Slashdot Mirror
Venezuela's Contrarian TV Station Survives on YouTube
carlos_J writes "Ars Technica is running a story about RCTV, a Venezuelan television station whose broadcast license was refused renewal by the government. In response, the station turned to YouTube to get its message out. Says Ars, 'El Observador clips have been seen 175,000 times since May 28, and the channel is currently the most-subscribed channel of the week. While putting the station's shows on YouTube is an excellent idea, YouTube still lacks anything near the reach of over-the-air broadcasts. But the use of the site to avoid censorship is growing, and it's not hard to imagine a day in the near future when the site (or sites like it) becomes as essential as local TV stations. As that happens, YouTube will come into even more conflicts with governments that have an interest in controlling what their citizens see, It's already happening--Thailand's king, for instance, has a thing for iPods but isn't too keen on YouTube. Will Hugo Chavez show more tolerance? '"
No, he'll build more jails.
Magic 8-ball says: "Not likely".
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
A joke of a country that takes better care of its poor than the United States.
Will there be war? I hope so, since it makes such great television.
I guess will see Limbaugh and the rest moving to You Tube.
Telecommuting! What about socialization?
Search for "islam" or "christianity" on youtube and check the wars and the hate muslims show. For eachother, for women, but most of all, for us.
This just screams Transmetropolitan. The Hole was YouTube crossed with Freenet.
uh... he'd be the guy who shut down the live television channel
(puts on thinking cap)
hmmm...
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Isn't he gay?
I keed I keed...
Thailand's king is very fond of youtube. It's his followers that are making problems. Truth be told, he did help a lot of people, and he didn't mind the youtube debacle at all.
He just shutdown a tv station because they didn't wholly support him, but he'll be ok with YouTube doing the same thing? ... yeah I'm thinking not.
The station called for the assassination of Chavez. No wonder its license wasn't renewed. I wonder how long a US network would last if they tried the corresponding thing here.
They have the right to free speech but not using the public airwaves to distribute propaganda produced by the wealthy oil interests that runs counter to the interests of general public. Nobody is stopping them from joining private cable distribution.
The airwaves are a national resource, and belong to the people. Just like Venezuela's other natural resources.
I thought H. Chavez was cool because he hates Dubya.
I was always told that the revolution would not be televised.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Yeah, you go to YouTube for the counter-revolution but three hours later you're watching old music videos and wondering where the hell the time went.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
And please don't think I'm defending Chavez himself in any ways, but let's remember that Thatcher refused to renew the license of Thames Television. True, their license was lost for capitalist reasons (not being profitable enough), and RCTV was removed for political reasons, but many would argue that those reasons are not really all that different.
And let's be honest about this. In America in 2007, if CNN started taking an active role in the violent removal of Bush (who, while contraversial, was democratically elected), how long do you think the Bush administration would put up with that?
Chavez is authoritarian, heavy-handed and a bit megalomaniacal. But sometimes all of us need to take a good look in the mirror about the state of democracy here before we get all high and mighty about defending democracy elsewhere.
"But the use of the site to avoid censorship is growing, and it's not hard to imagine a day in the near future when the site (or sites like it) becomes as essential as local TV stations. As that happens, YouTube will come into even more conflicts with governments that have an interest in controlling what their citizens see, It's already happening--Thailand's king, for instance, has a thing for iPods but isn't too keen on YouTube. Will Hugo Chavez show more tolerance? "
. asp?id=1941">Military-Industria-CONGRESSIONAL Complex?
Do you think that there is still hope for democracy and freedom in the United States Of America given the current a href="http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article
Will YouTube help foment The Revolution?
Last I heard, he wasn't much into building jails. That seems to be more of a US thing, which has the highest prison population rate in the world.
And since you seem to imply Venezuela would build jails for political prisoners, would you have a few examples of such political prisoners?
Another perfect reason that the Internet is the most pure form is Anarchy ever created in the history of the human race. Anyone can do anything they want regardless of what anyone else wants. Anyone has power and anyone can effect everything. I figure all governments hate the Internet, secretly or otherwise.
The fastest route to bringing Venezuela back to reality is simply to stop buying Citgo products. Dry up the money. Dry up Chavez...
"Communism is man's exploitation of man. Capitalism is just the opposite."
you guys are so brain wash by american media.. please go find your sources of the truth on independent media inside the US or in another country... everyone knows that US mass media twisted information and show us mexican images not from Venezuela.. also that the mayority of the people supports this decision and they are not shutting it down only not renewing is public license, since they are not unbiased, so they have to move to cable or satellite totally understandable.. LOL I can't believe people is falling for this one.. http://www.iacenter.org/Venezuela/venez_media0607. html
read the facts!
I was the one that submitted the story. I think that RCTV was smart by using Youtube to get their message out after they were forced to shut down. I have never been to Venezuela but I have lived in Latin America and I don't think many poor people in Venezuela have computers much less the internet.
If in Brazil, a single judge could ban youtube, imagine what Hugo Chávez can do.
It's good that youTube is there to provide an outlet to anyone who has a video they'd like the world to see, and I'm sure the fans of that channel's shows will be happy to see them there. But considering that the station supported a coup to overthrow the democratically elected president of their nation, I can't blame him for taking their antennas away.
You can't take the sky from me...
Okay, I think that refusing to renew the license of this broadcaster was a bad move. BUT, under the legal theory that controls this sort of thing, it's pretty much a no-brainer.
i n_Venezuela#Events_leading_up_to_the_coup
Those broadcast licenses are *supposed* to be held in the public interest. This TV station supported a military coup against the democratically elected government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Attempted_coup_
That's a pretty unambiguous abuse of the public trust. Can you imagine what would happen to NBC's affiliate broadcast licenses if they supported a military coup against our government? If they weren't tried for treason and shot, they certainly wouldn't be allowed to keep broadcasting.
Which brings us to the subject of restraint - actually, Chavez has shown a remarkable degree of restraint so far against those who tried to overthrow him militarily. They haven't even filed charges against the military officers - the man that the coup tried to install as President was Chavez' opponent in following last Venezuelan election.
I seriously doubt that he's going to try and block Youtube.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
While the suppression of dissent is always dishonourable, the fact remains that RCTV actively supported the coup against Chavez a few years back. FAIR has some details. Now I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that if, some TV network in the United States tried to incite the masses to revolt against George W. Bush, and the revolt was put down, the broadcast licences for that network would be cancelled. At least Chavez isn't doing what the Russians have been doing lately.... "not" killing reporters. While I still have deep concerns over issues of freedom of speech and the press in Venezuela, I still applaud Mr. Chavez in taking strides to combat poverty in his own country, and in the United States through his heating oil donations.
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
Rather, it will be posted on YouTube.
In my life I have learned that there are some good people who have terrible reputations because they have sinned against the shapers of opinion. Hugo Chavez is almost certainly one of these, a democratically elected leader who committed the crime of trying to spend oil profits on the poor instead of handing them over to American oil executives. The Bush government (never democratically elected, having stolen Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004) fomented at least one failed coup attempt against Chavez. So Chavez steps on private broadcasters who want to bring him down? Fox News was instrumental in installing our own torture-loving, war-mongering, never-elected wiretapper-in-chief; if I were the new president, I'd be just as rough on Fox as Chavez is on the would-be Foxes of his nation. And ask yourself: how much of what you "know" about him is from sources who want to destroy him? The poor of Venezuela LOVE this man. Do the poor of America love Bush? Could Bush walk through the Lower 9th Ward of New Orleans without bodyguards? That's what I thought.
I thought we were supposed like Chavez because he is anti-American but now he is anti-You Tube and I just don't know what to do!!!
I'd imagine that YouTube will take an increasing role in self-censoring to adhere to local government regulations. Already, YouTube complies with U.S. DMCA take-down requests, so why wouldn't they comply with a Venezuelan government requests to filter the content according to Venezuelan laws?
YouTube's ownership by Google makes it more vulnerable to coercion by governments that can threaten to turn-off Google unless YouTube complies with local content regulations.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 was a failed military coup d'état on April 11, 2002. It saw the brief overthrow and arrest of leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, the dissolution of the democratically elected National Assembly, the dissolution of the Supreme Court, and the repeal of the country's constitution.
Rightist businessman and Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce (Fedecámaras) president Pedro Carmona was subsequently installed as interim president for 47 hours. In Caracas, the coup led to riots and a pro-Chávez uprising that the Metropolitan Police attempted to suppress. Key sectors of the military and parts of the anti-Chávez movement refused to back Carmona. The pro-Chávez Presidential Guard eventually retook the Miraflores presidential palace without firing a shot, leading to the collapse of the Carmona government and the re-installation of Chávez as president.
The coup was publicly condemned by Latin American nations (the Rio Group presidents were gathered together in San José, Costa Rica, at the time, and were able to issue a joint communiqué) and international organizations. The United States, which had acknowledged the de facto Carmona government, condemned the coup after Chávez had been restored to power. Upon news of Chávez's return, Condoleezza Rice, then National Security Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush, said: "We do hope that Chávez recognizes that the whole world is watching and that he takes advantage of this opportunity to right his own ship, which has been moving, frankly, in the wrong direction for quite a long time."
You can't take the sky from me...
I love all the liberals who are now trying to defend their anti-Capitalist hero Chavez on this point by claiming that since the news station was involved in trying to oust Chavez before, Chavez is justified. But they only think that because they think Chavez is a priori a good leader. If it was a tv station that was trying to oust a leader they didn't like -- say, impleach Bush -- they'd be all for it and declare any pull of the license as retaliatory and censorship. Come on, people, stand up for your principles for a change!
And how long before he "doesn't renew" YouTube's license?
Let's face it. People who don't care about being filled with propaganda won't watch your "free" news anyway. They prefer flashy news, shocking news, anything that's entertaining and thrilling, but they rarely care about the content. You won't even reach them if you could broadcast it through standard means.
People who do care about "hearing the other side" will try to hear it, no matter what. And all you got to do is point them at the YouTube link for your news broadcast, and they will watch it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let's pretend the government owns the airwaves as a public resource and licenses its use, ie the license to use the airwaves is granted by the government, not anyone's God-given right. Let's pretend a TV station who holds a government license for use of public airwaves sponsored a coup against a democratically-elected government. Let's pretend that coup attempt failed. Wouldn't the rule of law require that the people who attempted to overthrow the government be held accountable? Wouldn't a reasonable repercussion be that the TV station involved in the coup have its license revoked for its attempted overthrow of the government? Wouldn't it even seem especially charitible of the government to refrain from taking special action and simply refuse to renew the license when it came up for renewal?
Because that's exactly what happened here.
I have no sympathy for this station. Freedom of speech, my ass.
Tyrants almost always disguise their lust for power as sympathy for the persecuted and downtrodden. Castro did it in the 50's; Chavez is doing the same thing now.
I hope our youth are paying attention to what's happening in Venezuela right now, because I think the next 20 years will be an invaluable lesson in how a dictator-to-be dupes a populace with promises of govenrment-provided prosperity and national unity. In other words, he's going to steal from the minority rich to buy the support of the majority poor, and anyone who dissents will be silenced.
Pay attention, folks! Dictators haven't changed much since Lenin, despite each's promises of a socialist utopia. Maybe one of these centuries we'll recognize these tyrants before we let them rise to power and exploit their people.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
You can't take the sky from me...
I know it all looks rather dictatoreque of Chavez to refuse to renew their licence, but if any western media channel behaved in the way they did, normal regulatory bodies would have shut them down long ago. Imagine the bias of Fox news multiplied by 100 and you begin to get the picture. During the coup attempt against the Chavez government in 2002 the news channels deliberately manipulated news footage to make it look like Chavez supporters were shooting people. What do you think would happen to a US TV Station if it did something like that and the whole Channel was behind it? I should imagine if the BBC had supported a foreign-backed coup against the democratically elected government of the UK, they would be shut down as well.
What Venezuela needs is effective media monitors like Ofcom, perhaps with international observers. Also, the reason we keep hearing so much about Chavez is not because of his actions, it is because he is not a US ally. If he was a US ally and was doing these things, the media would be largely disinterested. That is important to realise. For example, much was made of his enabling act, yet the same kind of act was used by several previous Venezuelan presidents. The difference being that they were US allies and he isn't.
That anyone would defend Hugo Chavez and his actions in any way.
Chavez is nothing more than a protodictator who will soon take Venezuela down the same path Castro took Cuba, into poverty and oppression.
We've been through this before folks, socialism/communism leads to nothing but bad things. The fact that he throws some heating oil at the Kennedys changes nothing.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The best part of political stability is that your right to be left alone is preserved. Most Latin American countries solved the worse part of their political problems two decades ago. I am really sorry that unlike us, you have to be going through all this now. I am really sorry that the common Venezuelan, that should be able to take care of his family or study without being bothered will have instead to forcibly pick sides due to all the political extremism Venezuela has been going through. And the first thing extremism breeds is stupidity. Anyone that sees those RCTV videos on Youtube will see how moronically single-minded their coverage is on the one hand, and how criminally hypocritical Chavez's (who promoted a failed coup-d'état against the government) reaction is to this. RCTV's calls for "freedom of the press" and "democracy" are trite. Chavez's "socialism" and "bolivarianism" are trite. What is a reasonable man to do when living in an age of extremes, and extreme stupidity?
Given recent decisions by numerous web content providers I would think YouTube will be blocking the rogue broadcasters after short blackout of the site by the offended country.
The minute YouTube began actively filtering submissions (in other situations) they opened themselves to accountability for all submissions.
I have to think that user tagging/moderation would have been a better way to go... That type of system is actually the main reason I prefer this news site over most others. It allows the website to actually take a stand on many types of speech issues instead of being forced to bow down to whatever entity gets pissy with them.
Regards.
I like the YouTube idea, but even that has its caveats. It would be nice if they set up a feed for the Democracy Player. That could be less prone to external influences (if they'll take down a video of a car crash because the state of New Jersey asks them to, what's to stop Venezuela from requesting YouTube pull a video for being critical of the government?)
The correct response against people plotting and encouraging a coup isn't to shut down their television station. The proper response is to jail those people for encouraging a coup. I'm not familiar with Venezualian laws, but I'm pretty sure that plotting to overthrow the government is illegal in most countries. Round up those responsible and put them on trial.
But because the television station was shut down first, before arresting any of the station operators, proves that Chavez's decision was a political one to silence free speech from the opposition.
Shoot yourself in the face.
Before you cry me a river, this is the coup TV station we're talking about. The ones that plotted a coup to take down the elected government.
The US backed this coup, sending a rendition flight to capture Chavez and repeating the lies the TV station spread during the coup. So I guess they're behind this piece of shit stirring.
http://www.countercurrents.org/lendman280507.htm
"In spite of their lawlessness, the Chavez government treated all five broadcasters gently opting not to prosecute them, but merely refusing to renew one of RCTV's operating licenses (its VHF one) when it expired May 27 (its cable and satellite operations are unaffected) - a mere slap on the wrist for a media enterprise's active role in trying to overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan president and his government. The article explained if an individual or organization of any kind incited public hostility, violence and anti-government rebellion under Section 2384 of the US code, Title 18, they would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years for the crime of sedition."
Venezuela blocks YouTube.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I just hope Chavez says he likes open source like Castro and then Stallman can prove he's ok really because free software is more important than free people.
is that hugo chavez's socialist policies are supported by oil revenue... oil revenue mostly from the great capitalist satan to the north
it's ironic for both countries. for the usa, it is ironic that it is american dollars via their gas guzzling suvs that fuels this vociferous critic of the usa
for venezuela, it is ironic for the same reason. there is no inherent strength in socialist economic policies. but it doesn't matter when your economy is enjoying massive inflows of foreign wealth... foreign capitalist wealth. if only castro were so lucky to be sitting on a giant fountain of oil, eh? but castro is enjoying a foreign inflow of aid himself... from chavez... who again, gets it from the usa via oil. its hilarious
without american dollars via oil revenue, there would be no chavez. chavez is just a giant gasbag demagogue. but i don't mind him. if he uses all of that oil money to actually aid the poor, rather than going to a few rich venezuelans, well then good for chavez. for doing that, he can demonify the usa all he wants. bush raped the pope, bush drinks oil from iraqi children's skulls, blah blah blah, whatever. let him hurl his invectives forever. it's just a lot of hot air, demagoguery in the service of solidfying political base via antipathy towards the usa. who cares. keep aiding the poor chavez, and you can say whatever you want about bush
i mean its not like he's using his oil revenue to fund reactionary wahabbi islamic madrassas that fuels fundamentalist islamic terrorism that revisits american shores in the form of 9/11, right?
now what country would that be? (COUGH our good "friends" the saudis COUGH)
hey america: you like your big oil guzzling suv huh?
well, via $, it brings you chavez, via $ it brings you osama bin laden, and via global warming it brings you hurricane katrina
still like your gas guzzling suv dear american suburbanite?
your paying a pretty penny for it, way above and beyond that soon to be $4/ gallon pricetag
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This point is so important, and it is not getting across the propaganda layer in the US. Chávez is the bad guy who actually wants Venezuela to control its oil reserves. There are bunches of other televisions supporting the opposition, such as Globovisión and Venevisión.
While obviously politically motivated, Chávez' move is fully legal by Venezuelan, US or any other nation's standards, and far from a "shutdown". They had a licence, they tried to bring democracy down and install a dictatorship that would have acted as the puppet of a foreign power, and, guess what, the government says "Sorry, we don't really trust you with informing the public, you kind of got us shot to install your dictatorial figurehead, nothing personal". What would have happened if CNN had supported a failed coup by, say, Noam Chomsky against George Bush?
RCTV's factual record is that they deliberately manipulated the news to destabilise a democratically elected government and supported a coup. I mean, this is called high treason.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
"There is no democracy in the world that would allow a television station that participated in an illegal coup of a democratically elected leader to be on the air."
Hmm, that's funny because Venezuela's democracy did just that. It stayed on the air for FIVE YEARS before it was shut down.
If it was illegal, how come no one was prosecuted for it? How come the station was allowed to continue broadcasting even though they were apparently a direct threat?
It doesn't add up. If the station was as bad as those who are denouncing it claim, then it should have been closed down immediately. Why wasn't it?
"Mission Acomplished" (probably dressed as a paratrooper in a chinese aircraft carrier, a la Bush).
RCTV was the channel with the most geographical reach (nearly 100% of the country). Here in Venezuela, the "regional TV station" is a very recent phenomenon. Most of the TV stations are repeaters of national chains, and being the oldest, RCTV had the most coverage.
By replacion RCTV with a new station, Chavez acomplishes two goals, get out of the way a big nuance, and replacing that signal with on he can easily control (he is not controlling it yet, but now is quite easy).
In a country were internet penetration is low, and Broadband even lower, and where internet is mostly used by people who already opose Chavez, loosing the free/broadcast opposing medium is quite a blow for disension (I will not YET claim is a loss in freedom of expression).
Anyway, as I sit here (in Maracay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maracay) configuring my new laptop, I receive (Radio, MSN, SMS) reports of protests all over the country... But do not be fooled, these are not riots (thanks the lord), and Chavez already survived a general 3 month strike. Therefore, in about two weeks the protests will subside, the thing will be forgoten, and the same university students who are protesting now will be watching RCTV in YouTube using the campus broadband...
Is a pitty...
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
'cause he actually particapated in a failed coupe back in '92(Ars has already updated their article to show this). His goal isn't shutting down those who were necessarily against him, it's bringing as much as he can under governement control. He's recently enacted a bill where the private oil companies must give up at least 60%+ of the operations in the country(these were private companies that had already bought the rights, set up machinery, trained workers, and made Venzuela the oil producer it is today). He is flat out nationializing the country. While alot of what he is doing is helping his people, particularly those who usually suffer the most under government, it's not necessarily better for them in the long run.
Also, boycotting Citgo is hardly effective. They are just a gasoline distributer for Venezuela. The oil from the country goes out to all the sellers, except those who refuse to do so. Here is a good explantion.
import system.cool.Sig;
Contrary to some reports, the RCTV station is not being closed down. Rather, the Venezuelan government has chosen not to renew RCTV's licence to broadcast via Venezuela's Channel Two when this expires on 27 May. RCTV will continue to be able to operate freely in Venezuela on the public airwaves on cable and on satellite, as will the many TV and radio stations that RCTV owner Empresas 1BC runs across Venezuela[i].
Why has the government decided not to renew RCTV's licence?
As with other democracies, Venezuelan law allows the government the right to grant broadcast licences, renew them or let them expire. The government has made the decision not to renew because of RCTV's violation of numerous laws - most notably the active support it gave to a military coup in April 2002 to overthrow the democratically-elected Chávez government.
In addition to its violation of laws that prohibit the incitement of political violence, RCTV has not co-operated with tax laws and has failed to pay fines issued by the Telecommunications Commission.
RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup
In April 2002, a violent military coup temporarily overthrew the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chávez. At least 13 people were killed and in the 48 hours that the coup plotters held power there was violent repression against those protesting for Chávez's return and many were shot at by the police. The coup plotters overturned key components of Venezuela's democratic constitution - closing down the elected National Assembly, the Supreme Court and other state institutions.
Sections of Venezuela's private media - including RCTV - played an active role in supporting this coup which became known as the world's first 'media coup'. One of the coup leaders Vice-Admiral Victor Ramirez Perez, underlined the key role of the media in organising the coup, stating, "We had a deadly weapon - the media." The media's role is highlighted in the documentaries, The Revolution Will Not be Televised and the new John Pilger film The War on Democracy.[ii]
RCTV's specific involvement included running adverts encouraging the public to take to the streets and to overthrow the democratically elected president.[iii] As www.venezuelanalysis.com highlighted, RCTV was the first to broadcast the false claim that Chávez's supporters were shooting at opposition demonstrators, which then served as a justification for high level military generals to declare their disobedience to the government[iv] and RCTV also showed exclusive interviews with coup plotters.
RCTV's involvement was publicly highlighted on a television chat show the day after the coup, where journalists and military plotters boasted of their collaboration in creating a violent confrontation that could be used to justify the overthrow of the government. In this exchange, one conspirator says: "I must thank Venevision and RCTV" for the role it played[v]. RCTV's participation was so extensive that its production manager, Andrés Izarra, who opposed the coup, immediately resigned so as not to become an accomplice.
In addition to direct misrepresentation of events, RCTV also censored news reporting to try to stop the public from finding out what was really happening. RCTV's owner Marcel Granier ordered on the day of the coup and the following day that there was to be "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others" on the station. [vi] A managing producer of one of the station's news programmes affirmed this when testifying to the Venezuelan National Assembly. Instead, in the days of the coup, when hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to demand the return of President Chavez, RCTV showed only cartoons[vii]. This is in clear violation of regulations contained in Arti
minorty rich is a tyranny all in itself
in any society of wide income disparity, that is, a small pool of rich and a large pool of poor, there is always this essential story:
1. minority rich angers poor with self-serving policies
2. populist rides poor's discontent to revolutionary power
3. populist enriches his cronies, ossifies, and creates a new minority rich class
rinse and repeat forever
this story has held true from the french revolution to chavez (well, since before the french revolution with various peasant revolts, unsuccessful and successful), and will continue for many years to come
UNLESS:
a strong vibrant middle class emerges. only through a strong middle class does a country enjoy social and political stability
such as the usa. you have various wackadoodles in the usa talking about revolution, but such a thing is basically impossible amongst the suburban suv driving starbucks drinking set, which is, the majority. there will be no revoltuion in the usa, ever, UNLESS:
take note usa: rising ranks of the poor and ultrarich. the usa is trending back towards an unjust society: the middle class shrinks, the rich grow richer, the poor ranks rise
the middle class should be dominant and huge. only such a country can be stable and prosperous and truly just
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Rule by Decree revisited,
e zuela#TITLE_IV_PUBLIC_POWER
Article 74: Statutes whose abrogation are requested on the initiative of a number of voters constituting at least 10% of the voters registered in the civil and electoral registry, or by the President* of the Republic taken at a meeting of the Cabinet, shall be submitted to a referendum for its abrogation in whole or in part. Decrees with the force of law issued by the President of the Republic, making use of the authority prescribed under article 236, section 8 of this Constitution, may also be submitted to an abrogatory referendum, when it is requested by a number of voters constituting at least 5% of the total number of voters registered in the civil and electoral registry. In order for the abrogatory referendum to be valid, a number of voters constituting at least 40% of the total number of voters registered in the civil and electoral registry shall be essential. It shall not be possible to submit budget laws to an abrogatory referendum, neither those establishing or modifying taxes, relating to public credit, to amnesty, the protection, guaranteeing and developing human rights, nor those which ratify international treaties. There shall not be more than one abrogatory referendum on the same matter during the same constitutional term.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ven
http://use.perl.org
the only thing pointed at Gen. Rincon was a TV camera, right?
Oh wait, you were serious.
There is reportedly now only one small Venezuelan media outlet remaining that's "said to be still willing to report honestly on events in Venezuela", and Chavez has apparently threatened to shut it down too.
Students protesting RCTV's shutdown also report that security forces went out of their way to kill one of the protesters. True or false? Again, hard to say for sure, but either way you can bet that most Venezuelan media won't report it.
RCTV getting round censorship laws is great, companies in general being above laws is just plain scary... I've elaborated on my blog so I won't do it here.
So did Nancy Pelosi, who said she also found Bashir Assad to be charming and gracious. And she's the Speaker of the Senate, so it must be true.
And a Maoist admirer to boot.
He may also be insane.
He actually plans to empty cities and force people out into the jungle. Just like Pol Pot.
And he wasn't re-elected, not when so many of the voting machines had exactly the same numbers.
Just wanted to comment that the up and down karma I've experienced over this is quite humorous. There is nothing I've said even remotely "flamebait" or "troll"ish and yet looking through the karma I'm being attacked left and right.
If you don't like what I'm saying, respond to me. I'm not being rude, or in anyway limiting your right to counter my claims if they are incorrect. But moderating me like you are is cowardice.
Thanks.
http://use.perl.org
Take Citgo's assets and give them to the oil companies that Chavez has stolen from.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
oh yeah! save it and your cia. stupid monkey
Only the license to broadcast via the public airwaves was lost. The station is still available via cable and satellite in Venezuela.
Or maybe, maybe a media's involvement in a coup is through propaganda? Maybe? The broadcast of negative opinions or even slanderous lies against a government is no more participation in a coup than saying "Kennedy is a monster who eats babies for breakfast and he should be shot" would have been participation in his assassination. Either they were materially connected with the coup, in which case there's conspiracy for treason and they should face whatever punishment may warranted for such; or they were just talking smack, in which case, leave them alone, even if they are wrong.
Of course, there's the added complication of using public radio spectrum, so an argument can be made that the public (presumably represented by the government) has some right to say who can or can't use that spectrum, and thus has the right to just not renew a troublesome station's broadcast license. Now, if they get in shit for their YouTube "broadcasts", that will cast bad light on the state of freedom in Venezuala.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Or maybe, maybe a media's involvement in a coup is through propaganda? Maybe? The broadcast of negative opinions or even slanderous lies against a government is no more participation in a coup There were 5 private stations and one public station in Venezuela.
When the coup happened, all 5 private stations lied and said the president had dissolved the government and resigned, and the one public station was sabotaged when the legitimate government made an address to the public to inform them of what was really happening.
Now instead of having five times as many private stations as public stations, there's only twice as many private stations. OMFG, t3h cens0rships!?
You can't take the sky from me...
"So when a leader actually does something to help the poor, it's bribing...
You're not the first to echo the sentiment, but every time I hear it, it drives me crazy."
No surprise there, based on your posts you're incredibly stupid.
When you're paying the poor off with money that should be used for long term improvements so you can stay in power now, it's bribing.
See you said "helping" which betrays your clear desire to color the debate instead of thinking about it. NO ONE said "helping" but that's immediately what you assumed. Again because you're stupid.
See now stupid? I helped you be slightly less ignorant, so thank me. The stupid part though, that's beyond my ability.
I cannot say that I know what is actually going on in Venezuela because I've never seen it with my own eyes but after hearing here and there in the news about what Chavez has done (like build schools, hospitals, etc.) with petro dollars I'm inclined to think that our fucked up administration has given the order to paint a bad picture of Chavez so that we hate him.
I also think that if there was a water well that had been privatized was taken over by Chavez so that all the poor could have free water, our news would point out how he is taking by force private property.
After seeing over and over what our presidential administration has done and the media has not made a deal out of it, wait - they fucking aided and abetted him (!), I'm inclined to think that Chavez is the best edition of a benevolent dictator, an enlightened despot, that the world has known in quite some time.
Prison Populations up, Crime Rates Down! How is this possible?
You know, be responsible for the torture of some human beings, i.e.
There were reports of unlawful killings of criminal suspects by police. Most cases were not investigated and the perpetrators remained unpunished. The lack of independence of the judiciary remained a concern. Persistent social and economic inequalities continued to limit access to the economic and social rights of Afro-descendants and indigenous peoples.
Compared to their 1998 report (right before Chavez was elected with a 58% majority):
At least 10 prisoners of conscience were detained during the year. Torture by the security forces was widespread, in some cases leading to death. Prison conditions amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Scores of people, including children, were extrajudicially executed by the security forces
Progress takes time.
You can't take the sky from me...
Same to you buddy!
It may feel very comforting to you to come up with a blanket criticism of anybody whose analysis is not in 180 degree opposition to the establishment, but some people actually pursue intellectual honesty.
And for the record, I hate Bush and Chavez. That might be difficult for people brainwashed by Chomsky to comprehend, but make of it what you will.
Are you really sure about that? By and large, the US mainstream media doesn't care about Chavez one way or another. As an experiment, try turning on CNN or Fox News for a bit. Odds are that you won't hear a thing about Chavez; I'd posit that 95% of Americans have no idea who he is. The place where you start hearing about him a lot is on NPR, the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, or here on Slashdot.
I don't think that this is anything particular to Chavez - this is generally Americans' attitude to events that by and large do not affect the US, and the mainstream media just reflects that for better or worse.
The newly nationalized telecom company CANTV, is already blocking access to two strong government opposing sites that have an online radio show (radionexx and caracasradiotv). Users of ABA (CANTVs broadband service) are being redirected to google and the red cross site.
Meanwhile, only ONE TV station is showing the student protest because all the government owned and government compliant TV stations are staying out of it.
And then the Chavez supporters have the nerve to criticize the April 11 media blackout...
but if any western media channel behaved in the way they did, normal regulatory bodies would have shut them down long ago. Imagine the bias of Fox news multiplied by 100 and you begin to get the picture.
Forgive me, but what part of:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
do you not understand?
During the coup attempt against the Chavez government in 2002 the news channels deliberately manipulated news footage to make it look like Chavez supporters were shooting people. What do you think would happen to a US TV Station if it did something like that and the whole Channel was behind it?
Well, the factuality of this claim is in question. Assuming that we're talking about the same deaths during the coup (we might not be, of course), at least Freedom House agrees with the claim.
What would happen to a U.S. station if it incorrectly claimed government officials were involved in illegal murders? Well, we can already see how CNN was treated. Even if they hadn't issued a retraction they would have kept their broadcast license. Take a look around at all of the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense - where is the heavy hand of the U.S. government to silence it or keep it off the airwaves? Excluding the minds of the paranoid and delusional, nowhere. The U.S. government allows it. Why? Because we allow free speech and this is, in spite of all the nonsense we hear about, a free country. If anything the U.S. greatly benefits from having a free market of ideas, which inevitably includes numerous lemons.
What Venezuela needs is effective media monitors like Ofcom, perhaps with international observers.
Oh yeah, that's a great idea. Let's bring the magically impartial people who, unlike the rest of the world, do not bring in bias to their thought process. Then let's make them the ultimate gate keepers of what the people get to hear. And instead of censors, let's call them "media monitors" or "observers". That would be double plus good! No need to let the people hear those pesky claims of others and evaluate sources. They're too dumb for that sort of thing.
Also, the reason we keep hearing so much about Chavez is not because of his actions, it is because he is not a US ally. If he was a US ally and was doing these things, the media would be largely disinterested.
As an American who has lived in Latin America before (2 years in Argentina - slums of Buenos Aires, 3 months Chile - rather nice parts of Santiago), I must agree that media coverage of Latin America is lacking in the U.S.. Most people simply don't care about the area here in the states (prior to traveling to Argentina, numerous people asked me what part of Africa it was in), and that leads to little coverage unless something bad happens like, say, a country turning from democracy to a dictatorship very, very quickly.
We can play with the red herring of "people only dislike Venezuela because he dislikes the U.S.!" all we want. No need to defend the U.S. on this note - it has in the past, does in the present, and will in the future associate with many unsavory characters. That's the way international relations work, and if you can find a single country that hasn't done the same then please let me know. The question is not so much one of International Relations in my book as it is a matter of domestic government. That said, consider the following:
One claim against the station is that it allegedly helped a military coup, making it in the view of many "bad". If that's the case, then what about Chavez, who staged his own failed military coup in 1992? Was that not
The Ars Technica comment mentions that Chavez himself took part in a failed coup, as if it's evidence of some sort of double standard, yet there's no context given. All they link to is a BBC article that says he "first came to prominence as a leader of a failed coup in 1992".
...
So, what was that failed coup, and why did it take place?
The president in 1989 was Carlos Andrés Pérez, a pro-Washington president who had accepted the so-called "Washington Consensus" from the IMF. The economy was down the toilet, and a sharp program of privatization ensured that a very rich elite weren't starving while the rest of the country was (not to mention that, as was expected, a lot of these state companies were foreign owned). Petrol increased by 100%, public transport by 30%, food prices rose, unemployment was high
In short, the usual remedies that the IMF recommended in favour of foreign investors and the small rich elite.
So what happened? The people rioted, looted and protested against the government. So the president subsequently declared martial law and crushed the uprising against him violently. The death toll has been placed in the thousands, and mass graves of dead civilians have been uncovered, originating from this period. Order was restored. A few more protests occurred shortly afterwards, but they too were crushed violently. The main targets of the repression were the poor.
Enter Chavez and his attempt to overthrow the President in 1992. Chavez went to prison, and was later pardoned by another president, then elected.
Incidentally, Pérez was thrown in jail later for appropriating roughly 250 million bolivars, apparently diverted to support "democracy" in Nicaragua. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concluded that his government had conducted gross human-rights violations, and even carried out extrajudicial killings.
Sounds pretty damn reasonable to me. Didn't the American founding fathers say something about overthrowing the American government by force if it was no longer for the people? All this talk about Chavez shutting down this TV station as curbing "free speech" utterly stinks of the usual privatized mass media bias. There are a lot more things to worry about like, say, the world's most powerful media organisations being totally compliant in promoting and following the government line, and not being critical enough about dubious claims that allowed an illegal invasion of a country that's brought untold suffering to hundreds of thousands.
The world would be a much better place if people took care of the mess in their own gardens. Chavez certainly has his faults, as does any government in the world, but I like to think that the Venezuelan people will be able to speak their minds at the ballot box. He is constantly re-elected under monitored elections with overwhelming majorities and massive turn outs. This, despite the fact that the private media sector (sometimes euphemistically called "independent") in Venezuela are almost overwhelmingly anti-Chavez.
I think Chavez is right, the backers of RCTV and a number of others were behind a CIA led plot to overthrow the democratically elected of an independent country. This station failed to report the coup and played music instead. You see Chavezs chief crime is he won't hand over the oil and buy it back from the Americans like compliant client states of the US empire are supposed to.
9 40/rctv_and_the_cia_plot_chavez_demise
..
Here in GB every other weeek, there is a story about the nasty Chavez. I figure we are being primed for a regime change. Basically Big Oil is concerned about the outward flow of revenue so they are talking up a plot to overthrow Chavez and install a puppet pres who will then 'sell' them the oil fields.
Fascism is the union of big business and goverment and that's where the US is at the moment. When are the US going to impliment regime change in Washington. That is where the real threat lies.
http://internetchatradio.com/breaking_news_/view/
--
follow the money
davecb5620@gmail.com
Hi just a short comment about the April 11th media blackout: it was the result of a consensous in the media back in 1989, when there was a big riot in many cities in Venezuela as a prostest agaist former president Carlon Andres Perez. Media realized that showing a riot live in tv might had have a snowball effect. Then they assumed a common policy of not showing riots. Protest were still showed live, but as soon as people started vandalic acts, they tried no to show them live to avoid a call effect to other people who could join the riot. April 11th was not an axception.
Once said this, I must be fair and said than in 2004 opositionist television Globovision broke this pact showing violent protests agaist Chaves live. Many people in the oposision, like, was agais this position (I had agreed on a sanction agaist Globovision in that ocasion)
However, RCTV clausure is completely diferent issue, is plain and simple intolerance to any kind of oposition in media. Next will be Glovosion, you can count on that.
When is it ok to shut down a media corporation? According to my understanding of the case, the government of Venezuela was justified in shutting down RCTV. But perhaps we should consider the broader question: under what conditions should a government shut down a media entity? Surely there are legitimate contexts in which this may occur.
Also, what would happen in the US if a TV chain started asking the citizens to revolt against Bush's government, and asking them to boycott the big oil companies? Would that TV chain have its license revoked when the term comes due? More likely its management would end up in Guantanamo.
Oh Im perfectly clear on that.Globovision is the only TV station that is showing the student protests right now.The government doesnt want this.
I didnt agree with the blackout back in 2002 (I was there by the way and saw my fellow protesters get shot).I dont agree with it now.You should see how the National Guard sorrounded us military style on monday with their water truck and the new tear gas (those reaaaally hurt btw!).
I am in Venezuela and there is already a block of TWO anti-government websites (radionexx and caracasradiotv).Also megaresistencia and noticierodigital are being DDOSd.
Remember the Chavez just nationalized the telecom company (CANTV) that controls most of the international links in Venezuela and placed the directors himself.
He already closed a TV station for political reasons.He wouldnt have any problem ordering that "inadequate" websites are also blocked.
"Am I to apologize for your lack of reading comprehension skills?"
No actually you should apologize for yours. You argued points I never made, and essentially, agreed with what I said, but wer too much of a moron to realize it.
Then you flamed me, while the whole time still being too stupid to realize you were making MY points FOR ME.
I suggest you re-read what I posted until you understand it. I expect to be waiting a long time.
Hopefully the metamoderation system will work well enough for these abuser to have their mod points taken away in the future.
You can't take the sky from me...
email my gmail account, slash user @ gmail.com, might be useful to discuss further.
http://use.perl.org
Anonymous Cowards and people who begin arguments with "Ummm" don't deserve replies, but I'm feeling generous today.
Brazil is indeed not known to have threatened map-wiping in recent history, but then neither is Iran, so you have failed to make any point there. Perhaps you meant to insinuate, somewhat implausibly, that President Ahmedinejad's comments that "een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e Qods (this régime occupying Jerusalem) bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad (must [vanish from] the page of time)" meant that Israel ought to be bombed out of existence. Perhaps if someone said that the Republican party occupying Washington DC should vanish from the page of time, you would interpret that as the Democrats wanting to bomb America off the map.
So, "people don't have a problem" with Brazil? Excellent criterion! If people have a gripe with a country, it should be invaded. You do realise that by that principle every country in the world would be invaded, starting with the US?
Since your explanations are comically inadequate, I'll stick to the hypothesis that Venezuela and Iran are under threat for the same reason Iraq was: they are sitting on natural resources and their governments (deeply flawed as they may be) refuse to obey the United States.
"If I was so off the mark with my reply to your post, would you mind being a dear and, oh, I don't know, elaborating on where you think I went wrong, rather than simply saying "YOU IDIOT YOU MISSED MY POINT"."
No, I don't think I will. You're an imbecile, why would I waste more time on you? If you plan to make moronic assumptions then make ridiculous assertions based on those assumptions, you're clearly not someone I have a desire to have a dialog with.
And I didn't read the rest of that post, I'm fairly certain it wasn't worth my time either.
And as an aside, you're wrong about everything you've said.
"Wow, that was quite the internet smackdown."
You deserved it, but frankly, I've done better.
"Someone must feel big now."
You mean like you felt when you were SO SURE you were right, and had me cornered, only to realize you were arguing points that had nothing to do with what I was saying, but were too stupid to figure it out before you posted? Big like that?
Save yourself the trouble of defending your moronic opinion in the future by keeping it to yourself.