There is a continuing implication that Chavez acted outside the laws of his nation. Simply not the case. This would be just like a station not receiving its license renewal inside the US, which would be unfortunate, but hardly authoritarian, simply within the purview of the FCC. Not that I'd agree with such a thing, under almost any circumstances. One situation under which pretty much anyone would agree though, Katie Couric calling for the armed overthrow of the democratically elected US government on national TV. CBS might be asked ever so violently to stop. Where was the US government's outcry in the 80's over the Chilean, Nicaraguan, South African, Iraqi governments? There was a poster that mentioned earlier that the coup leader was now living in Colombia after a short house arrest. How are the dissenters of China, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and all our other favorite honest to Jesus dictatorships doing? I realize I lose rhetorical points for bringing up those regimes, but honestly, doesn't it just prove the point? We are anti Venezuela because Hugo Chavez had the audacity to nationalize the energy and communication economy of his country, which he has the legal right to do, and it cost us money. In this country there isn't a real risk of anything approaching actual dissent, not just dissatisfaction, because we live in an oligarchy. If there ever was, the reaction would be much more severe. It amuses me that implying someone might end up in Guantanamo is almost a cliche these days. "Ha ha left wingers, with your silly belief that credible threats to the nationally defining concepts of capitalism, economic supremacy, and self serving nationalism might get you shot or disappeared!"
The right wing seems to only like to look at short term history.
Is it really a threat to freedom to prevent someone from buying their way to power? I guess perhaps it is. Is it just as necessary as preventing someone from shooting their way to power? I'm inclined to think so.
It seems there might be a bit more to this.
Not even sure if anyone is still following this thread, but I would like to point out that the station that the poster above referenced was not shut down, per se, their license expired. It was not renewed by the Venezuelan government. I am not by any means intimate with the details of this, but the word on boingboing is that the station in question was responsible for encouraging a coup in 2002. In some people's opinion, the station not only called for a coup but staged footage to encourage violence.
That is illegal, one of the terms of their license is to abide by Venezuelan law.
I'm no fan of shutting down a dissenter's news station, but it seems quite reasonable, even by our own standards, to take measures against someone advocating armed overthrow of the government.
Interestingly, the story you linked to doesn't mention the station's connection to the failed coup at all.
One thing about what you said rings slightly untrue, it took major work to get the US Attorney firing scandal into the news. I watched the story develop for almost a month on
TPM before seeing it on The News Hour on PBS. Two days later it finally got some mention on cable news. Was it because the story didn't have legs? Everything that they reported on The News Hour and CNN had been on TPM for almost a month. I don't think that the major media outlets are as interested in digging up a big scandal as everyone thinks. Its a risky thing to go after the government, you risk losing access, and the big ratings are in Anna Nicole. What if the public just doesn't give a shit? The story dies and you've burned bridges.
Look at the minor focus that the Dusty Foggo scandal received. In all likelyhood that was just the surface of the corruption, I honestly don't know why it got the scant coverage that it did. All kinds of conspiracies come to mind but who honestly knows?
Its not like this is new, Watergate took 2 years to solidify as a scandal in the minds of Americans. Many people don't remember this (myself included, age wise) but Nixon was re-elected as Watergate was coming to light! No one is in a hurry to piss off the White House.
Mass media has plenty on the line, as I'm sure everyone here knows. Print, television, and even some online media have shareholders with interests in what gets reported. Are they squashing stories and reporting others with a bias? Do we really have to ask that in 2007? There is this lingering concept of a liberal slant as well, which is a matter of opinion, but Noam Chomsky makes a pretty good point in Manufacturing Consent that all media in the US is inherently right wing as it is part of the establishment, therefor having a reason to protect the status quo. There isn't really much of a counterbalance to be found to the main corporate news entities outside of the free weeklies in major cities, blogs, and miniature entities like Free Speech TV and Free Speech Radio News, and the market makes it such that most of the better writers don't end up there. Its capitalism at work. Don't know if this is a good or a bad thing, but the mechanics are pretty clear.
Now here is the part I'm going to get flamed for. I have been amazed at the over hyping of Hugo Chavez as a threat to the US over the last few years. Especially in light of other world leaders whose actions are far more undemocratic and who have gotten a pass, at least till lately (lookin at you Vladimir, you too George.) Chavez was picked in elections found to be free and transparent, yet he's portrayed as a dictator with intents on conquering the whole western hemisphere.
Now, what two industries has Hugo really been a threat to? Energy and communications. Biggest two contributors to US political parties. Intrinsically tied into our economy, undeniably related to the major media companies. I have seen no real dialog as to the possible benefits to the Venezuelan people as a result of the Venezuelan administration's decision to nationalize oil and communications. I don't necessarily agree with his decision to do so, however, I do believe that if he convinced the Venezuelan people to elect him and his party, twice, that an argument exists. It just isn't being portrayed in the media. Bush's tax cuts also spring to mind. The arguments against the tax cuts have received, IMO, much less time than the arguments for.
Focusing on Chavez will get me flamed, especially after dropping Chomsky's name, but there are plenty of other examples of a fiscal right wing bias existing in the media in the US. Not that anything is wrong with that, they have the right to, and would be irrational not to, represent their interests as businesses. People should just be wise enough to know what they're dealing with, when they're dealing with large publicly traded media conglomerates.
Ahem. It's hardly my fault they didn't squirrel away a bit more of that ad revenue they were seeing back in the glorious days of captive audiences. It would be simply heartbreaking if the major networks and labels all collapsed. I don't know how I'd live with myself knowing that my irresponsible manhandling of their profit margin might have contributed to the fall.
For what its worth, I think I've seen enough ads in my life to have paid for every movie, tv show, and cd I've ever stolen off of bittorent. Honestly, I think the equation is still a bit unbalanced, for that reason I'm going to ignore this new service just like I ignored the pay services of Apple, RealNetworks, and bittorrent. Not to mention the pay services of the movie theaters -- at $8 a pop for over the last decade, $6-$7 before for as far back as I can remember -- I'm still busy getting my money's worth.
Oh, let's not forget April 1st's remarkable experiment in ad-based movie distribution, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie. I was really quite impressed with their bravery in that particular case until... well the joke was on me. Sort of, because now I'm going to get it off bittorent. I weep little for Turner broadcasting.
This posted on the transgaming forums earlier today:
Greetings,
Thank you for your follow-up email. We have reinvestigated our extensive in-game logs as well as all the pertinent data involved in the closure of this account and have determined that the original closure was indeed merited. The account was found to have used prohibited third-party software, which is a serious violation of the Terms of Use. Privacy concerns prevent us from disclosing any information about our investigation methods or findings.
Please review the World of Warcraft Terms of Use at http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofus e.html which states in Section 13 [Acknowledgments], Paragraph M that "You are entirely liable for all activities conducted through your World of Warcraft account, and are responsible for ensuring that any other person who uses your World of Warcraft account is aware of the terms of this Agreement and complies with this Agreement."
Additionally, Section 1 [Establishment of a World of Warcraft Account], Paragraph A states that your Password is to be kept confidential at all times and you are solely responsible for the security of your Password. You may not disclose your Password to anyone, or allow your Password to be used by anyone other than yourself and/or your one (1) minor child. You are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of your Password, and you will be responsible for all uses of your Password, whether or not authorized by you. Also, note that the security of the Account is your responsibility. As set forth in Section 6, "Violation of any of the terms and conditions set forth above may result in actions being taken by Blizzard Entertainment, effective immediately or at a time determined by Blizzard Entertainment."
Therefore, we regret to inform you that we will be unable to restore access to the account under any circumstances. Any disputes or questions concerning this account action can only be addressed by Account Administration. We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced. As this matter has been fully reviewed by multiple specialized investigation teams, it is considered fully addressed and closed; we expect no further inquiries on this matter. Thank you for respecting our position.
Regards,
Account Administration Blizzard Entertainment www.WorldofWarcraft.com
This doesn't look good.
In fact it looks as if Blizz is just gonna wash their hands of this whole thing.
I just got off the phone with Blizz's account department. I paid for a 3 month account, I'm only one month into it and yesterday they banned my ass. Obviously, I'd like the $30 which I paid them for the next 2 months, but after the predictable 45 minute wait, I got the predictable response (I'm a glutton for indignation) and was told that I could get my $30 back only if I managed to pry it out of the president of Viacom's wallet.
So I'm curious, does anyone know if they have done anything wrong here? I mean, not morally, but legally. I paid for 3 months and my account has been shut down for doing something not covered by the ToS. If the ToS serves as a contract, aren't they in violation of it?
Just for the record, Blizzard in the early months of WoW, both pre and post beta, were "looking into" the possibility of linux development.
I followed that on the forums for a while before I started using Cedega to play, thinking it might be a stop gap until the linux client finally emerged.
After sinking nearly $200 dollars into that game with the monthly fees attached, they have crapped in my fruit-loops. To all of you out there saying
I should have seen this coming, I'd like to know why it didn't happen oh say, two damned years ago.
For what its worth, my $15 a month will be going into a little jar labeled Wii. You might even say a wee jar.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a continuing implication that Chavez acted outside the laws of his nation. Simply not the case. This would be just like a station not receiving its license renewal inside the US, which would be unfortunate, but hardly authoritarian, simply within the purview of the FCC. Not that I'd agree with such a thing, under almost any circumstances. One situation under which pretty much anyone would agree though, Katie Couric calling for the armed overthrow of the democratically elected US government on national TV. CBS might be asked ever so violently to stop. Where was the US government's outcry in the 80's over the Chilean, Nicaraguan, South African, Iraqi governments? There was a poster that mentioned earlier that the coup leader was now living in Colombia after a short house arrest. How are the dissenters of China, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and all our other favorite honest to Jesus dictatorships doing? I realize I lose rhetorical points for bringing up those regimes, but honestly, doesn't it just prove the point? We are anti Venezuela because Hugo Chavez had the audacity to nationalize the energy and communication economy of his country, which he has the legal right to do, and it cost us money. In this country there isn't a real risk of anything approaching actual dissent, not just dissatisfaction, because we live in an oligarchy. If there ever was, the reaction would be much more severe. It amuses me that implying someone might end up in Guantanamo is almost a cliche these days. "Ha ha left wingers, with your silly belief that credible threats to the nationally defining concepts of capitalism, economic supremacy, and self serving nationalism might get you shot or disappeared!" The right wing seems to only like to look at short term history. Is it really a threat to freedom to prevent someone from buying their way to power? I guess perhaps it is. Is it just as necessary as preventing someone from shooting their way to power? I'm inclined to think so.
Here is a better link to some opposing viewpoints: Venezuelan media crackdown: the other POV
It seems there might be a bit more to this. Not even sure if anyone is still following this thread, but I would like to point out that the station that the poster above referenced was not shut down, per se, their license expired. It was not renewed by the Venezuelan government. I am not by any means intimate with the details of this, but the word on boingboing is that the station in question was responsible for encouraging a coup in 2002. In some people's opinion, the station not only called for a coup but staged footage to encourage violence.
That is illegal, one of the terms of their license is to abide by Venezuelan law.
I'm no fan of shutting down a dissenter's news station, but it seems quite reasonable, even by our own standards, to take measures against someone advocating armed overthrow of the government. Interestingly, the story you linked to doesn't mention the station's connection to the failed coup at all.
One thing about what you said rings slightly untrue, it took major work to get the US Attorney firing scandal into the news. I watched the story develop for almost a month on TPM before seeing it on The News Hour on PBS. Two days later it finally got some mention on cable news. Was it because the story didn't have legs? Everything that they reported on The News Hour and CNN had been on TPM for almost a month. I don't think that the major media outlets are as interested in digging up a big scandal as everyone thinks. Its a risky thing to go after the government, you risk losing access, and the big ratings are in Anna Nicole. What if the public just doesn't give a shit? The story dies and you've burned bridges.
Look at the minor focus that the Dusty Foggo scandal received. In all likelyhood that was just the surface of the corruption, I honestly don't know why it got the scant coverage that it did. All kinds of conspiracies come to mind but who honestly knows?
Its not like this is new, Watergate took 2 years to solidify as a scandal in the minds of Americans. Many people don't remember this (myself included, age wise) but Nixon was re-elected as Watergate was coming to light! No one is in a hurry to piss off the White House.
Mass media has plenty on the line, as I'm sure everyone here knows. Print, television, and even some online media have shareholders with interests in what gets reported. Are they squashing stories and reporting others with a bias? Do we really have to ask that in 2007?
There is this lingering concept of a liberal slant as well, which is a matter of opinion, but Noam Chomsky makes a pretty good point in Manufacturing Consent that all media in the US is inherently right wing as it is part of the establishment, therefor having a reason to protect the status quo. There isn't really much of a counterbalance to be found to the main corporate news entities outside of the free weeklies in major cities, blogs, and miniature entities like Free Speech TV and Free Speech Radio News, and the market makes it such that most of the better writers don't end up there. Its capitalism at work. Don't know if this is a good or a bad thing, but the mechanics are pretty clear.
Now here is the part I'm going to get flamed for. I have been amazed at the over hyping of Hugo Chavez as a threat to the US over the last few years. Especially in light of other world leaders whose actions are far more undemocratic and who have gotten a pass, at least till lately (lookin at you Vladimir, you too George.) Chavez was picked in elections found to be free and transparent, yet he's portrayed as a dictator with intents on conquering the whole western hemisphere.
Now, what two industries has Hugo really been a threat to? Energy and communications. Biggest two contributors to US political parties. Intrinsically tied into our economy, undeniably related to the major media companies. I have seen no real dialog as to the possible benefits to the Venezuelan people as a result of the Venezuelan administration's decision to nationalize oil and communications. I don't necessarily agree with his decision to do so, however, I do believe that if he convinced the Venezuelan people to elect him and his party, twice, that an argument exists. It just isn't being portrayed in the media. Bush's tax cuts also spring to mind. The arguments against the tax cuts have received, IMO, much less time than the arguments for.
Focusing on Chavez will get me flamed, especially after dropping Chomsky's name, but there are plenty of other examples of a fiscal right wing bias existing in the media in the US. Not that anything is wrong with that, they have the right to, and would be irrational not to, represent their interests as businesses. People should just be wise enough to know what they're dealing with, when they're dealing with large publicly traded media conglomerates.
CBS? wtf is CBS? Don't let them end it all with a fight over asbestos!!!
only thing I could think at the end of that episode was, "WTF? Bob Dylan is a Cylon?"
Ahem. It's hardly my fault they didn't squirrel away a bit more of that ad revenue they were seeing back in the glorious days of captive audiences. It would be simply heartbreaking if the major networks and labels all collapsed. I don't know how I'd live with myself knowing that my irresponsible manhandling of their profit margin might have contributed to the fall.
For what its worth, I think I've seen enough ads in my life to have paid for every movie, tv show, and cd I've ever stolen off of bittorent. Honestly, I think the equation is still a bit unbalanced, for that reason I'm going to ignore this new service just like I ignored the pay services of Apple, RealNetworks, and bittorrent. Not to mention the pay services of the movie theaters -- at $8 a pop for over the last decade, $6-$7 before for as far back as I can remember -- I'm still busy getting my money's worth.
Oh, let's not forget April 1st's remarkable experiment in ad-based movie distribution, the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie. I was really quite impressed with their bravery in that particular case until... well the joke was on me. Sort of, because now I'm going to get it off bittorent. I weep little for Turner broadcasting.
I just got off the phone with Blizz's account department. I paid for a 3 month account, I'm only one month into it and yesterday they banned my ass. Obviously, I'd like the $30 which I paid them for the next 2 months, but after the predictable 45 minute wait, I got the predictable response (I'm a glutton for indignation) and was told that I could get my $30 back only if I managed to pry it out of the president of Viacom's wallet. So I'm curious, does anyone know if they have done anything wrong here? I mean, not morally, but legally. I paid for 3 months and my account has been shut down for doing something not covered by the ToS. If the ToS serves as a contract, aren't they in violation of it?
Just for the record, Blizzard in the early months of WoW, both pre and post beta, were "looking into" the possibility of linux development. I followed that on the forums for a while before I started using Cedega to play, thinking it might be a stop gap until the linux client finally emerged. After sinking nearly $200 dollars into that game with the monthly fees attached, they have crapped in my fruit-loops. To all of you out there saying I should have seen this coming, I'd like to know why it didn't happen oh say, two damned years ago. For what its worth, my $15 a month will be going into a little jar labeled Wii. You might even say a wee jar.