Venezuela and the RCTV affair

This is a good analysis of some of the misinformation in the media about Venezuela's non-renewal of RCTV's licence. From Zed magazine.


Reporters Without Borders and RCTV
Disinformation and Lies
by Salim Lamrani
July 05, 2007


The rejection 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 bias report about RCTV on June 5, 2007. (1)

Closure of RCTV and media hegemony?

RSF titled their report “Closure of Radio Caracas Television Consolidates Media Hegemony.” The organization’s 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 assign the freed space to another channel in an attempt to democratize the media. Therefore, contrary to RSF claims, RCTV has not “stopped broadcasting.” (2)

The second fallacy is found in the expression “media hegemony.” 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 Ménard, general secretary of the organization, incessantly repeats the same maxim to the press: “Chávez has hegemonic control over the media.”(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. “Media hegemony” exists, all right. But private financial groups and corporations are the ones in control. (4)

Arbitrary decision by President Hugo Chávez?

RSF asserts that the decision was made “by order of president Hugo Chávez” and claims that this is illegal since, according to RSF, there is a lack of a “judicial order [...] in order to deny the channel the right to broadcast for the next twenty years.” 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 public’s 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 “judicial order” as RSF claims. Besides, as already explained, RCTV continues to have the “right to broadcast” via cable or satellite. (5)

Likewise, it wasn’t Hugo Chávez 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 d’ètat of April 11, 2002 and its seditious participation in the oil sabotage of December 2002, which cost the national economy around 20,000 million dollars, were significant factors in the decision. (6)

However RSF alleges that RCTV is only “accused” of participating in the coup, while evidence and testimonies abound. Le Figaro, a very conservative French newspaper recalled that “for years the channel conspired openly against the president broadcasting calls to over through the regime.” Le Figaro emphasized that during the coup, the channel “announced that Hugo Chávez had resigned,” in keeping with the coup plotters’ plan, and even recognized Pedro Carmona as interim president. (7)

After the return of President Chávez, RCVT prohibited its journalists from reporting any related information and restricted broadcasting to cartoons. Andrés 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 “not transmit any information about Chávez, his followers, ministers or any other individual that could be connected to him.” (8)

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

It is evident, by RCTV’s 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 RCTV’s “actions would last more than a few minutes” in the United States. (11)

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

“Chávez, held in the presidential palace, reportedly signed his resignation under army pressure and was taken to Fort Tiuna, the capital’s main military base. Immediately afterwards, Fedecámaras 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.”

Unpopular decision?

The Paris entity also asserts that the “(numerous) opposition and the (fewer) Chavistas” simultaneously marched in Caracas to support or condemn the government’s 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 Chávez. (13) What is RSF’s 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 Carreño, scathingly responded to these polls: “freedom 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.” (14)

By alleging that the closure was “widely condemned by the Venezuelan public and the international community” and “by the governments and parliaments of many Latin American countries including Brazil, Mexico and Chile, and even by his Bolivian counterpart and ally Evo Morales,” 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 Chávez. 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 Óscar 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 Chávez 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 MEP’s due to its politically charged nature and above all because it constituted an unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Most MEP’s 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 “requests 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 RCTV’s closure was not just an administrative measure.” However, the government has reiterated several times that it has received no such requests for meeting from RCTV. By promoting Marcel Granier’s point of view RSF again demonstrated their partisan stance and stigmatized the democratic government of Hugo Chávez calling it a “political system known as “Chavism.” Here, we are far from the topic of “press freedoms.” Ménard aligns himself in political and ideological opposition by deliberately caricaturizing the Venezuelan government. In effect the opposition uses the term “Chavism” in a derogatory manner. (17)

RSF concludes their report with a lie manifest as a warning against the “media hegemony” of the president. It’s 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 Televisión 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)

“RCTV may have broadcast pornography,” 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 nation’s highest judicial authority. (19) Moreover, its 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 Chávez 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 “jeopardiz[ing] the presence of the ‘channel of the lion’ on cable.” Here Ménard’s 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 channel’s possibility of transmitting via cable despite what principal media outlets have claimed. (21)

RSF accuses two of the leading private channels Televen and Venevisión of being in the hands of President Chávez. 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 Últimas 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 Chávez as RCTV and Globovisión did in May 2007. RSF’s fanatical point of view is evident: media outlets are either against Chávez, or they are his lackeys. (22)

RSF claims that “President Chávez does not care about international law.” 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)

“Chávez wants the constitution amended in 2008 so that he can be re-elected indefinitely,” 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 “apolitical” and solely interested in “freedom of the press?” (24)

“Complete 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.” More RSF’s alarmism. “A ruling party that is virtually the only party,” 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 Chávez 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 “freedom of the press.” (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 “ included the Reporters Without Borders correspondent,”as acknowledged in Ménard’s report. (26)

RSF also claims that many world personalities advise President Chávez 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 organization’s report. (27)

RSF forged their opinion on the situation of the Venezuelan press after only five days in the country, “from May 24- 28, 2007,” 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 didn’t RSF get upset about the lost concessions of Spanish channels TV Laciana in 2004, TV Católica in 2005 and Tele-Asturias in 2006? Why didn’t 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 hasn’t Robert Ménard 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 didn’t renew the concession of Country Music Televisión (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 Chávez 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 channels’ 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 world’s most important newspaper, The New York Times, calls a CIA front. (30)

Notes

(1) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», 5 de junio de 2007. 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 Televisión», Cubadebate, 30 de mayo de 2007.

(3) L’Express, «Chávez bâillonne la dernière chaîne d’opposition», 29 de mayo de 2007.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Ibid.

(6) Ibid. For the 652 infractions see Jean-Luc Mélanchon, «Où va la bonne conscience anti-chaviste», May 26, 2007, www.jean-luc-melanchon.fr (site consulted on May 30, 2007.) For the oil sabotage see Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «No aceptaremos comportamientos antidemocráticos de la oposición», November 3, 2006.

(7) Lamia Oulalou, «Chávez bâillonne la télé d’opposition», Le Figaro, May 26, 2007.

(8) Eva Golinger, El código Chávez (La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, 2005), p. 125.

(9) Bart Jones, «Hugo Chávez Versus RCTV», Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2007.

(10) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.

(11) Bart Jones, «Chávez As Castro? It’s Not That Simple In Venezuela», Houston Chronicle, 7 de febrero de 2007.

(12) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Un journaliste a été tué, trois autres ont été blessés et cinq chaînes de télévision brièvement suspendues», April 12, 2002. www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1109 (site consulted November 13, 2006.)

(13) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit ; Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «Hoy el pueblo demostró que está movilizado en apoyo a la revolución», June 2, 2007.

(14) Ibid.

(15) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», 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 d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.

(18) Ibid.; Telesur, «Informe RSF ‘Cierre de Radio Caracas Television. La consolidación de una mentira mediática a través de 39 embustes», June 7, 2007.

(19) Telesur, «Informe RSF ‘Cierre de Radio Caracas Television. La consolidación de una mentira mediática a través de 39 embustes», op. cit.

(20) Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «RCTV ha sido el canal más sancionado en Venezuela», March 29, 2007.

(21) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.

(22) Ibid.

(23) Ibid ; Néstor Ikeda, «CIDH pide a Chávez proteger libertad de expresión», Associated Press, May 25, 2007.

(24) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.

(25) Ibid.

(26) Ibid.

(27) Ibid ; Telesur, «Informe RSF ‘Cierre de Radio Caracas Television. La consolidación de una mentira mediática a través de 39 embustes», op. cit.

(28) Reporteros Sin Fronteras, «Fermeture de Radio Caracas Television: la consolidation d’une hégémonie médiatique», op. cit.

(29) Jean-Luc Mélanchon, «Où va la bonne conscience anti-chaviste», op. cit.

(30) Robert Ménard, «Forum de discussion avec Robert Ménard», Le Nouvel Observateur, 18 de abril de 2005. 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 à l’Empire (Genève: Timeli, 2006) and Fidel Castro, Cuba et les Etats-Unis (Pantin: Le Temps des Cerises, 2006).

Venezuela and the Media

This is a good criticism of many of the mainstream reports on the RCTV affair.

Published on Friday, June 1, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Venezuela and the Media: Fact and Fiction
by Robert W. McChesney & Mark Weisbrot
To read and view the U.S. news media over the past week, there is an episode of grand tyranny unfolding, one repugnant to all who cherish democratic freedoms. The Venezuelan government under “strongman” Hugo Chavez refused to renew the 20-year broadcast license for RCTV, because that medium had the temerity to be critical of his regime. It is a familiar story.

And in this case it is wrong.

Regrettably, the US media coverage of Venezuela’s RCTV controversy says more about the deficiencies of our own news media that it does about Venezuela. It demonstrates again, as with the invasion of Iraq, how our news media are far too willing to carry water for Washington than to ascertain and report the truth of the matter.

Here are some of the facts and some of the context that the media have omitted or buried:

1. All nations license radio and TV stations because the airwaves can only accommodate a small number of broadcasters, far fewer than the number who would like to have the privilege to broadcast. In democratic nations the license is given for a specific term, subject to renewal. In the United States it is eight years; in Venezuela it is 20 years.

2. Venezuela is a constitutional republic. Chavez has won landslide victories that would be the envy of almost any elected leader in the world, in internationally monitored elections.

3. The vast majority of Venezuela’s media are not only in private hands, they are constitutionally protected, uncensored, and dominated by the opposition. RCTV’s owners can expand their cable and satellite programming, or take their capital and launch a print empire forthwith. Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own.

Now consider the specific facts of RCTV as it applied to have its broadcast license renewed.

The media here report that President Chavez “accuses RCTV of having supported a coup” against him. This is a common means of distorting the news: a fact is reported as accusation, and then attributed to a source that the press has done everything to discredit. In fact, RCTV - along with other broadcast news outlets - played such a leading role in the April 2002 military coup against Venezuela’s democratically elected government, that it is often described as “the world’s first media coup.”

In the prelude to the coup, RCTV helped mobilize people to the streets against the government, and used false reporting to justify the coup. One of their most infamous and effective falsifications was to mix footage of pro-Chavez people firing pistols from an overpass in Caracas with gory scenes of demonstrators being shot and killed. This created the impression that the pro-Chavez gunmen actually shot these people, when in fact the victims were nowhere near them. These falsified but horrifying images were repeated incessantly, and served as a major justification for the coup.

RCTV then banned any pro-government reporting during the coup. When Chavez returned to office, this too was blacked out of the news. Later the same year, RCTV once again made all-day-long appeals to Venezuelans to help topple the government during a crippling national oil strike.

If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago. In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.

RCTV’s broadcast frequency has been turned over to a new national public access channel that promises to provide programming from thousands of independent producers. It is an effort to let millions of Venezuelans who have never had a viable chance to participate in the media do so, without government censorship.

The Bush Administration opposes the Chavez government for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, or else there would be a long list of governments for us to subvert or overthrow before it would get close to targeting Venezuela. Regrettably, our press coverage has done little to shed light on that subject.

Our news media should learn the lesson of Iraq and regard our own government’s claims with the same skepticism they properly apply to foreign leaders. Then Americans might begin to get a more accurate picture of the world, and be able to effectively participate in our foreign policy.

Robert W. McChesney is a professor of communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. (www.cepr.net).


These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Free Speech in Venezuela

There is still much privately owned media in Venezuela. It is interesting to note that Chavez is closing down a station much of whose programming is popular among poorer people part of the mass entertainment diversion that is becoming virtually Global. In the Philippines Korean(translated into Tagalog) and US soap operas are both immensely popular. The Philippines have their own variants and even has modern day equivalents of "I was a communist for the FBI" in a soap opera in Tagalog that has NPA (New People's Army) operatives as the bad guys.
It sounds as if Chavez intends to foster a revolutionary substitution for these sorts of programs to buttress his "socialism".

Zero Hour for Venezuela's RCTV
by George Ciccariello-Maher

The expiration of Venezuelan broadcaster RCTV's public concession draws near: at 11:59pm on Sunday, May 27th, RCTV's concession will expire without renewal, and its space on channel 2 will be handed over to the newly-founded Venezuelan Social Television (TVes), which will begin broadcasts at 12:15am on May 28th. This sovereign decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew RCTV's concession has prompted claims that freedom of speech is somehow under threat in Venezuela.

But many discussions of freedom of speech rely on a fundamentally flawed assumption: that existing media outlets in some way embody "freedom." The debate surrounding RCTV is no exception. It is this flawed assertion that has been openly embraced by the Venezuelan opposition and equally openly challenged by those who reject efforts to paint the non-renewal of the broadcasting concession for Venezuela's RCTV as an issue of free speech at all (see my previous comments here).

Decades spent under the hegemonic shadow of the discourse of "civil society against the state" has led us to assume that all that is not under state control is free, thereby conveniently obscuring the unfreedom of economic, specifically market forces. So for the non-renewal of RCTV to be a free speech issue at all, one would have to make the ultimately doomed argument that RCTV, under the direction of Marcel Granier and media conglomerate "1 Broadcasting Caracas" (1BC), somehow represents an expression of the people's freedom rather than the freedom of its small group of shareholders.

The Oligarchy and the Media

Don't get me wrong, these shareholders are a fine bunch, and among the purest specimens of the rancid oligarchy that has controlled Venezuela since the colonial conquest. 1BC was founded in 1920 by William H. Phelps Jr. (then under the name Phelps Group), whose father emigrated to Venezuela from the United States. Phelps Jr. would marry Alicia Tucker, thereby giving rise to an oligarchic family tree of colossal proportions with 1BC and RCTV at its center. RCTV's broadcasting concession would pass from Phelps Jr. to his children Johnny Phelps and William Phelps Tucker, and the latter's wife Katherine Deery de Phelps, and finally on to Johnny Phelps' daughters Dorothy and Patricia.

Current 1BC stockholders reflect this dense tangle of blood and wealth: the principal stockholder is Peter Bottome (son of Deery, son-in-law of Phelps Tucker), as well as Alicia Phelps de Tovar (daughter of Johnny), U.S.-educated Mavesa grease magnate Alberto Tovar Phelps (son of Alicia), Guillermo Tucker Arismendi (related through Phelps' wife Katherine, as well as to one of the heads of the conglomerate controlling Globovisión). And then there is current 1BC president Marcel Granier, who entered the picture by marrying Dorothy Phelps, and to whom it now falls to convince Venezuelans that the conglomerate (which also controls radio stations, record stores, and an airline) is in some way "democratic." To emphasize the power that the Phelps wield in Venezuela, one need only note that Johnny Phelps' other daughter Patricia is married to Gustavo Cisneros, Venezuela's most powerful media magnate and direct competitor of 1BC.

Together, 1BC's RCTV and Cisneros' Venevisión control 85% of publicity investment, 66% of transmitting capacity, and 80% of the production of all messages, information, and media content in the country, according to a recent White Book on RCTV issued by the Ministry of Communication. As a journalist in the opposition-controlled newspaper El Universal argued a few years back: "On what moral basis can they come out in defense of free speech and competition when these are at risk, when they themselves propose to monopolize them?" If Venezuela relies on the likes of Granier and Cisneros to defend free speech, then the situation is indeed as bad as the opposition claims.

The Last Gasp of the Opposition

In the aftermath of Chávez's landslide December victory, the opposition is running out of options, and they know it. The path of the coup and the bosses' strike failed in April and December of 2002, respectively, and despite widespread claims that Chávez is a "dictator," the electoral path too has failed on eight separate occasions. While some, like former presidential candidate and governor of Zulia Manuel Rosales' Un Nuevo Tiempo party (which comprises some recent defectors from Primero Justicia), call for the creation of a centrist coalition and a "new majority," others are more realistic. Realizing that they cannot win, but using the pretext of unfair elections, organizations like Antonio Ledezma's Alianza Bravo Pueblo and sectors of Acción Democratica have repeatedly advocated abstention and open resistance to the regime (a call embodied at present in the heroic-sounding "National Resistance Committee").

Now, catching the scent of an opportunity, the Venezuelan opposition has thrown their full force behind the mobilizations in defense of RCTV. These efforts focus, unsurprisingly, on the international stage, where the opposition has courted European and North American public opinion. Representatives of the European Union, the Organization of American States, and even the Pope have jumped on the pro-RCTV (and hence pro-"free speech") bandwagon. Domestically, however, the opposition's strategy has been a mixed bag. Opinion polls show that the RCTV question divides Chavistas, and this is clearly why the opposition finds it so alluring as an issue. But when the opposition threw its weight behind the "mother of all marches" last Saturday, the results were pathetic.

The march featured an all-star lineup: Rosales himself spoke, along with Granier as well as a number of RCTV personalities, the most reactionary of which is Miguel Angel "Little Granier" Rodríguez (see below). The speakers duly pronounced upon the massive nature of the mobilization, and a boom camera swept across the group, transmitting misleadingly narrow crowd shots. When interviewed leaving the march, many participants would parrot claims about the size of the march: "The entire pueblo turned out!" one clearly upper-middle class protestor exclaimed while walking eastward toward the wealthiest zone of Caracas, "We should have marched on the highway."

To provide some necessary context: the Venezuelan opposition has indeed marched on the Francisco Fajardo highway on several occasions, notably during the run-up to the 2002 coup, the 2004 referendum, and the recent presidential elections. That is to say, this is an opposition that has indeed been able to mobilize on a mass scale in the past. But if this past Saturday's march had "taken" the highway, the results would have been even more pitiful than they looked on a four-lane city street in Chacaito.

Mario Silva, host of Chavista evening program La Hojilla, showed helicopter video footage of the march at its height, at which point it hardly filled a small city block (see the footage yourself here). While this footage would suggest that fewer than 10,000 turned out, the Venezuelan opposition press and its international allies didn't shy from claiming that "tens of thousands" (BBC, Reuters, AP) participated. To the contrary, the only thing "warming up the streets" last Saturday, to adopt a colloquial expression, was the sweltering sun.

A Doomed Strategy

What explains this massive failure of the Venezuelan opposition to mobilize even a fraction of what they were able to mobilize in past years? Clearly, given their emphasis on RCTV's non-renewal, they felt it would be a hot-button issue: Why were they so wrong? The answers lie in the nature of RCTV itself. Firstly, while most surveys show a clear majority opposing the non-renewal of RCTV's broadcast concession, they show an equally clear and comparable majority supporting Chávez and his government. While this explains in part the opposition's attraction to the issue (it's not everyday that they get a chance to divide Chávez's support base), it also explains their failure.

RCTV's programming is best known for an emphasis in soap operas, or novelas, programs which are largely aimed, by virtue of their content and time-slot, at lower-middle-class segments of society. The popularity of these novelas is largely responsible for the cross-spectrum support for RCTV. But it is one thing to favor RCTV enough to support it in a poll. It's quite another to take to the streets alongside a largely discredited and reactionary opposition to actively defend it. Moreover, given that these trashy and sexy novelas are a sort of guilty pleasure among some Chavistas, we might expect them to be much less likely to defend RCTV in public.

But this inability to divide Chavistas is not enough to explain the poor turnout at Saturday's march, since the issue is further complicated by the opposition's misjudgement of their own social base. They seem to have overlooked a simple fact: most middle and upper-class Venezuelans don't watch VHF programming at all! With their televisions permanently tuned to cable or satellite broadcasts, many wealthy Venezuelans would hardly even notice if RCTV were to disappear from the public airwaves. And since RCTV's broadcasts on cable and satellite will almost certainly continue, there will be absolutely no effect on those wealthy Venezuelans who currently watch RCTV-produced novelas via third-party cable or satellite stations anyway.

When All Else Fails. . . .

Given their utter failure to mobilize significant support for the renewal of RCTV's broadcast license, it has become clear that the opposition has effectively put all of their eggs in one (poorly-conceived) basket. By tying their fortunes so tightly to those of RCTV, the opposition runs the risk of drifting further into irrelevance after the concession expires on Sunday. Their only hope appears to be that the Supreme Court accept one of their appeals, which would possibly delay the expiration of RCTV's concession. But this, too, is very unlikely, as the court already dismissed one such appeal last week.

As a result, desperation has begun to set in, along with the threats of violence to which the Venezuelan opposition is so prone. Speaking from Miami alongside Patricia Poleo (currently under investigation in Venezuela for planning the 2004 assassination of Danilo Anderson, the prosecutor investigating the bloodshed of April 11th 2002), "Little Granier" Rodríguez issued a thinly-veiled threat to President Chávez: "thinking of his personal security," Rodríguez argues that the non-renewal of RCTV's broadcast concession would "put the President at great risk."

"Little Granier" continues: "Look in the mirror during Pinochet's last days, look in the mirror of Peron's widow, look in the mirror of Slobodan Milosevic, and I hope you aren't crazy enough to institute the death penalty in Venezuela, because then you would need to see yourself in Saddam Hussein's mirror, they all met their end for crimes against humanity." Coming from a station that broadcast, with some sympathy, the various defenses of Pinochet during the thankfully late dictator's funeral, this statement is ironic at best and utterly cynical at worst.

Echoing this, Primero Justicia leader Julio Borges that the government could see blood in the streets if the decision is upheld. Such threats go hand in hand with the ever-present threat of disruptive guarimbas (violent roadblocks) and even attacks on civilians to provoke a situation of chaos. Últimas Noticias has reported that several have been arrested in recent days, charged with plotting destabilizing violence, and given that several submachine guns and sniper rifles were confiscated, we can't be entirely sure that these were merely empty threats. And this is an opposition that is quickly running out of options, so any and all strategies, including "strategies of tension," will soon be on the table.

TVes: Democratizing the Media

If the opposition is good for anything at all (something which isn't entirely clear), it's good for radicalizing the Bolivarian Revolution. This is because regardless of what may have been the government's initial vision of the new channel 2, opposition efforts to attack the non-renewal of RCTV's license as an undemocratic attack on free speech have forced the government to emphasize that the new TVes is all about the democratization of the airwaves. In recent days, the future shape of TVes has become a bit clearer. Lil Rodríguez, an Afro-Venezuelan woman, Últimas Noticias journalist, and host of Telesur's cultural program Sones y Pasiones, was sworn in as director of the TVes Foundation. As Rodríguez put it: "TVes will be born in a week with a name, with dreams, with a bit of the road behind it but an entire highway ahead. She [TVes] is a woman, and she has her ovaries on straight."

While there remains some question as to what autonomy TVes will enjoy in practice, Minister of Communication Willian Lara argues that, "we wouldn't be so stupid as to make TVes a clone of [state-run] VTV, Vive. . . ." In an effort to assure this, the law regulating TVes provides the directorial committee with a role which is fundamentally administrative: rather than actively producing programs, TVes is meant to be merely a conduit through which independent cultural production reaches the airwaves.

As Lil Rodríguez puts it, TVes will be "a space in which popular resistance will be what guides our destinies." Moreover, the importance of the new channel transcends a political undermining of the opposition and even the deepening of media democracy, as important as both of these are. As Rodríguez describes it, TVes "will be a useful space for rescuing those values which other models of television always ignore, especially our Afro heritage," in short, a weapon against the white Eurocentric self-image that has long prevailed in the media, devaluing Venezuelan history and culture and thereby justifying dependent development.

Should we believe the Venezuelan government that the new TVes will be an experiment in democratic, community-run media? If we take our cue from those with the most to lose (i.e. those who suffer most from media monopolies), then the answer is yes. This Sunday, mere hours before RCTV's concession expires, the National Association of Free and Alternative Community Media (ANMCLA), representing hundreds of community media outlets, is convoking a march in defense of the non-renewal of RCTV's license. Deeming their position as "neither private, nor the state," the march celebrates the non-renewal as "a step forward against golpismo [coup-ism] and toward the socialization of the media."

But it is merely one step, and ANMCLA urges the government to go further: to expropriate the private media magnates of their transmitters and equipment, to hold coup-plotters responsible for their actions, and above all to move beyond statist conceptions of the public media. As they argue: "The new channel 2 that will soon go on the air will surely be better, closer to the people, with less violence and perversion. . . . But in order for it to really become the TV that we desire, for it to really be our television, it will be necessary to establish and exercise direct popular control over the channel, as well as over the media as a whole." While ANMCLA "will be on the streets to celebrate the execution of this measure [against RCTV] and the opening of new perspectives," they see the gesture as "a point of departure for an entirely new era of struggles for the socialization of all the media, through popular protagonism, toward the construction of socialism."

In all honesty, even a state-run station would be more "democratic" than one directed by the economic oligarchy that has ruled Venezuela for the past 500 years. But the vision expressed by ANMCLA and others is infinitely more radical and more suited to the entirely new kind of socialism that is being built in Venezuela.

Do RCTV and Marcel Granier represent "freedom"? The response from independent media producers is blunt: as a media activist from Caricuao's Radio Perola, one of the ANMCLA signatories, puts it: "Freedom of expression is the expression of freedom, not the voice of privilege." The historic concession granted to RCTV is a direct expression of the economic privilege of Venezuelan and international elites, now so insistently and opportunistically masquerading as "free speech."

As a recently-popularized slogan puts it: "RC Te Vas" -- "RCTV, You're Gone."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Ciccariello-Maher is a Ph.D. candidate in political theory at the University of California, Berkeley. He lives in Caracas, and can be reached at gjcm(at)berkeley.edu.