about the truth, and in fact often adhere to the opposite of the truth.
I have investigated EVERY detail of the corpo-fascist 'news' painting of "Chavez the dictator" and have found that painting to be entirely bogus. Chavez is NOT a "dictator." But the corpo-fascist 'news' IS. They are like the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" ordering her minions to PAINT the natural white roses RED, because she is the QUEEN and RED is her color, and white roses are offensive to her, and, most importantly, she has the POWER to make others SEE them as RED (no matter that the paint will kill the roses).
Our national political discussion has been turned into the upside down, inside out, backwards world of "Alice in Wonderland," where everything is either the opposite of what it is, in reality, or a twisted, mindboggling distortion of reality.
First of all, what is most important in Venezuela is NOT Chavez, the man and the leader, but rather the ORDINARY PEOPLE who revolutionized their own society and government, beginning circa late 1990s, by, 1) the hard work of creating an honest, transparent, internationally monitored and certified election system; 2) electing the Chavez government to pursue polices of social justice and democracy (including, for instance, empowerment of the poor
majority who had never before had a voice in government); 3)
defending that rightful, elected government when it came under U.S./rightwing assault with the attempted coup in 2002 (--tens of thousands of Venezuelans poured into the streets and surrounded Miraflores Palace to peacefully force restoration of their Constitution and their elected government); 4) repeatedly organizing and voting for the Chavez government--in the 2004 (USAID-funded) recall election, and in subsequent elections, by big margins.
Secondly, Chavez has not done ANYTHING that he was not authorized to do by the Constitution or by the National Assembly. Everything that he has done, he had a right to do--in some cases a duty to do--and furthermore a mandate to do.
This includes denying a license renewal to the corpo-fascist 'news' station, RCTV, whose owners actively participated in the 2002 coup attempt. The airwaves in Venezuela belong to the PUBLIC, just as they (theoretically) do here and in virtually every country in the world. Regulation of the public airwaves, and requirements of the licensees to contribute to the common good--for example, to provide public interest broadcasting--is the common practice of governments. Broadcasting on the public airwaves is a privilege, NOT a right. Actively participating in a coup against the elected government is an egregious violation of the public interest. During the coup, RCTV refused to let any members of the Chavez government speak on TV. They published lists of government leaders with their home addresses, so that the rightwing thugs in the streets could go find them. They told outright lies on behalf of the coup (for instance, that Chavez had resigned). They altered video footage to make it look like Chavez supporters were shooting coup supporters. And they hosted the coup perpetrators and cheered them, as they signed decrees suspending the Constitution, the National Assembly, the courts and all civil rights.
Any honestly elected government in the world would have had a right and a duty to deny use of the PUBLIC airwaves to such owners. Indeed, the Chavez government would have had the right to storm the station with troops and shut them down, as soon as they were back in power. Instead, they waited until RCTV's 20-year license was up, and didn't renew it. This action was in truth MILD--temperate, peaceful, well-considered--and it enhanced rather than harmed "free speech." That channel was then turned into a public entity for independent broadcasters, to provide access to excluded groups, such as the Indigenous, African-Venezuelans and women.
Which is more democratic--a corporate-owned station fomenting the END of democracy and rule by a handful of fascist conspirators, or increased access to broadcasting for groups who have never had a public voice before?
ANSWER this question before you suggest that "Chavez is a dictator"--i.e., that we should "stay tuned" for Chavez to disobey the will of the Venezuelan people in an election. Which is more democratic--a corporate-run channel that tried to overturn the government, or a public channel where independent broadcasters can increase the variety of public voices on TV?
The other TV/radio stations in Venezuela remain largely anti-Chavez, and pro-corpo-fascist, often viciously so (Fox News on steroids). The print media is more varied, with a roughly 50/50 right/left split. Public political discussion is lively and free. In fact, Venezuela is one of the most vibrant democracies in the western hemisphere.
During the prior half decade, stations were de-licensed in several other countries--including in U.S. allies Colombia and Peru--for far less cause than the Chavez government had to de-license RCTV. Yet this action of the Chavez government--de-licensing RCTV--was repeatedly used, by the corpo-fascist press, to paint Chavez as a "dictator." They FAILED to mention these other de-licensings. They FAILED to inform the public that the airwaves are commonly owned by the public and licensed by the public with conditions. They FAILED to explain what RCTV had done (committed treason). They FAILED to report on the open, lively, varied political discussion in Venezuela, despite the attempt by corporations like RCTV to monopolize it. They utterly FAILED to provide ANY real world context.
They have done this to the Chavez government time and time again, on numerous issues. When the Chavez government put lifting term limits to A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, they called it tyranny. When that measure failed in a package of 60 amendments to the Constitution that were put to A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE (which included equal rights for women and gays, pensions for street vendors and other measures), and the Chavez government lost by a hair, and didn't challenge the vote--as they had a right to do--the corpo-fascist press suggested that Chavez had considered tyrannically overturning the vote. When the Chavez government then put lifting term limits, as a stand-alone issue, on the ballot, for A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, they cried "tyranny" once again. They ignored the openness and democracy of the Chavez government in putting issues vital to their power to A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE. They ignored Chavez's consistent 60% approval rating through a half decade of elections and opinion polls. And they called him a tyrant for LETTING THE PEOPLE DECIDE if he should run for office again (like our own FDR did, FOUR times).
See a pattern here? Time and again they have done this to Chavez and his government. And when they couldn't find an issue to distort, they made shit up (such as that Chavez is anti-Semitic).
I am not kidding about "Alice in Wonderland." We are getting the OPPOSITE of the truth, from our corpo-fascist press. And this includes the lot of them--the New York Slimes, the Associated Pukes, the Wall Street Urinal, Rotters, et al, all corporate-run TV/radio stations, corporate-run NPR, and the corporate-influenced BBCons. (Some of the worst twisted crapolo about the Chavez government that I have heard was on BBC radio.)
Here is the paradigm--
"Rumsfeld likens Venezuela’s Chavez to Hitler"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11159503/The OPPOSITE of the truth!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
