Language

Reporter's Notebook: Charlie Hardy

Don't Cry for Venezuela's RCTV

Posted by Charlie Hardy - May 27, 2007 at 4:27 pm
As I write this, I am looking at a Venezuelan newspaper, El Diario, from February 10, 1992. The editorial that would have occupied half of page 2 is missing. Page 4 is completely blank. The contents were censored by the government of the then president Carlos Andres Perez.
The newspaper is just one of many horrible memories of the pre-Hugo Chavez days in Venezuela’s “exceptional” democracy. U.S. newspapers seem to overlook what Venezuela used to be like as they today discuss the actions of the current government. I have lived in Venezuela for most of the past 22 years and have never experienced such freedom as that which the Venezuelan population enjoys today under Hugo Chavez. That would include freedom of information. Never, in the past 22 years, has the mass media experienced the freedom it has had during the presidency of Chavez. One can freely buy anti-Chavez newspapers on streets and the airwaves and television channels are amply filled with anti-Chavez commentators.
However, today, May 27, the Venezuelan government will not renew the license of RCTV, a television station that has been on the air for over 50 years. The owner, Marciel Granier, has been running around the world crying because he is about to loose his license. Even the millionaires in the U.S. Senate feel he should get to keep the license. Interestingly, Granier was president of the censored El Diario in 1992. He didn’t complain then. I bought his newspaper. He got his money.
What the news reports in the U.S. don’t tell us, and what the U.S. Senate doesn’t seem to understand, is that hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans will be celebrating tonight at midnight because RCTV’s license will have expired. They’ve been meeting on city squares and corners throughout Venezuela discussing who owns the air and what kind of programming they would like on their television sets. They are asking whether it is truly fair that if you are a millionaire, you can buy the air space of the people for the next 20 years. Independent producers will now have a chance to get their programs shown, without having to obtain the approval of Granier who has been something of a media dictator in Venezuela.
Granier is no saint and his channel hasn’t been an example of the heavenly kingdom on earth either. RCTV was taken off the air five times by Venezuelan administrations before Chavez ever entered the presidential palace. In 1981, for example, it was taken off the air for 24 hours because of airing pornographic scenes.
In 2002, RCTV actively encouraged Venezuelans to march toward the presidential palace in order to participate in a coup that was taking place to overthrow the democratically elected president. Marciel Granier gave clear instructions to the managing producer of Venezuela’s most watched news program on the day of the coup that he should not give any information about President Chavez. Actions like this would not be tolerated by the FCC in the U.S.
However, when Chavez returned to power a few days later, no reprisals were taken against the channel.
No, May 27 is not a sad day for freedom of expression in Venezuela, so don’t weep for Mr. Granier when RCTV’s license is not renewed. He can still broadcast through cable or satellite and he can still sell his programming to other stations. Instead, rejoice with all the independent producers and thousands of Venezuelan who will have access to the space one wealthy man controlled for years. May 28 will be a day of celebration in Venezuela. It should be a day for celebrating freedom throughout the world.
(You can now order the book, Cowboy in Caracas, A North American’s Memoir of Venezuela’s Democratic Revolution, at bookstores, online, or directly from Curbstone Press.)

About Charlie Hardy

Latest Notebook Entries

more

Comments

Praxis TV

Submitted May 28, 2007 - 7:25 pm by Bill Conroy
Charlie,

Great insight into a perspective being ignored by the press forces who favor corporate ownership as a form of free press.

But that's where my rub comes in. How can any press, TV or otherwise, really be representative of the people if it is controlled by a corporate elite or the state.

I mention the state in the case of Ven. in that in the short term, it might be a good thing, but if the state has control absolutely (as in the purse strings), as a matter of law, then what happens if a good state is replaced by a bad state down the road unforseen at present -- or even a capitulating state under the thumb of foreign powers?

What happens if Granier replaces Chavez, for example? That may seem an impossible extreme, but then look at how far certain of Ven.'s northern neighbors have come on that front in a short time.

TV, in particular, is susceptible to control by the few at the expense of the many -- whether that is a greedy corporate oligarchy or a corrupt state -- because of the large capital investment required to play in that field.

So, it seems to me, it is not enough to answer the question of whether any TV license should be under the control of a corporate or state power, because to me, in the extreme, both pose extreme danger, because of the simple potential of great power to be concentrated, largely unchecked, in the hands of a few who have no reason to assure the benefit of the many.

Under state ownership, RCTV can open the doors to independent producers, etc., which does make its programming more democratic, at least in the short run. But the money is now coming from the state, as opposed to a powerful corporate elite.

So it seems to me that the real question, and not an easy nut to crack, even by well-intentioned leaders, is how does Ven. assure that in the future, beyond Chavez, that the power of the state, the purse strings of the state, are not turned against the people with respect to RCTV.

What efforts, systems, controls are in place, or going to be put in place, to assure that the power to control the media is not concentrated, but diffused and within grasp of all the people?

This is not an answer I have, but it is one I'm seeking. And I hope that Ven. has a theory to test on that front that might take us further down that road to a more enlightened, democratic media. If they do, I want to learn more about it, and excuse my ignorance.

In any event, as a dear departed friend of mine once convinced me of about life -- theory and practice make praxis, and praxis is an important path to enlightened existence, at least in my view:

Definition: Praxis is a complex activity by which individuals create culture and society, and become critically conscious human beings. Praxis comprises a cycle of action-reflection-action which is central to liberatory education. Characteristics of praxis include self-determination (as opposed to coercion), intentionality (as opposed to reaction), creativity (as opposed to homogeneity), and rationality (as opposed to chance).

This is not a critique; please understand that. It's a simple inquiry about our global future.

Point of clarity on praxis

Submitted May 28, 2007 - 11:35 pm by Bill Conroy
Sloppy wording on my part ....

I understand RCTV wasn't taken over by the state, as Charlie points out; but rather it had its licensed yanked.

That's a threat faced by any broadcaster using the public airwaves here in the states as well, if they violate the terms of their license. So on that score, it's threat implied in the states but never seriously pursued. It seems in Ven., that dynamic is clearly different.

But my question goes to what replaced RCTV's signal, or rather the process for re-assigning that signal and it's ongoing use, since it appears to be a major media beam in the country -- regardless of its call letters. And based on the mainstream coverage floating out there now, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the state-sponored TVES now commands that signal.

To that end, the question that I raised remains. TVES, as it is now controlled, under the current government, may well be a more democratic media entity  (as far as TV land) than is a corporate-controlled RCTV.

But it still is controlled by the state, which is subject to corrupt control by a few -- down the road, as is any government or corporation where power is concentrated, or has the potential to be concentrated, in an unresponsive elite.

A truely democractic media is a check on that concentration of power, it seems to me, only if itself is diverse, diffuse and accessable to the people in their communities (ideally controlled by those people through a process other than "ratings") and not subject -- even in future generations -- to monopolization and manipulation by an elite group of owners, whether they be corporate or state empowered.

I admit to being an absolutist about the First Amendment as it is worded in this country's Constitution. But I am a realist about the axiom that he who controls the presses (or TV signal or Internet pipeline) controls the mass media.

So this is, in fact, a global question I raise about the future democratization of the media and the path to a "free press."

How does Ven. accomplish this?

Maybe there is a larger plan in play that has been ignored by the corporate media front groups and government elites now pounding their chests at this moment over RCTV's loss of its signal. (And remember, many of these so-called "democratic" leaders now bristling at Chavez are the same people that fan the flames of censorship in this country over hip-hop lyrics and shock jocks -- a bit of complexity and irony not to be ignored.)

But the question remains. What is the plan, can it be articulated? What is the theory, what is the practice, what is unfolding, or to unfold, in the praxis?

If not in Ven., then where is this experiment in media praxis unfolding? If not in the halls of centralized government, or the board rooms of large corporations, then where?

Where does it start and will we know it when we see it?

American TV

Submitted May 29, 2007 - 10:30 am by Christopher Hyde
Here in Maine, amidst the general jingoism characterizing Memorial Day, one of our local TV news programs mentioned a ceremonial salute by "a firing squad." Would to god that it were so!

I mention this because it exemplifies the quality of what passes for news here in upper America. The report on Chavez's non-renewal of the TV license was, of course, the unedited AP version, by the regular Venezuelan correspondent who seems to be in the pay of the right-wing opposition.

Just like the first amendment?

Submitted May 31, 2007 - 6:48 pm by Reber Boult
Here are some background thoughts on the less important of Bill's two main questions--the one about giving and taking of broadcast licenses.

The free expression clauses of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevent the government from requiring that most media outlets have a license (other than a routine and entirely available business license).  I'm not even a first amendment absolutist (I believe the guarantees of free expression need to be harmonized with the guarantees of free elections; these fundamentals are sometimes at odds especially when money is involved) and I see that as entirely clear and desirable.

So why is it "most media outlets" rather than all of them?  It's because the spectrum of radio frequencies is not unlimited nor nearly so, like the number of printing presses or web sites.  Some way has to be devised to allocate broadcast channels.  In the late 1920's Congress set the method (caving in a lot to commercial interests) and created the predecessor of the Federal Communications Commission to administer it.  One of the standards was that you can't keep your license unless your station has served some modicum of the public interest.  I don't know of any U.S. licenses that have been lost to this requirement, although there is some small evidence that it used to (as in before the Reaganites started giving away the store) have a salubrious effect on broadcasters in small ways.

So it looks like what Venezuela did to RCTV was consistent with what our FCC is, in theory, supposed to do.  Some say there wasn't sufficient due process in the doing but that doesn't seem to be the major complaint and probably wouldn't have changed the outcome; it could be a big problem in future proceedings.

The government's ability to depart from first amendment orthodoxy (that speech can't be licensed nor regulated based on its content) where the expression is broadcast was discussed in a turgid opinion written for most of the Court by turgid U.S. Supreme Court Justice Whizzer White in 1969 in a case involving the FCC and a broadcaster named Red Lion (ironically, that case came from a redbaiting program it had aired).  Some excerpts from the Court's "Official Syllabus":  "The fairness doctrine [later abolished by the Reagans] began shortly after the Federal Radio Commission was established to allocate frequencies among competing applicant [sic] in the public interest . . . . The fairness doctrine and its specific manifestations in the personal attack and political editorial rules do not violate the First Amendment. . . . The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. . . . The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied to others."

Putting this power in the government is troubling.  But where else would we put it?  At least in some ways, in some governments, there's a chance for popular input and having some rules that might curb some abuses.  That's what governments are for.  Some governments, probably not Venezuela's, have courts that help to put brakes on abuses.

Absolute harmonization

Submitted May 31, 2007 - 9:20 pm by Bill Conroy
Reber,

Excellent background. I learned something, which is always gratifying.

I will say, though, that I don't think our postions on the First Amendment and free elections are really that different.

I too believe in free elections (one man/woman, one vote) as being at the heart of a functional democracy, but I don't think the First Amendment conflicts with maintaining an absolutist stance on both guarantees.

The harmonizing you speak of, to me, is at heart almost always disrupted by an economic coercion that has all too often been used by "press-freedom abusers" to obscure Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

The fact that there is an absolute right to a free press (whereby the government shall make no law abridging that freedom) to me does not mean there is an unfettered right to control the media through econonmic monopolization of the presses -- TV signals or Internet pipeline.

In fact, I see those as diametrically opposing forces that a truely free society must come to grips with without sacrificing free speech, free elections or the absolute of freedom of the press.

If anything, it implies to me that the government's role, always with the understanding that government is subservient to the people (a challenge itself unobtainable absent the pursuit of harmonization), must be to assure a level playing field that inhibits media-elite oligarcies from arising and exercising dominate control over the public space vital to the proper functioning of a democracy.

So that harmonization process you speak of is very much at the heart of my larger question.

User login