Venezuela steps up control of television, radio

[Zorro]

Source: Reuters

Venezuela is taking dozens of radio stations off the air and putting stricter rules on cable and satellite television, a minister said on Thursday, part of President Hugo Chavez's battle with private media firms.

Disodado Cabello, the public works minister who also oversees Venezuela's broadcasting watchdog, said 154 FM radio stations will be taken off the air and shifted into public hands in what he called "democratizing the airwaves."

He recently said 86 AM radio stations will also be hit as the government steps up efforts to turn Venezuela into a socialist society.

"The use of the radio-electric spectrum is one of the few areas where the revolution has not been felt," Cabello said in a presentation to legislators about the need for reform in the sector.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090709/wl_nm/us_venezuela_media_1

---

I'm certain this sounds like a most sterling plan to the resident Chavistas.

[boppers]

1. Fox News, run by the state.

What could possibly go wrong?

[provis99]

2. This is great!

At least Venezuela can recognize the value of some kind of fairness doctrine. Why the heck can't we do this here?

[ixion]

4. uh, state-run media typically does not operate under a "fairness" doctrine

quite the opposite. Not saying that the private has done any better, but the State taking over the media is never a good thing, IMO.

[provis99]

20. if you say the private hasn't done any better, then what's your complaint?

At worst then, the takeover is substituting government ideas by a popular democratic leader for the ideas of fascist corporations.

[ixion]

79. popular democratic leader

uh, yeah, right. :eyes:

Chavez, for all his populist leanings, is a dictator, not a democratic leader.

[Wilms]

121. Here's a definition of dictator for you.

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

Chavez was elected.

It's ok if you don't approve of him, but let's try to keep the name-calling accurate.

[IDFbunny]

54. Sure they do.

the "opposition" is just as controlled. You won't tell them apart from Hannity & Colmes.

[eleny]

3. If he's restricting the oligarchs of Venezuela. it might not be all that bad

[boppers]

6. Uh, it's delivering the power *to* the Oligarchs.

Specifically, the political class, the Chavistas in power.

[eleny]

7. The oligarchy of Venezuela are/were the few who controlled the wealth of the country

That's the group who owned and ran the many media outlets in Venezuela. Chavez allowed them to keep running after he came into power.

What this curtailing sounds like to me is that he's restricting the media organs of those old, wealthy families.

An oligarchy is traditionally defined as a small number of families who control the majority of the wealth and who are politically powerful. That's who I was referring to. Frankly, I have little sympathy for them as they kept the majoity of Venezuelans dirt poor, uneducated and with little medical care until Chavez came along.

[boppers]

8. A definition:

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

For example, a military man who tries to use an illegal military coup to seize power, and then uses a populist movement to accomplish the same, and then runs over any group that threatens his power, might be considered an Oligarch, simply because his power is not to be questioned.

[eleny]

10. Read further where the example is the wealthy families who hold power by virtue of wealth

From your Wiki link...
"Such states are often controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy."

That's what I meant by "oligarchs". So, now that you know who I was talking about: I have no sympathy for them if their voices are restricted somewhat in Venezuela.

[EFerrari]

14. boppers is also supporting the coupsters in Honduras

who decided to call our president a negrito and who have active death squads in play. Go figure.

[eleny]

19. Thanks, EF, I appreciate learning that

[boppers]

22. How many people did Chavez hurt in his coup attempt?

Answer: 14 dead, 180 wounded.

I can denounce anybody I want to in a democracy, Bolivarians consider it unfair to do so, because it shines truth on propaganda.

Prior bad governance doesn't excuse others also taking a dump on democracy, and lionizing would-be-puppet-dictators is reprehensible to me, regardless of who's pulling the strings.

[WriteDown]

83. I am no supporter of the coup in Honduras

but have noticed the death squads seem woefully ineffective.

[boppers]

16. I consider freedom of speech somewhat fundamental.

The "elites" of the day may change, but those who suppress speech make themselves transparent by doing so.

The shift from one group of oppressors to another, one kind of oligarchy to another, is change, but I'm not sure it's progress.

[EFerrari]

17. You're not sure of a lot of things apparently. When students protested

the omnibus referendum, they were not gassed as they are here. They were invited to speak to the assembly.

Your shading of freedom of speech into its opposite is noted.

[boppers]

24. Peaceful protest should be respected, and listened to.

Rock throwing should not.

It's really not that complicated.

[bitchkitty]

56. So you're for killing demonstrators for throwing rocks at the army?

Is that your position?

[boppers]

65. Lethal force should be met with lethal force.

Are you willing to let yourself, or your family, be stoned to death, and then say "It was just rocks"?

[Flaneur]

68. Thank you for clarifying that: You stand with the Honduran military.

[boppers]

71. I do not stand with socialistic oligarchs, nor with the military.

Your attempt to trivialize this into "two sides" has failed.

[Flaneur]

90. Socialististic oligarchs? What are you talking about?

You can't just throw words together and pretend they mean something.

[Judi Lynn]

92. You're not likely to see those two words used together again! Amazing. n/t

[slackmaster]

103. No, but I've heard of a book called "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism"

I think someone named Goldstein wrote it. Emmanuel Goldstein IIRC.

ETA here's a link: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/go-goldstein.html

[boppers]

122. Oligarch: privileged classes, claiming a mantle of power

Such as lifelong military men who stage coups and revolutions (Chavez) or wealthy cattle/timber men who try to usurp constitutional law (Zelaya).

Their particular spin, however, that makes them both interesting, is that they both have adopted socialism as part of their political philosophy, and thus rail against the power and government that they abuse, while fighting for exercising and extending the same power for themselves.

Kind of like the pope bitching about poverty from a golden throne, the hypocrisy is a bit breathtaking at times.

[bitchkitty]

70. Since none of my family are elitist thugs or apologists for elitist thugs,

nor to my knowledge, have they ever kidnapped and exiled a duly-elected President, and it is extremely unlikely that they would do so, I cannot answer that stupid fucking question.

Thanks for clarifying your position, although from reading your spew in recent days, it was already apparent. I'm on David's side. You're with Goliath.

[boppers]

74. Since you're not with the thugs, on either side, I'm sorry,

Thugs tend to be slow.

[eleny]

18. Chavez is hardly oppressive as the traditionally wealthy of Venezuela

So, we disagree. Please take the last word if you wish. I'm done since my goal isn't to try and change your mind but just express my own point of view.

[boppers]

25. Thanks.

I agree that Chavez is a heck of lot better than many of those who came before him.

I also don't think he's "good enough", or respectful of human rights, and needs to be held accountable for his actions.

[heliarc]

78. I consider democracy fundamental.

The Elites used the guise of free speech to fight the popularly elected Chavez regime. There is a very compelling documentary that chronicles the collusion of the wealthy owners of one of the private television stations in Venezuela with the Military. In essence they committed treason against the democratic will of the people who elected Chavez. He was reinstated through the will of the people in this instance as well. the so-called free speech provided by the private press in Venezuela at the time also misrepresented the demonstrations in the street in an effort to deceive viewers into thinking that the tide of public sentiment favored the coup attempt. The documentary shares footage that seems to say otherwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skx-oLAjKgk&feature=PlayList&p=568E5075199B523C&index=22

The only thing better than that footage is the record of TV hosts and Generals on the Private channels thanking the media for making the coup possible...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nszX45ig7DI&NR=1

These are 2 parts of a longer document... shows the position taken by "news agencies" in support of a military coup and military rule. What sort of "freedom of speech" does that offer?

[Odin2005]

106. The ends do not justify the means.

I don't like what Fascist assholes say, but anyone who believes in Liberal Democracy must defend their right to say it. Using authoritarians means for good ends is like trying to use the One Ring to defeat Sauron.

[EFerrari]

13. Baloney. The oligarchs OWN 75% of the media.

But nice attempt to muddy the waters. Have to give you points for persistently supporting the right wing position! :applause:

[boppers]

26. How are you defining oligarch?

..and why exactly 75%? That's a really suspiciously round-ish number.

As far as "supporting the right wing", it saddens me to hear that you would allow Obama to shut down DU, if DU made too much noise about him....

...and I'm pretty sure freedom of speech is left wing, but I guess it depends on the building.

[EFerrari]

29. I hope your head doesn't spin off your shoulders. n/t

[boppers]

30. Well, I'm not defending state censorship as democratic.

I think that slows the RPM's down a bit.

[EFerrari]

31. No, you're not. You're going far beyond that and only defending

right wing state sponsored censorship. And that's fine. Your privilege.

[boppers]

33. Nope.

State censorship is wrong, be it in Honduras, Venezuela, or the US.

I'm not justifying it for *any* side.

[Freddie Stubbs]

88. Even if he is making him and his cronies the new oligarchs?

:shrug:

[Odin2005]

105. Replacing Fascist oligarchs with Nomenklatura is replacing BS with different BS.

[timeforpeace]

5. Sort of like a country-wide unrecommend function!

[EFerrari]

11. LOL! Precisamente.

:)

[bemildred]

9. Yawn.

Maybe attacking him 24/7 since he got elected was a bad business strategy after all.

[eleny]

12. Thank you

I have little sympathy for those people.

[bemildred]

23. Yep. Zippo from me too.

If they were doing anything but stroking themselves off I'd feel different, but nobody owns the airwaves, they are a public trust, not a private property. I wish someone would put a muzzle on all the crap that we have on TV and radio here. It's a giant cesspool.

[EFerrari]

15. 22 quarters of growth may say, yeah. n/t

[eleny]

21. All that education and health care is so dangerous

And what about those awful jobs? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

28. Food security and housing, oh my.

:sarcasm:

[WriteDown]

87. Is it really worth working a job that does not pay?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8093790.stm

[northzax]

27. the 'radio-electric spectrum'?

who appointed Montgomery Burns?

who bets those 86 AM stations will now carry Hugo's multi hour diatribes? personally, I think the government should control all media, that way the distasteful people can't get a word in edgewise.

[boppers]

38. I'm guessing this is a "lost in translation" issue.

That being said, it's not uncommon for politicians (and their reporters) to be 20-50 years behind technology.

Oh, and yes, people who don't express proper opinions can be sooooo annoying at times.

[COLGATE4]

32. I'm always amazed (and often a little amused)

by those who post on these boards in such vehement defense of whatever new anti-democratic action Chavez takes. I/m not sure if it's just a knee-jerk reaction a la "Fire Bad" against any criticism of Chavez, regardless of however well-founded, or rather the result of a profound misunderstanding of Latin America based on a romantic notion that the whole area is divided neatly into two groups of people: The sainted huddled masses, yearning for the warm embrace of Castro-like socialism and the evil EVIL oligarchs (ever body else). I can only imagine the outrage that would have appeared on these boards if, somehow our late unlamented GWB had somehow managed to concoct a way to take selected cable and radio stations off the air. However, since it's being done by the former military coup leader in the name of the "Bolivarian Revolution", all I hear is the chorus singing his praises. Something of a disconnect?

[bemildred]

34. Saying you don't give a shit is not a "vehement defense" of anything.

And that is an important distinction.

[COLGATE4]

36. I couldn't agree with you more

You're absoltely right = I have no issue with not giving a shit one way or the other. I do take issue with those who leap to teh defense of any antidemocratic move Chavez makes by unfurling the banner of "Death to the Oligarchy".

[bemildred]

39. Well, the thing is the people Chavez is fighting with are worse than he is.

Near as I can tell anyway, selfish, incompetent, corrupt, dishonest. So why should we care if he kicks their ass?

[COLGATE4]

42. I think you're overgeneralizing

I understand the temptation to want to classify everybody but the poorest groups of society negatively, but the reality is much more complex than that. My point was that the whole idea of a monolithic oligarchy, at least in Venezuela (and many other South American nations) is now largely obsolete. It's more of a straw man, used to justify any and all anti-democratic moves taken by a government which is moving rapidly towards a Castro=like dictatorship of Venezuela.

[bemildred]

50. LOL. And you accuse me of over-generalizing.

"a government which is moving rapidly towards a Castro=like dictatorship of Venezuela"

The airwaves are public property, and use of them is a government created and administered monopoly, and a legally elected government may do with them whatever it chooses. It has nothing to do with free speech, these people are as free to speak as ever, what they are losing is the government administered monopoly on a giant public megaphone. See how far you get with a pirate radio station here in the USA.

[UTUSN]

112. You're BRAVE!1 You called the Hugo-NAUTS "romantics" - they'll brand you as OLIGARCH forever!1

They will SWARM with their UN-Recs on any of your future threads!1 Welcome to DU: We the UN-Hugonauts need your voice!1

[Odin2005]

108. Too many fools that donlt understand the dangers of authoritarianism.

And stupidly think that only right-wingers can be authoritarian. It's ridiculous. An state of everyone being equaly enslaved to the state is not egalitarianism and is just as bad as enslavement to the corporation.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Chavez is doing what we should be doing to RW talk radio and Faux

The public airwaves are PUBLIC. Shoving to satellite what are essentially rabid rightwing media, so RW that they make Coulter and Rush seem like moderate Democrats, is a triumph of democracy over the propaganda of the oligarchs.

The AP twists what the Bolivarian Revolution is trying to accomplish. No surprise you would pick this story for your pro-elites megaphone.

You are probably more comfortable in an environment where the only media allowed is the one promoting a rightwing ideology, such as what we currently have in the coup regime in Honduras, a coup that you support.

[northzax]

41. and you don't see a difference between 'public' and 'government controlled'?

are you really arguing that radio stations in the US should be taken off the air for being anti-government? really?

really?

[IndianaGreen]

43. The airwaves belong to the public

and they shouldn't be used to spread rightwing propaganda, as they do here to undermine real health care reform, or to push intolerant religious views, as we find in a myriad of religious stations in the US. Those stations should be off the public airwaves. They can do whatever they want on cable or satellite.

[hack89]

46. Aren't conservative part of the public?

they might be wrong but why do you have the right to control what they say or hear on the radio? Next time a conservative holds the WH, should they have the same power to silence anyone that disagrees with their agenda?

[DissedByBush]

47. The right wing is part of the public too

The biggest test of whether you support freedom of speech is supporting that right for those you disagree with the most.

[northzax]

49. you haven't met IG, have you?

well now you have. :hi:

[DissedByBush]

82. Ah, thanks n/t

[northzax]

48. and they should be used for left wing propaganda?

really? radio was built on shysterism and propaganda (paging "Dr." Brinkley, 'Dr.' John Brinkley, please pick up the white courtesy phone) all media was. from both sides. should whatever government is in power at any given time be allowed to say that the spectrum belongs to them and take over the ones they don't like?

[Zorro]

44. Wasn't Telesur broadcasting from Honduras?

Were they supporters of the new Honduran government?

I'm thinkin' you and your fellow travelers would probably be more comfortable in a country like North Korea, where the government controls all media.

So if you start asserting your speculations about me, then I get to do the same. I suggest you stick to the issues.

[boppers]

51. TeleSUR is Venezuelan state media.

Coincidentally (I'm sure), they've been keeping the pro-Zelaya folks informed, and broadcasting his personal POV.

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

They're intended to be a counterweight to, uhm, "capitalist oligarch" media like the BBC, CNN, Univision, Deutsche Welle... you know, any people who might disagree.

[EFerrari]

55. You two are adorable. Little Zorro with his red baiting

and you with your support of military coups.

:rofl:

[boppers]

57. Keep supporting your military coups.

See how that Chavez guy works out.

[EFerrari]

58. This must be non sequitur night.

[boppers]

59. You might have missed that point in time.

Dunno how old you are, but Chavez tried to take over the state with a military coup back in '92. He's not exactly big on democracy.

[EFerrari]

61. And you might have missed how he was the one that called it off,

apologised to the nation and did his time. And how he has called for FARC to lay down their arms.

Oh, the Chenis! Always one step ahead.

[boppers]

62. I totally trust child molestors after they've done their time.

Do you?

:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

63. Child molesters? Are you posting to the correct thread?

Chavez surrendered to the plotters to avoid violence. And he's notoriously unwilling to use force, ie, riot police, on demonstraters.

Your trust issues have nothing to do with his record. They're yours.

[boppers]

64. How many people died because of Chavez and his coup?

This is not a difficult question.

He's willing to kill for power, and has done so.

[EFerrari]

66. That's just unhinged. The coup was against a brutal dictator.

A real one, not like the laughable claims you make about him. A coup to stop murder not to facilitate murder.

So what do you hate more about Chavez? That he is successful, that the people love him or that he is mixed blooded? Because there is nothing rational in what you say about him. He has done more than any other Venezuelan leader in living memory to put down the mortality rate across all categories.

[boppers]

72. "Mixed blooded"?

Your racism is showing.

[EFerrari]

76. LOL! My racism.

What a HOOT!

LOL

[bitchkitty]

89. LMFAO!

Thanks for the giggle. I sure hope you don't get 86ed any time soon. You're enormously entertaining.

VIVA CHAVEZ!

[Alamuti Lotus]

67. trying to depose a murderous dictator, the fiend!

Does thy Red Menace ever sleep? But lo, the evil he doth abound with..

This concludes "Shakespeare demonstrates a lesson in dismissive sarcasm"; there will be a test following.

Are there details to events such as that, or will soundbytes suffice? I realize we're a generation with MTV-Video Game level of mutilated attention spans, but that's actually quite an interesting story that you're butchering there.

[boppers]

73. Good to know we have a scholar on hand.

How many people did not die, based on your insights?

[Zorro]

91. Hugo is acting more like Dear Leader every day

<snip>

Venezuela's government has revoked the licences of more than 200 radio stations and forced satellite and cable television to broadcast many of President Hugo Chávez's speeches live.

The government said the new regulations would deepen the country's socialist revolution and combat "media terrorism" by privately owned networks. Critics said they were an attack on free speech.

Terrestrial TV channels have long been obliged to interrupt regular programming to transmit Chávez's speeches - they can last more than four hours - when he declares what is known as a "cadena".

Even many of his supporters would switch to satellite and cable to continue watching baseball or soap operas but under the new regulations, which came into effect today, those channels must also switch to Chávez if more than 70% of their content is produced within Venezuela...

<snip>

More at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/10/venezuela-media-chavez

Can't have anyone watching baseball or soap operas when Dear Leader...errr...President Chavez...commandeers the airwaves.

[EFerrari]

97. And you, on the other hand, reliably are the same right wing meme promoter

you have always been. It's good to have things you can count on.

Chavez is the most important political figure in Latin America in the last 50 years or more. Must suck to be on the wrong side of history on top of everything else. :)

[Zorro]

98. Can't defend Hugo's policies, so you change the subject

and take a lame personal shot. Since you're batting, oh, .000 when you do that, it's not very well-advised. For someone who can be relied on to consistently promote any foreign politician with an anti-US agenda, you should know that by now.

I don't see any US politicians rushing to embrace Chavez and his policies, and neither our President nor our Secretary of State seems smitten with this loudmouthed autocrat. I guess they all are "right wing meme promoters" in your eyes. I prefer standing with them; that's what makes me a Democratic policy supporter.

[EFerrari]

100. You know, I've looked. And I can't find any threads where you discuss

Democratic policy.

And it's just fascinating that someone as pro-American as you are always seems to come up with right wing catch phrases like "anti-US agenda" at the drop of a hat.

[Zorro]

101. Looking with your eyes closed, as usual

But then you don't want to see support for current US policies regarding Cuba, Colombia, or Israel.

There's your consistent pattern of always finding conspiracies afoot by the Peace Corps, USAID, and the State Department; it shows just how unknowledgeable you are about the dedication these people have for their mission and their country. Your kids must be very proud of you.

[EFerrari]

110. Oh, save it. It's hasn't worked yet and it won't work tonight. n/t

[Zorro]

114. How soon you forget

Only a couple of weeks ago you were defending Hugo's support of Ahmadinejad by claiming that the US had committed $4M to destabilize Iran, without any supporting evidence other than "it had been reported everywhere".

Frankly, you embody the "blame America first" caricature that gives ammo to the Republicans.

[Wilms]

124. There are more than a few reports. "Everywhere" isn't unreasonable.

http://www.google.com/search?q=US+destabilize+Iran&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Ya think the US would try to destabilize a country that has a lot of oil? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

125. LOL.

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

116. Zorro is a propagandist for rightwing ideology on the internet

Had we had an internet in 1936, Zorro together with DU's pro-Honduran coup contingent would be supporting the fascist forces led by Franco, while we would be supporting the Republic, and the rest of DU's community would be in favour of isolationism (as were most Americans at the time).

[Zorro]

119. Ignored my advice, I see

I'm sure you're disappointed your idol Stalin's policies of charity and goodwill were not better appreciated, either in his time or now.

I can play your game, too.

[IndianaGreen]

120. Stalin didn't have a Religious Right problem!

One of his few virtues!

[WriteDown]

84. Nonsense....

It would have been interesting to see if Bushler started shutting down media that disagreed with him which I assume would have included websites such as DU. I'm sure posters would be saying that it was his right because he was shutting down public airwaves and internet signals. :eyes:.

[jefferson_dem]

95. So shuttering independent media outlets that don't support the regime and

installing government-controlled propaganda mouthpieces sounds dandy to you?

Amazing apologetics.

[Peace Patriot]

37. Number one, I don't trust Reuters to tell the story straight. Just a for instance:

There is an enormous factual error in this sentence:

"Since taking office a decade ago, Chavez has broken up large farms and nationalized important economic sectors including the oil industry."

Chavez did NOT nationalize Venezuela's oil industry. It was nationalized long before Chavez was first elected--and oil is nationalized as a resource belonging to the people in many countries--Mexico, for instance. What Chavez did was to renegotiate the contracts with big multinationals to benefit Venezuela and its social programs. Prior governments were giving away the oil in a 10/90 split favoring the multinationals. Chavez achieved a 60/40 split favoring Venezuela.

(to be continued)

[WriteDown]

86. As I posted below...

I wonder if the new station workers will get paid...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8093790.stm

[NYC Democrat]

40. I am disgusted that people here approve of this and well basically anything chavez does.

[EFerrari]

45. And I'm disgusted that anyone takes this story at face value

when this cr@p has been debunked over and over and over.

[WriteDown]

85. Theres only one question, will the new station workers get paid??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8093790.stm

[Rage for Order]

52. Pravda: the sequel

The cable and satellite stations should show computer-generated movies of Chavez having carnal relations with farm animals (both pitching and catching) on a 24 hour loop. Now that would be entertaining!

:rofl:

[boppers]

53. No, Pravda has competition!

Izvestia!

:evilgrin:

[Flaneur]

69. Yes, and Venezuela has about 500 radio stations. Your point?

[boppers]

75. I think you might not know.

The joke is that state run media is full of BS.

[Flaneur]

77. Perhaps the state-run BS can serve as a counterpoint...

...to the corporate media BS. Marketplace of ideas and all that.

Hmmm, wouldn't it be nice if we had a labor channel here? Got Fox Business, CNBC, Bloomberg...

[Mudoria]

60. I'm sure when they come back on air they'll be singing the praises of El Supremo..

[Kurska]

80. People not only defending this, but advocating it for america make me sick.

Fox news may suck, but they have a right to broadcast what they want to. Freedom of speech doesn't just mean speech you agree with.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

81. Well said.

Free speech encompasses even speech we don't agree with. I abhor Fox News but they have a right to exist and I, for one, would find it very undemocratic if Pres. Obama were to take away its license and fashion it into a more Obama-friendly broadcaster. That is why we also have the freedom to turn to other channels, radio stations, internet sites, etc.

Free speech does not only count when we agree with the speech.

[jefferson_dem]

96. Truth.

I respect all sorts of viewpoints that I personally disagree with.

Those which promote or excuse jack-booted government censorship and rank suppression of free press deserve none.

[Peace Patriot]

93. Continued from above. Secondly,

I am amazed that, at a supposedly democratic forum, so few people understand the role and duty of the government to encourage DIVERSITY in the use of the public airwaves. Use of the public TV/radio airwaves is NOT A RIGHT. It is licensed and regulated in every country of the world, including all the democracies. Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY, with far, far more transparent elections than we have here. Therefore the president and national assembly (legislators) are far more reflective of the people of Venezuela than in many countries, and act more in their interest. It is in the interest of the public for the government to promote diversity on the public airwaves, to prevent monopolies, to prevent money from being the only issue in licensing, and to insure a broad spectrum of opinion on important public matters. Venezuela has had one of the most rancid, rightwing monopolistic controls over the airwaves of any country. Using licensing and regulatory power to change this is a GOOD policy. We should restore it here!

It is NOT "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" to have rightwing billionaire CEO's controlling the public dialogue! That is a sickness of our system. The government should be busting up these 'news' monopolies by, a) giving the licenses to SMALL, COMPETITIVE businesses, and b) funding much more public broadcasting with a great diversity of views that truly reflects the great diversity of our people.

[paulk]

102. what Cabello describes is not "diversity"

"The use of the radio-electric spectrum is one of the few areas where the revolution has not been felt,"

He's talking about using the public airwaves to promote the socialist revolution - that's not encouraging a diversity of opinion - it's shutting down one POV to promote another - and that could hardly be described as "democratic".

[Odin2005]

109. Revolutionary utopianism in inherently authoritarian and anti-democratic.

Since pesky things like elections would result in the supporters of the "One True Ideology" possibly losing power, can't have that.

[paulk]

111. what is fascinating is how "democracy" itself becomes twisted

to serve as an excuse for authoritarianism.

"Therefore the president and national assembly (legislators) are far more reflective of the people of Venezuela than in many countries, and act more in their interest."

--------

I guess it goes without saying - but there seems little difference between the extremes of the political spectrum...

[Odin2005]

115. Yep. Tyranny of the Majority is still tyranny, as gay folks in California probably understand.

[IndianaGreen]

117. but it was you side that backed Prop-8

so don't use LGBTs as a talking point to advance your support for the Honduran coup and the Venezuelan elites.

[Odin2005]

127. "my side"? I was always against Prop H8.

And I do not support the Honduran coup and Venezuelan elites. You are making shit up based on black-and-white "yer either with us or yer against us" thinking.

[Peace Patriot]

123. Venezuela has one of the most transparent, honest and aboveboard election systems

in our hemisphere--far, FAR more transparent than our own--AND one of the highest voter particpation rates, AND one of the highest rates of citizen approval of the government and of the direction of the country. If what Chavez is doing is "revolutionary utopianism," then most Venezuelans like it just fine, and neither they nor their government is "authoritarians" or "anti-democratic." Just the opposite is true.

You just don't get it, do you? Diversifying the media is a victory for democracy and free speech. Removing some of the OUTSIDE CORPORATE control of about 80% of the country's airwaves (near 100% when Chavez was first elected) is a PLUS. We should do it here.

[jefferson_dem]

94. Disgusting despot.

Chavez continues to illustrate how "leftists" can be just as scumbaggy as "rightists".

[ohio2007]

99. people still have the right to turn off "all Hugo,ALL the 24/7 time"

best current role model is North Koreas media controlled utopia society



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kLG-VHodFA

[Agony]

104. Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Limits to Concentration of Media Ownership

The "not rotters" version for your enjoyment!

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4613
---snip
The minister presented statistics on the breakdown of radio ownership in Venezuela. Of the country's FM stations, 472 are privately owned, while 243 are local community-based operations and 79 are public. And, private owners control 184 AM stations, while the state controls 26 AM stations, according to the minister. In television, more than 60% of broadcasting concessions (65 stations) are in private hands, while just under 35% (37) are community-based and six are controlled by the national government. He did not specify the geographic range of the different signals.

To increase the state's share of the media, Cabello said the state will take over the 154 FM stations and 86 AM stations that did not register and pay fees to CONATEL by the July 2nd deadline, as requested by CONATEL a month earlier. "That which is not up to date with CONATEL will not have its concession renewed and the state will recuperate new radio spaces where the people are able to access information," said Cabello.

This measure has provoked opposition from Venezuela's Chamber of Radio Broadcasters, which called it "a direct attack against freedom of expression." In an official statement, the Chamber said the measure announced by Cabello "lacks basis" because all its members had "fulfilled all the procedures required by CONATEL since the year 2000."

Cabello responded that he would not negotiate with the Chamber, but he would be willing to negotiate with community-based and state-owned radio stations, and that a similar proposal for television stations is in the works.
---snip

I'd like to see about half of our media be public media... some competition for National Pentagon Radio, National Petroleum Radio or whatever it is.

[Odin2005]

107. But, but, authoritarianism and censorship is OK when our side does it!!

:sarcasm:

[ohio2007]

113. Joe Biden update: No 'private meetings,' just meetings closed to the press

Joe Biden update: No 'private meetings,' just meetings closed to the press
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/joe-biden-update-1.html

[JackRiddler]

118. The second sentence is already self-contradicting propaganda.

These stations are not being taken off the air, that's not what Cabello said and that's why it is not presented as quoted matter. It's Reuters's editorial. The stations are not being "hit," either, although the owners are. The stations are being moved from private to public ownership.

How this will affect the ability of Venezuelans to speak on the airwaves as these stations continue to broadcast, whether there will be a limit or opening of views broadcast on these stations, is a point of contention, not a settled matter as the article and the anti-Bolivarian faction here want to have it.

Here's what you didn't quote from the article:

"The president has vastly expanded the number of publicly owned television and radio stations since he took office in 1999. Some are directly owned or financed by the government, while others are operated by cooperatives and community groups."

[IndianaGreen]

126. Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Limits to Concentration of Media Ownership

To fellow DUers, except for OP poster:

Remember the problems we have experienced in America with media concentration, and how the rightwing (and shamefully Obama as well) have opposed restoration of the Fairness doctrine. Remember also how Democratic voters have voiced their concern about media bias, while failing to note that elected Democratic officials have contributed to the problem of media concentration.

Venezuela is trying to do something about their problems of media concentration. Here is a point of view that is different from the one trumpeted by the poster of the OP:

Venezuelan National Assembly Discusses Limits to Concentration of Media Ownership

July 10th 2009, by James Suggett

(ABN) Mérida, July 10th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) -- In a presentation before the National Assembly on Thursday, Venezuelan Public Works and Housing Minister Diosdado Cabello proposed reforms to the Telecommunications Law that would limit the concentration of private radio and television ownership and bring more cable providers under the jurisdiction of the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) and the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television.

"You can be certain that we will democratize the radio-electric spectrum and bring an end to large media estates in radio and television," said Cabello, comparing Venezuela's media magnates to Venezuela's elite class of large landowners.

According to Cabello, 27 families control more than 32% of the radio and television waves, with as many as 48 stations grouped under a single owner.

The long-time friend and ally of President Hugo Chávez proposed a limit of three stations for any private owner, and a limit of one half hour per day of uniform broadcasting on those three stations. Such a rule would favor Venezuela's small-scale independent producers, said the minister.

He also specified that broadcasting concessions are not inheritable property, so concession holders should not be allowed to pass on their broadcasting rights to family or colleagues in the event of their death.

With regard to cable television, Cabello proposed an administrative provision that would define any company whose programming is 70% produced in Venezuela as Venezuelan. This would require the company to register with CONATEL and abide by the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. Many cable stations have registered as international companies even though they are actually Venezuelan, to avoid government regulation, said Cabello.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4613

[ProudDad]

128. This is how the Democrats will self-destruct

just as quickly as the pukes just did.

There are so many corporate-capitalist Dems that don't have the slightest inkling of any other way of organizing a society or economy.

I loved Cuba and the Cubans because they had (and have) a Community spirit for which most in the USAmerikan Empire have no conception. They're too busy here getting "one up on the Joneses" and buying the latest Chinese-built crap for the profit of their corporate capitalist masters.

It's the crowd of knee-jerk anti-Chavistas that we see here that exhibits the self-destructive tendencies that will destroy the current "Democrat majorities"...'cause their world is crumbling and they haven't got anything to replace it with...

Keep tryin' though.

:hi: