Well my friend, thanks for bringing our dialogue to your blog. My support for not renewing the license was lenghtfully explained in a series of posts in my blog, I don't want to explain that again (and surely not in english, which is not my mother tongue). One of my key posts was translated into english in http://oilwars.blogspot.com, a very comprehensive blog on Venezuela's situation (I don't think you'll agree, haha). The link is: http://oilwars.blogspot.com/2007...hasta-
2027.html
Thing is the matter is about democratizing (is this the verb?) the TV signal in Venezuela, or in any other country. It is extremely unfair that a company has the power to express their sole points of view, while other people (and companies) has not the same right. I'll always prefer a public broadcast, because then I can complain, either by vote or demonstrations. With private broadcast, I can't, because by a misundertanding of freedom of speech, they can do bassically whatever they want, with a signal which belongs to all the country. And TV has a HUGE impact in public opinion, education, and the way people act and think.
With the RCTV affaire, a debate has been opened. Otherwise, we would still be thinking that it is fair that a bunch of businessman control the whole spectrum. I am NOT free while the rest of the people has NOT the same level of oportunities. When Marcel Granier uses 1BC as a way to say what he thinks (if you were not on his side and point of view, you would not appear on that channel RCTV) while the rest of venezuelans has not an equal access to broadcasting, we are not talking about "freedom of speech", but "privilege of speech".
Don't forget that since Chavez is in charge, hundred of small community-run radio and TV stations have been opened. Who is then fighting freedom of speech, the one who licensed hundreds of stations but did not renew one in eight years, or the former goverments, which kept all the broadcasting in the hands of a few bussinessmen?
And please be exact in yout data: Venevision and Televen are not chavistas, a lot of opposition points of view can be seen there; they are not as agressive as Globovisión, but take a look to "100% Venezuela" and then tell me that this program is a pro-government show, for example. Also, TVES is not a political channel: it broadcast folklore, documentaries and music, so the fact that it was created by the government doesn't mean it is a propaganda channel. Also, Telesur and VIVE are not reaching the whole country, same as Globovisión.
So the situation is not as unbalanced as you say. And enough crappy english for a monday night 
Bye!
Okrim,
First of all, sorry for taking the discussion over to my blog. Sadly blogger doesn't offer trackbacks or I have yet to learn how to use them.
As for your point translated in english, you make an excellent point when talking about voting. The fact is there was no voting to decide RCTV's fate and there was no voting to decide how to replace it. You might like the new TV station and it's programming but I don't and I used to like RCTV's programming, well most of it. If this is an example of true democratization of the spectrum, how come I was never consulted on the matter?
Also, and a little bit out of topic, when you talk about the idea of indefinite elections you are stepping on one of democracies fundamental basis: The alternation of powers. You could argue that why should this be a problem? If the people want to keep electing Chavez, why shouldn't they be able to do it? The truth is power corrupts even the most humble of souls, ideas grow old while fresh ideas go unnoticed etc. And really, I'm not even going to talk about the fact that Chavez controls almost every institution in Venezuela including the CNE which makes elections a little bit difficult for the opposition. This is why so many people raise an eyebrow when Chavez suggests this idea.
Back to topic, Chavez and is government had total right to not renew the license, there is no doubt about that since it was a license. The issue here is his reasons for not renewing it (RCTV alleged participation on the 2002 coup which was never proven) as well as the victim of this non-renewal: one of the major opposition stations. Not only that, but this station gets replaced with a Government channel, that although not political, as VTV supposedly is, carries a New segment with a completely pro-government editorial.
You might be right in that Venevision carries an Anti Chavez program; but there is also no denying in that Venevision changed it's content radically after it's owner, Gustavo Cisneros met with Chavez. Let's nor foget that Venevision also had an alleged participation on the coup as they also transmitted anti Chavez propaganda and incited people to attend the anti Chavez protests. Lets not forget that Venevision's license was up for renewal at the same time as RCTV's and their's got renew with no problem at all, except for the fact that it only got renewed for five years, not 20 as it should be by law, which is curiously the same time when Chavez would be up for re-election.
We should discuss more about democracy, since I get the feeling that your understanding of democracy is: you are free as long as you think like me, which is the same as Chavez. Or can you deny that anybody that says something remotely different from his thought, is not diminished, fooled and ridicule by him? Hasn't he made defamatory remarks about the students taking the street without absolutely no proof? Is he really open for debate ? Or is he open for debate as long as you think
Commenting by HaloScan
