things getting pretty shaky for chavez recently... censorship of the press

[b i o n i c]

my cousin in latin america IMs me asking how america is taking the news...

i go "what, lindsay lohan passed out drunk on the front page of the papers?"

he goes, "no, what happened in venezuela."

according to him, chavez has been really respected across latin america, but that this time it appears 'the people' feel he's gone too far. so i look at the story:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/05/29/venezuela.media/index.html

he's shutting down media outlets that don't agree with his views.

i hadn't heard anything about this, but from his end it's top news. he expected me to've heard about it. i haven't.

im surprised to hear this news from a side of the world that doesnt really see these things our way. im happy to hear that they seem to be standing up for themselves in a way that would be more in line with american interests as well as their own. according to him, the general feeling there is that he's making himself a dictator and that many people feel they've allowed him to go too far and now its the last straw.

i think he will find a way to pacify his opponents and somehow make them forget. their expectations will diminish and he will continue to have his way. if the station gets their air rights back, it will be under his terms.

im glad this is bigger news over there than it is here.

[Ali]

Are these left or right wing papers he's shutting down?

[SobaViolence]

he shut down/did not renew the liscence of a critical television station which at least once promoted his overthrow, and is the mouthpiece of the elite/right. then he opened another state-run station to promote socialism.
dumb move.
the station he closed was mostly full of soap operas and sitcoms, and we all know how the masses like their shit tv shows...

i mean, they called for a coup d'etat. i'd be a little pissed too.

[Ali]

he shut down/did not renew the liscence of a critical television station which at least once promoted his overthrow, and is the mouthpiece of the elite/right. then he opened another state-run station to promote socialism.
dumb move.
the station he closed was mostly full of soap operas and sitcoms, and we all know how the masses like their shit tv shows...

i mean, they called for a coup d'etat. i'd be a little pissed too.I wonder how long a TV station in the US would last, if it promoted the overthrow of your Dear Leader. 30 seconds?

[Schmeltz]

Doesn't mean it's OK for Chavez to do it.*

*See other thread

[D_Raay]

You don't think a line was crossed here?

It's one thing to voice dissent, but to outright call for people to rise up and overthrow a democratically elected president?

[Ali]

Doesn't mean it's OK for Chavez to do it.*

*See other threadNo, but it explains his actions.

Which other thread? Link...

[D_Raay]

Doesn't mean it's OK for Chavez to do it.*

*See other thread

Also for what exactly should this man be overthrown? Anything more egregious than Bush himself? You think maybe Bush and his neo-con cronies may have something to do with this particular station?

[ToucanSpam]

Stalin did the same thing Chavez is doing now, shutting down anything and anyone that tries to counter his agenda. Although Chavez is reasonable and won't barbecue his own people.


This comes as no shock as it is a typical trend when dealing with leftist regimes in power. I guess eventually he had to do something people didn't agree with, glad it's not something that included violence.

[Schmeltz]

You don't think a line was crossed here?

I think Chavez is the one way over the line. Even if this station has been directly agitating for his overthrow, nobody's apparently been charged with any wrongdoing and there's been no investigation, trial, or due process, at least not that I've been able to find out about. Just the complete closure of a dissenting media outlet and its conversion into an unabashed propaganda mill. I don't think you can reasonably claim Chavez as the victim here.


You think maybe Bush and his neo-con cronies may have something to do with this particular station?


You know, it is still possible for domestic dissent to function and flourish without any aid from the Bush administration. Chavez' program has directly clashed with the interests of a certain sector of his population and it's only reasonable to expect that in a purportedly democratic society such a group would mount a reactionary media campaign. Again, if this station was being supported by foreign interests working towards Chavez' overthrow, the proper thing to do is to mount transparent legal investigative procedures to determine the facts and then take appropriate action, not just order a media organization to cease all activity whatsoever and then turn it into a government prop to boot.

Furthermore, are we aware of how serious this station was in spreading calls for an uprising against the man? Chavez is famous for his bombastic, over-the-top rhetoric and people in Venezuela seem generally rather passionate and ardent about their country's politics and history; to me it's hardly surprising to see a media outlet with an opposing editorial slant adopt a similarly activist and hardline point of view. Now, if they had been channelling funds or information to militant revolutionary organizations or terrorist subversive groups, or something like that, I could understand suspending their activities - following the application of due process. But nothing like that has emerged and the only legal procedure apparently followed was the use of the federal judiciary to do an end run around the investigation one would normally expect in this situation.

I'm kind of surprised at you guys, honestly. I've been vocal in my support of Chavez in the past and I don't think this single instance yet overshadows the very real good he's done not only for the underprivileged citizens of his own country but for others in the region and in the hemisphere as well, nor is it necessarily an omen of darker things to come. But it is an uncomfortable precedent and it strikes me that the quelling of dissent and the right to it ought to be protested and resisted no matter who is behind it, irrespective of what one might think of its perpetrators. Society is never improved when the state takes action to supress views contrary to its own, nor is the state improved when its citizens are denied recourse to criticize and challenge its policies. What's good for the goose is good for the gander - right?

[D_Raay]

Never really disagreed with you schmeltz, just throwing some kindling on...;)

But it is an uncomfortable precedent and it strikes me that the quelling of dissent and the right to it ought to be protested and resisted no matter who is behind it, irrespective of what one might think of its perpetrators. Society is never improved when the state takes action to supress views contrary to its own, nor is the state improved when its citizens are denied recourse to criticize and challenge its policies. What's good for the goose is good for the gander - right?

Indeed, and the sad thing is, I think he means well. He may just be in over his head a little which has caused him to neglect his own ideology.

[ToucanSpam]

I think Chavez is the one way over the line. Even if this station has been directly agitating for his overthrow, nobody's apparently been charged with any wrongdoing and there's been no investigation, trial, or due process, at least not that I've been able to find out about. Just the complete closure of a dissenting media outlet and its conversion into an unabashed propaganda mill. I don't think you can reasonably claim Chavez as the victim here.



You know, it is still possible for domestic dissent to function and flourish without any aid from the Bush administration. Chavez' program has directly clashed with the interests of a certain sector of his population and it's only reasonable to expect that in a purportedly democratic society such a group would mount a reactionary media campaign. Again, if this station was being supported by foreign interests working towards Chavez' overthrow, the proper thing to do is to mount transparent legal investigative procedures to determine the facts and then take appropriate action, not just order a media organization to cease all activity whatsoever and then turn it into a government prop to boot.

Furthermore, are we aware of how serious this station was in spreading calls for an uprising against the man? Chavez is famous for his bombastic, over-the-top rhetoric and people in Venezuela seem generally rather passionate and ardent about their country's politics and history; to me it's hardly surprising to see a media outlet with an opposing editorial slant adopt a similarly activist and hardline point of view. Now, if they had been channelling funds or information to militant revolutionary organizations or terrorist subversive groups, or something like that, I could understand suspending their activities - following the application of due process. But nothing like that has emerged and the only legal procedure apparently followed was the use of the federal judiciary to do an end run around the investigation one would normally expect in this situation.

I'm kind of surprised at you guys, honestly. I've been vocal in my support of Chavez in the past and I don't think this single instance yet overshadows the very real good he's done not only for the underprivileged citizens of his own country but for others in the region and in the hemisphere as well, nor is it necessarily an omen of darker things to come. But it is an uncomfortable precedent and it strikes me that the quelling of dissent and the right to it ought to be protested and resisted no matter who is behind it, irrespective of what one might think of its perpetrators. Society is never improved when the state takes action to supress views contrary to its own, nor is the state improved when its citizens are denied recourse to criticize and challenge its policies. What's good for the goose is good for the gander - right?

Very well said. Especially your comments about society never improving when the state squashes political discourse. I would argue Canada's massive oppression of fascists in the 1930s is a prime example of where the silencing of a marginal political movement was also not beneficial. Italian-Canadians had a rough going the following two decades after the extensive reports on fascist activity were written up. In this case the mainstream political parties on control looked good when the time came to intern these 'traitors', but the effect the interment had on public opinon of Italians led to years of oppression and sometimes violence towards natural Canadian citizens based on ethnicity.

...woah. Ramble-town, population me. Anyways it's never beneficial when the state forcefully silences a challenge to the mainstream. Short term gain perhaps, but in the long run if it is done repeatedly discourse only rises.

[freetibet]

Some of You sound surprised. :rolleyes:

It's like that - 1939: "-Hitler's gonna kill Jews? It can't be!" Few years later: "-D'oh!"

[Documad]

That's why I called him a dictator in the other thread. It's not a fair label yet, but he appears to be heading that way.

Months ago, this was discussed on NPR, but now that Chavez is no longer lashing out at the US, the US media just ignores him altogether. Or at least my regular NPR shows ignore him.

[ToucanSpam]

Some of You sound surprised. :rolleyes:

It's like that - 1939: "-Hitler's gonna kill Jews? It can't be!" Few years later: "-D'oh!"

I knew it was only a matter of time until someone said somthing like this.:rolleyes:

[battyriders]

i dont think hes that bad, nationalizing the oil is a good thing

[Ali]

Still no answer. How long would any media outlet in any country, linked with people who previously attempted to overthrow the democratically-elected government, be allowed to broadcast continuing calls against the government?

[Schmeltz]

Here's your answer in the form of another question: when is it ever acceptable for a government to suppress, completely without due process, any media outlet linked to the political opposition?

[Ali]

Here's your answer in the form of another question: when is it ever acceptable for a government to suppress, completely without due process, any media outlet linked to the political opposition?
Dude, if Al Queda opened a media outlet in the US, you can bet your sweet ass it would be shut down.

[Schmeltz]

We're not talking about what amounts to a directly invasive infoweapon wielded by a foreign opposition group diametrically opposed to a host government at direct military odds with the broadcaster. We're talking about a nation's largest popular domestic media outlet, a virtual cultural icon that has been broadcasting for decades and which has been silenced through the coercive manipulation of state machinery rather than the fair and transparent application of due process. I don't think you can fairly compare RCTV to al-Qaeda - to go by the terms of your own analogy this is more like Bush employing a hand-picked Supreme Court to shut down the LA Times.

Would you realistically expect hundreds of thousands of Americans to take to the streets to protest against the closure of an al-Qaeda media outlet? Many thousands of Venezuelans, including sizable bodies of students, protested against the arbitrary closure of RCTV (only to be put to flight by armies of riot police wielding surprisingly sophisticated suppression gear for a third-world country). But if Bush were to simply silence one of the top five most influential news and entertainment networks - NBC or CNN might be comparable examples - I think you can bet your sweet ass there would be massive crowds in the streets of every city in the United States. Especially if he employed the USMC to confiscate their equipment and infrastructure and then award it to FOX News.

When the state targets the media at the expense of public discourse and in order to promote its own ideology, there is a loss of freedom. The freedoms of access to information and freedom of civic participation are directly violated. The role of the state in a democratic society is to safeguard the right to dissent, within its proper cultural context, not to quash it on the basis of a purported threat to the ruling regime. I think there is room and scope for the interpretation of Chavez' actions as well within certain precedents set in Latin American cultural history as well as human tendencies at large, and I don't think this move should come as a total surprise or as a challenging disappointment. But that shouldn't stop anyone with a sense of commitment to the principles of democracy from denouncing it for the suppressive action that it is.

[Ali]

Are these the same people who took to the streets when the White House-backed coup de etat took place?

[b i o n i c]

al ja zeera has offices in new york. i saw jobs there advertised on monster.com.

[Schmeltz]

Are these the same people who took to the streets when the White House-backed coup de etat took place?

I don't know. Do you? Does it matter?

[DroppinScience]

Ali,

A dictator is a dictator... whether you fall in line with his policies or oppose them, that's what Chavez is.

[Marlene]

Ali,

A dictator is a dictator... whether you fall in line with his policies or oppose them, that's what Chavez is.

wow, i'm disagreeing with you....i think that's a first.

there's no way that a TV station in the US would even have been able to broadcast a call for an overthrow of the presidency.

i'm not sure i disagree with chavez shutting down the tv station and i wouldn't be at all surprised if we aren't down there dicking around, stirring up shit, so if US spooks are there (undoubtedly) Chavez absolutely did the right fucking thing.

[Schmeltz]

The ironic thing here is that if Chavez had actually conducted an appropriate, legal, accessible investigation into the alleged wrongdoings of this station such dicking around, if any existed, would have undoubtedly come to light, which would in turn have further enhanced Chavez' reputation and cemented Venezuelan public opinion even more firmly on his side than it seems to be already. Instead he chose a course of action that gives more ammunition to his opponents and detracts from his substantial record of concern for public welfare. Why do you imagine he took that action? Was the threat posed by this station really that imminent? If so why hasn't any evidence to that effect come to light?

It sounds to me like you're excusing a rather wanton contravention of democratic civics simply on the basis that two wrongs make a right. I think that's jive.

Furthermore, a broadcaster in the USA might not survive for long if it explicitly promoted the revolutionary overthrow of the government - but, as I wrote above, if George Bush solved that problem by using the federal judiciary to legitimize the military takeover of such a station as CNN and then convert its assets into a Republican propaganda mill, would you be OK with it? Would that be the right thing to do? That seems to be what you're saying.

[Marlene]

would i be okay with it? ummm, no I'm NOT okay with it. the media in this country is completely IN BED with the government. people are either stupid or willfully ignorant if they don't see the close ties between the two. besides, the only thing that drives the media in the US is $$$$$$$$$$$$ ka ching, which is why their interests go the way of the money. which is why we see stupid shit about silly rich white girls instead of real news....which is why i don't watch corporate media such as CNN.

proof? sorry, but are you one of those grassroots infiltrators going out to msgboards pre-election time to push a political agenda? it is completely naive to think that spying by our government could be "easily proven" and then used to shore up more support for chavez. they don't call them spooks and ghosts just for the heck of it.

[Schmeltz]

proof? sorry, but are you one of those grassroots infiltrators going out to msgboards pre-election time to push a political agenda?

Hardly. I don't even live in your country and this is the only message board I visit. What have I said that could have possibly given you that impression? What political agenda do you detect in my remarks?

it is completely naive to think that spying by our government could be "easily proven" and then used to shore up more support for chavez. they don't call them spooks and ghosts just for the heck of it.

I never said that spying by the Bushies could be "easily proven," I asserted that if Chavez had addressed this issue more transparently his position would have been dramatically strengthened through the exposure of such activity (assuming, of course, that it ever took place at all). Why do you consider this so naive? It's patently obvious, so far as I'm concerned, that to indisputably demonstrate real wrongdoing by this station would have been a much more strategically sound move than the course of action Chavez has taken, which has worsened his image abroad and at home.

I also note that you kind of dodged my question - when is it acceptable for the state to circumvent due process and employ underhanded tricks to silence dissenting voices, and would you be OK with it if Bush did the same thing on the basis of a purported armed threat against his government?

[Ali]

Ali,

A dictator is a dictator... whether you fall in line with his policies or oppose them, that's what Chavez is.Is this the "Dictator" who was elected as president in 1998 with 56% of the vote and re-elected in 2000 with 60%? And in 2002 when this "Dictator" was taken prisoner by the armed forces, why did the people not rejoice at their liberation?
Why, instead, were there massive public demonstrations, rioting, looting and general unhappiness when this evil dictator was toppled by the riteous Lucas Romero?
Why was Romero not seen by the people as their liberator when he reversed the major social and economic policies of land reform, free healthcare, free education that Chavez had implemented over the past three years?
Was it because this evil dictator had reduced inflation and infant mortality to their lowest levels since 1986 and set economic growth at 4%?

Why did it take less than three days to re-instate Chavez as "DICTATOR"?

Why were there US Navy vessels in Venezuelan waters and USAF aircraft in Venezuelan airspace at the time of the failed coup?

Why were subsequent attacks on Chavez, in the forms of strikes, lockouts and so on usually organised by Big Oil and generally rich and powerful forces who are unhappy at Chavez's policies mentioned above?

Why did this D I C T A T O R allow a recall vote in 2004, which he won by 59%, despite allegations of fraud by Súmate, who happen to be closely tied to the US government and linked to the 2002 coup attempt?

Why has this evil dictator been re-elected in 2006 with a staggering 63%, in a losely-monitored election?

Now, why do you think Chavez refused to renew the license of RCTV in 2007, which openly supported the 2002 coup attempt and has been a constant source of criticism, helping fuel any and all political and social unrest which has been aimed at curbing Chavez's policies?

If a US TV station behaved towards the Bush administration in the same way as RCTV, exacly what chance would it have to operate in the US? Has Al-Jazeera TV ever openly supported the 9/11 attacks? How long would it be allowed to operate anywhere in the world, if it had? RCTV has been allowed to operate for five years since the coup and only now has it been refused a license renewal on constitutional grounds. Any US network which violates the US constitution would suffer a far worse fate than RCTV.

Yes, Chavez is a little heavy handed, but he is under constant attack and perhaps if he was left alone, he'd behave in a more acceptable manner (not acceptable to to BIG OIL and the Bush administration, of couse).

It's the same thing as Hamas. Chavez is elected, US doesn't like it and does everything it can to get rid of him, branding him a dictator.

[DroppinScience]

Yes, he's democratically elected and legitimately so. I recognize and respect that, but he should rule as a democratically elected head of state... NOT this creeping authoritarianism where opposition is stamped out (you do realize opposition is a crucial factor in democracy, right?).

Right or left... his behavior is reprehensible. Whether you sympathize with his aims and policies is beside the point entirely. I'm not down with a Pinochet nor a Chavez. That sort of manner taints us all.

[Ali]

Yes, he's democratically elected and legitimately so. I recognize and respect that, but he should rule as a democratically elected head of state... NOT this creeping authoritarianism where opposition is stamped out (you do realize opposition is a crucial factor in democracy, right?).

Right or left... his behavior is reprehensible. Whether you sympathize with his aims and policies is beside the point entirely. I'm not down with a Pinochet nor a Chavez. That sort of manner taints us all.

He's behaving like a dictator because he's been/being treated like one by those who don't like his socialist policies.

If he leaves RCTV to continue to broadcast their own biased angle on everything he does, people are going to start to believe them. He has every right to shut them up, especially because of their past involvement in coup attempts, strikes and so on. Like I keep saying, any US broadcaster which supported an attempted coup on the US government would have more than its license renewal declined!!!

As for whether or not he's another Pinochet, I'm sure he'd appreciate the sort of support Pinochet received from the US and the UK while he was in power!!!

He's the exact opposite of Pinochet. Why do you use him as an example???

[Schmeltz]

If a US TV station behaved towards the Bush administration in the same way as RCTV, exacly what chance would it have to operate in the US?


I certainly hope you're not looking at George W. Bush to set the standard for government-media relations. Anyway it's already been pointed out that this is a totally spurious comparison; the fact that George Bush might dearly love to crack down on dissent in the same manner as has Chavez A) doesn't make such a thing right and B) would certainly produce a strenuous backlash in the States if Bush were to employ the army to shut down CNN, confiscate its equipment, and award it to FOX.


If he leaves RCTV to continue to broadcast their own biased angle on everything he does, people are going to start to believe them.


Good heavens. You mean Venezuelans might actually exercise their rights to access, consider, and act upon sources of information other than those produced directly by the government? Why, that sounds positively democratic. Surely we can't have that; best to have the government in control of all the media so that only one angle is available, rather than a free and critical media that serves as a sounding board for whether or not government policy is actually in tune with the best interests and wishes of the citizenry. Why would anyone want such a thing in their country?

Seriously man, listen to yourself. You're describing a totalitarian statist wet dream - exactly what Bush would do in a snap instant if it weren't for that pesky ol' Constitution. I'm sure he and his ilk yearn every day for the ability to simply silence what media dissent does exist in the USA, on the completely insubstantial basis that such dissent might lead to a weakening of support for a government increasingly at odds with the interests of its people.

I'll say it again: in a free society the government, whatever its nature or policies, does not have the right to quell opposing voices without due process. That's the exact opposite of democracy.

[DroppinScience]

I certainly hope you're not looking at George W. Bush to set the standard for government-media relations. Anyway it's already been pointed out that this is a totally spurious comparison; the fact that George Bush might dearly love to crack down on dissent in the same manner as has Chavez A) doesn't make such a thing right

Re-read this line, especially, Ali. I'm not interested in a "what if?" in what would happen if CBS, PBS, MSNBC or whoever actually advocated a violent coup against the U.S. government in order to justify/excuse/explain why it's okay for Chavez to do what he has done (so far, the only thing I'm gathering is you're okay with Chavez doing this because the two of you see eye to eye on the issues... if he was the exact opposite of your ideals [oh, let's say, someone like Bush], you'd be yelling and screaming, I can guarantee it).

[battyriders]

as i said in the other thread he didnt shut them down, he did not renew their licence , which also happened in the uk with thatcher and thames television, i could think of worse injustices than a right wiing tv station being closed. and for the majority of the people , hes doing good things with health care and education so there

[b i o n i c]

with the "fatherly" stance he's taken on practically everything, it seems unlikely he isn't looking out for himself first and foremost

[Ali]

as i said in the other thread he didnt shut them down, he did not renew their licence , which also happened in the uk with thatcher and thames television, i could think of worse injustices than a right wiing tv station being closed. and for the majority of the people , hes doing good things with health care and education so thereWord.

It's not like he went in there and shot everybody, he refused to renew their license AFTER they had colluded in the coup attempts and strikes designed to pull him down.

But you guys go on believing what you are told by the media, that's right, swallow.

[Schmeltz]

I guess it's always easier to accuse proponents of an opposing perspective of being slaves to the media than to actually address their points, isn't it?

Laughable.

[Ali]

I guess it's always easier to accuse proponents of an opposing perspective of being slaves to the media than to actually address their points, isn't it?

Laughable.What points would you like me to address, that I haven't already.

No, it doesn't make it 'right' not to renew a broadcasting license for a TV station which is funded by forces who are out to get you.

But it makes sense.

Was it 'right' that Chavez was removed from power in a military coup? Was it 'right' that the military coup was funded by the US?

Depends on whose point of view you look at it from.

As for Democracy. Chavez was democratically elected. If he chooses to muzzle a broadcaster which calls for his overthrow all the time then he has a reason to do it. The media is a very powerful force and if he lets them continue to spew lies about him and does nothing, then he's condoning what they say. Free Speech is one thing, propaganda is another.

I dunno how I'm supposed to address your points when my point about what would happen in the US is dismissed as a 'what if' and a 'that's also bad'. You guys are stuck on this 'Chavez is bad' trip based on what? He shut up an outfit which has fucked with him in the past and keeps fucking with him. Any government anywhere would have shut those fukkers up (but that's a what if, so what's the fucking point in arguing about it).

[Schmeltz]

The media is a very powerful force and if he lets them continue to spew lies about him and does nothing, then he's condoning what they say.


And you don't feel that a democratic government should be obliged to do exactly that? As I said above, when the citizenry are made to fear the government and its ability to choose the sources of information to which they should be subject, there is a loss of freedom. This is not a feature of an open or a democratic society.

I don't dispute that media should be held to high standards of accuracy and integrity, but in a democracy the means through which this standard is enforced are transparent and accessible, not arbitrary and authoritarian.


when my point about what would happen in the US is dismissed as a 'what if' and a 'that's also bad'.


I addressed it in my next-to-last post:


Anyway it's already been pointed out that this is a totally spurious comparison; the fact that George Bush might dearly love to crack down on dissent in the same manner as has Chavez A) doesn't make such a thing right and B) would certainly produce a strenuous backlash in the States if Bush were to employ the army to shut down CNN, confiscate its equipment, and award it to FOX.



You guys are stuck on this 'Chavez is bad' trip based on what?


Based on the fact that Chavez purports to be a populist leader in tune with the needs of his people, but apparently doesn't trust them far enough to allow them access to perspectives in opposition to those of his government. Or the fact that Chavez purports to be a democratic leader but has here carried out a process of silencing dissent with a lack of transparency and excess of duplicity totally unbecoming to an allegedly democratic government - behaviour that comes dangerously close to a real abuse of the power wielded by a culturally obtrusive government with total control of all legislative and executive branches.

As I've said before, and will repeat, this is not a "Chavez is bad" issue; I've made posts defending Chavez when I thought he merited defending. This is not such a time, and you have yet to demonstrate why it should be. You could maybe start by explaining why you feel Chavez' action is defensible if you admit that it isn't right, or maybe why you would characterize as "democratic" a government that consciously and with very minimal due process limits its' citizens' access to dissenting points of view?

[fucktopgirl]

And you don't feel that a democratic government should be obliged to do exactly that? As I said above, when the citizenry are made to fear the government and its ability to choose the sources of information to which they should be subject, there is a loss of freedom. This is not a feature of an open or a democratic society.

You just describe America.:D
The information that people are fed with is biased and total propaganda. They don't have the choice of their source information ( On the tv media because internet is another game), all the media are corrupted, it is one side of the coin , always. The government don't shut down tv stations but they certainly don't open ones that will say the contrary of their opinions.

So what is the worst?

Chavez shut down a station that was full of bullshit, and that were spreading lies over him and his agenda big fucking deal. Right on! He shut down a river of shit , i cannot see this as a bad thing. And this station were the ones behind the coup d'état, it is clear that thoses people are the assholes here.


And someone mention that this channel was full of soap opera, good move Chavez, maybe people will do something else then be brainwashed by stupid show.

[DroppinScience]

You just describe America.:D
The information that people are fed with is biased and total propaganda. They don't have the choice of their source information ( On the tv media because internet is another game), all the media are corrupted, it is one side of the coin , always. The government don't shut down tv stations but they certainly don't open ones that will say the contrary of their opinions.

So what is the worst?

Chavez shut down a station that was full of bullshit, and that were spreading lies over him and his agenda big fucking deal. Right on! He shut down a river of shit , i cannot see this as a bad thing. And this station were the ones behind the coup d'état, it is clear that thoses people are the assholes here.


And someone mention that this channel was full of soap opera, good move Chavez, maybe people will do something else then be brainwashed by stupid show.

This is hardly a rebuttal to some very key points Schmeltz is making.

Ever heard of the quote, "I disagree with what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

What do you mean Venezuelans don't have a choice in their media? Is this TV station in question literally the only one and Chavez shut it down? So now he's given the public NO choice in media? I'm not following your train of thought here.

[fucktopgirl]

^ My train of though are what you did read, nothing else , nothing more.

If i was in a position like him, i would do the same if some fuckers were behind me trying to bring me down. and spreading lies over my agenda just to favor theirs. They are frustrated because Chavez = less money for them little freaking bourgeois.

Every president use their power to change stuff for good or bad, the decision of Chavez to put down a TV station is nothing bad and if you compare it to Bush action, i mean c'mon. He is still a positive leader who want the good of the people and who want to eliminate the vipers. Shutting down a tv station is not a genocide and actually it can be good for people mind.

I dont see why people freak out because of that....

[DroppinScience]

For the record, I think Chavez more or less DOES have the best interests for Venezuelans as a whole, but this hardly means you shouldn't be critical or questioning towards a reckless decision such as this.

It's things like this that make it remarkably clear while reading this thread: no matter what side of the fence you're on, if one of your own commits an indefensible act, blind eyes are cast or it's easily dismissed.

Here's what he should have done: if he's got nothing to be afraid of AND if the people as a whole are truly behind him, he'd let the station remain as is, let them say whatever they want, and the people would then decide the station is full of crap and then it'd collapse under its own weight. Problem solved.

An unreasonable scenario, I know. :rolleyes:

And it's lame that the most you guys come up with are: "You guys are brainwashed by the media" as a retort. Brainwashing does go both ways.