I'm still not sure why he waited until 2007 to do this ... oh, wait, the rubber-stamp National Assembly just recently declared him dictator, er, voted to allow him to rule by decree. And so he has decreed that RCTV will be no more.
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.
Well, Chavez and I agree that soap operas are "pure poison" but not for the same reasons. Obviously in Venezuela, the worst thing a soap can do is promote capitalism. Of course unsaid is the fact that RCTV is the sole remaining opposition TV station with a national reach. Even worse, at least for Chavez, is it was the channel with the most viewers as well.
The move has not set well with the population. Spontaneous protests have broken out in Caracas in which police have used water cannon, rubber bullets and tear gas against thousands.
Chavez says he is democratizing the airwaves by turning the network's signal over to public use. His opponents condemned the move as an assault on free speech.
Germany, which holds the European Union presidency, expressed concern that Venezuela let RCTV's license expire "without holding an open competition for the successor license." It said the EU expects that Venezuela will uphold freedom of speech and "support pluralism."
Twenty minutes after RCTV was pulled off air, the state channel started transmission with the national anthem conducted by Gustavo Dudamel, the 26-year-old Venezuelan who was appointed as music director of the Los Angeles Philharmonic.
Programming started with a concert of traditional melodies, interspersed with government trailers. After the concert, the channel planned to show a film on 19th-century commander Simon Bolivar, Chavez's hero who freed much of South America from Spain.
Propaganda? Nooooo, Danny Glover do propaganda? Please. They will be filmed in Venezuela, however.
So, now that freedom of speech, at least for the opposition (you don't think Hugo's going to shut up, do you?)has been all but quashed it's on to that great socialist paradise for Venezuela:
But before the closure of RCTV, political analysts had identified Venezuela's critical media as one of the main guards against him forging a Cuban-style system in the footsteps of his mentor, communist leader Fidel Castro.
Now there is something to which one should aspire, no?
But they have great healthcare, and 100% literacy, and all the poor people are completely fed and clothed and housed, and, and... oh, wait, that’s Cuba, isn’t it? Well, I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before the useful idiots start applying the same descriptions to Venezuala.
This is nothing next to the hundreds of TV stations Bush has shut down for attacking him. I mean, it’s like one critical comment and bam, license yanked, state ownership, and the management mysteriously fails to show up to work that day... or ever again...
Trumped up charges of supporting a coup and supporting armed revolution? You need a broader information stream. Would you have supported Chavez trying them for treason instead? See The Revolution Will Not Be Televised - a free video is available on Google.
Right Gary ... whatever it takes to control the media, claim it to be the case.
Speaking of information streams:
The government will now control two of the four nationwide broadcasters in Venezuela, one of them state-owned VTV.
In an interview with VTV, Interior Minister Pedro Carreno accused the opposition of mounting a plot against the government, devised by "the empire," a term often used to describe the United States.
He also accused demonstrators of trying "to develop a plan for violence in the country," and added: "The government also has its plan. And it is working."
This seems to be going down real well with the population. Apparently they don’t buy into the charges at all.
Unfortunately it looks like the "opposition" is in for another bit of violence obviously stirred up by the "empire".
I’d suggest you try a different info stream than Chavist propaganda.
For a more balanced take on the RCTV licence question read the following:
Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs Distorting the Venezuelan media story
The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.
According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chavez, in a move that’s angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."
Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."
In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator." Wrote Diehl, "Chávez has made clear that his problem with [RCTV owner Marcel] Granier and RCTV is political."
In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV’s history, the Venezuelan government’s explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.
RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez’s democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks’ participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.
On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez’s ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."
That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl’s colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), "[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."
As FAIR’s magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."
When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV’s case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV’s refusal to cover the return of Chavez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):
What RCTV did simply can’t be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they’re forced to, but simply because they don’t agree with what’s happening, you’ve lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.
The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV’s involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station’s criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela’s media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet.
When Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy interviewed representatives of Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists—all groups that have condemned Venezuela’s action in denying RCTV’s license renewal—he found that none of the spokespersons thought broadcasters were automatically entitled to license renewals, though none of them thought RCTV’s actions in support of the coup should have resulted in the station having its license renewal denied. This led McElwee to wonder, based on the rights groups’ arguments, "Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right to not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it?"
McElwee acknowledged the critics’ point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez’s presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: "Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made."
Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:
The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.