danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Hugo Chavez vs. the telenovela

Monday, May 28, 2007

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)

Hugo Chavez vs. the telenovela

According to CNN International, Hugo Chávez has declared war on yet another facet of Venezuelan life:

Venezuela's most-watched television station -- and outlet for the political opposition -- went off the air after the government refused to renew its broadcast license.

Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), which has been broadcasting for 53 years, was replaced by a state-run station -- TVes -- on Monday. The new station's logo began running immediately after RCTV went off the air.

Leading up to the deadline, police on Sunday used water cannons and what appeared to be tear gas to break up thousands of demonstrators protesting the government's decision to close the country's most-watched television station.

The protest began in front of National Telecommunications Commission headquarters after members of the National Guard seized broadcast equipment, including antennas, the result of a Supreme Court order on Friday....

Inside the studios of Radio Caracas Television, employees cried and chanted "Freedom!" on camera, AP reported.

"We are living an injustice," presenter Eyla Adrian said, according to AP. "I wish that tonight would never come."

President Hugo Chavez announced in January that the government would not renew the broadcast license for the station, long an outlet for opposition parties.

Chavez has accused the station of supporting the failed 2002 coup against him and violating broadcast laws.

He called the station's soap operas "pure poison" that promote capitalism, according to AP.

RCTV, which has been broadcasting for 53 years, is slated to be off the air at midnight. It will be replaced by a state-run station.

"To refuse to grant a new license for the most popular and oldest television channel in the country because the government disagrees with the editorial or political views of this channel, which are obviously critical to Chavez, is a case of censorship," said Jose Miguel Vivanco, executive director of Human Rights Watch.

"We have arrived at totalitarianism," said Marcel Granier, president of Empresas 1BC, which owns RCTV. (emphasis added)

In a war between Hugo Chavez and the telenovela, I'll take the telenovela every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Never mess with an art form that is capable of producing the likes of Salma Hayek.

In the Guardian, Ben Whitford goes to town on Chávez 's decision:

Chávez and his officials unilaterally branded the network coup-mongers and pornographers - the latter apparently a reference to the trashy but popular telenovelas that are standard fare on all the region's networks. No investigations, meetings or hearings were held to assess the station's failings; no evidence was presented, and the network was given no right of reply.

It wasn't until this March, three months after announcing its decision to revoke the station's license, that the government deigned to release a "White Book" giving an official account of the station's transgressions. More polemic than policy paper, the book only serves to underscore the arbitrary and politicized nature of the government's decision; RCTV is accused of a raft of minor sins, from sensationalizing its coverage of a recent murder to showing alcohol consumption during its coverage of a baseball game. RCTV had never previously received more than a warning for these violations; other stations guilty of the same or worse errors have been allowed to retain their licenses.

It's hard to see RCTV's closure - which was opposed by 70% of the Venezuelan people - as anything more than an act of political retaliation for the network's continuing, and increasingly isolated, resistance to the Chávez administration. While it's true that the country's media remains largely in private hands, most of the other opposition channels have allowed themselves to be cowed by Chávez's threats, and have substantially cut back their news and editorial coverage. Of the stations with national reach, only RCTV had remained an outspoken critic of the government; on Sunday night that voice, too, fell silent. (Claims that RCTV could stay on the air by switching to cable or satellite are disingenuous; even if the network survives, it will reach only a tiny fraction of its current audience.)

In pulling the plug on RCTV, Chávez appointed himself judge, jury and executioner; and in doing so, struck a dangerous blow against Venezuela's proud traditions of democracy and free speech. Worryingly, he did so as part of a wider campaign to stifle dissenting voices and independent views. Since coming to power, Chávez has pushed through a barrage of regulations designed to breed a compliant and uncritical media sector; organizations now face swingeing fines and license suspensions if they fail to meet vague and arbitrary "social responsibility" criteria, while draconian defamation regulations and "insult laws" make it illegal to show disrespect for government officials and institutions....

A few minutes after RCTV flickered off the air, a new network took its place: Venezuelan Social Television. The new public channel, run by Chávez appointees, will provide news and entertainment that is more palatable to Chávez's government; it will join a growing portfolio of state-owned channels that one government station chief says is part of Chávez's wider plan for "communication and information hegemony". The failure of the likes of Tariq Ali and Colin Burgon to recognize this as a blow to Venezuela's tradition of free speech shouldn't surprise anyone; Chávez is a past master at playing the international left to his own ends. The truth, though, is that this is one occasion when people on both the left and the right, as supporters of liberal democracy, should be prepared to cry foul.

posted by Dan on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM

Comments:

The Guardian, which is Britain's leading socialist-advocating newspaper, doesn't seem to understand that socialism cannot begin to succeed if people are free. Taking away people's freedom is just a natural step in implementing socialism. What's the big deal?

posted by: John on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]

I'm going to have to side with Chavez on this one.

Planning the kind of revolution that Chavez is - one that requires weening the populace off the superstition of religion, regulating international capitalism to serve the interests of the people, building educational institutions to get people to think critically and not as a mass herd of capitalist consumers - is susceptible to weakness by the manipulation of international money mongerers who want to see the revolution fail. In the first stages of the revolution, when the merchants of money try to use their pernacious influence to stop change, this type of action is completely justified. Why would you allow a fifth column to destroy what you worked for? Why would you allow those with money to manipulate your countries politics? how is that democratic?

posted by: Mmm on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]

I'm in no way an expert on any of this, which perfectly qualifies me to comment on a blog about it:

The channel is openly anti-chavez in its news reporting. Democracy in action.

The channel supported the attempted coup in 2002, running adverts suggesting that chavez should resign, despite his overwhelming and fairly won popular majority. Oppression in action.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aEhslU4CJsO8&refer=latin_america

If a TV station supported an anti-democratic coup in your country, what would you want to happen? Those who are truly democratic would probably be deeply disturbed, and want a proper enquiry which could potentially lead to the station being shut-down. Those worried that the crazed socialists were brainwashing the majority and needed removing by any means necessary would not...

posted by: George on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]

Chavez supports democracy? Who knew.

posted by: mandrewa on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]

Why would you allow a fifth column to destroy what you worked for? Why would you allow those with money to manipulate your countries politics? how is that democratic?

Because:
a) you don't know if the opposition is a fifth column or if they're right about socialism being a bad idea.
b) it gives the government the power to make all sorts of opponents disappear by calling them a "fifth column". Stalin used this line of argument to kill millions of people in the Purges in Soviet Russia. Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, the French Revolution, giving governments the power to stop freedom of speech means giving governments the power to stop any freedom.

If a TV station supported an anti-democratic coup in your country, what would you want to happen?

The coup to fail?

Those who are truly democratic

Ah, the True Scotsman fallacy. Only a "truly democratic" person would think (insert bizarre idea in here that has nothing to do with democracy).

Of course it's perfectly possible to be truly democratic and to believe that people should have the right to argue against democracy. The arguments for democracy do not need to depend on the false suppression of opposing arguments. Democracy won out when countries were undemocratic, it hardly needs the support of any government now.

I don't want anyone shutting down a station, regardless of how anti-democratic it is. Freedom of speech does not mean only freedom of speech that I disagree with.

posted by: Tracy W on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]

If a TV station supported an anti-democratic coup in your country, what would you want to happen?

Thomas Jefferson said "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

posted by: David Nieporent on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]

Good point re. freedom of speech:

"Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favour of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise"

I just cant picture the same points being raised if, say, a crew related to John Kerry had attempted a coup in 2005, while PBS ran a 24-show hosted by Michael Moore supporting the coup, financed by Heinz?

And Chavez' majority in free and fair elections massively outranks Bush's of course.

It's clealry a dangerous situation of course, much as I'd hope otherwise I suppose we'll continue to see reports like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6702965.stm

posted by: George on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]

Mmm said:

"In the first stages of the revolution, when the merchants of money try to use their pernacious influence to stop change, this type of action is completely justified."

Of course! People have recognized this since at least Marx. The father of communism himself conceded that yes, there would by necessity be a period of transition, a dictatorship of the Proletariat. Naturally it would be by the people, you see, not by an individual and his cult of personality. And it would be short. And temporary! Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, you understand.

- Alaska Jack

posted by: Alaska Jack on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]

What if a US TV station funded with Saudi money had callled for muslims to overthrow the Whitehouse during 9/11?

How would freedom of speech principles apply then, in the same way that they apply to Chavez?

(I'd also be interested in how readers would summarise America's involvment in Latin American political affairs over the last 50 years, especially in terms of free speech and democracy. But i guess thats another post?)

posted by: George on 05.28.07 at 12:43 PM [permalink]