there is a poll that said that 70% of Venzuelans oppose the non-renewel of the RCTV liscence, but not for political reasons, but because of the shows. The Chavez government needs to save the soap operas and the game shows.
Ow, do you speak Dutch? Do you speak German? When one watches those programmes, one can see the state journalists can be extremely critical to their politicians, time after time.
I sometimes feel (just for a microsecond) Spanish shame, verguenza ajena, when I see in how many difficult situation politicians in Europe get when they get interviewed there.
The channels are very independent.
Chavez hasn't had a real difficult interview since he came to power. I remember once a bloke at the BBC asked him silly things like "Are you against the United States?" In Venezuelan Spanish you would say that was una bola por el centro. Like in baseball: just throwing a ball very slowly towards the middle of the hitting field of a batter. Of course he said what he was expected to say: NOOOO! I love the American people. I am only against the Bush administration, blablabla".
The only "difficult question" he got was about crime: my friends me tell me crime is now a big problem, the journalist asked. He said: Crime is generated by social inequality (most people would agree there), have you not read Victor Hugo? (one of those books he happened to have read and changed his whole mind). Then he said that even in Italy people get killed and then he said: haven't you seen how criminality has dropped dramatically in the last statistics?
BS BS BS BS BS BS.
And the journalist did not ask what statistics because there are not such statistics. It was a bloody lie.
Journalists of big media who ARE ALLOWED to approach him are afraid to ask questions less they not be allowed to have the movement they can have.
When a young journalist from O Globo (call it fascists, whatever) asked him a couple of more or less normal questions in January (I am sure someone in the organization did not know O Globo was not pro-Chavez and thus he could get into the press conference and ask his question), Chavez became furious, he went on rambling about O Globo in Brazil without answering really what he was asked and at the end left the room without wanting to answer to anyone else.
Come on, give us a break.
If we had Dutch tv, we would not have an idiot like Chavez...nor idiots like before, but definitely no idiot like Chavez.
It is true: any channel in Venezuela sucks and that has always been the case, only some programmes might be exempt from that criticism.
I do wish we had something like in Holland or Germany. But then we would not have such a silly political environment as in Venezuela. Not a single chavista or others.
Hey, ow, here is an idea:
Why don't you move to Venezuela and start the channel that would replace RCTV? After all, you are Chavez's number ONE fun! Imagine the number of people that you would reach and to whom you can explain the wonders of the revolution and to whom you could tell how fortunate they were to have been born in a country, unlike you, that is safe and with an standard of living as good as Norway's.
It would be the chance of a lifetime to create programs that would, otherwise, be prohibited here, in this dictatorship; to help Chavez spread the word of the evilness of this country and the duty of every Venezuelan to help destroy it for the sake of the survival of the planet (his words at the UN); etc, etc, etc.
I am telling you..IT IS THE OPPORTUNITY OF A LIFETIME!
Hoping (or is that dreaming) that "there would be more points of view, more ideas, more freedom, and more diversity" truly shows that you live in la-la land.
Why? Simple put, the administration is not going to allow that (following the Dutch system that you explained) for example that a percentage of venezuelans register whit a group that will hire Isa Dobles (or whomever) to do opposition programs.
If is not the government maybe they will give the job to the Circulos or whatever name the Community groups have now.
If this was an administration as democratic as you make it look, it would hold a referemdum to ask the Venezuelan people if they want RCTV out. But the truth is that this is a referemdum that they will for sure loose.
The fact is that VTV, TeleSur and now VIVE, should be the TV stations for that. Not RCTV.
Hugo just wants to hurt Granier because he has not bended like Gustavo did.
Why should he? He lives in Caracas, not in the US or the Dominican Republic like Gustavo and even though he has used RCTV for his own gains and interests (pretty much like Hugo uses venezuelans' oil), the fact of the matter is that this is the truly last bastion of opposition in the country.
"If this was an administration as democratic as you make it look, it would hold a referemdum to ask the Venezuelan people if they want RCTV out."
Why, is that what the law says? Are governments supposed to decide everything through referendum? Or is this only when your side has a chance of winning?
A referendum was just held on Chavez's rule a few months ago and people overwhelmingly said they wanted him to continue.
"The fact is that VTV, TeleSur and now VIVE, should be the TV stations for that. Not RCTV."
Here we get to the hear of it - what is ours is ours and what is yours should be ours too.
First of TVT, TeleSur and VIVE are in a sense controlled in a democratic (albiet indirect) way by the Venezuelan poeple. They elected the government that then controls them. If Rosales had won the election I suspect that the programming on those stations would have changed. But they elected Chavez... I guess they like those stations the way they are.
And why should the private stations be left alone? Why should some rich groupings be allowed to controll the airwaves indefinitely?
You are revealing your prejudices here.
Pretty good ideas, I tire of the corporate dictatorship, if I could elect the head of RCTV then maybe it is worth reconsidering, but as of now no more government subsidies for Radio Caracas! off to cable land for them.
The Dutch model seems perfect to me.
Ow, you have no ethics.
The first time I saw a colour TV in Venezuela was in a slum. Everybody has a TV. Everybody can see Venezolana de Television 24 hours a day. There are other programmes for Chavez.
If you go to a public hospital (have you?) you will see now they are putting everything TV sets that transmit all the time while you sit and wait more of the Chavez propaganda.
If there are 4 or 2 against 2 or 4 channels from either side: what is the matter? Why close the ones that are against you?
Flanker, the Dutch model would be the end for Chavez. The Dutch model is a clean one where the government gets into trouble every time they do something stupid (and Dutch politicians are on average much less inept than Venezuelan ones).
I don't care about Chavez, I care about democracy and socialism. This is way beyond Chavez and whatever follows him will be the same, the ball is now rolling.
I grow tired of having corporate dictators wasting valuable resources that belongs to Venezuelans.
Firstly, public TV and balanced coverage are not an oxymoron, and so it is for example in various middle European countries. Due to tradition, it may indeed be an oxymoron for Venezuela, but not generally in the world.
Secondly, the proposal you made would not really change anything: instead of two groups presenting uniquely their distorted views, you would end up with a dozen or so groups showing their distorted views, thus I don't see a substantial improvement. What would be needed is a balanced coherent programme, not two or more sides presenting their distorted views.
Thirdly, the elaborate system you suggest would according to my guess not be used by too much of the population. And remember, most of the current audience of RCTV is not looking for news, but for entertainment, such as la Rochela, Telenovelas and Quiz Shows. This should IMHO also be taken into account when setting up an alternative.
All thew private channels should have been closed after the coup and the owners and journalists jailed for participating in it. In fact in a communist dictatorhip they would have been shot.
"Secondly, the proposal you made would not really change anything: instead of two groups presenting uniquely their distorted views, you would end up with a dozen or so groups showing their distorted views, thus I don't see a substantial improvement. What would be needed is a balanced coherent programme, not two or more sides presenting their distorted views. "
Sire, I think it would be an improvement. What is "balanced" coverage other than making sure various "distorted" points of view are heard. Yes the Chavistas and opposition would get lots of air time - so that would be like it is now. But there are lots of people right now who are not heard - NiNis for example who are a good chunk of the populartion (30 or 40%) I think. There are plenty of people out there who have ideas seperate from what the Chavistas and opposition think and they should be heard. Also, there are nuanced positions within both Chavismo and the opposition yet right now the more extreme positions dominate the media. It would be good for Venezuela if that were stopped.
"Thirdly, the elaborate system you suggest would according to my guess not be used by too much of the population. And remember, most of the current audience of RCTV is not looking for news, but for entertainment, such as la Rochela, Telenovelas and Quiz Shows. This should IMHO also be taken into account when setting up an alternative."
Maybe but maybe not. It wouldn't all be news - these groups could show entertainment, sports, movies, etc. and they probably would as they wouldn't all have the resources to produce their own shows all the time. And if it helps raise the cultural level of the country is that such a bad thing?
"If there are 4 or 2 against 2 or 4 channels from either side: what is the matter? Why close the ones that are against you? "
Having an anti-Chavez editorial position is not the problem. Actively participating in a coup is the problem and the reason for RCTVs closure.
Having said that, what replaces RCTV should not just be a pro-Chavez station. If the legitimate closing of RCTV is simply used to give Chavez more influence over the media that indeed would be wrong. That is why THIS is the discussion that is important.
"And remember, most of the current audience of RCTV is not looking for news, but for entertainment, such as la Rochela, Telenovelas and Quiz Shows."
Sire, where have you been? Did you miss the speech(ranting) of Yo el Supremo when he said that housewives intead of watching telenovelas should study socialism?
The type of entertaining that you are suggesting is NOT COMPARABLE with the "revolution." Those are categorized are capitalistic type of entertainment and they will not be tolerated!!
"There are plenty of people out there who have ideas seperate from what the Chavistas and opposition think and they should be heard. Also, there are nuanced positions within both Chavismo and the opposition yet right now the more extreme positions dominate the media. It would be good for Venezuela if that were stopped."
Even if you have maybe a dozen different groups, the situation will not be any better really. Each group will stick watching its programme slot and disregard the other ones, I see no real improvement there. That's why I advocate a by nature coherent and balanced programme instead of opposing piecemeal emission. Balanced does not have to mean to present different utterly distorted views, but to investigate and tell what is really going on. Hence my preference for some sort of model middle European countries have. Is a non-polarising TV programme that *all* people can watch too much to ask for? Sadly, it seems so. I suspect this would serve neither the government nor the opposition, thus the impossibility.
"Maybe but maybe not. It wouldn't all be news - these groups could show entertainment, sports, movies, etc. and they probably would as they wouldn't all have the resources to produce their own shows all the time. And if it helps raise the cultural level of the country is that such a bad thing?"
Ultimately, people should be free to watch what they want. TV stations not responsive to viewers' demands will lose audience. I don't think imposing cultural programmes will do any good - at most, it will alienate viewers and they will stop watching altogether.
Addendum: if you use a network just trying to raise the population's education, chances are that most people will stop watching, as their preferences are different - that's just how it is. Conversely, if you stick mainly to people's preferences and sometimes include educational programmes, chances are they will watch it sometimes even though that's not a priori their preferences. What's more, this odd educational programme will not alienate them as long as it stays the odd cultural programme.
"Having said that, what replaces RCTV should not just be a pro-Chavez station. "
Frankly, I don't see any scenario in which it would not (explicitly or implicitly) become a pro-Chavez station.
"The type of entertaining that you are suggesting is NOT COMPARABLE with the "revolution." Those are categorized are capitalistic type of entertainment and they will not be tolerated!!"
Well yes, and Hollywood movies too, according to Chavez. Well, it's comforting to know that Venezuelans still prefer these "anti-revolutionary" programmes, movies, food, and what not. Interestingly, Venezuela continues to be one of the most "americanised" countries of Latin America 
"Balanced does not have to mean to present different utterly distorted views, but to investigate and tell what is really going on"
I think this is quite naive. Can you tell me what is "really going on" in PDVSA? What is "really going on" in Iraq?
This position seems to imply there is one fundamental truth out there to be found and you just need someone with perfect intent or perfect insite to find it. That is false. There is no one objective truth. And I think the wisest amongst us get at our own truths by making sure we seek out and get a wide variety of view points.
Its no secret I don't think much of the Venezuelan opposition. Yet I read opposition blogs EVERY DAY. I read opposition newspapers EVERY DAY. I read the New York Times and I read the Wall Street Journal. And sometimes I agree with what the opposition blogs say, or what the opposition media says, or what the Wall Street Journal editorializes. And even if I don't, I still often come away with something to think about and something that makes me question even more what I do believe.
I think that is what most people who want to learn do. And it would be great if we had media systems that fostered that.
"I think this is quite naive. Can you tell me what is "really going on" in PDVSA? What is "really going on" in Iraq?"
Nah, I do believe there can be some sort of Salomonic (admittedly, imperfect) compromise between two extreme views. That's what we should aim to. The large majority of people won't bother watching several news programmes or reading several newspapers - it's just a questions of time and/or interest.
"Ultimately, people should be free to watch what they want. TV stations not responsive to viewers' demands will lose audience. I don't think imposing cultural programmes will do any good - at most, it will alienate viewers and they will stop watching altogether."
Oh they can do that ON CABLE!! not mooching off the government's teat. That space belongs to the collective and the government administers it. NOT to capitalism or RCTV.
Why does the capitalist opposition not see this? if RCTV was really a viewers choice it would do fine under its OWN means and property.
"Oh they can do that ON CABLE!! not mooching off the government's teat. That space belongs to the collective and the government administers it. NOT to capitalism or RCTV."
Cable is expensive and not available everywhere.
VIVE and VTV are alrady more than enough.
If you look at number of viewers, you will indeed see that they prefer RCTV
"If you look at number of viewers, you will indeed see that they prefer RCTV"
You can't know if people like RCTV or any station - what alternative do they have? The alternatives are limited and never change - RCTV, Venevision, Televen etc. have been around for decades and never change.
In the US CBS, ABC, NBC have been there for 50 years and haven't changed. And because they have an extremely profitable oligopoly the notion that unpopular or bad programming will be punished is fictitious - give an example of a broadcast TV network that has gone out of business. I can't think of one.
Flanker brings up a very important point. Broadcast TV as it is currently run is a HUGE giveaway to rich private companies. They don't have to pay for the spectrum they use. Why?
Cell phone frequencies get auctioned off and the companies have to pay BILLIONS of dollars in the US for them. Yet the networks don't pay. How can that be justified.
It serves to give away for free something that shouldn't be, it creates oligopolies that almost never change, and puts billions and billions of dollars in the pockets of the rich through these giveaways.
I really think it is an indefensible system.
"changed. And because they have an extremely profitable oligopoly the notion that unpopular or bad programming will be punished is fictitious - give an example of a broadcast TV network that has gone out of business."
VTV was in trouble in the nineties. That bad programming will be punished is not fiction. To sell advertising, TV stations have an incentive to have a large number of viewers. And that bad programmes shun TV audience, you can see when you compare RCTV and VTV.
Also, I am all for auctioning broadcast licenses. However, if they do so, it needs to be made sure that the government can not bid for all the slots. However, your comparison with mobile phone providers is not too good, as they can charge their costumers, while the TV stations cannot directly charge them money.
"Cable is expensive and not available everywhere.
VIVE and VTV are alrady more than enough.
If you look at number of viewers, you will indeed see that they prefer RCTV "
This is an oxymoron, if you think VTV and VIVE are enough you would not bragg about ratings.
RCTV's ratings comes from its entertainment division, but the corporate dictator MG uses that to finance its news/propaganda division with his editorial line. Ideally the entertainment division will take the government offer and continue broadcasting on VHF 2 freeing them from the yoke of 1BC. And satiating the population. A cooperative is always preferable to a corporation.
"Flanker brings up a very important point. Broadcast TV as it is currently run is a HUGE giveaway to rich private companies. They don't have to pay for the spectrum they use. Why?"
They do pay, but pennies on the dollar, just like gasoline the spectrum is heavily subsidized or else they would not be whining about their switch to cable only.
Frankly it is not so much about the money but the inmobility that bugs me, not only Granier is a corporate dictator, but one for life according to the haters out there. The waves should be democratic and constantly approved by the people.
"VTV was in trouble in the nineties. That bad programming will be punished is not fiction."
VTV aired in the nineties Baywatch which according to Guiness "is the most watched TV show in the world of all time" http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baywatch
Not that I like the show but I think you have a confusion here on good/bad programming and rating.
The transmission rights were afterwards sold to RCTV. How ironic.
Wasn't there a big scandal when Marta you know who was running it. I think VTV paid for the Korean summer olympic broadcast and then let someone else (RCTV or Venevision?) broadcast it. Plus I remember they paid for a bunch of remote broadcast trucks that then never showed up anywhere.
Back then when you had unending corruption they were more interested in stealing than in broadcasting.
Great post and discussion. Thanks to Chavez and the revolution for bringing up those important questions about massmedia and ownership. In to many corporate dictarships these questions are never asked and a public debate about them are impossible.
There has been a fair amount of discussion on this in Venezuela. About two months ago they had a forumn on it at the UCV and I think the Lubrio blog put it on YouTube. I'll look for it and maybe post it. The ideas and thoughts brought up there will likely be interesting.
Of course, it is anything but clear that the government itself will do the right thing. It looks to me that it will be government controlled, albiet maybe through the intermedieries of "community groups". I don't find that to be acceptable at all. So lets hope it can be changed.
Elliv, we had a democracy even if very imperfect. That is why we could sometimes talk and it is becoming more difficult to do so. If my cousin stops going to political meetings although he is a doctor, he loses his job. If a friend of mine does not accept to march for the president, he also loses his job.
If where most of my people live one of them says he thinks Chavez is not doing a good job, they can fear for their lives. It starts with the small people, not with the journalists or so (well, sometimes also with them).
The difference between Venezuela and other places where dictatorships came is that Venezuela was until now a democracy and because of that there are rest of that still. In Eastern Germany, for instance, before the communists came, there were just fascist regimes. In Cuba, before Castro, there was another dictator.
Remember: many dictators were first elected by a huge majority.
No, you do not remember.
Elliv, for whom do you vote in Sweden?
It is cool to talk about revolution with your bloody kroners in your pocket, right?
I wish this country had TV like the Dutch's. Imagine having a panel discussing such politically incorrect things like the following:
"
School Scraps Nature Course As Pigs Enrage Muslim Pupils
AMSTERDAM, 27/04/07 - A school in Amsterdam has halted lessons on rural life because the Islamic children refused to talk about pigs. Reporting this, Alderman Lodewijk Asscher said he wants to take "tough measures." Subsidies for all kinds of dubious groups must stop and parents of unruly children penalised financially.
Asscher told newspaper De Volkskrant: "A primary school in Amsterdam-Noord has decided no longer to teach about living on a farm. Various pupils began to demolish the classroom when the pig came up for discussion. Apparently it has gone that far. These children, 9, 10 years old, have not been given even the most elementary rules at home about why they must go to school."
http://www.nisnews.nl/public/270...ic/
270407_1.htm
Or is that topic not even opened for discussion on Dutch TV?
"That is why we could sometimes talk and it is becoming more difficult to do so"
Everyone can talk just fine and say what they please.
"If my cousin stops going to political meetings although he is a doctor, he loses his job"
Interesting, the cases I've seen of this have generally been Chavistas getting fired for... being Chavistas. I assume you saw in the documentary, El Libro Blanco Sobre RCTV, where a female employee, later fired, was forced to attend opposition rallies. Standard MO of the opposition.
"If where most of my people live one of them says he thinks Chavez is not doing a good job, they can fear for their lives. "
This is probably all a big misunderstanding. There are fewer and fewer opposition supporters around. According to the most recent Datanalysis poll Chavez's support is up to 65% and the opposition down to 35%. Some dimwits may assume it must be opposition supporters being killed.
Of course, its nothing of the sort. Its just that with Venezuela doing so well they've converted to being supporters of Chavez. 
OT: these shortages are not as imaginary as you always want to make it seem:
Aumenta escasez de alimentos básicos
Ultimas Noticias
27 de Abril de 2007
Comercios aplican la venta atada o restingida de ciertos productos por persona
Caracas. Esta semana se agudizó otra vez la disminución de la oferta de alimentos de la dieta básica en los anaqueles de los mercados capitalinos.
Así se evidencia del monitoreo semanal que efectúa la empresa encuestadora Datanálisis y del recorrido efectuado ayer por Últimas Noticias, que coinciden en que se agudizó la escasez de caraota, sardina y leche en polvo completa.
Ahora se suman irregularidades en los suministros de quesos blancos, aceite, margarina, carne, pollo, azúcar y algunas marcas de harina de maíz precocida.
Ventas atadas y racionadas.
En las última semanas se ha incrementado la venta racionada de los productos que suelen faltar en los anaqueles y que en determinado momento llegan a los establecimientos.
Luis Vicente León, director de Datanálisis, señaló que del monitoreo efectuado, se observó que algunos comercios venden un kilo de azúcar y de leche en polvo o dos de arroz por persona. Otros ofrecen un kilo de azúcar sólo si se compra otro producto. Últimas Noticias observó que en el Cada sólo permiten llevar cuatro bandejas de piezas de pollo por persona:; algunos comerciantes de los municipales guardan el aceite de maíz "clientes que llevan otras cositas".
Producción estancada. En relación al argumento que la escasez de productos es consecuencia de la alta demanda, León manifestó que el problema es que "la economía no ha tenido capacidad para reaccionar a ese aumento de la demanda".
Explicó que esa incapacidad obedece a tes razones: 1) "El incremento de la oferta de productos está contraído porque el sector empresarial está en medio de una gran presión por un entorno hostil para sus negocios (controles, pasos burocráticos para obtener divisas, fiscalizaciones,)".
2) Contracción de la oferta pública a través de Mercal.
3) Poca ganancia: "aún cuando el mercado está en expansión, las empresas ven recortadas sus ganancias por el control de precios y el incremento de los costos de produc! ción, "lo que ha reducido los márgenes de rendimiento".
Sire,
Its imaginary. The Ultimas Noticias article didn't give key stats given by Datanalysis. Trust me, I'll be posting on these "shortages".
So UN has been overtaken by the opposition?
Not at all, just that article didn't give key deails
"Remember: many dictators were first elected by a huge majority."
False, name one.
Nice to see that Quico is reading this blog regularly. It is good to be taught the virtues of Danish democratic traditions.
However, the fact that Denmark is a partner in the US imperialist criminality around the Middle East should give the erstwhile student of democracy pause.
I suspect that many of these European nations are still under the thrall of domination from the various oligarchies and other mafias. Their standard of living is rooted on the centuries-long plunder of their former colonies.
The Europeans have shown that they suffer from the same consumerist alienation, indemic poverty, and short-sighted greed as thier US cousins.
To be sure, much of their publics' opposition to the continued Iraq occupation is rooted in advances in ethical awareness that developed post-WWII--but a good bit of it is opprotunistic posturing by imperial wannabes and their adjuncts.
Quico is a supporter of the empire when you get down to the nitty-gritty. His outrage is rooted in a deep distrust of democracy and an incredibly grotesque racialized, hierarchical view of high/low culture.
Keep reading OW's blog, Quico. We know you always do. But you oligarch wannabes are too shamed to even use your former monicurs when you are brave enough to forward a few ignornat comments.
You are safely disposed of in the echo chamber of your own making--and rightly so.
With daddy's trust-fund Quico can devote himself to economic dogmas for a few more decades I suppose. But he certainly fails miserably when it comes to having to intellectually and ethically defend his coiffed barbarisms.
""Remember: many dictators were first elected by a huge majority."
False, name one."
Flanker,
asking someone to back up an assertion with facts? In opposition circles that is generally seen as an unfair debating tactic.
Commenting by HaloScan
