[NYTr] Reporters Without Scruples and RCTV Kerfluffle in Venezuela
 
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:42:42 -0500 (CDT)


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
ZNet via Venezuelanalysis - Jul 11, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2093

Reporters Without Borders and Venezuelabs RCTV

By Salim Lamrani

The refusal to renew the 20-year-old concession license of the private
Venezuelan television channel RCTV that expired May 27, 2007, set off
extraordinary media hysteria worldwide. For several weeks, press from
all over the globe focused on a banal event that goes totally unnoticed
when it occurs in any other country. The media converted the completely
normal and legitimate administrative decision into an attack on press
freedoms. Reporters Without Borders (RSF), naturally, participated in
the international disinformation campaign, publishing an extremely
biased report about RCTV on June 5, 2007. (1)

Closure of RCTV and media hegemony?

RSF titled their report bClosure of Radio Caracas Television
Consolidates Media Hegemony.b The organizationbs tone instantly conveys
two lies in only one phase. First, RCTV has not been closed and can
continue broadcasting via cable or satellite. As the radio spectrum, by
definition, is limited, the Venezuelan government decided not to renew
the contract of this channel and instead assigned the freed space to
another channel in an attempt to democratize the media. Therefore,
contrary to RSF claims, RCTV has not bstopped broadcasting.b (2)

The second fallacy is found in the expression bmedia hegemony.b With
this title, RSF expects the reader to believe that the Venezuelan
authorities control the media and hold a virtual monopoly over this
sector. In order to win over public opinion, Robert MC)nard, general
secretary of the organization, incessantly repeats the same maxim to
the press: bChC!vez has hegemonic control over the media.b(3) However,
the truth is quite different. In Venezuela, 80% of current TV channels
and radio stations are privately owned. In terms of cable and satellite
TV, private companies control nearly all channels. Moreover, the 118
national and regional periodicals distributed in the country are
controlled by the private sector. bMedia hegemonyb exists, all right.
But private financial groups and corporations are the ones in control.
(4)

Arbitrary decision by President Hugo ChC!vez?

RSF asserts that the decision was made bby order of president Hugo
ChC!vezb and claims that this is illegal since, according to RSF, there
is a lack of a bjudicial order [...] in order to deny the channel the
right to broadcast for the next twenty years.b Here again RSF uses the
double lie, given that the decision is perfectly legal in terms of
existing international law. As in most countries around the world, the
airwaves belong to the state and are to be used in the publicbs
interest; Article 156 of the Venezuelan constitution as well as the
Organic Law of Telecommunications grants the government the power to
regulate access. It is absolutely not a matter of bjudicial orderb as
RSF claims. Besides, as already explained, RCTV continues to have the
bright to broadcastb via cable or satellite. (5)

Likewise, it wasnbt Hugo ChC!vez who decided not to renew the
concession, but the National Telecommunications Commission of
Venezuela. The concession of RCTV was not renewed for several specific
reasons. First, the government wanted to establish a balance between
public and private channels. Next, RCTV did not respect their
obligations or Schedule of Conditions of License. For example: between
June and December 2006, authorities cited RCTV with at least 652
infractions. The channel also systematically denigrated the policies of
the government and on various occasions incited the public to violence
and rebellion against constitutional order. The proven participation of
RCTV in the coup dbC)tat of April 11, 2002 and its seditious
participation in the oil sabotage of December 2002, which cost the
national economy around 20 billion dollars, were significant factors in
the decision. (6)

However RSF alleges that RCTV is only baccusedb of participating in the
coup, while evidence and testimonies abound. Le Figaro, a very
conservative French newspaper recalled that bfor years the channel
conspired openly against the president broadcasting calls to over
through the regime.b Le Figaro emphasized that during the coup, the
channel bannounced that Hugo ChC!vez had resigned,b in keeping with the
coup plottersb plan, and even recognized Pedro Carmona as interim
president. (7)

After the return of President ChC!vez, RCVT prohibited its journalists
from reporting any related information and restricted broadcasting to
cartoons. AndrC)s Izarra, the production manager at the time and who was
opposed to the coup, resigned immediately to avoid becoming an
accomplice. During his testimony before the National Assembly, Izarra
stated that on the day of the coup and those following he received the
formal order from Marcel Granier (the head of the conglomerate that
owns RCTV) to bnot transmit any information about ChC!vez, his
followers, ministers or any other individual that could be connected to
him.b (8)

The conservative Los Angeles Times also published RCTVbs intention to
boust[ing] a democratically elected leader from officeb ever since Hugo
ChC!vez was elected president in 1998. According to the daily, after the
coup RCTV bedged fully into sedition [and] ran manipulated video
blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.b Its
article recalled that Granier went to the Presidential Palace to swear
his loyalty to bdictator Pedro Carmona who had eliminated the Supreme
Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.b The LA Times
concluded: bGranier and others should not be seen as free-speech
martyrs,b but instead as coup plotters. (9) In another instance,
Granier made an eloquent declaration to RSF regarding the coup bI
confess that I was not unhappy to see Hugo ChC!vez go.b (10) How could
he be bunhappyb if he actively participated in his overthrow?

It is evident, by RCTVbs open support and participation in the rupture
of constitutional order in April 2002 that it is not concerned with
public interest. Moreover it goes without saying that if a French TV
channel, or that of any other country in the world, dared to behave
similarly it would not even last 24 hours and its directors would
immediately be thrown in prison. The Houston Chronicle doubted that
RCTVbs bactions would last more than a few minutesb in the United
States. (11)

Why does RSF want to convince public opinion that RCTVbs culpability is
still a matter of debate? Simply because Robert MC)nard and his
organization also supported the 2002 coup. Perhaps it would be helpful
to recall the declaration published by RSF on April 12, 2002:

bChC!vez, held in the presidential palace, reportedly signed his
resignation under army pressure and was taken to Fort Tiuna, the
capitalbs main military base. Immediately afterwards, FedecC!maras
president Pedro Carmona announced he would head an interim government,
saying he had been chosen by "agreement" among civil society groups and
the armed forces leadership.b

Unpopular decision?

The Paris entity also asserts that the b(numerous) opposition and the
(fewer) Chavistasb simultaneously marched in Caracas to support or
condemn the governmentbs decision. Here, RSF does not hesitate to bold
face lie. The opposition demonstrations only consisted of thousands of
individuals. In contrast, the demonstrations in support in the capital,
such as that of May 27 or of June 2, 2007 were impressive. Hundreds of
thousands of citizens hit the streets of Caracas to demonstrate their
support for Hugo ChC!vez. (13) What is RSFbs objective in manipulating
the truth?

To demonstrate the unpopularity of the decision, RSF cited polls
conducted by RCTV and the opposition as if they were reliable, thus
adopting an openly bias position. The Minister of Interior and Justice,
Pedro CarreC1o, scathingly responded to these polls: bfreedom of
expression is not defined by the empire or Reporters Without Borders or
the Inter-American Press Association or the oligarchy, but instead by
the people who today came out into the streets.b (14)

By alleging that the closure was bwidely condemned by the Venezuelan
public and the international communityb and bby the governments and
parliaments of many Latin American countries including Brazil, Mexico
and Chile, and even by his Bolivian counterpart and ally Evo Morales,b
and by loosely citing a resolution adopted by the European Parliament
May 24, 2007, RSF attempts to give the impression of global unanimity
against Hugo ChC!vez. But reality is totally different. Of the more than
35 countries that make up the American continent  only the legislature
of three countries (Brazil, Chile and Costa Rica) condemned the
non-renewal of the concession and Costa Rican President Cscar Arias was
the only head of state to issue an unfavorable comment. The rest of the
continent, beginning with Evo Morales, voiced their agreement with the
ChC!vez government (Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua) indicating that this was
an administrative measure that only concerned Venezuela and that they
had no desire to meddle in the internal affairs of the nation.
Evidently, RSF specializes in disinformation. (15)

Regarding the European Parliament resolution, it was adopted May 24,
2007, but only by 43 of the 784 (4.5%) Members of European Parliament
(MEP). This resolution was rejected by 741 MEPbs due to its politically
charged nature and above all because it constituted an unacceptable
interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Most MEPbs
refused to participate in the vote and left the chamber. As for the OAS
and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, neither has issued
any condemnation, in contrast to what RSF maintains, but simply general
recommendations regarding press freedoms. (16)

Other RSF manipulations

RSF also assured that brequests for meetings with government officials
and representatives of public and pro-government media went unanswered.
Their silence was as eloquent as the comments of the people it did
meet, and tends to confirm that RCTVbs closure was not just an
administrative measure.b However, the government has reiterated several
times that it has received no such requests for meeting from RCTV. By
promoting Marcel Granierbs point of view RSF again demonstrated their
partisan stance and stigmatized the democratic government of Hugo
ChC!vez calling it a bpolitical system known as bChavism.b Here, we are
far from the topic of bpress freedoms.b MC)nard aligns himself in
political and ideological opposition by deliberately caricaturizing the
Venezuelan government. In effect the opposition uses the term bChavismb
in a derogatory manner. (17)

RSF concludes their report with a lie manifest as a warning against the
bmedia hegemonyb of the president. Itbs important to be precise about
this topic. The VHF band range in 2000 hosted 19 private channels and 1
public. In 2006 the number surpassed 20 private channels versus the
solo public channel. Since May 28, 2007 there have been 19 private
channels and two public: Venezolana de TelevisiC3n and Tves, which
replaced RCTV. On the UHF band range there were 28 private channels and
two public stations in 2000. In 2006, there were 44 private channels
and six public stations. In terms of radio broadcasting, on AM between
2000 and 2006, there were 36 public and 143 private stations. On FM,
there were 3 public and 365 private radio stations in 2000. In 2006
that figure surpassed 440 private stations opposed to 10 public
broadcasters. RSF lies again. (18)

bRCTV may have broadcast pornography,b states RSF, using the
conditional to suggest that some doubt exists about the charge.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court censured the channel many times in 1981
and 2006 for airing pornographic scenes at prohibited hours.  Now RSF
calls in to question the decisions of the nationbs highest judicial
authority. (19) Moreover, it is important to emphasize RCTV has been
sanctioned more than any other channel in Venezuelan history (six
times) for violations of the law, and only one of these incidents has
been during the ChC!vez presidency. (20)

RSF even accuses the Supreme Court, which ordered the equipment of RCTV
be put at the disposition of the new channel TVes, of bjeopardiz[ing]
the presence of the bchannel of the lionb on cable.b Here MC)nardbs
clumsiness even reveals to public opinion that in reality RCTV has not
disappeared. The truth is that the Supreme Court simply ordered a
temporary transfer of the equipment in order to assure the continuation
of the public service. In addition this decision does not compromise in
any way the channelbs possibility of transmitting via cable despite
what principal media outlets have claimed. (21)

RSF accuses two of the leading private channels Televen and VenevisiC3n
of being in the hands of President ChC!vez. The two channels, while
still strongly allied to the opposition- as easily confirmed by their
programming- have adopted a more rational position toward the
government and since 2004 have stopped calling for insurrection and the
overthrow of the government. Same for the private national daily
Cltimas Noticias. To qualify as being opposition press in the eyes of
RSF it seems a media outlet would have to continue denigrating the
government, manipulating information, destabilizing the nation and
calling for the assassination of ChC!vez as RCTV and GlobovisiC3n did in
May 2007. RSFbs fanatical point of view is evident: media outlets are
either against ChC!vez, or they are his lackeys. (22)

RSF claims that bPresident ChC!vez does not care about international
law.b This accusation is completely gratuitous. RSF is incapable of
citing even one violation of international law committed by the
Bolivarian government. The organization also claims that numerous
appeals [from RCTV were] favorably received by the [...] Inter-American
Court of Human Rights. In reality said Court accepted to consider only
one appeal on May 25, 2007 and has not yet announced its opinion. (23)

bChC!vez wants the constitution amended in 2008 so that he can be
re-elected indefinitely,b includes the report, presenting this
intention as a great threat to democracy. Perhaps RSF has forgotten
that in the majority of western countries, France included, unlimited
re-election is a constitutional reality? Why is RSF commenting on
aspects of domestic policy when it professes to be bapoliticalb and
solely interested in bfreedom of the press?b (24)

bComplete control of the state, government and armed forces. No
opponents in the assembly, as the opposition boycotted the 2005
legislative elections. A ruling party that is virtually the only party.
Twenty-two out of twenty-four state governors who are entirely loyal.
And soon, a largely neutralised civil society.b More RSFbs alarmism. bA
ruling party that is virtually the only party,b complains RSF, while
more than a dozen political parties exist in Venezuela. Could it be
that in France the state, the government and the armed forces are under
the control of the opposition? In regards to the assembly and the
governorships, perhaps RSF questions the democratic decision of
Venezuelan voters. Perhaps civil society, or maybe the entire
population, is gradually relegating the opposition to the periphery.
Reiterating the rhetoric of the opposition, which has suffered more
than 10 consecutive electoral defeats since 1998, RSF falsely claims
that ChC!vez controls all the institutions in the country and plans to
transform the most democratic government in Latin America into an
authoritarian regime. Once again, these matters have nothing directly
to do with bfreedom of the press.b (25)

The Paris organization also attacks lawyer Eva Golinger. Her crime?
Revealing to the world a list of all the Venezuelan journalists
financed by the U.S. through USAID that bincluded the Reporters Without
Borders correspondent,b as acknowledged in MC)nardbs report. (26)

RSF also claims that many world personalities advise President ChC!vez
regarding constitutional reform such as Argentine Norberto Ceresole
among others. The only problem is that Ceresole died in 2003 of a heart
attack. These blatant errors demonstrate the lack of credibility of the
organizationbs report. (27)

RSF forged their opinion on the situation of the Venezuelan press after
only five days in the country, bfrom May 24- 28, 2007,b and after
meeting with only opposition journalists and media owners. Their
objective from the start was crystal clear: transform an administrative
decision, common worldwide, into and act of censorship and attack on
press freedoms. How can the Parisian organization expect to come off as
impartial and serious with such methods? (28)

Why didnbt RSF get upset about the lost concessions of Spanish channels
TV Laciana in 2004, TV CatC3lica in 2005 and Tele-Asturias in 2006? Why
didnbt they mobilize when concessions were not renewed for British
channels One TV, Actionworld and StarDate TV 24 in 2006, or Look for
Love 2 in 2007? Why hasnbt Robert MC)nard traveled to Peru to
investigate the closure of two TV channels in 2007, or to El Salvador
when the government revoked the concession of Salvador Network in 2003?
Why did RSF remained unmoved when Canada didnbt renew the concession of
Country Music TelevisiC3n (CMT) in 1999? Why did RSF remain silent about
the revocation of the concession to U.S. channel Daily Digest in 1998
or when the FCC yanked Trinity Broadcasting License in 1999? (29)

This adaptable indignation clearly demonstrates that the ordinary case
of RCTV is nothing more than a pretext for RSF to stigmatize Hugo
ChC!vez and continue the disinformation war against a democratic and
popular government. As for freedom of expression, anyone who has spent
24 hours in Venezuela can only be astonished by the opposition
channelsb spiteful and fanatical tone against the government. To assert
otherwise is an extraordinary act of bad faith.

The real role of RSF is not to defend press freedoms as they profess;
instead it is to promote the political and economic interests of the
entities that fund them such as the U.S. government, which generously
contributes to the Parisian organization through the National Endowment
for Democracy, an entity that the worldbs most important newspaper, The
New York Times, calls a CIA front. (30)

Notes

(1) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, B+Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television:
la consolidation dbune hC)gC)monie mC)diatiqueB;, 5 de junio de 2007.
http://www.rsf.org/img/doc/rapport_rctv_fr.doc (sitio consultado el 6 de
junio de 2007).

(2) Ibid ; Libro Blanco de RCTV, "Mitos y hechos sobre Radio Caracas
TelevisiC3n," Cubadebate, 30 de mayo de 2007.

(3) LbExpress, "ChC!vez bC"illonne la derniC)re chaC.ne dbopposition," 29
de mayo de 2007.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Ibid.

(6) Ibid. For the 652 infractions see Jean-Luc MC)lanchon, "OC: va la
bonne conscience anti-chaviste," May 26, 2007,
http://www.jean-luc-melanchon.fr (site consulted on May 30, 2007.) For
the oil sabotage see Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, "No aceptaremos
comportamientos antidemocrC!ticos de la oposiciC3n," November 3, 2006.

(7) Lamia Oulalou, "ChC!vez bC"illonne la tC)lC) dbopposition," Le Figaro,
May 26, 2007.

(8) Eva Golinger, El cC3digo ChC!vez (La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias
Sociales, 2005), p. 125.

(9) Bart Jones, "Hugo ChC!vez Versus RCTV," Los Angeles Times, May 30,
2007.

(10) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, "Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television:
la consolidation dbune hC)gC)monie mC)diatique," op. cit.

(11) Bart Jones, "ChC!vez As Castro? Itbs Not That Simple in VenezuelaB;,"
Houston Chronicle, 7 de febrero de 2007.

(12) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, "Un journaliste a C)tC) tuC), trois autres
ont C)tC) blessC)s et cinq chaC.nes de tC)lC)vision briC)vement suspendues,"
April 12, 2002. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1109 (site
consulted November 13, 2006.)

(13) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, "Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television:
la consolidation dbune hC)gC)monie mC)diatique," op. cit ; Agencia
Bolivariana de Noticias, "Hoy el pueblo demostrC3 que estC! movilizado en
apoyo a la revoluciC3n," June 2, 2007.

(14) Ibid.

(15) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, "Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television:
la consolidation dbune hC)gC)monie mC)diatique," op. cit.

(16) El Nuevo Herald, "Legisladores de EEUU y Europa condenan cierre de
RCTV," May 25, 2007.

(17) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, "Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television:
la consolidation dbune hC)gC)monie mC)diatique," op. cit.

(18) Ibid.; Telesur, "Informe RSF bCierre de Radio Caracas Television.
La consolidaciC3n de una mentira mediC!tica a travC)s de 39 embustes,"
June 7, 2007.

(19) Telesur, "Informe RSF bCierre de Radio Caracas Television. La
consolidaciC3n de una mentira mediC!tica a travC)s de 39 embustes," op.
cit.

(20) Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, "RCTV ha sido el canal mC!s
sancionado en Venezuela," March 29, 2007.

(21) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, "Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television:
la consolidation dbune hC)gC)monie mC)diatique," op. cit.

(22) Ibid.

(23) Ibid ; NC)stor Ikeda, "CIDH pide a ChC!vez proteger libertad de
expresiC3n," Associated Press, May 25, 2007.

(24) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, "Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television:
la consolidation dbune hC)gC)monie mC)diatique," op. cit.

(25) Ibid.

(26) Ibid.

(27) Ibid ; Telesur, "Informe RSF bCierre de Radio Caracas Television.
La consolidaciC3n de una mentira mediC!tica a travC)s de 39 embustes," op.
cit.

(28) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, "Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television:
la consolidation dbune hC)gC)monie mC)diatique," op. cit.

(29) Jean-Luc MC)lanchon, "OC: va la bonne conscience anti-chaviste," op.
cit.

(30) Robert MC)nard, "Forum de discussion avec Robert MC)nard," Le Nouvel
Observateur, 18 de abril de 2005.
http://www.nouvelobs.com/forum/archives/forum_284.html (sitio consultado
el 22 de abril de 2005); John M. Broder, :Political Meddling by
Outsiders: Not New for U.S.," The New York Times, March 31, 1997, p. 1.

[Salim Lamrani is French professor, writer and journalist specializing
in relations between Cuba and U.S. He is the author of the following
books: "Washington contre Cuba" (Pantin: Le Temps des Cerises, 2005),
"Cuba face C! lbEmpire" (GenC)ve: Timeli, 2006) and "Fidel Castro, Cuba et
les Etats-Unis" (Pantin: Le Temps des Cerises, 2006).

       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================