free market" legislature could then pretend they were bending to "national will" by voting it down, rather than protecting their funding sources for our increasingly expensive campaign process.

The USA's conservative broadcast media promoted the last administration's war of choice in Iraq, even though they knew, as millions of protesters around the world knew, what freer journalists had been reporting, that there was no connection between Sadaam and 9/11, which was the first excuse to attack. "Wowee zoweee check out that Shock & Awe, folks!" It was really disgusting to someone like me who wanted to believe we had a free press to see how few anti-war commentators were allowed on our TV news discussions, compared to those supporting the Bush Gang's illegal war.

Our major TV media also ran with the Bush gang's official "few bad apples" theory of Abu Ghraib, even though there was evidence that the authorizations to cross the boundaries of international law and the Geneva Conventions came from much higher up in the Bush Administration. And now we have seen some of the memos that confirm what many sources had reported at the time in news outlets with smaller circulations. And still, our "free" mass media give more air time to "torture works" discussion, and marginalize those calling for the prosecution of our war criminals.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3792

It's ok to show "High Value Terroists" being tortured for what they know, but .6 seconds of a womans breast with her nipple covered by a throwing star is worth a 250,000 fine.

It's ok for Lehman Brothers and Charles Scwab, or AIG, Farmers and Alstate to prosletyze what friendly, reliable entities they are, while they break their deals right and left, and turn into hermit crabs at the first sign of any claim.

I think Chavez is correct is clamping down of groups the "Swift Boat Veterans" and other Corporate influences who have learned how to abuse "Free Speech" in order to shape mass opinion. Chavez is right in tilling the soil to remove weeds like Hannity, Beck, O'Riley, and the other "Entertainers" that like to pass their propaganda off as factual news.

privately owned right wing media went on the air and were laughing about it. The privilege they obviously felt they enjoyed was on full, revolting display.

If some guest of Fixed News suggested the President should be asasinated, he'd get a visit from the Secret Service and the FBI. If Fox reported our Executive had resigned when he'd been kidnapped, Fox would cease to exist. If there was anything to fear from Chavez regarding freedom of the press, it would have already happened in the last ten years unless he's the most inept autocrat ever.

A TV station was attacked.
Government riot police stormed the station and smashed it to pieces.
The offense?
The station broadcast an interview with a political opponent. It was the last station to offer a critical view of the dictator.
The station remained closed until it was re-opened under strict government control and censorship.
The owner of the station died under mysterious circumstances a few months later in England at the age of 52.

But since that grotesque abuse of power occurred in a US puppet state, nobody reported on it.
The country is Georgia. The dictator is Saakashvili.

Google "Imedi seized" and you will find not one US report on the crime.
(Imedi is the name of the station)

A search of Reporters Without Borders for Imedi yielded this: No Results

Which was nothing more than an attempt to set up an Israeli like irritant state next to the Soviet Union, poised to start any sort of Agression that the U.S. would have to support, regardless of who started it. Also, it is situated very close to Iran, a little over 100 miles to the Iranian border, has a sea port, and was basically being set up as a future base for the Iranian Theater of war.

Fortunately, Saakashvili made a mistake when he pencilied in the attack date given to him by Bush/Cheney, and Putin closed the gate and put that rabid dog down.

there are other links which substantiate that Georgia's last elections were bent but I hadn't come across that issue before.

over the shills who defend their beloved St Hugo

At Reporters Without Borders

""This is not the case with the United States (36th domestically and 119th outside its own territory)""

in the Iraq war reporters have died at a higher rate than any of our previous conflicts

the US MIC learned from Vietnam where the press was instrumental in shutting them down.

Venezuela is ranked 113th which isn't good, but pot kettle black cuz Venezuela isn't involved in any pre-emptive wars for oil where 10's of 1000's are killed.

Besides which the US media is highly controlled. People don't get killed, but they sure do get fired. It's all run from the top by 5 large corp conglomerates. On the corp television it can't even be called news anymore, just a bunch of propaganda fluff. Since when was American idol and the latest sports win "news" on the nightly network broadcast. Ever since they've been bought out.

They deliberately chose that name in order that people like you would confuse them with real humanitarian groups like Doctors Without Borders.

But, believe away.

How many can you name? Hitler, Fujimori... anyone else? I'm wondering if the word "replete" really fits.

The "power takeover" (Machtübernahme) was in January 1933, without benefit of any election.

Hindenburg beat Hitler in the June 1932 presidential election, but the Nazis won biggest party in the parliament that November (for a second time, after winning even bigger in July). Then they overturned democratic structures with the Reichstag fire and a last parliamentary election under a reign of terror in March 1933. After that they banned other parties and held no further elections except for the plebiscite that made Hitler into the Fuehrer, in 1934.

But you make a good point. It is simply a myth -- often propagated by those who oppose democratic forms -- that democratic elections have often produced tyrants. Not at all. The closest example in the US, 2000, was a fixed election in which the tyrant was installed after losing the vote. That's the pattern you'll find most often: coups by minorities, militaries and parties who lose elections.

Well,due to lack of responding to a Hugo thread,

thats what J L seems to be saying ;)

stay the fuck out of a sovereign nation exercising its fucking sovereign rights

Say anything that may be even the least critical of saint Hugo.


-nnnm

Venezuela is trying to reign-in their version of the Rupert Murdochs, Glen Becks and Rush Limbaughs, who are not journalists in any sense of the word.

As American progressives we should support the Venezuelan people against an entrenched, privileged elites.

Globovision: The Loose Cannon of Venezuelan Media

May 22nd 2009, by Carlos Ruiz - VenCentral

In their classic 1988 book Manufacturing Consent,Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky demonstrated how corporate media selecttopics, place emphasis, set boundaries, ask questions and shape contentin accordance with broad capitalist imperatives. It’s a largelyunconscious process driven by conformist human beings, and infinitelymore effective than the heavy-handed methods of past communist regimes.

During the 20th century, ballooning marketing budgets played acrucial role in the marginalization, and ultimate extinction ofinfluential labor-based/progressive media. Today’s mass mediasubservience to elite power structures is an inevitable consequence ofthe pursuit of profit. Advertising revenues continue to flow to anygiven publication, radio or TV station on the condition that itsreporting and general content supports a business-friendly status quo.

News/ad-consuming audiences are literally a product for sale, thoughwe more closely resemble victimized bystanders. Above all, theoppressed and impoverished of the world are done a grave disservice asa consequence of writers being selected for a proven disposition torespect traditional authority and elite power. Capitalist society inthis context represents a filtering system in which the most powerfulare overwhelmingly the least radical. Needless to say, the hierarchy ofjournalism is no different.

THE PROBLEM IN REVOLUTIONARY VENEZUELA

Venezuela’s socialist national project is well underway and makingever more significant strides, in spite of an entrenched, privilegedminority in opposition, relentlessly spurred on by the corporate mediaand its vociferous attacks. As the anti-capitalist character of theChavez government revealed itself, it became starkly clear thatdemocratic opinion was not being reflected in the established privatemedia. Influential newspapers dropped their pretenses of varying“liberal” tendencies, and increasingly appeared to be acting from anagreed playbook.

The single most popular TV station (RCTV) has already been relegatedfrom the free airwaves to satellite-only broadcasting, ostensibly forhaving materially assisted a US-led coup in April 2002, but principallyto minimise the effect of a daily programming schedule rife withmachismo, the objectification of women, consumerism, violence andgeneral idiocy. That decision not to renew RCTV’s license, whichexpired in 2007, was entirely down to government prerogative. Otheroptions exist in Venezuela: revoking an active license can be doneunder certain circumstances, broadcasters can be suspended, and thenational government reserves the right to expropriate anyprivately-held enterprise.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4462

and works tirelessly for the good of his people?

Why is the UN working for Bushco?

Clearly there is no other reason why they could possibly be criticizing St. Chavez.

-Ari Fleisher, to the American media.

These topics always bring out the usual, boring morons suspects out of the woodwork.

1998-2005 video comparison

Beautiful revolution?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e7b_1190371944

I'm sure the living conditions have improved,not deteriorated since then in the landmark locations referenced in the video right ?


btw
Does anybody really know the status of these points of interest ?
ie, been to these sites to verify the "truth" ? current 2009 video/pic of same spots ?

would be intteresting to view imo

before 1998 they were only allow to sleep in the hills outside the cities and in the trash collection sites, so tourist wouldn't notice them.

Here are some recent pictures, nothing close to the ones in the video:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pablo_m_jimenez_branchet/

The repressed people of venezuela having fun:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/21117929

Pepsi and Nestle buildings in front of one of the towers that the video shows:


More pictures
http://www.flickr.com/photos/septemtrionis/3147735995/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/95519785@N00/429699921/
http://www.planetware.com/picture/ciudad-bolivar-ven-ven010.htm



:tv:

Hi,

I am the author of this pic you posted

http://www.flickr.com/photos/septemtrionis/3147735995 /

If you want to writre about Venezuela, please make sure the pics you post suit the topic. As you can see if you read the data, the photo was taken at Vigo, Spain, in Venezuela STREET. So no connection whatsoever with your post.

Regards,

very interesting, how did you found out about this forum and this topic?

BTW: very nice work, sorry for mistaken the places but if you watch the video on the other message there is fountain similar to the one in your picture.

The chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee labelled as “unacceptable” Chávez’s public comments against Globovisión
The chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on Monday that the search of the home of the president of TV news channel Globovisión was aimed at intimidating the station "for being willing to inform about issues that are not appropriate for president (Hugo) Chávez."

"The Venezuelan government's harassment of Globovision is deeply troubling. Last night's (May 22) raid by intelligence agents of a home belonging to the station's president was a blatant effort to intimidate an independent news outlet solely for its willingness to report on matters inconvenient to President Chávez,"
Likewise,the senator urged the Venezuelan government to put an end to the harassment against the media.

"President Chávez's public harangues against Globovision are bad enough; sending in agents to harass station management and employees is totally unacceptable. I urge President Chávez to respect all independent media and cease all harassment. If someone affiliated with the station has violated a law or regulation, as the Venezuelan government has insinuated, then law enforcement should pursue the matter professionally, democratically, and affording full due process."

http://english.eluniversal.com/2009/05/25/en_pol_esp_us-senator-urges-gov_25A2347285.shtml

:rofl:

Oh, look, he did! That doesn't make him just a pawn - he is part of the global elites, who are also attacking the Venezuelan people. When he stands up for justice against crime in government at home, then he has standing on this matter.

Bush said the vote was not a vote for war - and that war would be a last resort. The fact is Kerry has repeatedly said his vote was wrong, but in the speech when he voted he listed what Bush promised and said he would speak out if Bush did not do as he said - and Kerry did speak out before the war started and was labeled as anti-war in the first half of 2003 for doing so.

Kerry did stand up against the Contras and against people willing to let a bank with terrorist ties control US banks.

Using search, I see that you were a pretty big Edwards fan - but he co-sponsored the IWR and he was still in favor of the invasion months after it happened. Not to mention, you can not come up with even ONE thing Edwards ever did to fight crime that comes close to what Kerry did - on these things. (Contras, BCCI, Clean elections etc)

who openly takes credit for steering John Kerry's position on Venezuela to reflect that of the Venezuelan elite who have infested South Florida in the last decade. I posted it already in this thread but it deserves more credit, especially seeing how hard the author has attempted to boast of his own influence on Kerry's "informed" opinion:

Published: Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Bylined to: Curtis Reed

Tampa-based Free Venezuela, Inc: Our goal is regime change in Venezuela

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:39:42 GMT
From: Curtis Reed aguaventura@netzero.com
To: Editor@VHeadline.com
Subject: Error: It was Venezuelans in TAMPA

In David Coleman's article "Venezuela's relations with USA to improve if Bush 2 loses election this fall" you stated that Senator Kerry's statement regarding the Chavez regime amounted to "Parroting anti-Venezuelan Miami Herald propaganda."

In fact, the Kerry position statement was the result of the effort of Venezuelan-Americans from the Tampa area who contacted his camp and conducted an education campaign to be sure that Kerry understood what a threat the Chavez regime represents to US interests, regional stability, and how it endangers democracy across the hemisphere.

We have been working constantly over several years to establish good contacts with our representatives, and it was through those contacts that we made direct contact with John Kerry and delivered to him the message you will find below.

We are now in the process of publishing more Op-Ed articles, organizing round table discussions about the Chavez regime, and speaking out on nationally syndicated radio shows. Let there be no confusion: the "Miami Mafia" had nothing to do with this. It was the result of hard work by US citizens and Venezuelan expatriate organizations like FREE VENEZUELA that we influenced Kerry, and we will continue to push US policy until we achieve our goal.

Our goal: regime change in Venezuela.

Finally, let your communist friends know that their propaganda machines are failing, and the tide has turned against the Chavez dictatorship. We have convinced Democrats and Republicans alike that Chavez and his criminal henchmen are the antithesis to Democratic principles.

Have a nice day.

Curtis Reed
aguaventura@netzero.com



Spoken by a true a-hole.

Here's a statement from a pathetic ass in South Florida, the president of an anti-Chavez group of expatriot Venezuelans, taking credit for Kerry's perceptions on that government in a country where his wife owns a large company, Heinz Venezuela:

Published: Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Bylined to: Curtis Reed

Tampa-based Free Venezuela, Inc: Our goal is regime change in Venezuela

Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:39:42 GMT
From: Curtis Reed aguaventura@netzero.com
To: Editor@VHeadline.com
Subject: Error: It was Venezuelans in TAMPA

In David Coleman's article "Venezuela's relations with USA to improve if Bush 2 loses election this fall" you stated that Senator Kerry's statement regarding the Chavez regime amounted to "Parroting anti-Venezuelan Miami Herald propaganda."

In fact, the Kerry position statement was the result of the effort of Venezuelan-Americans from the Tampa area who contacted his camp and conducted an education campaign to be sure that Kerry understood what a threat the Chavez regime represents to US interests, regional stability, and how it endangers democracy across the hemisphere.

We have been working constantly over several years to establish good contacts with our representatives, and it was through those contacts that we made direct contact with John Kerry and delivered to him the message you will find below.

We are now in the process of publishing more Op-Ed articles, organizing round table discussions about the Chavez regime, and speaking out on nationally syndicated radio shows. Let there be no confusion: the "Miami Mafia" had nothing to do with this. It was the result of hard work by US citizens and Venezuelan expatriate organizations like FREE VENEZUELA that we influenced Kerry, and we will continue to push US policy until we achieve our goal.

Our goal: regime change in Venezuela.

Finally, let your communist friends know that their propaganda machines are failing, and the tide has turned against the Chavez dictatorship. We have convinced Democrats and Republicans alike that Chavez and his criminal henchmen are the antithesis to Democratic principles.

Have a nice day.

Curtis Reed
aguaventura@netzero.com

Also, another post taken from the same DU LBN thread:

March 25, 2004

Misreporting Venezuela
Hugo Chavez as Processed by The Independent
By TONI SOLO

Many people read the London based Independent newspaper because among its reporters is the outstanding Robert Fisk. The anti-war stance of the newspaper on Iraq and its stance on genetically manipulated foods and other environmental issues may give the impression that the Independent is a responsible newspaper across the board. But a look at its coverage of Venezuela reveals the same old story of distortion, omission and deceit on US intervention in Latin America that one finds everywhere else in the corporate media.

It may be worth pointing out that the owner of the UK Independent is Tony O'Reilly, one of Ireland's most prominent businessmen, formerly head of H.J. Heinz. H.J. Heinz heiress Teresa Heinz is married to Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. Also of note is that O'Reilly shares philanthropic concerns through the Ireland Fund with fellow fund member Peter Sutherland, former GATT and World Trade Organization chief, also chairman of oil giant BP-Amoco.1 It's unlikely their corporate philantropy extends to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president.

Three important stories on Venezuela have appeared in the Independent during March.2 One by Phil Gunson on March 2nd, one by Andrew Buncombe on March 13th and one by Rupert Cornwell on March 20th. Phil Gunson's article is crude anti-Chavez propaganda. Buncombe's is a straightforward account of US funding for the Venezuelan opposition. Cornwell's is a more insidious anti-Chavez piece employing classic BBC-style bonhomie and "balance". Both pieces depend on ignoring crucial facts.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/solo03252004.html

The original thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x536942

~~~~~~~~~
Most DU'ers had this figured out so long ago.....

Teresa Heinz Kerry has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Heinz ketchup company - other than having some stock of theirs. What she controls is the Heinz Foundations, which fund a lot of good things in Pittsburgh, and on the environment, health and women's issues - among other things.

The fact that a group of people are claiming to have influenced the Senator does not mean it is so.

The fact is that Kerry agreed neither with the Bush regime change ideas nor with people who idolized Chavez. The world is not all black or white.

Do you think that Chavez's actions in the OP are good?

How about July 5?

more right wing corporate bullshit brought to you by those in power, who are threatened by a real POPULIST. Poor, poor fascists... they won't be happy until they own it all. Sick actually...

that supported the coup against Chavez in 2002...

And those fuckers are still on the air?

Damn lucky they didn't try to overthrow bush...or Obama...