venezuela govt to take stake in opposition tv station

[meow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10710638


Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has said his government is due to take control of a minority stake in the country's main anti-Chavez television channel, Globovision.
The government would then be entitled to appoint a member of the channel's board of directors, Mr Chavez said.



Mr Chavez announced that in the past few weeks the government had taken over two companies - including a bank - owned by the co-founder of Globovision, Nelson Mezerhane.
Between them, those two companies own 25.8% of Globovision's shares, which Mr Chavez now wants to pass into the hands of the state.



The reaction from Globovision was swift. "The editorial line of Globovision cannot be expropriated nor intervened in," the company said in a statement.
Globovision also denied that the government's control of Mr Mezerhane's bank gave it the right to appoint a board member.

i think that the govt in this case should provide support to independent media. a case might be like pbs and npr in us. the govt should not be afraid of criticism or attack. if it is correct it can explain this. if not it should change. (of course it is wrong. state is wrong. anarchy! anarckyyy etc.)

but regardless interesting case.

[Blackscare]

I don't particularly like this, for much the same reason as the OP. Something in Venezuela's defense that I've used before is the fact that they do not, in fact, control private media but allow dissident voices. They just fund other forms of media to combat the propaganda. This just puts a feather in the hat of the Anti-Chavez crowd.

[RadioRaheem84]

PBS or NPR? They are not independent. Their programs are mainly funded by huge corporate sponsors. You ever watch Frontline? It's the best show on PBS but it's still center right/ liberal. For as groundbreaking as it claims to be it's still quite por establishment.

[Nolan]

Good. Globoterror (as it's called in Venezuela) simply spews the product of 50 million dollar per year imperialist cash infusions into the Venezuelan opposition. This probably won't mean anything, though.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think this should be viewed in the context that the media in Venezuela is actually subversive and spews libelous dretch everyday. It has gone beyond even the realm of free speech that allows even a guy like Glenn beck on the air. Imagine Fox News on hyperdrive calling Obama Hitler and spreading Alex Jones type of propaganda. One question I once saw a Venezuelan anchor ask, "Is Chavez Satan" ? And he seemed pretty serious. But yes this is going to be a nod for the anti Chavez group.

[vyborg]

The media should be owned by the state but the transmissions made by workers' community (factories, unions, barrios, etc)

[El Rojo]

all those who think that the Chavez government has silenced independant media have missed something.

Since Chavez came into power his government has funded hundreds if not thousands of grassroots media organisations. Local television, radio and newspapers, which are actually independent, as opposed to being tools of corportate agenda. The PSUV has done more for independent media than almost any other gov i can think of.


This just puts a feather in the hat of the Anti-Chavez crowd.

Irrelevant. The bat-shit insane rightists will say anything, no ammount of trying to placate them will make a difference. Whatever Chavez does, hed still be a baby eating satanist ect.

[REDSOX]

Globovision is/was one of the four big Media conglomerates that dominated venezuela's tv airwaves after concessions were given to them in the 1980's by previous neo liberal administrations. When Chavez came to power these corporations Venevision, RCTV, Globovision, Televen were absolutely merciless in their rabid criticism of chavez which was slanderous,libalous, racist, treasonous, and violent inciting. Chavez took their best punches and has since drawn their sting. Venevision owned by media maganate Gustavo cisneros seems to have toned down their criticism of chavez to the extent that they report him critically but not rabidly. Televen is more a less now a consumer channel, RCTV had its licence removed for breaching the terms of its licence and now globovision is it seems being partly taken over by the government because the minority shareholder is a crook. Good on chavez i say

[pranabjyoti]

I don't particularly like this, for much the same reason as the OP. Something in Venezuela's defense that I've used before is the fact that they do not, in fact, control private media but allow dissident voices. They just fund other forms of media to combat the propaganda. This just puts a feather in the hat of the Anti-Chavez crowd.
Problem with people like you is that, you view independent media as some kind of holy grail, NOT TO BE TOUCHED. Do you think anything in this world can be beyond class struggle and support?

[scarletghoul]

These are the ones who backed the 2002 coup. If having a 'free press' means giving freedom to the bourgeoisie to propagate bullshit that destroys the mass movement towards socialism then I do not support a 'free press'.

[pranabjyoti]

These are the ones who backed the 2002 coup. If having a 'free press' means giving freedom to the bourgeoisie to propagate bullshit that destroys the mass movement towards socialism then I do not support a 'free press'.
If "free press" means beyond class, CAN SUCH THING EXIST IS THIS CLASS BASED WORLD? It can be of petty-bourgeoisie liberal character maximum.

[Glenn Beck]

Globovision makes Fox look like PBS. I'm not mourning. And I don't see how granting the government a member of the board of directors of a private corporation is an anti-democratic move. Why shouldn't powerful private entities at the very least be held somewhat accountable to a democratic government?

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Overall, I don't think that any government should stick their hands in the media whatsoever except for maybe something like PBS under the condition that it remains government only that can compete with the private media. The reason I support this is because all governments need opposition and they need an independent view so that they do not fall to their pride and so that they are offered a view point that allows them to rethink their choices.

[RadioRaheem84]

Just saw a PBS newshow with Pat Buchanan and Monica Crowley of The Washington Times. The host agreed with Buchanan that Ronald Reagan was a grand President in which the economy grew by a huge margin. This should show how "liberal" PBS is. I mean how the hell did the Washington Times become a respctable newspaper? Did Reverend Sun Yung Moon sell the paper to Murdoch? There is not much of a difference between PBS and CNN.

[Artemis3]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-10710638



i think that the govt in this case should provide support to independent media. a case might be like pbs and npr in us. the govt should not be afraid of criticism or attack. if it is correct it can explain this. if not it should change. (of course it is wrong. state is wrong. anarchy! anarckyyy etc.)

but regardless interesting case.

Don't you think you are missing the reason why the state suddenly owns 25% shares of the most fascist anti workers right wing channel there is in the country? Was it a sudden enlightenment?, Chavez woke up one day and said, "Hey, lets buy some stocks there to help the opposition"? Here is a HUGE problem some people have, lack of context. I'm not accusing you, but most likely your source, the BBC. The reason: Unlike the US, when bankers play with people's money and drive their savings to ruin, they don't get a bailout, they go to prison and their belongings confiscated; and guess what banker owned shares where... Unfortunately as is usual here, said white collar thief fled the country (to the USA, no less); but his belongings now "are belong to us" :P Sure who cares about the little details, all that matters is evil Chavez. Now if you asked me what i would do instead, i would put in prison ALL the owners of that channel and transfer ownership to the workers. Repeat with all private owned stations. Reason? They all took part in the coup of 2002. But as you know, Venezuela is not quite there yet, someday perhaps...

[Adi Shankara]

Has anyone else actually seen what the private corporate media puts on TV in Venezuela? Calls to arms that'd be illegal here in the United States, and hateful demagoguery that'd make the likes of Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck blush:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enp8P-ZPiyM

note, this happens almost everyday on Venezolano TV. This is what the US media doesn't want you to know. It's not innocent journalists being targeted for their honest reporting; it's blowhards calling for the assassination, the overthrow, the death of their democratically elected president. when it's not as serious as that, they do everything from call him a Nazi, to saying he's having an affair with Fidel Castro, to that he is has STDs and what not.

[Red Commissar]

Yeah, I'm surprised this didn't happen earlier. Considering what groups like Globovision did during the failed coup early on in Chavez's term and how they continue to act, they're just asking for it.

But any rate they'll have their struggle painted one as victims of state repression by an EVIL SOCIALIST REGIME. I mean that makes journalists hear cry with glee, it's a juicy story.

[Adi Shankara]

Yeah, I'm surprised this didn't happen earlier. Considering what groups like Globovision did during the failed coup early on in Chavez's term and how they continue to act, they're just asking for it.

see, the US only reports that journalists are being jailed in Venezuela...what they didn't report is that those same journalists are calling for the execution and overthrow of the president, things that they tried to charge Jane Fonda with back in the 60's when all she did was sit on a bomb in Vietnam, and the likes of which made the FBI knock on your door if you even thought of saying Bush should be murdered.

[Coggeh]

Chavez has made a huge mistake in timing here.
While i personally support the state running these BS propaganda channels out of the country. He had an opportunity to do it without a huge backlash after the 2002 coup as the media were key instigators in the coup. I support this in a sense. They should take it over and then change it into an independent broadcasting system with state funding, different from actually state controlled.