Chavez Censors TV Station RCTV & What You Won't Hear From American Media

Chavez Censors TV Station RCTV & What You Won't Hear From American Media

By Stewart N. Thorpe of Citizen Press Revolution

Yesterday, the BBC reported that President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela announced that the license of Radio Caracas Television will not be renewed in March 27. I am normally a supporter of Chavez. I do not support him in all things, however. I am not a socialist. I support him in his dignified refusal to allow his people be used as a puppet again of the United States and international corporations. I also support him in his decision to rid television of advertising.

Chavez has made his reason clear: he will not tolerate media outlets that participates in a coup against him. RCTV and multiple privately owned Venezuela media outlets supported a failed coup in 2002 and a
general strike against Chavez in 2003.

When Chavez came into power in 1999, he resisted the Venezuelan Murdochs from establishing themselves into his regime. He also eliminated advertising in the mass media. Ever since, the vast majority of the private media outlets have been rallied against Chavez. Chavez's socialism direction is also an obvious threat to these privately owned Venezuelan media empires.

Chavez said RCTV was "at the service of coups against the people, against the nation, against national independence, against the dignity of the republic".

More:
http://www.progressiveu.org/023658-chavez-censors-tv-station-rctv-what-you-wont-hear-from-american-media

...get revenue?

oil interests and are operated by those who oppose Chavez.

Like our own US media, their media has been taken hostage by the privatization and monopolization of the airwaves.

There is only one public station that is controlled by the state, and the rest are controlled by those who are essentially anti-Chavez.

Watch the documentary "This Revolution will not be Televised" and learn the facts.

Water is warming for the froggies. Double plus ungood for the media who advocated civil action. Watch the rest fall in line.

In other countries their laws fly. I could care less. They will continue to sell us oil. They (companies in Venezuela) will continue to do business with my employer, because they have to.

It is interesting to watch the shills come out to defend actions of foreign powers. The guy is clearly consolidating power. To bad there is no line on how long before he is the "benevolent dictator". I'd bet 3 years max, oil prices not dropping of course.

and why it's important to read many sources to gain as many of the facts as possible.

"Telesur, a 24-hour Latin American news channel half-owned by Venezuela's government, bought Caracas-based Metropolitan Television Channel (CMT), putting all but one of the country's all-news channels in government hands...

"The government has expanded its media holdings since 2002, when news outlets aligned with the country's political opposition refused for hours to report that a coup to topple Chavez had failed. The government now owns Venezolana de Television, a network for national news, Vive TV, which runs cultural news programming, and National Assembly Television, the official station of the congress.

"Telesur, established in 2005 as a regional alternative to international news outlets like CNN and the BBC, is 51 percent owned by the Venezuelan government, while Argentina owns 20 percent, Cuba owns 14 percent, and Uruguay and Bolivia together own 15 percent, Cabrera said..."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=axONrW4dtqGY&refer=latin_america

The problem with any move towards a social-democratic ideals is that big money will find ways of infiltrating and destroying the movement. They did it to the union movement in the US, in Canada and around the world when workers became a threat to the rule of the elite. They overthrow democratically elected governments and replace them with fascist dictatorships. And this is what is happening in South America.

So how to handle it? Shut down the bullhorns of the rich is what it sounds like Chavez is doing. Right or wrong, I don't know. However, I do know that the capitalist class is much more powerful than Chavez, or Morales or any of the other fledgling left wing governments that have come to power in South America all combined. And they don't give a shit about democracy...Allende is a case in point.

Censorship is wrong, no matter who is censoring who or for what reason.

Why not demand that all stations agree to present factual material and if errors are proven to have happened then that they be required to broadcast mea culpas? That could be demanded of all stations. Maybe an elected or fairly appointed board composed of people of various political affiliation could decide these issues of fact based on complaints by any side.

Also, political activity on a single station would have to be balanced by either another station or by time offered to others with a different political slant. Corporations shouldn't be given carte blanche to spread lies and bullshit without offfering the opportunity to rebut (ala Fox News and the other Murdoch outlets). The air waves belong to everybody and should not be monopolized by anybody.

Maybe Chavez is groping toward some sort of better standards for media, standards for the good of people and not money or moneyed interests alone.

I don't trust Chavez, or anyone else for that matter, to establish such "better standards" when that pursuit requires government censorship and/or restriction to information.

The truth is that "freedom of the press" is suffering big time under Chavez. Freedom House makes this point clear -- http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=251&year=2006

I would hope people don't try to rationalize suppression / tyranny because of who the suppressor / tyrant happens to be.

Freedom House and one of their directors, Frank Calzon, have received nearly 3 million over the past 10 years from USAID. Calzon is an ex-CIA anti-Castro zealot whose main two targets are Cuba and Venezuela. His other organization, Center for a Free Cuba, of which Otto Reich is a trustee, bankrolled Reporters Without Borders. All of their money comes from USAID.

Admittedly, it's a challenge to come up with a wholly objective, uniform measure of something as abstract as "press freedom", one that is applied evenly across more than 150 nation-states. Freedom House ratings is the best we have. Perhaps you could cite a superior source.

That one of FH's directors may be an "ex-CIA anti-Castro zealot" does not discredit the group or their findings. They also receive support from Amnesty International. Do you disparage them as well?

Of course, it's no surprise that supporters of nation-states that may be lacking in "freedom" would be critical of any such measure anyway. I imagine supporters of Pinochet were critical of Freedom House when they slammed Chile under his rule. Defenders of Kim Jong-Il surely would disparage their "not free" ranking. And Putin's fans don't agree with FH's assessment that they are lurching toward totalitarianism.

I'm curious how you would characterize press freedom in Venezuela - not free, partly free, free. Surely, shuttering the doors and windows on a major media outlet, because they are deemed a tool of the opposition, doesn't help move things in the proper direction.

Here you go. Get yourself an education.

<clips>

Freedom House: when “freedom” is only a pretext

Freedom House, a propaganda machine created by Roosevelt to prepare the US public opinion for war, returned to the attack to stigmatize the Soviet field during the Cold War. At that time, it used western intellectuals, including French. Today, it organizes international media campaigns for religious freedom in China and for peace in Chechnya. Freedom House is currently presided over by James Woosley, former CIA Director.

...In 1982, when President Ronald Reagan <7> created the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) <8> so that it could take care in a presentable manner of some CIA secret activities, Freedom House was integrated into the new mechanism.

It was also when Paul Wolfowitz <9> and his neoconservative friends decided to include many Trotskyite militants from Social Democrats USA in their different organizations. The NED subsidizes Freedom House, which at the same time co-finances programs chosen by the NED thus erasing any traces of US intervention.

...Finally, President George W. Bush ordered Freedom House to present an annual report on public liberties and political rights around the world, which the United States decided to take as reference to grant or deny development assistance in the framework of the Millennium Challenge Corporation <22>. Over the last few years, Freedom House was presided over by Congress Representative (Dem - New Mexico) Bill Richardson, an affable character and a specialist on parallel diplomacy who was nominated on four occasions (in vain) for the Nobel Peace Prize. Simultaneously, he was vice-president of the NDI with Madeleine K. Albright. However, Richardson resigned after his election as governor of New Mexico and because he expected to be the partner of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential campaign (he presided over the Democrat Convention though).

...The administration Council is a directory of the intelligence. Besides the already mentioned personalities, it includes J. Brian Atwood (former NDI president and former coordinator of US humanitarian assistance); Ambassador Thomas S. Foley (president of the Trilateral Commission, former president of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board); Malcolm Forbes (Forbes Magazine); Theodore Forstmann (president of Empower America); Samuel Huntington (the theoretician of the clash of civilizations) <23>; Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick (current ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, member of the Pentagon’s Defense Advisory Committee); Diana Villiers (wife of Ambassador John Negroponte) <24>; and Ambassador Mark Palmer (founder of the consortium CME, for acquiring and installing audiovisual equipment in Eastern Europe). In 2002, its budget rose to around 14 million dollars.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article30112.html


The Freedom Charter 2002. According to Freedom House, the «not free» states are not eligible to receive US assistance and cooperation.

The current chairman is Peter Ackerman who took over in Sept. 2005. It is funded by several groups such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation (run by Richard Mellon Scaife) as well as the Soros Foundation (George Soros). It's current board members also include Samuel Huntington (LBJ adviser), P. J. O'Rourke, and Mara Liasson.

Former Freedom House director Woolsey is a pretty scary guy, but his successor may be even scarier.

<clips>

When 'Freedom' Equals Fascism

By Mark Ames, The eXile. Posted January 13, 2006.

Western countries are shrieking about Vladimir Putin's crackdown on foreign NGOs, but in the case of Freedom House, it is an act of self-defense.

...A little background: Woolsey, among other things, was one of the original founding members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon vanguard which, in 1997, called for: a massive rearming of America to ensure that it had full-spectrum dominance; aggressive use of American power, including military, to implement and secure American global domination; and the invasion, occupation and democratization of Iraq. As most anti-Bush watchers know, the PNAC group famously bemoaned the fact that its imperial policies would meet resistance with the American public: "he process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor." Like, as in, a 9/11. What luck!

...Woolsey's resume of evil is impressive. He helped found the notorious Iraqi National Congress, which provided "proof" about Iraqi WMDs. And he also serves on the Center for Security Policy, headed by fellow goon Frank Gaffney, who in 2004 publicly advised President Bush to level Fallujah (which Bush did), invade Iran and North Korea (which Bush can't but yet may try), and adopt ''appropriate strategies for contending with China's increasingly fascistic trade and military policies, Vladimir Putin's accelerating authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of Islamofascism." Note how Gaffney, like Woolsey, equates "Islamofascism" with Putin's Russia, making Russia a mortal enemy bent on destroying the United States.

...Woolsey also boasted in the Wall Street Journal that the National Security Agency used its international eavesdropping network, ECHELON, to spy on European companies in order to give major U.S. corporations a competitive advantage. His reasoning? "We have spied on you because you bribe." As with Freedom House, Woolsey operates by abusing American power in ways once thought unimaginable and then blaming the other side for uncivilized behavior which naturally provokes us.

..In September 2005, Woolsey gave up his post as chairman of Freedom House. The new chairman is Peter Ackerman. And, not surprisingly, Ackerman is also the chairman of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, an organization that helps train and supply color-coded revolutions. Its website says that the ICNC "develops and encourages the use of civilian-based, nonmilitary strategies to establish and defend democracy provides assistance in the training and deployment of field advisors, to deepen the conceptual knowledge and practical skills of applying nonviolent strategies in conflicts throughout the world where progress toward democracy and human rights is possible."

http://www.alternet.org/story/30691/

let's not forget Clinton appointee as CIA director. Not a position for people with a hands-off approach.

Did I mention one of the Freedom House trustee members is Diana Villiers Negroponte, wife of "Death Squad" John Negroponte.

Please, tell me again how ex-CIA anti-Castro zealot Frank Calzon does not discredit their findings. :sarcasm:

<clips>

Freedom House receiving US government money "for clandestine activities inside Iran"

...On March 30, 2005 the Financial Times (London) reported that at a speech at New York's Freedom House, Bush "stepped into an intense debate among democracy activists in the US and Iran over how US dollars should be used to carry out the administration's policy of promoting freedom in the Islamic republic."

Freedom House is one of the organizations that is receiving money from the Bush Administration "for clandestine activities inside Iran," according to the Financial Times. A Freedom House research report concluded that "Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance -- which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders."

Reuters recently reported that "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said... the United States...will talk to Iran about Washington's accusations of Iranian destabilization of Iraq, in the first public acceptance of an Iranian offer to meet."

How U.S. policy toward Iran plays itself out remains to be seen, but economic sanctions and/or the use of military force appear to still be on the table.

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=119

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...According to its mission statement, the organization is “non-partisan and broad-based” and is led by leading figures from both political parties. While some well-known Democrats do serve on the group’s board of trustees—like New Mexico governor Bill Richardson—the board is chock-a-block with high-profile rightists and neoconservatives, including former CIA director James Woolsey, ex-Reagan administration official Kenneth Adelman, former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former member of the Committee on the Present Danger, Max Kampelman. Other board members include the conservative Rolling Stone writer P.J. O’Rourke; Samuel Huntington, the Harvard professor who champions the notion that the post-Cold War period will be dominated by a “clash of civilizations,” most notably between the Muslim and Christian worlds; Ruth Wedgwood, a right-leaning human rights lawyer; and Arthur Waldron, a long-time foreign policy hawk who has been a leading advocate for a hardline China policy. Most of these individuals have also supported the work of a number of other conservative organizations, including the Project for the New American Century, the Center for Security Policy, and the American Enterprise Institute. Other Freedom House supporters and scholars include Mark Falcoff, Penn Kemble, Nina Shea, and Daniel Pipes.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1476

I wouldn't expect to see ANYONE other than a knuckle-dragging, drooling reactionary right-wingding to cite this source. It's just not sensible.

Silk gloves to kill the revolution
By Nicanor Leon Cotayo, Prensa Latina, 30 August 1996

ONE of the front organizations utilized by the U. S. government to carry out subversive plans against Cuba is the Washington-based Freedom House Foundation, and the person in charge of leading these activities is one of the organization's top men, Frank Calzon.

Freedom House presents itself as a nongovernmental organization which promotes human rights in the world and is politically neutral, but it is actually a mouthpiece for the White House. Nonetheless, in 1995 it was given full membership in the UN Human Rights Commission, in the role of a "consultative" agency.

Its president is Adrian Karatnycky and its director in the U.S. capital is Frank Calzon, who is of Cuban origin. Since his arrival in the United States in 1960, under the sponsorship of U.S. agencies, including the CIA, Calzon has specialized in propaganda campaigns against Cuba.

In 1993, also with U.S. government financing, he began to promote the creation on the island of so-called nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), which according to the plans, would later be strengthened when they become conduits for humanitarian aid to the island.
(snip/...)

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/140.html



The unusual (for humans) Mr. Calzon

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Through its Program to Promote Cuban Transition to Democracy, USAID has granted democracy-building assistance to a similar and often overlapping list of grantees, including Freedom House, Center for a Free Cuba, Institute for Democracy in Cuba, Cuban Dissidence Task Force, International Republican Institute, Grupo de Apoyo a la Disidencia, Acción Democrática Cubana, Cuba Free Press, Florida International University's Journalism Training Program, CubaNet, Carta de Cuba, Partners of the Americas, Pan American Development Foundation, ACDI-VOCA/Independent Agricultural Cooperatives, University of Miami's program for Developing Civil Society, Florida International University's NGO Development Program, American Center for International Labor Solidarity, National Policy Association, Cuba On-Line, Sabre Foundation, Rutgers University's Planning for Change program, International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), and University of Miami's Cuba Transition Planning program.

One of the most bizarre of USAID's grantees in its Cuba program was the U.S.-Cuba Business Council, which, according to USAID, "has sought to become an interlocutor between large U.S. firms and South Florida businesses and Cuba in the eventuality of a free-market transition." Although it claims to support "free-market" principles of development, the business council voiced strong support for U.S. policies that restrict free commercial relations with Cuba. USAID funded the business council to "help the U.S. private sector prepare for Cuba's eventual transition to a free market regime." Before he joined the Bush administration, Otto Reich served as president of the U.S.-funded business council. In November 2000, Reich said, "The U.S.-Cuba Business Council believes that the foreign economic potential of a free-market Cuba represents over $15 and a half billion within five years after a democratic transition." Unlike the U.S.-Business Council and other U.S.-government funded organizations, other U.S. business organizations have advocated a relaxation or an end to the economic embargo.

USAID's 2003 program aimed, among other things, to "build solidarity with democratic and human rights groups on the island," amounted to $6 million-all of which was drawn from the national security-related Economic Support Fund (ESF) of the Pentagon's budget. The allocation for the 2004 program, entitled Civil Society Developed, jumped to $7 million, all of which will also come from the ESF.

USAID signals its own right-wing political orientation in the first sentence of its Cuban program overview, citing the rightist Heritage Foundation's description of Cuba as the second worst "economically repressed regime" in the world after North Korea. In the next sentence it cites the neoconservative Freedom House-a grantee of NED whose directors and staff have been tightly interlinked since NED's founding in 1983-stating that Cuba is among the eleven "most repressive regimes" in the world.

The credibility of USAID-and of the State Department, which oversees USAID's programs-is seriously undermined by its description of Cuba as a terrorist nation, noting that Cuba remains on the State Department's list of terrorist countries, despite lack of any credible evidence that Cuba supports international terrorism.
(snip/...)

http://americas.irc-online.org/reports/2004/0406castro.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Freedom House's right in there sucking up that government money like no tomorrow:

A. BUILDING SOLIDARITY WITH CUBA'S HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS

• Freedom House: Transitions ($500,000 - completed) (Just financed Czechs in Cuba)
  
• Center for a Free Cuba ($1,450,000)
  
• The Institute for Democracy in Cuba ($1,000,000 - completed)
  
• Dissidence Task Group ($250,000 - completed)
  
• International Republican Institute ($1,175,000)
  
• Freedom House: Cuban Democracy Project ($825,000)
  
• Grupode Apoyo a la Disidencia ($400,000)
  (snip)

http://afrocubaweb.com/dissidentfunding2001.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frank Calzon!

Born in 1947 in Cuba. Emigrated to the U.S. in 1960. Graduated from the University of Georgetown, where he was president of the Association of Cuban Students. Recruited by the CIA during his time as a university student.

From a very young age, Calzon became involved in Miami terrorist organizations of Cuban origin like Alpha-66 and Abdala. In Abdala Calzon held leadership positions and took part in subversive activities against Cuba.

During the 1970s, he co-founded, along with counterrevolutionaries Elena Mederos, Siro del Castillo and Humberto Medrano the Of Human Rights organization. Through this organization he maintained a systematic and intense defamatory campaign against Cuba, based fundamentally on supposed human rights violation and the state of counter-revolutionary prisoners.

During this period he became part of the board of directors of the Miami-based counterrevolutionary organization Committee of Intellectuals for the Freedom of Cuba. During these years, Calzon directed his attacks against groups that promoted a policy of understanding with the Cuban Revolution such as Areito magazine.
(snip/...)

http://www.terrorfileonline.org/en/index.php/Frank_Calzon

in Geneva? It was the funniest thing that happened that month. Here's something about that eventful day:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile: The Knockout Punch that Woke Up the UN

GENEVA -- Katie, one of my colleagues at the United Nations, threw open the office door and shrieked "The Cuban diplomat just slugged the American diplomat! Outside the meeting!"

I had never seen her looking so happy. (Well, maybe when her first child was born.) She pranced between our desks yelling "Bam! Kapow!" and throwing phantom punches.

Having spent 12 years sitting in on UN meetings as a press officer, I understood that Katie was reporting something very unusual. Staring at a bucket of sand for six hours is generally a lot more interesting than anything that happens at the standard UN meeting.

If the news shot around the building like electricity, and if other people could be seen shadowboxing up and down the hallways, it was because this was the first time anyone could remember a UN diplomat actually doing something. "Even when they talk they don't say anything," it was pointed out.

The attack occurred after the Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution criticizing Cuba's record. The resolution squeaked through by a single vote. The whole thing was orchestrated by the Americans, and the Cubans were mad.

An Australian journalist I know said that the punch was thrown when the two men were outside the hall. It came from behind and felled the American, who was briefly unconscious. Security guards then restrained the Cuban.

Afterward, tongues began to wag.

Unofficially, the Cuban delegates grumbled that the Americans had been pompous and obnoxious for most of the commission's six-week session. They were cruising for a bruising, and when one of the Americans taunted the Cubans after the resolution was passed - he got it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0428-06.htm

I saw the name of the obnoxious little mutant earlier in this thread.

I would have also loved to see someone swat that grubby little scum. He's another guy who's going to be looking for a legitimate job as soon as that travel ban and the embargo are dropped.

I wonder if he has ever done an honest day's work in his life. It doesn't really look that way, does it?

Ka-POW. It couldn't have happened to an uglier little meaty face.

Best laugh I had all day!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

more than I trust Murdoch...


They are PUBLIC airwaves and unlike our "leaders", Chavez has the support of the majority of the poeple of Venezuela - the REAL owners of the Venezuelan airwaves. He's just taking them back for the people...

Sounds like a hell of lot better arrangement than in the good ole' (self-censored by the capitalist elites) U Es of Aeee....

Actually you couldn't be more wrong. There is no such thing as an absolute right to free speech anywhere, and in reality there shouldn't be. There is of course the tired example of a person shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre but there are any number of examples which should readily spring to mind.

The question in Venezuela is not whether the government should allow freedom of speech, rather it is whether the station in question violated any reasonable boundary to it. I say they did. No media should be allowed to advocate an illegal overthrow of a legitimate governing body. Some are of the opinion that what this station did does not rise to that level, and I respect their opinions even though I disagree. Your position however is one I cannot respect.

<clips>

...All this helps explain why, in the days leading up to the April coup, Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión and Televen replaced regular programming with relentless anti-Chávez speeches, interrupted only for commercials calling on viewers to take to the streets: "Not one step backward. Out! Leave now!" The ads were sponsored by the oil industry, but the stations carried them free, as "public service announcements."

They went further: On the night of the coup, Cisneros's station played host to meetings among the plotters, including Carmona. The president of Venezuela's broadcasting chamber co-signed the decree dissolving the elected National Assembly. And while the stations openly rejoiced at news of Chávez's "resignation," when pro-Chávez forces mobilized for his return a total news blackout was imposed.

Izarra says he received clear instructions: "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him." He watched with horror as his bosses actively suppressed breaking news. Izarra says that on the day of the coup, RCTV had a report from a US affiliate that Chávez had not resigned but had been kidnapped and jailed. It didn't make the news. Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognize the new government. RCTV knew but didn't tell.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/klein

....shut anything down, they're all capitalist....how many non-capitalist media-outlets do we have in this country?....

"Censorship is wrong, no matter who is censoring who or for what reason."....even
profit?....agreed, we can start un-censoring America by opening up broadcast spectrum to non-capitalists....

Thankfully he is not. Blair in the UK is one. Social democracy is today a reactionary ideology. Chavez is a socialist.

all I really meant to say is that he is an elected socialist, but point taken.

he didn't gas his own people because of an attempt to overthrow his government. Stopping a media outlet that supported the coup is really a sophisticated, mature, and smart way to fight those who would attempt to overthrow his DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED position. US...eat your heart out!!!

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=2179

"Doing it their own way: Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia"
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1925

Two informative articles on the momentous political changes for the good that are occurring in South America.

--------------------

On Chavez not renewing the license of RCTV, for their active support of the violent military coup against Venezuela's elected government (--not just the president; they shut down the National Assembly and all democratic institutions): As in the US, Venezuelan airwaves belong to the PUBLIC. Use of them is not a right. It is a licensed privilege. And the public can set any rules or standards that are in the public interest for obtaining a license to use the public airwaves. We have the same laws. We just don't enforce them, due to inordinate corporate predator influence on our government. For instance, we used to have an "equal time" law--if a TV or radio station broadcast opinion on a political, public or controversial subject, they were required to provide equal time to the opposition. Was this curtailment of the "corporate right of free speech"? (Is there such a right?) No, it was a reasonable requirement for use of the public airwaves. If Faux News were to call for kidnapping Nancy Pelosi and removing her from power, or actively supported those who were doing so, would you be for denying them a license to use the public airwaves? I certainly would be. I am also for busting every one of these corporate news monopolies down to one TV or radio station, or one newspaper, if necessary, to force them to provide news and opinion in the public interest, and not just war and corporate propaganda.

Media outlets have a responsibility to the public good. Calling for the violent overthrow of the duly elected government of the people is irresponsible.

Curiously, I don't see anyone recalling First Amendment Zones, arrests for turning one's back on Bush, exclusion from public venues based on a suspicion of political difference with Mr. Bush or his policies. Anyone remember that? Domestic spying on citizens' groups? Warrantless wiretaps? Venezuela seems to be a long ways to go for bogus examples of government "repression" when real examples are so much closer to home.

which invested heavily in the failed coup attempt in 2002.

<clips>

International Republican Institute Grants Uncovered
Reporters Without Borders and Washington's Coups

By DIANA BARAHONA and JEB SPRAGUE

British press baron Lord Northcliff said, "News is something that someone, somewhere wants to keep secret, everything else is advertising." If this is true, then U.S. government funding of Reporters Without Borders must be news, because the organization and its friends in Washington have gone to extraordinary lengths to cover it up. In spite of 14 months of stonewalling by the National Endowment for Democracy over a Freedom of Information Act request and a flat denial from RSF executive director Lucie Morillon, the NED has revealed that Reporters Without Borders received grants over at least three years from the International Republican Institute.

The NED still refuses to provide the requested documents or even reveal the grant amounts, but they are identified by these numbers: IRI 2002-022/7270, IRI 2003-027/7470 and IRI 2004-035/7473. Investigative reporter Jeremy Bigwood asked Morillon on April 25 if her group was getting any money from the I.R.I., and she denied it, but the existence of the grants was confirmed by NED assistant to the president, Patrick Thomas.

The discovery of the grants reveals a major deception by the group, which for years denied it was getting any Washington dollars until some relatively small grants from the NED and the Center for a Free Cuba were revealed (see Counterpunch: "Reporters Without Borders Unmasked"). When asked to account for its large income RSF has claimed the money came from the sale of books of photographs. But researcher Salim Lamrani has pointed out the improbability of this claim. Even taking into account that the books are published for free, it would have had to sell 170 200 books in 2004 and 188 400 books in 2005 to earn the more than $2 million the organization claims to make each year ­ 516 books per day in 2005. The money clearly had to come from other sources, as it turns out it did.

http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona08012006.html

A look back for some perspective on RCTV.

<clips>

...In Venezuela, even color commentators are enlisted in the commercial media's open bid to oust the democratically elected government of Hugo Chávez. Andrés Izarra, a Venezuelan television journalist, says that the campaign has done so much violence to truthful information on the national airwaves that the four private TV stations have effectively forfeited their right to broadcast. "I think their licenses should be revoked," he says.

It's the sort of extreme pronouncement one has come to expect from Chávez, known for nicknaming the stations "the four horsemen of the apocalypse." Izarra, however, is harder to dismiss. A squeaky clean made-for-TV type, he worked as assignment editor in charge of Latin America at CNN en Español until he was hired as news production manager for Venezuela's highest-rated newscast, El Observador on RCTV.

On April 13, 2002, the day after business leader Pedro Carmona briefly seized power, Izarra quit that job under what he describes as "extreme emotional stress." Ever since, he has been sounding the alarm about the threat posed to democracy when the media decide to abandon journalism and pour all their persuasive powers into winning a war being waged over oil.

Venezuela's private television stations are owned by wealthy families with serious financial stakes in defeating Chávez. Venevisión, the most-watched network, is owned by Gustavo Cisneros, a mogul dubbed "the joint venture king" by the New York Post. The Cisneros Group has partnered with many top US brands--from AOL and Coca-Cola to Pizza Hut and Playboy--becoming a gatekeeper to the Latin American market.

Cisneros is also a tireless proselytizer for continental free trade, telling the world, as he did in a 1999 profile in LatinCEO magazine, that "Latin America is now fully committed to free trade, and fully committed to globalization.... As a continent it has made a choice." But with Latin American voters choosing politicians like Chávez, that has been looking like false advertising, selling a consensus that doesn't exist.

All this helps explain why, in the days leading up to the April coup, Venevisión, RCTV, Globovisión and Televen replaced regular programming with relentless anti-Chávez speeches, interrupted only for commercials calling on viewers to take to the streets: "Not one step backward. Out! Leave now!" The ads were sponsored by the oil industry, but the stations carried them free, as "public service announcements."

They went further: On the night of the coup, Cisneros's station played host to meetings among the plotters, including Carmona. The president of Venezuela's broadcasting chamber co-signed the decree dissolving the elected National Assembly. And while the stations openly rejoiced at news of Chávez's "resignation," when pro-Chávez forces mobilized for his return a total news blackout was imposed.

Izarra says he received clear instructions: "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him." He watched with horror as his bosses actively suppressed breaking news. Izarra says that on the day of the coup, RCTV had a report from a US affiliate that Chávez had not resigned but had been kidnapped and jailed. It didn't make the news. Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognize the new government. RCTV knew but didn't tell.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/klein

"The days of corporate welfare are over in Venezuela"
Venezuelan Commercial TV Stations Failed to Declare Taxes for Free Anti-government Ads

Sunday, Mar 21, 2004

Caracas, March 21 (Venezuelanalysis.com).- Last Friday, Venezuela's tax collection agency SENIAT, notified four Venezuelan commercial TV stations about their failure to declare taxes for free ads they ran for the opposition coalition Coordinadora Democratica.

Venezuela's commercial media is openly opposed to the government. During the three-month business lock-out and sabotage of the oil industry at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, TV stations suspended their normal programming to give non stop coverage of the lock-out. Additionally, they suspended their normal commercial ads to only run anti-government ads as "donations" to the Coordinadora Democratica. It was part of the media's contribution to the campaign to oust Chavez, in the same way they acted during the coup d’etat of April 2002.
(snip)

The local media is presenting the government's enforcement of tax laws, as a way of limiting freedom of expression.

Marcel Granier, the president of 1BC, parent company of RCTV, declared that the move by the SENIAT is politically motivated and that they will seek legal action against it. "We are just allowing the opposition express their thoughts," he said. Neither Granier nor other TV stations officials have denied airing the free anti-government ads for the opposition.

Granier, who is credited with first claiming that the Chavez administration is a "castro-communist regime", added that "this government is now 95% dictatorial." Granier's attitude sharply contrasts with his silence after his TV political show Primer Plano was taken off the air in 1986 by then President Jaime Lusinchi. Under previous administrations, the media enjoyed big subsidies and contracts from the government, a practice which ended during the Chavez administration. Unlike previous administrations, no single media outlet has been censored during the Chavez government, except during the coup d'etat of 2002, when TV stations broadcasted explicit calls to overthrow the government.

The 1BC president said that the Chavez government is now restricting public announcements such as those for people who need blood. SENIAT president José Vielma Mora responded to Granier's statements by saying that according to the law, public service announcements, and free ads for charity agencies are exempt of taxes, but not political propaganda.
(snip/...)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1233

Venezuela's Media Minister Andres Izarra replies to the Washington Post

~snip~
In Andres Izarra's response, we find a story of rights violated in the United States, and attacks against the freedom of information in that country. In conclusion, the press is freer in Venezuela than in the United States.

The following is the letter (translated) in its entirety:

Mr. Jackson Diehl The Washington Post Washington DC USA

Mister Diehl:

It's impossible to believe that a journalist at a newspaper as important as the Washington Post is so badly informed as you appear to be in your article "Chavez's Censorship: Where Disrespect Can Land You in Jail," published March 28.

You can believe, if you wish, that Venezuela used to be "the most prosperous and stable democracy in Latin America" (with 80% of the population in extreme poverty, civil strife, and military uprisings), put you can't write, without lying, that in Venezuela, journalists are persecuted and the press is censored, because there isn't a single case that supports what you say.

You say the truth when you affirm that "some newspapers and television stations openly sided with attempts to oust the president via coup, strike or a national referendum." Before being Minister of Information and Communication, I worked as news director for RCTV, an important private TV station in Venezuela. Immediately after the coup of April 2002 against President Hugo Chavez, when hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans took to the streets demanding the return of their elected president, RCTV and other private channels decided not to report on this civil uprising, preferring to broadcast cartoons and old movies. Since I couldn't bring myself to participate in this censorship, I resigned.

As journalist Duncan Campbell reported for the (London) Guardian, "The five principal TV channels gave publicity spots to those who convened the demonstrations that supported the coup." Moreover, the principal media owners in Venezuela assured Dictator Carmona, "We can't guarantee the army's loyalty, but we can promise the media's support" (see "Coup and Counter-Coup," The Economist Global Agenda, April 16, 2002).

The private media promoted all of the campaigns to discredit President Chavez and his policies. For example, during the petroleum industry sabotage of Christmas 2002-2003, more than 13,000 political propaganda advertisements were broadcast in a two month period in order to "animate an economically devastating and socially destabilizing general strike directed at overthrowing Chavez. (These ads) energetically promoted opposition leaders, while at the same time defaming the President and ignoring news that favored him" (see COHA Investigation Memorandum. The Venezuelan Media: More Than Words in Play," Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Press Memorandum 03.18, April 30, 2003). However, despite all this, the openly conspiratorial media were not persecuted, neither then, nor now.

You are lying to your readers, Mister Diehl, when you say, "Beginning this month journalists or other independent activists accused by the government of the sort of offenses alleged by Izarra can be jailed without due process and sentenced to up to 30 years," because you are confusing the law that protects children from obscenity in the broadcast media with the laws on national security and the President's security, which are more strict in the United States.

US Code, Title 18, Section 871, "Threats against the President and presidential successors," prohibits any offense or threat made against the President of the United States. Examples include July 2, 1996, when two people were arrested by the secret service for shouting insults at President Clinton ("You suck and those boys died...") on the occasion of an attack against a military installation in Saudi Arabia in which 19 US soldiers died; or a minister who was arrested for saying "God will hold you to account" to President Clinton, concerning his decision not to prohibit a certain kind of abortion.

US Code, Title 18, Section 1752(a)(1)(ii) declares that it is a crime to intentionally enter a restricted zone during a presidential visit, and it has been used to arrest more than 1,800 demonstrators during the Republican Convention in August of 2004, despite the fact that the demonstrators were several blocks from President Bush's location; it was also used to arrest a gentleman for carrying a sign against war on October 24, 2002, during Bush's visit to Ohio; also arrested was a dead soldier's mother for wearing an anti-war t-shirt during a speech by First Lady Laura Bush in New Jersey; and a couple in West Virginia was arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts during a rally.

You know, Mister Diehl, that the Patriot Act together with an Executive Order give President Bush the power to determine when a person represents a threat to the United States. If the person is a US citizen, he can be detained for an indefinite length of time without rights, be declared an enemy of the state, and even lose his citizenship. If the person is not a US citizen, he can be detained without any rights and be brought before a secret military tribunal without anyone, not even his family members, finding out. If a foreigner in the US says that "Bush is the Devil," he can be imprisoned and end up in Guantanamo.

Your interest in having people believe that in Venezuela, journalists are threatened like foreign agents, is understandable due to the number of agents that act as journalists, in both Venezuela and the US, to diffuse opinions concocted by the US State Department:

Declassified documents from the State Department (from the NGO National Security Archives) concerning the US Office of Public Diplomacy, managed by Otto Reich during the 1970's, demonstrate that the Washington Post was one of the newspapers used by the US government to spread its black propaganda against the Sandanista government. Washington Post journalist Marcela Sanchez publicly stated that in the months before the August 2004 presidential referendum, in which President Chavez was reaffirmed, (Roger) Noriega and others in the State Department visited the Washington Post's editorial board in order to influence its reporting on that topic.

Or have you forgotten, Mister Diehl, that journalist Maggie Gallagher, who collaborated with the Washington Post, was accused of accepting money in exchange for supporting one of President Bush's proposed Constitutional Amendments?

I can't imagine, Mister Diehl, how you came up with the terms "without due process" and "summarily," which you repeat in order to give the false impression of a dictatorial Venezuela that only exists in your imagination and in that crazy quilt of scraps that is your article. Surely, it will sound "ridiculous" to you, but now and for the first time in history, the press is more free in Venezuela than in the United States. Is that what bothers you, Mister Diehl?

It is not President Chavez' fault that the Bush administration cannot control the globalized world with the same methods and the same men as in the 1970s. It's not my fault if the Washington Post of Katherine Graham ... which was an example for the world in the Watergate case ... now acts as if it had been bought by the Nixon Family.

Instead of your incomplete, cartoonish, and malicious portrait of Venezuelan media and laws, I would have preferred to see, from a respectable "independent newspaper," a balanced analysis of our informative landscape. But I think that it's more likely that we'll find out, in the not-so-distant future, that you too, Mister Diehl, receive money from the State Department.

Andres Izarra Minister of Communication and Information
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/venezuela/2974.html



Andres Izarra Minister of Communication and Information

and prior to that editor in charge of Latin America at CNN en Español. His first hand experience during the coup is another confirmation of the role of the media in the US supported coup:

<clips>

...Izarra says he received clear instructions: "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him." He watched with horror as his bosses actively suppressed breaking news. Izarra says that on the day of the coup, RCTV had a report from a US affiliate that Chávez had not resigned but had been kidnapped and jailed. It didn't make the news. Mexico, Argentina and France condemned the coup and refused to recognize the new government. RCTV knew but didn't tell.

When Chávez finally returned to the Miraflores Palace, the stations gave up on covering the news entirely. On one of the most important days in Venezuela's history, they aired Pretty Woman and Tom & Jerry cartoons. "We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chávistas," Izarra says. "{but} the information blackout stood. That's when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030303/klein

Tell's the whole story, doesn't it.

Peace!!

I keep thinking that you don't have a true democracy if any voices are silenced.

The marketplace (<shudder>) will sort out winners and losers. It amazes me that "liberals" would be so keen on government suppression of opposition voices.

the day after they kidnapped Chavez--democratically elected leader of Venezuela.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xKLtJIRmjxE

There are laws in every country against this kinda stuff. You might look at your own laws in the USSA regarding this.

Look at it this way - suppose we found out Timothy McVeigh watched FauxNews and celebrated their news coverage from his jail cell, prior to being executed for the OK City bombing. Should we then go shudder FauxNews?

In fact, our country has a constitutional requirement that "this kinda stuff" *not happen*. The First Amendment, you know...

of the private tv stations thanking RCTV and the media. Here it is again. Have a look it's short enough for your attention span.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xKLtJIRmjxE

As for the rest of that post, Man, that was WEAK. :rofl:

Not my style.

...Really, it's no surprise you are so comfortable with Hugo's suppression of free press / speech - as you yourself seem intolerant and disrespectful of opposing views as well.

Cheers!

the proof is in the video. The day after the coup the five private tv stations thanked RCTV and the media--that's what this short clip shows. They're actually having a round table discussion about how they pulled the coup off.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xKLtJIRmjxE

For anyone interested, the full video tells the entire story and can be seen at this link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised&hl=en

of his misrepresentations on the message board. I've seen it before, and it's comical.

Everyone ELSE is surely guaranteed to benefit from looking at that actual tv footage captured as it was broadcast during the gloating session after they thought they had overthrown their President.

Simply pathetic.

"Congress shall make no laws that abridge free speech".

That's different from saying that Congress cannot regulate the public airways for the public good. Pity that Congress is ignoring the public good by allowing 4 major monopolies to OWN OUR AIRWAVES.

In addition, what do you think would happen if FAUX "news" began advocating the violent overthrow of the bushies -- how long you think Rupert would hold on to his licenses???

LOL are you that naive?? Advocating the overthrow of the president or destroying the government comes with a stiff penalty in the USA. You can be fined, or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

<clips>

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html

This is not the US we're talking about. And we don't have a history of coups, or attempted coups. Things are a tad different in South America I reckon. Coup attempt by Chavez, good. Coup attempt by anyone else, bad. O-B-K-B.

No double standards.

you might make more sense. He was sentenced to prison and served his time. For keeerist's sake do a little research before making a complete fool of yourself. :crazy:

Regarding the US law, ALL countries have laws pertaining to advocating the overthrow of a government. Venezuela is not any different in that respect.

a Venzuelan President.

He led a coup against a friend of the elder _Bush, Carlos Andres Perez, who had raised the price of Venezuelans' transportation by DOUBLE. This didn't particularly harm the oligarchy which had always controlled Venezuela, but it was KILLING the poor.

When they ran into the streets, mad as hell, protesting, he ordered his troops to FIRE INTO THE CROWDS, which they did, and they killed over 3000 people in the massacre known as EL CARACAZO.

You might as well try to work in some research one of these days so you'll know what you're talking about.

The people who kidnapped Hugo Chavez at gun point were NOT dealing with someone who had brutalized his countymen.

The former President Carlos Andres Perez was later IMPEACHED for CORRUPTION AND EMBEZZLEMENT, and HE WENT TO JAIL. He is one lucky man it didn't go far, far worse for him, but his oligarchy chums were in charge of everything, and his punishment was far, far less severe than he deserved.

Get in there and start learning something, for chrissakes, like the rest of us. Time waits for no one.

There was a coup in this country in 2000. The election was stolen by the repukes and installed the resident of the White House...

coup (kū) pronunciation
n., pl. coups (kūz).

1. A coup d'état.
2. A sudden appropriation of leadership or power; a takeover: a boardroom coup. (or Florida in 2000)

In addition to being funded by Otto Reich and NED, Reporters Without Borders in also funded by the Repukes. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3036333&mesg_id=3036711 Hardly what I'd call credible as this article points out.

<clips>

Reporters Without Borders Unmasked

Its Secret Deal with Otto Reich to Wreck Cuba's Economy

When Robert Menard founded Reporters Without Borders twenty years ago, he gave his group a name which evokes another French organization respected worldwide for its humanitarian work and which maintains a strict neutrality in political conflicts ­ Doctors Without Borders. But RSF (French acronym) has been anything but nonpartisan and objective in its approach to Latin America and to Cuba in particular.

...Havana-based journalist Jean-Guy Allard wrote a book about RSF's leader (El expediente Robert Ménard: Por qué Reporteros sin Fronteras se ensaña con Cuba, Quebec: Lanctôt, 2005) which lays out the pieces of the puzzle regarding Menard's activities, associations and sources of funding in an attempt to explain what he calls Menard's "obsession" with Cuba. On April 27 this year the pieces began to come together: Thierry Meyssan, president of the Paris daily, Red Voltaire, published an article in which he claimed Menard had negotiated a contract with Otto Reich and the Center for a Free Cuba (CFC) in 2001. Reich was a trustee of the center, which receives the bulk of its funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development. The contract, according to Meyssan, was signed in 2002 around the time Reich was appointed Special Envoy to the Western Hemisphere for the Secretary of State. The initial payment for RSF's services was approximately 24,970 euros in 2002 ($25,000), which went up to 59,201 euros in 2003 ($50,000).

Lucie Morillon, RSF's Washington representative, confirmed in an interview on April 29 that they are indeed receiving payments from the Center for a Free Cuba, and that the contract with Reich requires them to inform Europeans about the repression against journalists in Cuba and to support the families of journalists in prison. Morillon also said they received $50,000 from the CFC in 2004 and that this amount was consistent from year to year. But she denied that the anti-Cuba declarations on radio and television, full-page ads in Parisian dailies, posters, leafletting at airports and an April 2003 occupation of the Cuban tourism office in Paris were aimed at discouraging tourism to the island.

...Although Reporters without Borders' attacks on Castro, Chavez and Aristide are perfectly alligned with the State Department's policies, and though she admitted RSF was receiving money from Reich, Morillon denied that the governmant funding the group receives in any way affects its activities. She pointed out that RSF's $50,000 payments from the CFC and a January grant of $40,000 from the National Endowment for Democracy only constitute a fraction of the organization's budget. This is true, but Menard has other rich rightist friends in Europe and the U.S., including CFC director Manuel Cutillas, head of Bacardi. CFC's executive director is Frank Calzon, another former director of CANF.

According to a January 20, 2004 article in El Nuevo Herald ("Reporters Without Borders Announces Campaign to Democratize Cuba"), Menard visited Miami that week and received a hero's welcome. He was lionized in the press and honored by exile leaders at a dinner at Casa Bacardi. He met with the Cuban Liberty Council (a split-off from the CANF), the editors of The Miami Herald and Mayor Manny Diaz. Menard was also a guest on a Radio Mambí program hosted by government-funded exile leader Nancy Pérez Crespo, director of Nueva Prensa, a website which posts articles phoned in by Cuban dissidents. In the media he announced that RSF would be holding a meeting on March 18 with European political leaders in Brussels, headquarters of the European Union, to promote democratization in Cuba.

http://www.counterpunch.org/barahona05172005.html

Everyone who speaks out gets fired or necklaced or "commits suicide". What's the difference?

"The days of corporate welfare are over in Venezuela"
Venezuelan Commercial TV Stations Failed to Declare Taxes for Free Anti-government Ads
Sunday, Mar 21, 2004
By: Venezuelanalysis.com

Political propaganda is not exempt from taxes, according to SENIAT president Jose Vielma Mora.
Caracas, March 21 (Venezuelanalysis.com).- Last Friday, Venezuela's tax collection agency SENIAT, notified four Venezuelan commercial TV stations about their failure to declare taxes for free ads they ran for the opposition coalition Coordinadora Democratica.

Venezuela's commercial media is openly opposed to the government. During the three-month business lock-out and sabotage of the oil industry at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003, TV stations suspended their normal programming to give non stop coverage of the lock-out. Additionally, they suspended their normal commercial ads to only run anti-government ads as "donations" to the Coordinadora Democratica. It was part of the media's contribution to the campaign to oust Chavez, in the same way they acted during the coup d’etat of April 2002.

The stations which failed to declare the additional taxes are Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), which owes 1,044,386 US$ (two billion Bolivars); Venevision, which owes 731,070 US$ (1.4 billion Bolivars); Televen, which owes 292,428 US$ (560 million Bolivars); and Globovisión, which owes 1,148,825 US$ (2.2 billion Bolivars).
(snip)

Marcel Granier, the president of 1BC, parent company of RCTV, declared that the move by the SENIAT is politically motivated and that they will seek legal action against it. "We are just allowing the opposition express their thoughts," he said. Neither Granier nor other TV stations officials have denied airing the free anti-government ads for the opposition.

Granier, who is credited with first claiming that the Chavez administration is a "castro-communist regime", added that "this government is now 95% dictatorial." Granier's attitude sharply contrasts with his silence after his TV political show Primer Plano was taken off the air in 1986 by then President Jaime Lusinchi. Under previous administrations, the media enjoyed big subsidies and contracts from the government, a practice which ended during the Chavez administration. Unlike previous administrations, no single media outlet has been censored during the Chavez government, except during the coup d'etat of 2002, when TV stations broadcasted explicit calls to overthrow the government.
(snip/...)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1233



Frank Calzon!