Comments on: War of the Words: The Rising Tensions Between the Venezuelan Government and Globovision http://www.coha.org/war-of-the-words-the-rising-tensions-between-the-venezuelan-government-and-globovision/ COHA is an NGO specialized in monitoring Latin American and Canadian Relations for more than 30 years... Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:22:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: LiberalChiroDoc http://www.coha.org/war-of-the-words-the-rising-tensions-between-the-venezuelan-government-and-globovision/comment-page-1/#comment-29919 LiberalChiroDoc Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:14:52 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=4600#comment-29919 Because the U.S. Media and the Right are against Hugo Chavez, I always have a tendency to give him the benefit of the doubt. But his closing of the oppposition radio stations is a big mistake. He tried to get a longer term with his referendum but was defeated and accepted those results. The flower of democracy is dissent and you need to respect that dissent no matter how mis-informed you believe that viewpoint to be (for me, it's the NeoCons in the US). Hugo is tarnishing his legacy with these actions and needs to let free speech from any side flourish. Because the U.S. Media and the Right are against Hugo Chavez, I always have a tendency to give him the benefit of the doubt. But his closing of the oppposition radio stations is a big mistake. He tried to get a longer term with his referendum but was defeated and accepted those results.

The flower of democracy is dissent and you need to respect that dissent no matter how mis-informed you believe that viewpoint to be (for me, it’s the NeoCons in the US). Hugo is tarnishing his legacy with these actions and needs to let free speech from any side flourish.

]]> By: Linda Weltner http://www.coha.org/war-of-the-words-the-rising-tensions-between-the-venezuelan-government-and-globovision/comment-page-1/#comment-29918 Linda Weltner Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:25:58 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=4600#comment-29918 I have come to the conclusion, after 19 years writing for the Boston Globe, that the press is no longer the fourth estate, an independent agent in our political life. Much of the press is in the control of interested parties with their own political agenda, or, as the New York Times put it in their suit against the Boston Globe's Freelancer Union in 2000, "this newspaper is a private enterprise with no public interest componant." With this new definition, freedom of the press is a concept which exists only in the constitution, and no longer applies to corporate media. We have to revise our entire attitude toward the news media and discriminate between news and propaganda, news and press releases, news and a single viewpoint from which all other viewpoints are excluded. We are in a new period of history and from my reading of Venezuelan history I have come to the conclusion, after 19 years writing for the Boston Globe, that the press is no longer the fourth estate, an independent agent in our political life. Much of the press is in the control of interested parties with their own political agenda, or, as the New York Times put it in their suit against the Boston Globe’s Freelancer Union in 2000, “this newspaper is a private enterprise with no public interest componant.”

With this new definition, freedom of the press is a concept which exists only in the constitution, and no longer applies to corporate media. We have to revise our entire attitude toward the news media and discriminate between news and propaganda, news and press releases, news and a single viewpoint from which all other viewpoints are excluded.

We are in a new period of history and from my reading of Venezuelan history

]]> By: Raylsiyaly http://www.coha.org/war-of-the-words-the-rising-tensions-between-the-venezuelan-government-and-globovision/comment-page-1/#comment-29911 Raylsiyaly Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:40:30 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=4600#comment-29911 Dear COHA staff, After reading COHA Research Associate Brian Thompson’s article “War of the Words: The Rising Tensions Between the Venezuelan Government and Globovision,” I found myself obligated to highlight some elements the author did not mention. The convulsive politics we face in Venezuela have entered our lives in a way few governments do. And I wish I could say that in a positive way, but the truth is that most of the measures taken and the ideology proposed by President Hugo Chávez have created a growing, almost unstoppable division among citizens. From my perspective, this article needs a better approach of the particular environment present in this country, where supporting socialism is supporting the President’s opinion, and not the socialist ideology itself. In the article, The "unbalanced tone" in the Venezuelan media is a result of the division encouraged by President Chávez, therefore this should not only apply to Globovisión, but to Venezolana de Televisión (VTV) as well, something the author clearly forgot to emphasize. The increasing need to speak up and confront the governmental measures that clearly affect the performance of our country, both within and beyond its borders, drive the citizens to drastically choose one side, one is either with Chávez or against him. The media is not excluded from this phenomenon. When the author explains that speech which “threatens the physical security of a sitting president” would be considered intolerable in most nations, he forgets that this case is one in a few coming from an opposition figure. Daily, Venezuelans are subjected to despicable, aggressive and always disrespectful propoganda from a well-known government defender, Mario Silva. His television show La hojilla (The Blade) vehemently attacks those who oppose Chávez’s regime. I would dare to say that people who favor President Chávez also find Silva’s tone as the pure representation of extreme obsession and disrespect. Much like Globovisión may face charges for undermining the public’s mental health, Silva will certainly face a jury one day for the collateral damage he has caused. I invite you to listen to some episodes of La Hojilla and reflect on how the extreme views and harsh language would be received by the United States’ public. In addition, if the allegations against Globovisión are accepted by the judicial branch, VTV would have to go through that process too. The author states that “Globovision’s problems also arise from its sensationalist, at times irresponsible brand of journalism.” I ask myself, when will the problems arise for VTV and its irresponsible brand of journalism? While the article refers to the situation two years ago in which opposition station RCTV’s broadcasting license was suspended, it completely ignores the governmental actions afterward. The government not only silenced the T.V. channel, but also appropriated the broadcasting equipment belonging to RCTV. The equipment undeniably belonged to the company, and as the mechanisms themselves are clearly innocent of inventing opposition propaganda, they should be returned to their rightful owner. Currently TeVes, the channel that has taken over the old RCTV national signal, is using this equipment illegally. The purpose of this reply is to remind writers that a problem should be addressed taking into account the atmosphere and environment a country undertakes. Without that, the article becomes another weak opinion on the matter, for us the ones living the situation. Sincerely, Raylsiyaly Rivero Coha Research Fellow Dear COHA staff,

After reading COHA Research Associate Brian Thompson’s article “War of the Words: The Rising Tensions Between the Venezuelan Government and Globovision,” I found myself obligated to highlight some elements the author did not mention. The convulsive politics we face in Venezuela have entered our lives in a way few governments do. And I wish I could say that in a positive way, but the truth is that most of the measures taken and the ideology proposed by President Hugo Chávez have created a growing, almost unstoppable division among citizens. From my perspective, this article needs a better approach of the particular environment present in this country, where supporting socialism is supporting the President’s opinion, and not the socialist ideology itself.

In the article,

The “unbalanced tone” in the Venezuelan media is a result of the division encouraged by President Chávez, therefore this should not only apply to Globovisión, but to Venezolana de Televisión (VTV) as well, something the author clearly forgot to emphasize.

The increasing need to speak up and confront the governmental measures that clearly affect the performance of our country, both within and beyond its borders, drive the citizens to drastically choose one side, one is either with Chávez or against him. The media is not excluded from this phenomenon.

When the author explains that speech which “threatens the physical security of a sitting president” would be considered intolerable in most nations, he forgets that this case is one in a few coming from an opposition figure. Daily, Venezuelans are subjected to despicable, aggressive and always disrespectful propoganda from a well-known government defender, Mario Silva. His television show La hojilla (The Blade) vehemently attacks those who oppose Chávez’s regime. I would dare to say that people who favor President Chávez also find Silva’s tone as the pure representation of extreme obsession and disrespect. Much like Globovisión may face charges for undermining the public’s mental health, Silva will certainly face a jury one day for the collateral damage he has caused. I invite you to listen to some episodes of La Hojilla and reflect on how the extreme views and harsh language would be received by the United States’ public. In addition, if the allegations against Globovisión are accepted by the judicial branch, VTV would have to go through that process too. The author states that “Globovision’s problems also arise from its sensationalist, at times irresponsible brand of journalism.” I ask myself, when will the problems arise for VTV and its irresponsible brand of journalism?

While the article refers to the situation two years ago in which opposition station RCTV’s broadcasting license was suspended, it completely ignores the governmental actions afterward. The government not only silenced the T.V. channel, but also appropriated the broadcasting equipment belonging to RCTV. The equipment undeniably belonged to the company, and as the mechanisms themselves are clearly innocent of inventing opposition propaganda, they should be returned to their rightful owner. Currently TeVes, the channel that has taken over the old RCTV national signal, is using this equipment illegally.

The purpose of this reply is to remind writers that a problem should be addressed taking into account the atmosphere and environment a country undertakes. Without that, the article becomes another weak opinion on the matter, for us the ones living the situation.

Sincerely,

Raylsiyaly Rivero
Coha Research Fellow

]]> By: T Scruggs http://www.coha.org/war-of-the-words-the-rising-tensions-between-the-venezuelan-government-and-globovision/comment-page-1/#comment-29905 T Scruggs Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:00:08 +0000 http://www.coha.org/?p=4600#comment-29905 Dear COHA / Brian: Your article was timely and accurate overall. If Greg Wilpert once said that community radio stations receive absolutely no government support he misspoke, for the equipment and some salary support of varying degrees comes from federal, state and/or local governments. Far from parroting the government however, I found that all 4 new at least partially govt funded community radio stations routinely blasted both the mayor and governor, both who ran w/ red shirts as Chavistas. Both are now gone after the last elections, by the way. Aporrea was started by a handful of people, probably the first and most key person being Martín Sánchez, who -- believe or not -- took my class here at Iowa on Music of Latin America. When a couple of years later he casually mentioned he was going to start a new website that would serve "as a portal for the Venezuelan left" I nodded my head in dubious agreement; but damn if he didn't do it. Aporrea is truly independent and runs materials severely critical of current government policies, but from the left. The description of aporrea is, frankly, inaccurate; it would fit more closely with the daily newspaper Vea, which rarely publishes serious criticism. The description of the media landscape in Venezuela was quite accurate on the whole, however, and a good contribution. Too bad you can't get it published in the New York Times or somewhere with broader distribution. Respectfully yours, T.M. Scruggs Dear COHA / Brian:

Your article was timely and accurate overall. If Greg Wilpert once said that
community radio stations receive absolutely no government support he
misspoke, for the equipment and some salary support of varying degrees comes
from federal, state and/or local governments. Far from parroting the
government however, I found that all 4 new at least partially govt funded
community radio stations routinely blasted both the mayor and governor, both
who ran w/ red shirts as Chavistas. Both are now gone after the last
elections, by the way.

Aporrea was started by a handful of people, probably the first and most key
person being Martín Sánchez, who — believe or not — took my class here at
Iowa on Music of Latin America. When a couple of years later he casually
mentioned he was going to start a new website that would serve “as a portal
for the Venezuelan left” I nodded my head in dubious agreement; but damn if
he didn’t do it. Aporrea is truly independent and runs materials severely
critical of current government policies, but from the left. The description
of aporrea is, frankly, inaccurate; it would fit more closely with the daily
newspaper Vea, which rarely publishes serious criticism.

The description of the media landscape in Venezuela was quite accurate on
the whole, however, and a good contribution. Too bad you can’t get it
published in the New York Times or somewhere with broader distribution.

Respectfully yours,

T.M. Scruggs

]]>