Venezuela's
RCTV Acts Of Sedition
By Stephen Lendman
26 January, 2007
Countercurrents.org
On December 28, Venezuelan President
Hugo Chavez Frias delivered his annual "greeting speech" to
the National Armed Forces (FAN) and announced the operating license
of TV station Radio Caracas Television (known as RCTV) broadcasting
on VHF Channel 2 won't be renewed when it expires on May 27, 2007. The
station played a leading role, along with the other four major commercial
private television channels in the country controlling 90% of the TV
market, in instigating and supporting the 2002 aborted two-day coup
against President Chavez. Later in the year they acted together again
in similar fashion as an active participant in the economically destructive
2002-03 main trade union confederation (CTV) - chamber of commerce (Fedecameras)
lockout and industry-wide oil strike that included sabotage against
the state oil company PDVSA costing it overall an estimated $14 billion
in lost revenue and damage.
A collaborative alliance
of the five media "majors" that include Globovision, Televen,
CMT and Venevision (owned by billionaire strident anti-Chavista Gustavo
Cisneros who's called the Rupert Murdoch of Latin America because of
his vast media holdings) along with RCTV began their anti-Chavez campaign
soon after Hugo Chavez assumed office in 1999. In addition, 9 of the
10 major national dailies were part of the joint corporate effort to
harm Chavez's popular support and undermine his legitimacy even before
he had a chance to implement his socially democratic agenda now flourishing
under his Bolivarian Revolution. It included the country's new Constitution
and all vital social missions it gave birth to and now deliver essential
services to the people who never had them before including free health
and dental care and education to the highest level - for everyone mandated
by law.
The corporate media alliance,
that included RCTV, had prior knowledge of the April, 2002 coup plot
that was apparent from the front page of national daily El Nacional
in a special day of the coup April 11 edition of the paper printed before
it began and headlined: The Final Battle Will Be in Miraflores (the
presidential palace). The same day, another daily, The Daily Journal
(an English language paper), headlined on its front page (also printed
in advance of the coup's initiation): State of Agony Stunts Government.
In the days leading up to
April 11, 2002, Venevision, Globovision, Televen and RCTV suspended
regular programming replacing it with anti-Chavez speeches and virulent
propaganda featuring strong rhetoric and calling on the Venezuelan people
to take to the streets on that day they knew in advance had been scheduled
for the coup. They blared it was "For freedom and democracy. Venezuela
will not surrender. No one will defeat us." This went on continuously
in tone and content practically announcing a call to arms insurrection
on the scheduled coup date asking people to participate supporting the
overthrow of their democratically elected president and government.
On April 10, one day before
the coup, General Nestor Gonzales got air time on the major corporate
broadcast media announcing the high military command demanded Hugo Chavez
step down from office or be forcibly removed. The day following the
coup, the dominant commercial media revealed their involvement in it,
and on one April 12 Venevision morning program military and civilian
coup leaders appeared on-air to thank the corporate media channels for
their important role, including the images they aired while it was in
progress, stating how important their participation was to the success
of the plot. It failed two days later largely because of mass public
opposition to it with huge crowds on the streets supporting their president
in far greater numbers than those favoring the coup-plotters.
It was also later revealed
the two-day only installed Venezuelan president Pedro Carmona had used
the facilities of Gustavo Cisneros' Venevision as a "bunker"
or staging area base of operations and was seen leaving its building
heading for the Miraflores to take office as president of Venezuela
on April 11 in flagrant violation of the law.
The dominant private corporate
media clearly and unequivocally were part of the coup plot. They colluded
to promote it in advance and then incited the public with anti-Chavez
propaganda encouraging it while suppressing all news and information
supporting Hugo Chavez that might have helped prevent it. It's likely
RCTV alone is being singled out at this time because it's VHF license
expiration is imminent in a few months. But it's also known a managing
producer of the station's El Observer news program testified to the
Venezuelan National Assembly that he and others at the station got orders
on the day of the coup from RCTV's owner that on April 11 and the following
day: "No information on Chavez, his followers, his ministers, and
all others" was to be allowed on-air on the station. Instead the
corporate media falsely reported Hugo Chavez had resigned when, in fact,
he'd been forcibly removed and was being held against his will. They
all knew it because they were told in advance and were part of the scheme.
On April 13, when hundreds
of thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets, the corporate
media TV stations ignored them and instead broadcast old movies and
cartoons like nothing of importance was happening. Even when the coup
was aborted and pro-Chavez cabinet members returned to the presidential
palace, it got no coverage on corporate-run TV or in the dominant print
media. In addition, state television was taken off the air suppressing
any truth coming out that lasted until Chavez supporters took over the
station and began broadcasting real information to the public for the
first time after the coup and until things returned to normal following
it.
Even after Hugo Chavez was
freed and returned to the Miraflores, the only station broadcasting
it was the state-owned channel. The dominant private media instead maintained
strict censorship in a further collaborative act of defiance. They refused
to admit or inform the public that Hugo Chavez was returned to office
because the people of Venezuela demanded it and succeeded in spite of
all obstacles impeding them. It was an impressive moment in Venezuela's
history that will long be remembered and is an important lesson to free
people everywhere that mass people power fighting for their rights and
freedom can prevail even against great odds.
It's also a testimony to
Hugo Chavez and how the country has prospered under him benefitting
everyone, including those behind the plot to oust him who might consider
the 2006 preliminary year end economic growth numbers showing the Venezuelan
economy grew at least 10% for the third straight year, including in
10 of the last 11 quarters. These impressive results were aided by record
oil income. With it, government spending and subsidies increased sparking
a jump in overall consumer demand. It boosted income for the country's
most in need but also made the rich even richer. Instead of trying to
oust Hugo Chavez, the anti-Chavistas might want to reconsider and thank
him instead, but that wasn't their intent in 2002, and it isn't now
either.
Venezuelan Corporate
Media Defiant and Undeterred
Even After the Coup Plot Failed
The dominant Venezuelan corporate
media remained defiant even in defeat and showed it only months later
that year in December, 2002 when a second de facto planned coup plot
against Hugo Chavez began. This time it took the form of the opposition
declaring a "general strike" that was reported that way by
the corporate media even though, in fact, it was a management-imposed
lockout workers had no part in or wanted. News reports falsely portrayed
it as an oil industry workers' strike supported by laborers and management.
It was not as it was planned and implemented by high level managers
and executives in the oil industry who sabotaged equipment, changed
access codes, and locked workers out of computer information systems
halting production. The action devastated the Venezuelan economy. It
threw many thousands out of work, affected other businesses, caused
many to go bankrupt, and effectively destabilized the country for over
two months.
During this period, the corporate
media took full advantage launching an information war against the Chavez
government. Again the four main TV stations suspended all regular programming
replacing it with pro-opposition propaganda round the clock non-stop
for the 64 day strike period denouncing Chavez and only stopping when
the strike ended.
Hugo Chavez's Justification
to Act Against RCTV
After Hugo Chavez announced
RCTV's VHF license wouldn't be renewed, 1BC president (and owner of
RCTV) Marcel Granier responded: "We all know what this is all about.
They are trying to abolish freedom of speech and force the media to
obey Government rules." He also falsely tried claiming his license
ran until 2012 because it was renewed for 10 years in 2001. William
Lara, head of Venezuela's Ministry of Information and Communications,
explained the license, in fact, was gotten in May, 1987 and had only
been resubmitted in 2001 because of the passage of a new communications
law that year. Lara also said in a subsequent press conference Chavez's
move against RCTV should come as no surprise and added this move is
not a "revocation or expropriation" of the privately-owned
RCTV but just the "termination" of its license.
Lara said Chavez intends
to "rescue" the channel for the Venezuelan people. RCTV will
still be able to operate on public airwaves via cable and satellite,
and Channel 2's concession will either be given to an RCTV worker cooperative,
a public-private consortium, or to the state for use as an entertainment
channel with state Channel 8 (VTV) becoming a 24 hour news channel and
both channels henceforth airing a better mix of socially responsible
programming.
The result will be greater
democratization of the public airwaves with less control of them in
the hands of media oligarchs and more of it given to the people of Venezuela.
This is how a functioning democracy is supposed to work. It can't if
public airwaves are controlled by corporate media giants operating in
their own self-interest while ignoring issues vital to the public welfare
the way oligarchs do it in Venezuela.
Chavez wants to promote more
openness and diversity, an initiative that should be championed, not
denouced. The issue is not a denial of free speech. It promotes it and
advocates social responsibility and adherence to the law. RCTV was in
flagrant violation on both counts, and with its VHF license shortly
up for renewal will now be held to account for violating the public
trust as it should be. It has only itself to blame for the impending
action against it that's fully justified and long overdue.
Lara and his government also
defended the license termination action against the baseless Organization
of American States (OAS) January 5 accusation issued by its Secretary-General
Jose Miguel Insulza that "The closing of a mass communications
outlet....has no precedent in the recent decades of democracy."
By making it, Insulza shows he's complicit with Venezuelan media oligarchs
and the Bush administration acting in their behalf supporting RCTV's
right to violate Venezuelan law and get away with it.
That was the message from
the Venezuelan foreign ministry in its statement issued in response
saying Insulza was "improperly meddling in a matter that is the
strict competency of Venezuelan authorities and denied its decision
had any appearance of censorship (and that Insulza) should retract a
series of comments that go against the truth." The foreign ministry
directly accused Insulza of being influenced by Venezuelans and foreigners
wishing to discredit Hugo Chavez and that his statement showed an "unfortunate
ignorance of reality" in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez was even more direct
in comments he made at the swearing-in of his new cabinet on January
8 saying Insulza is an "idiot" (pendejo) and called for his
resignation. He added a Secretary-General "who reaches this level
must, out of dignity, leave his office unless someone wants to once
again convert the OAS into what Fidel Castro once called....the ministry
of the colonies (with its HQ in Washington.)"
Several NGOs of note also
voiced baseless and disingenuous criticism claiming Chavez violated
standards of free speech and freedom of the press. They know better
and acted shamelessly doing it. They include Human Rights Watch, Reporters
Without Borders (RSF), and Peruvian-based Press and Society Institute
monitoring Andean region free press attacks and funded by the US National
Endowment of Democracy (NED) that only supports media allied with its
neoliberal right wing agenda.
These organizations ignored
the facts and dangers of a private media monopoly controlling the public
airwaves. Instead they chose to ally themselves with corporate interests
with comments like calling Chavez's freedom of the press record a "serious
(abuse of power and) attack on editorial pluralism (and he should) reconsider
(his) stance and guarantee an independent system of concessions and
renewal of licenses." Based on the facts, these kinds of comments
are unwarranted and indefensible.
RCTV began broadcasting in
1953, airs Venezuela's most hard right yellow journalism and consistently
shows a lack of ethics, integrity or professional standards in how it
operates as required by law. It's current license was granted for a
20 year period expiring on May 27, 2007. At that time, the government
may choose to renew it or not, and Hugo Chavez announced the latter
choice was made, and it won't be reversed. Minister Lara added pointed
comments about the state of the corporate media in Venezuela along with
the Chavez government's commitment to the right of free expression.
He said: "Journalism in this country is plagued with lies. They
lie when they talk about revocation and expropriation....The country
with the highest standards of freedom of speech in our continent - with
all due respect for the rest of Latin America - is Venezuela. The degree
of freedom of speech is so high that lies are spread throughout the
country and no penalty is imposed."
The minister is right as
was evidenced in the 2006 presidential campaign when the corporate media
reported one-sided pro-opposition support for Manuel Rosales along with
strident anti-Chavez propaganda throughout the pre-electoral period.
Hugo Chavez tolerated it all and threatened no retaliation or intent
to revoke or act against any media outlet unfairly hostile to him. This
is not the behavior of a tyrant. It's the way a democrat acts, but even
democrats like Chavez can and should demand the media and all others
obey the law. His decision affecting RCTV shows he's doing it and nothing
else. He's in full compliance with Venezuelan law as explained below.
Venezuela's Law of
Social Responsibility for
Radio and Television (LSR)
Most countries (including
the US) have laws and/or regulations setting standards of acceptable
practice for the media especially the radio and television broadcast
parts of it reaching large audiences including children exposed to them
and who don't read print publications. Venezuela has such a law called
the Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television (LSR). Enforcement
of it is handled by the National Telecommunications Commission, an independent
regulatory body with authority to issue broadcasting licenses. The law's
intent is to define and "establish the social responsibility of
radio and television service providers, related parties, national independent
producers, and users in the process of broadcasting and reception of
messages, promoting a democratic equilibrium between their duties, rights,
and interests, with the goal of seeking social justice and contributing
to citizenship formation, democracy, peace, human rights, education,
culture, public health, and the social and economic development of the
Nation, in conformity with constitutional norms and principles, legislation
for the holistic protection of boys, girls, and adolescents, education,
social security, free competition, and the Organic Telecommunications
Law."
Quite a mouthful, but indeed
a worthy list of guidelines and principles the electronic media are
mandated to follow and be held accountable for if they don't.
The LSR guarantees:
-- Freedom of expression
without censorship.
-- Judicial mechanisms for
families and the whole population to develop socially responsibly as
an audience.
-- The exercise and respect
for human rights.
-- An emphasis on social
and cultural information and material for children and adolescents to
aid their development and social conscience.
-- To encourage domestic
independent productions.
-- To achieve a balance between
the duties, rights, and interests of the people and the radio and television
providers and related parties.
-- To disseminate Venezuelan
cultural values.
-- To meet the needs of the
hearing-impaired.
-- To promote active citizen
participation in affairs of the country.
Failure to conform to these
standards and principles may result in fines, the denial of broadcast
spaces, suspension or revocation of broadcast licenses or refusal to
renew the right to continue broadcasting. Any of these punitive measures
may be imposed by the institutions having authority to enforce the law
including the Directorate's Counsel on Social Communication and the
National Commission on Telecommunications. They can act against broadcasters
violating these required standards and practices if they do any of the
following:
-- Transmit messages that
illegally promote, apologize for, or incite disobedience to the law
(that certainly include any television programming intended to enlist
public support to overthrow the democratically elected president or
others in the government).
-- Transmit messages that
impede the actions of citizen security organisms and the judicial branch
necessary to guarantee everyone the right to life, health and personal
integrity.
-- Transmit propaganda or
advertisements violating what's deemed lawful under the LSR (that would
also include any television programming intending to incite violence,
public disorder or the unseating of government officials).
-- Are non-compliant with
the obligation to offer free spaces to the State including to the Executive
Branch's Information and Communication Ministry.
Committing any of the above
violations may result in a suspension of license for up to 72 hours
when messages transmitted are intended to: incite war, adversely affect
public order and crime, or are against the national security. A license
may be revoked for up to five years when a penalty for any of the above
violations is repeated following suspension and within five years of
the first penalty.
Venezuela's five dominant
corporate television broadcasters are repeat offenders having violated
LSR provisions by their on-air programming with intent to incite violence
and public support to destabilize and overthrow the Chavez government.
Because RCTV's operating license expires in May, 2007, the Venezuelan
government is entitled and even obligated to refuse renewal for the
channel's repeated violations of the law as a way to protect public
safety and the welfare of all Venezuelan people. Information and Communication
Minister William Lara denounced those in the media and the country distorting
the facts leading to the government's decision. He explained RCTV's
practices in recent years have promoted intolerance, disobedience, and
disrespect for the law. In a word, this broadcaster openly defies the
law, its actions are flagrant and deplorable, and it must not be allowed
to continue in the interest of the country nor should any other broadcaster
acting irresponsibly.
How the Venezuelan
Corporate Media
Would Fare Under US Law
Fortunately for their owners
and managers, the dominant Venezuelan broadcast and print corporate-controlled
media don't operate under US laws. If they did, they'd be in very serious
trouble with the likely suspension of their operating licenses the least
of their woes.
If any part of the US media
- corporate run, controlled or otherwise - reported the kind of strident
anti-government propaganda intended to incite public hostility, violence
and rebellion the way the Venezuelan dominant media do, they'd be subject
to indictment on charges of sedition and possibly treason against the
state - offenses far more serious than just the right to remain operating.
During the 2002 April aborted coup and later anti-Chavez insurrection
in the form of a general strike and management-imposed oil industry
lockout, the Venezuelan corporate media acted in league with the oligarch
opposition coup-plotters trying to overthrow democratically elected
Hugo Chavez and his government.
In the US, this would be
a violation of several laws at least including seditious conspiracy
under Section 2384 of the US Code, Title 18 which states: "If two
or more persons in any State or Territory (of the US)....conspire to
overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the (elected) Government
of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force
the authority thereof, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property
of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
They might also be charged
with treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution that
defines this crime that's a far more serious offense and may be subject
to capital punishment for those found guilty. Its definition under Section
3 states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving
them Aid and Comfort." It would then remain for the courts to decide
whether any individuals by their actions of trying to subvert and overthrow
a duly constituted government would be guilty of this crime or any sub-category
under it explained below.
That might, in fact, happen,
especially in the current US climate where the law is what the chief
executive says it is, and the courts are stacked with supportive judges
willing to go along. Consider what crimes are related to treason in
the US and how easily Venezuelan corporate media actions to subvert
Hugo Chavez might fall under them. They include the following:
-- Insurrection or rebellion
involving armed groups creating a reasonable expectation that force
or violence may be used against the sitting government.
-- Mutiny or unlawfully taking
over command of the US government, or any part of it, or any part of
the military.
-- Sabotage to include damaging
or tampering with any national defense material or national defense
utilities that in Venezuela could include state oil company facilities
vital to the operation and viability of the country and welfare of the
people.
-- Sedition, already covered
above, that includes any communication (like inflammatory TV or newspaper
headlines and stories) intended to stir up treason or rebellion against
the government.
-- Subversion that's defined
as free speech gone much too far that includes transmitting blatantly
false information aiding the enemy or opposition.
-- Syndicalism that is the
act of organizing a political party or group advocating the violent
overthrow of the government.
-- Terrorism defined as the
systematic use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce
the government or whole societies by targeting innocent noncombatants.
A strong case can be made
that RCTV and the rest of the dominant broadcast and print corporate
media in Venezuela are guilty of most or all these related acts of treason
under US law. If so and if their owners and managers committed any of
these offenses in the US, they could be charged at least with sedition
and possibly treason, brought to trial and if found guilty be in very
serious trouble.
It can reasonably be argued
that attempting to forcibly overthrow a democratically elected government
is treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution and is
no different than an act of war to accomplish the same thing. If a judge
and jury agreed and it held up on appeal, the person or persons found
guilty would likely either face the death penalty or life in prison
without parole for what the US considers the most egregious of all crimes
against the state and thus imposes its harshest penalties.
The oligarchs running the
Venezuelan corporate media might contemplate that fate and be grateful
they operate in democratic Venezuela and not in the truly harsh environment
of the United States. Of course, they won't, their anti-Chavez campaign
will go on unabated, and it will be supported by their counterparts
in the US and Bush administration labeling Hugo Chavez a ruthless tyrant
trying to destroy free speech and democracy and calling for his head.
It doesn't matter to those
in the US power structure and their Venezuelan counterparts that they're
the guilty ones and their charges against Hugo Chavez are disingenuous
and baseless. Chavez is a true democrat with every right to expect all
Venezuelans behave responsibly in conformity with the law.
Things aren't that way in
the US where respect for the law and rights of ordinary people went
out the window with the election of George Bush and his thuggish neocon
administration. They condemn Hugo Chavez because he respects law and
order and courageously supports the rights of all Venezuelans under
it. In contrast, George Bush acts as a tyrant, claims the law is what
he says it is, and defiles the US Constitution audaciously saying "It's
just a goddamned piece of paper." He also flaunts international
norms and standards and respect for human beings and their dignity he
doesn't care about. Some difference, and readers can choose which leader
they prefer. They can also choose the kinds of media they prefer getting
their news and information from. Those opting for this web site have
chosen well.
Stephen Lendman
lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights