Venezuela on Brink of Civil War

That's the claim in the latest issue of the New Statesman. In an entirely one-sided article, Alice O'Keeffe claims that the very fabric of Venezuealan society is falling apart at the seams. In one paragraph, O'Keefe examines the 'typical symptoms' of a country heading towards a civil war:

William Ury, a conflict resolution expert at Harvard, identifies three typical symptoms of a country on the brink of civil war. The first is that the population begins to arm itself; the second is that each side begins to dehumanise and impute evil intentions to the other; and the third is the politicisation of the media. Contemporary Venezuela has each of these conditions in abundance. Ury suggests that the key to defusing the threat is to strengthen the "third side": those organisations or people who empathise with both sides of the conflict and will encourage others to resolve their differences non-violently.

The author leaves the reader in no doubt about her views when she 'examines' the revocation of RCTV's licence. In two passages she gives the game away entirely:

the recently closed anti-Chávez television station Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV)

and

the government shut down RCTV

As most informed people are only too aware, RCTV was not shut down. In actual fact, it's licence to broadcast as a terrestrial channel was revoked. It can, however, continue to broadcast via satellite and cable. To claim that this is equivalent to 'shutting it down' is at best disingenuous and at worst inflammatory. This lie has been spread ad nauseum via the mainstream media in a blatant attempt to destabilise a country that has dared to take the path dictated to by the West. That a supposedly left-wing publication can perpetuate such a lie is a truly worrying sign of how far some on the left have veered to the right.

Furthermore, O'Keefe seems willing to overlook the role RCTV played in the 2002 coup. She writes:

The charges against it were of anti-government bias, in particular its refusal to air news of the pro-Chávez protests that brought him back to power after the 2002 coup.

This seems to rather downplay the role that RCTV played in the coup. It was RCTV who showed footage that claimed that Chavez supporters were firing on civilians during the US backed coup. The reality was that footage was manipulated by RCTV to make it look like they were firing on unarmed protesters. RCTV's role in the coup was so significant, the news director of the time had to resign when RCTV and other networks decided to censor the civil uprising aimed at restoring democratically elected Chavez after the coup d'etat. RCTV's role in proceedings isn't even mentioned in the article.

What is even more intriguing is O'Keefe's defence of RCTV. Early in the article, she claims that:

....RCTV was predominantly an entertainment channel, and showed some of the nation's favourite soap operas, or "novelas".

You would deduce from this that RCTV's news coverage was pretty minor compared to its 'entertainment' output. However, O'Keefe then goes on to quote a student who was opposed to the shut down:

"When they closed RCTV, we really got desperate, and furious about the lack of freedom of expression and diversity of thought," she said. "We realised we could not let it carry on. It is not like the president says - I'm not from the elite; my family doesn't even own a house. I just can't see this happen to my country."

How can the revocation of a licence for a network whose main output is 'soap operas' possibly have an impact on 'diversity of thought'? The two things don't add up. Either it is an entertainment channel providing harmless 'novelas', or it is a vital voice of diversity. If O'Keefe is so willing to dismiss RCTV as an entertainment channel (and so question why Chavez took the action he took), why are student protesters claiming it was a source of diversity? Perhaps because this is nothing more than a put-up job to appease the establishment. After all, she did title the piece:

Chávez: From hero to tyrant.

For sometime I have toyed with the idea of a subscription to the New Statesman, mainly due to the odd article by Pilger or Chomsky. On the basis of this evidence, I think I will give it a miss.

Media Lens Exposes Media Frenzy Over Chavez

Media Lens has a very interesting alert regarding the feeding frenzy over RCTV's licence. Central to the argument is the repeated doubt cast over RCTV's role in the 2002 coup. According to the alert:

A consistent theme of media reporting has been to ascribe this "accusation" to Chavez personally. Thus the Independent wrote of the “station, which Mr Chavez believes was plotting against him”. (‘Anti-Chavez protesters clash with police,’ The Independent, May 29, 2007)

The Times reported: “President Chavez withdrew its licence, accusing the network of ‘coup plotting‘”. (Philp, op. cit)

Likewise the Financial Times: “Chavez has repeatedly alleged that it supported the [2002] coup...” (Richard Lapper, ‘TV channel axed in latest Chavez drama,’ Financial Times, May 26, 2007)

And the BBC: “He [Chavez] says they were involved in a coup that nearly toppled him five years ago.” (James Ingham, ‘Venezuelans protest over TV issue,’ BBC Online, May 27, 2007; http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/ fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/6695769.stm)

These media reports thus all distort the truth by attributing a mere “claim” to Chavez, someone they have all previously demonised as an authoritarian “strongman”. This earlier demonisation acts to undermine the credibility of the charge against RCTV in readers’ minds, so reinforcing the bias of ostensibly balanced reporting against the Venezuelan government. Robert McChesney and Mark Weisbrot explain:

“This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit.” (McChesney and Weisbrot, ‘Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction,’ Common Dreams, June 1, 2007; http://www.commondreams.org/ archive/2007/06/01/1607/)

Read the full alert here.

RCTV - Why It Was Right To Close It Down

An excellent piece in the LA Times (unusual for a Western media outlet) explaining why RCTV had to have its licence revoked:

RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him — while permitting no response from the government.

Then RCTV ran nonstop ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chavez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovision ran manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.

After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV's biased coverage edged fully into sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: "Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters…. The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." While the streets of Caracas burned with rage, RCTV ran cartoons, soap operas and old movies such as "Pretty Woman." On April 13, 2002, Granier and other media moguls met in the Miraflores palace to pledge support to the country's coup-installed dictator, Pedro Carmona, who had eliminated the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.

Despite the facts behind the revocation of the licence (RCTV can continue to broadcast, the licence merely stops their terrestrial output), lies are still being spread about the nature of the action taken by Chavez. Perhaps the biggest slur on Chavez has been the alleged murder of Andreina Gomez Guevara. According to one media outlet:

At approximately 3:20 p.m. this afternoon in Caracas security forces murdered a Venezuelan student who was taking part in the ongoing peaceful protests against Hugo Chavez's regime, eyewitnesses said.

The student who was killed was named Andreina Gomez Guevara. She was 24 years old and attended UCAB, the Catholic University of Venezuela.

Students inside Venezuela are using the Internet to try to get out news about this murder and these demonstrations to the outside world. They complain that media inside Venezuela has either been silenced or intimidated, preventing a true picture of events there from being reported, and they appeal for help.

Of course, it goes without saying that this is a deeply troubling development if it is true. However, as with so much of the media's reporting of events in Venezuela, it seems unlikely to be accurate. According to another media source:

[ Justice Minister Pedro] Carreno told state-run TV that two suspects were arrested in connection with the killing of a student from the Andres Bello Catholic University who had taken part in the protests. Andreina Gomez Guevara, 24, was shot three times at a gasoline station in Caracas by hired gunmen, Carreno said.

The university issued a statement condemning the shooting, but said it believed the case was unrelated to Gomez Guevara's participation in the protests.

And another:

There have been dozens of injuries and arrests from clashes with police. On Thursday, in an incident which as of yet has not been connected to the clashes, a university student who had taken part in the protests was shot three times and killed at a gasoline station in Caracas.

Two suspects have been arrested for the shooting of Andreina Gomez Guevara, 24, according to Justice Minister Pedro Carreno. The two attackers - a man and a woman - allegedly confessed to killing Gomez Guevara from a motorcycle in exchange for some 4,600 dollars.

The Andres Bello Catholic University condemned the shooting, but said the killing of Gomez Guevara was unrelated to her participation in the protests.

Interestingly, the talk of bullets being fired into the crowd sounds reminiscent of the 2002 coup which RCTV were heavily implicated in. The truth is that the media have spun this beyond any recognition of the reality. The suggestion by one media outlet that the government was responsible for the murder of a demonstrator is yet another example of quite how far some will go to discredit Chavez's revolution in Venezuela. Facts will continue to be lost in the race to condemn a leader who is prepared to stand up for the poor in the face of increasing hostility from the rich.

* A commenter from Biased BBC (they are good for something, if inadvertently) kindly helped me to find this clip from The Onion which could equally be applied to Venezuela:

Breaking News: Something Happening In Haiti

BBC Defending the Capitalist Status Quo

Well, the BBC has shown that where Fox leads, they will follow. I could not believe my eyes when I read this piece on their website today. I was so shocked I had to take a screen shot just in case they altered it:




Militant rule? Now there is a loaded phrase. I wonder how else the BBC uses such terminology? How about here, here, here and here? Mmmm, I do hope the BBC isn't being pressured into accepting the sequence of events suggested by our government and the United States. The article itself barely mentions the role RCTV played in the 2002 coup. So much for impartiality.

A Tale of the Romanticism of RCTV and the Demonisation of Chavez

I could write another post on how Melanie Phillips is intent on pulling apart the very things that she and others claim the terrorists wish to destroy (terrorist sympathies perhaps?? Well, at least they would be if they weren't a different colour). But another post on the sheer moral depravity of the right's favourite spokesperson would seem a little obsessive. For now Mel, you can continue to rave like a loon with your inaccurate polemics, while the rest of us focus on the real world.

There has been much written about Chavez's decision not to renew RCTV's contract. As per usual, the right-wing press have come out claiming that this is another example of Chavez's dictatorial tendencies. Fox News reported it in typical Fox News terms:

CARACAS, Venezuela — The countdown has begun for Venezuela's oldest private television station. At midnight Sunday, Radio Caracas Television — the most widely watched channel — will be forced off the air after President Hugo Chavez's government decided not to renew its license.

Talk show host Miguel Angel Rodriguez, whose program is a daily rant against Chavez, ended his Friday segment by blowing a kiss to the camera and saying defiantly: "There is no goodbye. It's 'see you later."'

The opposition plans street protests over the weekend to demand that RCTV be allowed to keep transmitting, while Chavez supporters are expected to hold their own demonstrations. The authorities tightened security Friday in Caracas, putting hundreds of police and National Guard troops along major avenues.

Interesting how they romanticise the plight of RCTV. They even quote a protester as saying:

"People have to realize that we have a totalitarian president," said Maria Alecia Klemprer, a 25-year-old university student wearing a T-shirt reading: "Freedom of Expression S.O.S."

Bet that had the Fox News executives creaming in their pants over that one. In a very small paragraph, Fox News touches on the crux of the issue:

Chavez accuses RCTV and other opposition-aligned private media of supporting a failed 2002 coup against him. The channel has been accused of violating broadcast laws and showing programs with violence and sexual content that are morally degrading.

Chavez accuses? Is that the same Chavez that you characterised as 'totalitarian' earlier in your piece? Mmm, guess that might undermine his point a little. The truth is this is no wild accusation, this is fact and it is the sole reason why RCTV has lost its license. As one letter in today's Guardian pointed out:

The RCTV station did not just back an illegal military coup against President Chávez in 2002, but was active in orchestrating it (Chávez silences critical TV station, May 23). RCTV ran adverts encouraging people to take to the streets and to overthrow the elected president; spread lies that pro-Chávez supporters were shooting on unarmed civilians, which were used by some in the military to justify the coup; and read out a fake resignation letter from President Chávez.

Furthermore, Patrick McElwee, a policy analyst with Just Foreign Policy, writes in ZNet:

RCTV encouraged viewers to attend a rally that was part of the coup strategy, invited coup leaders to address the country on their channel, and reported the false information that the president had resigned. After Pedro Carmona declared himself president and dissolved the National Assembly, Supreme Court, and other democratic institutions, the head of RCTV Marcel Granier met with him in the Presidential Palace. The following day, when mass protests and loyal army units brought back President Chávez, RCTV and other stations blacked out the news, showing movies and cartoons instead.

Imagine if this were the case in the UK or the US. Do you really think that Bu$hie would allow the New York times to exist if it was the prime sponsor of a military coup? It would be shut down at the earliest opportunity. RCTV supported the use of violence to overthrow a democratically elected government, it's little surprise that the license was revoked.

But what of the voices of the opposition in Venezuela? Is this really the sign of the 'totalitarian' that Fox News loves to characterise? Not according to McElwee:

If RCTV were the only major source of opposition to the government, the loss of its voice would be troubling. It would also be disturbing if the RCTV case forced others to tone down legitimate opposition. But Greg Wilpert, a sociologist living in Venezuela, declares, "It is the height of absurdity to say that there's a lack of freedom of press in Venezuela."

Of the top four private TV stations, three air mostly entertainment and one, Globovisión, is a 24-hours news channel. On Globovisión, Wilpert says, "the opposition is very present. They pretty much dominate it. And in the others, they certainly are very present in the news segments."

Regarding the print media, Wilpert told me, "There are three main newspapers. Of those three, two are definitely very opposition. The other one is pretty neutral. I would say, [the opposition] certainly dominates the print media by far. There's no doubt about that."

"I think some of the TV stations have slightly moderated [their opposition to the government] not because of intimidation, but because they were losing audience share. Over half of the population is supportive of Chávez . They've reduced the number of anti-Chávez programs that they used to have. But those that continue to exist are just as anti-Chávez as they were before."

This won't stop the mainstream media from casting Chavez as the devil, certainly in the US where the corporate establishment are scared to death of his populist rhetoric. The truth is, this is a move that would have been taken by just about any democratic world leader on the international stage against such a media organisation. A media organisation that supports a coup and refuses to cover the mass protests that bring him back to power. As McElwee himself says 'it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.' Surely if he had any totalitarian tendencies, he would have shut down the station at the earliest opportunity. Instead, he waited until the license was up for renewal and then took a perfectly legitimate decision under the circumstances. The predicted totalitarianism in Venezuela seems a long way off yet.