Venezuela's Media: More Than Words at Stake

 

Venezuela’s Bolivarian government is once again performing a balancing act, and this time free speech hangs perilously on the line. In an effort to make media coverage more representative of a wider section of Venezuelan society, if not explicitly fair to both the government and the country’s middle class opposition, government legislators and cabinet officers are pushing for a series of laws to regulate TV and radio programming. But critics of the proposed reforms argue that attempts to regulate media content will only discourage any prospect of quality reporting and ultimately will do little to enable Venezuela’s poor to better voice their views.

Venezuela’s media has certainly not conducted itself in the most democratic of ways. Its news columns, which heavily favor the opposition, often turn unprofessional. Government officials have solid evidence to charge that the media’s current behavior jeopardizes democratic institutions. Venezuela’s four major private television networks control at least 85% of the market and their producers have lashed out at President Chavez with punishing, though not always merited, political low blows. For two months, they helped fuel an economically devastating and socially destabilizing general strike aimed at ousting Chavez from office, in which they heavily promoted opposition leaders while systematically slandering the president and ignoring events favorable to his side.

Government functionaries are quick to argue that such media organizations have degraded democratic dialogue by indulging in political haranguing, while turning their back on their responsibility to provide truthful information. Many international journalists from some of the world’s most prestigious news organizations concur that Venezuela’s media has become a heavily biased advocacy group in favor of the opposition.

In a media climate that disregards the concerns of Venezuela’s poor and often provokes strife, government officials are faced with the challenge of encouraging participative and democratic public debate. In response, they have proposed laws mandating that radio and TV stations spend more time educating society with balanced material. One provision demands strict quotas for daily programming reserving at least three hours for education and another three for national music shows daily.

The Dangers of Supervising the Press

But will attempts to forcefully mandate more balanced programming schedules encourage the media to better educate society? In fact, they are being met with resistance by Venezuela’s media leaders, who see these proposals as a cynical plot to stifle criticism of the Chavez administration. Critics argue that if passed, these laws will be ineffective at changing the media’s combative role. Looking back on their creativity exhibited during the opposition’s anti-Chavez ad campaign, it is not hard to imagine children TV shows with a political edge and folk music programs that scream out against the revolution’s politics.

What will be the government’s likely reaction? Federal prosecutors will certainly be willing and able to take TV and radio stations to court and dispute a series of nebulous definitions of what is “cultural” and “educational”. This would then leave Venezuela’s at times corrupt judicial system to determine the proper definition of “socially responsible” programming.

Rulings aimed at regulating media content will keep courts busy but are not likely to encourage high grade investigative journalism nor prompt alternative points of view. Another proposed law would penalize producers and journalists for coverage that incites “disrespect” against public officials. This may lead to regrettable abuses on free speech in a country where an alarming number of intimidation incidents against journalists have been reported by international observers over the past year. The law may keep critical journalists investigating dubious government activities tied up in court disputes, thus hampering informed dialogue on the country’s social and economic grievances.

A Modest Proposal

Rather than controlling media content, the government would do more for the democratization of public opinion by focusing on reforms that modestly diffuse and pluralize media ownership. Social, economic and political concerns affecting Venezuela’s shanty towns and rural areas, for example, are often overlooked by mainstream media outlets that cater to middle class interests. The government-owned TV network does scarcely better at addressing these concerns as it routinely dumbs down political dialogue in its efforts to praise the ruling party’s agenda.

Media ownership can be extended to Venezuela’s poor through the creation of community-run radio stations. While hardly rivaling the audience of Venezuela’s well established networks, these outlets could begin to empower the poor by voicing their daily concerns and present a whole range of political views.

To the government’s credit, some provisions in the “laws of social responsibility” do make an attempt to promote grass roots media. One of these calls for the establishment of a national institute for radio and television that would provide training and technical support to independent producers.

But reforms to encourage the proliferation of grassroots media must be taken further, as this is not only necessary, but politically feasible. By providing the populace with alternate sources of information, community media outlets could help neutralize concerns over media monopolization, which in part motivate government efforts to police media content. A government that feels less pressured to closely monitor airwaves would certainly benefit Venezuela’s private TV stations, which in many cases have incited hostilities through their inflammatory coverage of the facts. It would be wise for them to help fund independent media in a show of reconciliation and commitment to the authentic development of free speech.

Most importantly, participatory democracy will benefit from concrete initiatives to financially assist independent media, which will likely encourage local political feedback by voicing the daily grievances of humble citizens, promoting participation in town meetings and sparking dialogue between local political rivals.

But how to fund grass roots media? These outlets must remain free from financial manipulation by government sectors or corporate elites anxious to convert them into political franchises. It is a task that government, private sector, civil society and international organizations must jointly undertake as an opportunity not to be missed. The benefits of empowering the poor to actively participate in democratic debate will by far outlast any reforms that simply put reins on freedom of speech.

 

 

This analysis was prepared by Manuel Rueda, a research associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.(COHA)

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being “one of the nation’s most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers.” For more information, please see our web page at www.coha.org; or contact our Washington offices by phone (202) 216-9261, fax (202) 223-6035, or email coha@coha.org