Eric Jackson: You say that 'freedom of the press is not a license to kidnap the president, kill people and overturn the results of national elections' And I ask you, did RCTV suggest, incite, execute any of these accusations you mention? Show us your proof.

Andrew Kennis: There are several problems with your article: Connie Mack does not speak for all of Congress. Quoting Mack does not give a reporter enough evidence to dismiss a whole government. Or would you like it if I quoted Kucinich on several issues or even Murtha?

Miguel Perez was published by the Chicago Sun-Times just like you could have been published. He does not represent the US media. He is not even a staff reporter at the paper.

Quoting the Washington Times is like quoting the Heritage Foundation. And you should know this. So quoting a well-known hardcore right wing newspaper is not fair to your readers who may not know that the Washington Times is not widely read.

You say that "The Washington Post, one of the most influential dailies in the U.S., irresponsibly included quotes about non-existent legal reforms in the leading paragraphs of one article. “The government is trying to change the laws and indoctrinate the population,” read a quote from a protesting college student and Venezuelan expatriate (06/16/07)" Now, the problem with that statement, Eric, is that you quote a Washington Post 'article' yet this is not an article but a quote from a Venezuelan citizen, within the article. Are we to censor our interviews on the street to those citizens with full legal knowledge on the issue? It is simple an example of what a citizen feels is happening and you have taken it out of context to say that the Washington Post is backing up the idea that there are legal reforms. You should know better.

You also state that polls on the rejection of the government move to pull the plug on RCTV did not show that people who rejected it did it because of their entertainment programming not because they liked the anti-Chavez programming. Are you saying that if people responded that they liked the anti-Chavez programming then it would be wrong to shut RCTV down? So really a channel deserves to be on the air because of its political stance? I don't understand how it matters whether people like RCTV for one reason or another. They don't want the channel closing. If you want to show that people don't like the anti-Chavez programming, that's fine but it doesn't provide a reason to shut down a channel. Or should we shut down Democracy Now in the US just because Republicans don't like the anti-Bush programming?

Mark Weisbrot and Eva Golinger are known staunch supporters of Chavez. Would you mind if I quoted Hannity and Colmes from Fox News to present president Bush or Mccain as a saint, arguing that Hannity and Colmes are independent media?

You say "The government’s claim that RCTV actively participated in the coup is well documented" Really? Please provide a link to the evidence. There is still no evidence on this matter. A channel broadcasting images is not executing a coup. Why didn't we close VTV in 1992 when the coup (a real coup with tanks an weapons not like the coup you are referring to) was broadcast live and even Chavez got his 1 minute of fame? If you have prove that someone edited videos and tampered with materialts then there should be a trial for those people but the channel is not at fault for what these people do. Or should the US government close down the New York Times for having misrepresented the facts on Iraq before the US invaded? Should the US government close down The Atlantic Monthly because a reporter tampered and made up sources?

You say "However, even the most conservative estimates put private commercial ownership at no less than 75% of the television news media. Other estimates that include more outlets are as high as 95%." Are you advocating that the government own more media? Would you advocate the same for the US government in the hands of Republicans? How about watching Fox New-like media, funded by the US government on 50% of the public spectrum? Would that be a fair balance Eric? Surely if you think over 70% or 95% ownership is too much in Venezuela then it must be the same for other countries. Wouldn't that mean an increase in our taxes?

You say "...was adopted in a 1999 referendum, with over 90% of the vote in its favor. More importantly, however, is the tremendous growth of this new form of media since 2002." But you quote inaccurate numbers. I don't know where you got that 90% and it shows how your journalistic integrity shines. The referendum passed with 71.37% in favor yet the abstention rate was 54.74% That means 5 out of 10 Venezuelans did not vote. http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Elecdata/Venezuela/venref.html My source is Consejo Nacional Electoral. This is what we do in the business. We quote sources.

Greg Wilpert is a leading political analyst according to who? Seriously, the guy is editor of venezuelanalysis.com, a site largely written by him. you failed to mention he is a leading, pro-Chavez, political analyst. If he is indeed according to you a leading one at that.

If you are a freshman student in journalism I apologize for being so harsh. However, next time, try to be accurate, try to quote (especially with the internet it is so easy to link sources) and if this is news and not a review of what was going on in terms of the media in Venezuela 2 years ago then I don't think I'll be reading more 'news' from the narconews bulletin. Sincerely, Carlos C.