Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’ run-ins with the press have been well documented, but how do actual freedoms here match up with those in the region?
In 2007 some journalists’ rights groups criticized the decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the public broadcast license of RCTV, a popular and powerful channel which had participated in a coup and repeatedly and purposefully violated broadcast laws. Despite the fact that RCTV was simply moved to a different channel on cable and even the most critical media groups affirmed that the channel would have lost its license to broadcast in the USA or Europe,[i] the English-language international press was able to establish an almost universally accepted myth that there is no freedom of expression in Venezuela, or at the least, that there is massive censorship.
But in reality there is a uniquely impressive level of freedom of expression and diversity of opinion, especially compared to Colombia, the country in the region which is the closest ally of the U.S. and receives almost no criticism in this respect, or for many other human-rights abuses.
The closure of RCTV did carry a political backlash in Venezuela, mostly because its soap operas were popular and the channel which replaced it, avoiding politics completely and focusing on entertainment, turned out to be kind of boring. But the issue here is not if Mr. Chávez is perfect, but rather the comparative situation of the countries in the region, especially those which recently had a serious diplomatic crisis between them.
The Daily Journal, the English-language international newspaper in Caracas, Venezuela, commissioned a study of freedom of expression, especially the status of the media, in Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador. It consisted of analyzing the media in each country, interviewing journalists and the portions of the public at large who have tried to stay as informed as possible.
The results are unsurprising for workers in Venezuela but would be near-impossible to present in the major English-language media. That is, Venezuela is a country with some of the most critical media in the hemisphere despite the fact that Chávez currently 66.5%[ii] of popular support currently. In Colombia, there are almost no opposition voices in the major media, voicing openly critical opinions can actually get you killed, and sectors loyal to right-wing president Alvaro Uribe have just taken complete control of the Television Comission.[iii] In Ecuador, relatively fresh left-leaning president Rafael Correa experienced similar opposition to his political project from the private media in his country, but they tended to come behind him on the issue of protesting the fact that Colombia had recently bombed his country.
Despite movements by Chávez to counterbalance the media situation in the country in 2002—when every private television channel openly supported a coup and were able to physically take the only public channel off the air in order to claim universally that Chávez had resigned rather than been taken kidnapped by the military—it is still easier to find out the opposition viewpoint on any issue in the country than the viewpoint of the government.
Of the major daily newspapers, only one is not explicitly anti-Chávez. It is neutral and carries out more or less unbiased analysis and criticisms of the real failures of the government. The other two consist mainly of open attacks on officialism.[iv] In television the government has gained a little more ground as some of the private channels moderated their position slightly to bring it in line with what they realized was public opinion. But Globovisión, openly committed to unseating the government, remains the best-funded and most professional of the terrestrial stations, maintaining a large share of the market. Some Chavistas called for its closure recently, claiming a systematic agenda and manipulation of information, but Chávez turned this down, saying they’d fight the media wars with the weapons they had. But the point is, media wars are going on here. And RCTV continues to operate, on a different channel, with the same editorial viewpoints.
In Colombia there is no opposition television channel and there is no major opposition newspaper. There are small papers without influence, such as the Communist Party newsletter, but it’s tough for citizens to get a hold of the full story. Almost no one I interviewed had heard one of the most important details about the root of the diplomatic crisis with Ecuador and Venezuela, namely that the man killed on Ecuadorian soil, FARC guerrilla rebel Raul Reyes, was the point-man for planned liberations of hostages and was indeed only located by the Colombian army because he was in contact with the French government to do so. Chávez and Correa believed he was killed to stop the releases and the possibility that the FARC would look more human—this is part of why they responded with such anger to the action.
In any case, journalists have to be careful in Colombia. It one of the most dangerous countries in the world for reporters to operate.[v] Bogotá is a beautiful city and when I expressed a desire a couple times a desire to spend some time there, journalists and civilians alike said it would be impossible for me to there what I do here, that is, write about Andean politics in a way which does not demonize Hugo Chávez. “One way or another, they will shut you up,” said one professor of law and political science.
The media might seek to avoid controversy because a number of ugly things are happening in the country. The day that it was announced there had been a paramilitary massacre of a civilian village in the countryside, including of women and children, that story took a backseat in the media to the important headline expressing disgust at the discovery that one time the FARC leader Raul Reyes had a birthday party.
And as a result of Plan Colombia, through which the Colombian government has received 6 billion, members of the Colombian military are under intense pressure to register combat kills. Human rights groups report that as a result, there are one thousand known cases of civilians who have been killed and then had their bodies dressed up like guerrillas. [vi]
President Bush recently put a free trade agreement with Colombia before congress for approval. It is being held up by Democratic discomfort with the high and growing number of union leaders who are assassinated in Colombia. But labor organizing and oppositional journalism aren’t the only rights which are formally protected but which might get you hunted down and murdered afterwards. On March 6, there was a massive march against paramilitary violence and state crimes. Shortly afterwards four of the organizers were promptly assassinated.[vii]
The actual Colombian army is responsible for the deaths of the disguised bodies, but in the cases of assassinations of union leaders, journalists, and protest organizers, the culprits are usually right-wing paramilitary groups whose ties to the government are only fairly well-documented. But in the cases of the recent deaths of march organizers and union leaders, advisors close to Uribe have been implicated in informing the paramilitary groups of potential targets.[viii] None of the above happens in Venezuela, and hearing about it was more than a bit frightening.
In Ecuador, left-leaning president Correa has faced opposition from private media, leading to problems in the past. In cases that call to mind incidents in Bolivia and Venezuela, the opposition and the media decided take the perverse position that submitting a constitutional reform to national referendum was somehow undemocratic.
At one point Correa lashed out at the media as incompetent and abusive and said he would no longer give press conferences. He has backed down, and the situation has cooled down as he received support from his population and media for his response to Colombia’s bombing of his territory.
It is likely the trade deal with Colombia will either be rejected or highly modified as a result of concerns over union killings. But this is only one of many serious restrictions on freedoms in that country. And yet no U.S. president would even consider a preferential trade deal with Venezuela. Obama received criticism for saying he would even speak with Chavez, even while claiming he was an “enemy.” And all presidential candidates took the side of Colombia and criticized Ecuador when Correa became upset his country was bombed. Almost every country in the hemisphere but the U.S. criticized the action as a violation of national sovereignty.
The public of the English-language press is convinced that Chavez is evil and freedom of expression here is nonexistent. It makes sense why the local private media in Venezuela and Ecuador would oppose its presidents and Uribe would be able to count on his. Uribe is openly an ally of the business interests which own the media, and Chavez and Correa have projects which frighten them. And despite problems in Colombia, it is understandable why the Bush administration would stand behind Uribe—he is the last close ally of the current White House on the continent. But why should the English-language media do the same, concentrating on every struggle or supposed violation in one country, but almost completely ignoring much more serious problems in another? In the end this raises more questions about the legitimacy of the major English-language media than about the situation in Venezuela.
By Vincent Bevins
[ii] http://www.eltiempo.com/internacional/latinoamerica/noticias/ARTICULO-WEB-NOTA_INTERIOR-4077752.html
[iii] Revista Semana. Todopoderoso, 03/20/2008 http://www.semana.com/wf_InfoArticulo.aspx?IdArt=110389
[iv] The most balanced paper is Ultimas Noticias. El Universal and El Nacional are the major anti-government papers. Tal Cual is a particularly nasty anti-Chavez daily. They all have portions available online.
Is Tal Cual “nasty”? Thought that terminology was a tad unbalanced, which I’ve no problem with, but I didn’t think it was your style!
I’ll definitely bookmark this article. The corporate media is one of my favorite topics – and media whores among my favorite targets.
I don’t mean nasty in the sense that they are evil- just that they hold no punches and very openly attack the president almost every day. They certainly aren’t ashamed of it and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Some american anti-bush outlets do the same thing, it’s fine. But it is indeed nasty, which isn’t necessarily bad. Examples of Tal Cual nastiness- photoshopping a hitler moustache onto chavez with the headline “no more dictatorships”
or- photoshopping his head onto rambo’s body when the spat with colombia started. That one was kinda funny.
Vincent,
I think this piece is dead on. I still find it absolutely amazing that people such as those at caracaschronicles.blogspot.com can honestly claim that there is no freedom of expression in Venezuela, or even insinuate that it is threatened.
I have never seen a country anywhere in the world with media that is so adversarial to the government. Anyone can freely say anything they want in Venezuela, on TV, on the radio, in the newspapers, and there are literally no consequences (unless what you say is breaking a law or something, i.e. slander, etc.).
In Colombia there are consequences. You get killed. And in the United States you simply don’t have an avenue in which to make your criticisms. Noam Chomsky is a good example. Most Americans don’t even know who he is, because he is literraly blocked from getting any significant media space. Even critics as mild as Michael Moore are met with significant opposition in the US, with attempts to stop the distribution of his films, etc.
Gringo – it’s a pity that there is such total impunity in Venezuela. I saw Marcel Granier yesterday spouting off which was almost a call to the FAN to rebel. He also said that when chavismo leaves power there will be trials etc. for violation of human rights.
he also said that when the GN asked the students demonstration to disperse yesterday using a micrphone that this was a “violation of human rights”.
Hahaha, yes, it is a violation of human rights to ask students to disperse, but when police in Chile violently dispersed student protesters yesterday, and then put 100 of them in jail, that is perfectly okay. There’s not even a mention of it in the media.
Those poor students in Venezuela….. so abused and repressed! If only Venezuela’s democracy could be more like Chile’s and put protesting students in jail, or maybe it could be more like Colombia’s, and just kill them.
Well,
I understand people say things in Venezuela that would be illegal in other countries, but I don’t really have a problem with it. It’s better to be able to say anything, even the most slanderous things. The interesting issue comes up when the best-funded and, honestly, most skilled media production comes from the opposition and holds the most viewership/readership.
It’s understandable, though, that’s how the country was and it takes a while to change.
Latest invented “scandal” in the escualido media. The FARC video announcing the death of Marulanda was made by Telesur on a hacienda in Barinas according to “sources” of Nelson Bacagrande. Timochenko and other FARC leaders are now at a safe house in southern Caracas.
Hours of air time spent on this today on radio and TV. Proof – there is none just “unidentified sources”.
It all must be in the magic laptops.
Vincent – I disagree with your idea that people should be able to say what they want even if it is slanderous and untrue.
Heavy unilateral fines should be imposed the NEXT day and paid within a week for such behavior. This would soon stop the media games. Problem is though, there just no one with the political will to do this.
I also agree with Gonzalo Gomez that all private channels should be relegated to cable and satellite TV and the open airwaves dedicated to community TV and state TV. What right do these companies have to use the radioelectric spectrum in any case. It’s a privilege for those with big bucks and if the present system continues advertising revenues should be shared 50 – 50 with the state..
Arturo-
I agree about fines for deliberate or careless misinformation. That’s what all countries have. However, I think that outlets should be allowed to be openly anti-government or “mean,” in the way Tal Cual is, as long as they don’t lie.
I also tend to agree that placing public resources in the hands of the highest bidder inherently leads to media injustice.
However there are two things to remember- one, there have to be provisions to make sure that the community or state media has diversity of opinion. The provision that communal councils would have to elect the leaderships of community and state media seemed like a good idea, except the fact that only Chavistas join communal councils.
The other problem is larger and more generally applicable. That is that not the entire country supports the Bolivarian project and they are willing to violently oppose it. So, even if a certain direction is the just and correct direction, and supported by the democratic majority, you have to take into account the problems that might be caused by the opposition. Even if they are using underhanded tactics you can’t discount the fact that they might very well have the ability to derail certain changes using the power they have.
In any case I don’t think the steps you’ve outlined are currently supported by the majority of Venezuelans.
Also, unfortunately, the state doesn’t currently have the resources and know-how to produce tv at the quality of Globovision or RCTV.
TVes is boring and no one watches it.
Vincent – the strange question is why TeleSur is excellent in terms of presentation, content and credibility? I do not regard TeleSur as being inferior to Globo or RCTV. VTV has a lot to be desired – that I agree on.
Commercial TV consists of game shows, novelas which inevitably center on the lives and “problems” of the rich. Crime, court room dramas, hospitals etc. Just watch DirecTv and the way local channels such as Televen specialize in re- runs of CSI Miami, Dr. House and so on.
TVES – give it time. Some programs are very good but you have to be the type of person who likes watching Vale or Vive to appreciate this channel. In any case, let’s be honest RCTV pogramming appeals to the lowest common denominator in the human psyche and it’s easier to appeal to that based on superficialities than say, being humble and caring for other human beings as core values.
Communal Councils – it’s not true that only chavistas join communal councils. There are many middle class communal councils representing the interests of their urbanizations.
My standpoint is that TV stations should not be the privileged turf of rich corporations and individuals who represent the capitalist status quo. Media is too important to allow them to dominate families’ parlours as they have always done.
Your are never going to have a revolution and a new society with these values being espoused 24 hours a day in peoples homes, no matter how you spin it.
The cuurent TV in Venezuela is designed to “dumb down” the population. That’s it.
I agree with most of what you said. Telesur is excellent. I didn’t say TVes would never be good, but it’s not yet.
I also agree that typical RCTV programming isn’t very enriching, which is why I don’t watch that kind of junk.
Couple of corrections, though.
The current tv is not designed to dumb down the population. It’s designed to make money. It probably ends up dumbing us down though.
And-there are very few escualidos in communal councils. I didn’t say there were only poor communal councils, I said there are almost only chavista ones. It’s unfortunate because ideally the opposition would recognize they are now legal entities and should use them for their own purposes. Instead, they prefer to protest their very existence.
Yeah I was going to say the quality of production on the state channels is actually pretty good — more than good enough for the content they show. What you meant is probably that they dont have the expertise in creating the kind of entertainment that is going to eat into RCTV’s viewership. Arturo hit it on the head when he said it’s inherently more difficult to produce entertainment that appeals to everybody, when you are trying to raise the intellectual standard.
Let’s not fool ourselves — the people behind the state PR and media are clever. They are very quick to produce clips and ‘propaganda’ of the highest quality. Talk shows habitually present the participants in an open format, where you can often see their entire lower bodies. This, combined with the simple set designs and fresh colours, adds to the perception of honesty and accountability.
Arturo- if you enforce the regulations and rules you speak of, you give the oppo a lot of ammunition which will be repeated in the international media, but what will be the benefit for the revolution? Only escualidos believe Globo bullsh*t. Everyone else knows they are compulsive distortion artists.
@Arturo, concerning the sources of Nelson Bacargrande: They are plainly visible in the video. It is THE PLANTS. The plants you see in the video come from the lowlands of the Orinoco river, now where is that ? Not in the mountain jungles of Colombia. As you yourself admitted: You have no idea.
Tom – the PLANTS you refer to are also to be found near the banks of the river Arauca. Do you know whee this river is?
All this BS about where the FARC video was shot is just another example of how the private media “continues to set the agenda”.
Nope, Arturo. the plants which are visible in the video are – in this combination – found around the Orinoco or in Amazonia.
Haha, let’s be honest here. None of us are experts in botany. We have to defer to experts. Ha I guess Venezuela is so politicized Chavismo and the opposition have their own botanical experts.
Carlos- Telesur is very good, VTV is good, Avila does some very interesting and creative things.
TVes is supposed to be entertaining and is not.
And, Globovision is the best-staffed and funded news outlet.
As a journalist working at a newspaper, Globovision’s website has the most updates and the most information. Maybe “only escualidos believe their bullshit” but they are invaluable in reporting things quickly and comprehensively. This is likely a matter of experience and funding.
TVes is just one year old–that makes it a baby just learning to walk. It’s going to toddle, wobble and fall; that’s normal. It’s still finding its legs. And it DID arise rather quickly in the vacuum left by the non-renewal of RCTV’s licence; no wonder they’re still scrambling to produce something that a junk-fed viewing audience will tune in to see.
No matter. It will come; VTV is generally good, even if it is a bit talky/wonky for many people’s taste. Not enough violence, sex or sensationalism for the junk-fed, but that’s all right with me; I learn a lot watching their videos on Aporrea. It’s a good antidote to all the rubbish on Globoterror. (Whose reports they routinely dismantle; that’s great fun for me to watch.
)