Subject: Venezuela's press power
(This is an outstanding and well-documented
analysis of the role that the private corporate
capitalist media played in orchestrating the
April 2002 coup against the democratically-
elected Venezuelan government which is led
by Hugo Chavez.
(When you hear about the lack of a so-called
"free press" in Venezuela, this essay gives an
excellent example of what THEY mean when
they talk about wanting a "free press" in Cuba.
They mean the freedoom to do things like this.
(This essay is so important that it's been put
up in formatted version at the FILES section
under the title: "Venezuela's Press Power"
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/files/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/files/
)
===================================
HOW HATE MEDIA INCITED
THE COUP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
Venezuela's press power
------------------------------------------------------------
Never even in Latin American history has the media been
so
directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela's 'hate
media' controls 95% of the airwaves and has a
near-monopoly
over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed
attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in
April.
Although tensions in the country could easily spill into
civil war, the media is still directly encouraging
dissident
elements to overthrow the democratically elected
president -
if necessary by force.
by MAURICE LEMOINE
---------------------------------------------------------
"We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have
the
opportunity, let me congratulate you." In Caracas, on 11
April 2002, just a few hours before the temporary
overthrow
of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, Vice-Admiral
Victor
Ramírez Pérez congratulated journalist Ibéyiste Pacheco
live
on Venevision television. Twenty minutes earlier, when
Pacheco had begun to interview a group of rebel
officers,
she could not resist admitting, conspiratorially, that
she
had long had a special relationship with them.
At the same time, in a live interview from Madrid,
another
journalist, Patricia Poleo, also seemed well informed
about
the likely future development of "spontaneous events".
She
announced on the Spanish channel TVE: "I believe the
next
president is going to be Pedro Carmona." Chávez, holed
up in
the presidential palace, was still refusing to step
down.
After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main
privately
owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión
(RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major
national newspapers, including El Universal, El
Nacional,
Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have
taken over the role of the traditional political
parties,
which were damaged by the president's electoral
victories.
Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong
position. They give the opposition support, only rarely
reporting government statements and never mentioning its
large majority, despite that majority's confirmation at
the
ballot box. They have always described the working class
districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes
of
ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering
them
unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and
organisations.
Their investigations, interviews and commentaries all
pursue
the same objective: to undermine the legitimacy of the
government and to destroy the president's popular
support.
"In aesthetic terms, this revolutionary government is a
cesspit," was the delicate phrase used by the evening
paper
Tal Cual. Its editor, Teodoro Petkoff, is a keen
opponent of
Chávez. Petkoff is a former Marxist guerrilla who became
a
neo-liberal and a pro-privatisation minister in the
government of rightwing president Rafael Caldera. The
Chávez
government is not, of course, above criticism. It makes
mistakes, and the civilian and military personnel who
surround it are tainted by corruption. But the
government
was democratically elected and still has the backing of
the
majority. It can also be credited with successes,
nationally
and internationally.
When it comes to discrediting Chávez, anything goes.
There
was a scandal in Caracas in March when a faked interview
with Ignacio Ramonet, the director of Le Monde
diplomatique,
was circulated. In a statement alleged to have been made
to
Emiliano Payares Gúzman, a Mexican researcher at
Princeton
University, Ramonet was supposed to have said: "Chávez
lacks
a respectable intellectual corpus, and that is why his
ship
is always off course. When he won the elections, it
seemed
to me that he had something about him. But populism won
out,
as so often happens in such cases. I have seen videos in
which he sings boleros while setting out his economic
programme, if indeed he has one. I think those true and
verifiable facts speak for themselves, I don't need to
voice
my opinion of somebody like that."
Venezuela Analítica (1) immediately posted the
"statement"
on the web, without checking on its authenticity, and it
then became headline news in El Nacional. The paper was
delighted to give credence to the idea of Chávez being
isolated internationally, and made no attempt to check
with
the supposed interviewee. When Ramonet denied having
made
the statement, El Nacional rounded on the hoaxer (2)
and,
less overtly, without even apologising, on Ramonet.
The "information" that has been published has verged on
the
surreal. For example, "sources from the intelligence
services have uncovered agreements entered into with
elements linked to Hezbollah on the Venezuelan island of
Margarita, who are controlled by the Iranian embassy.
You
will remember that when Chávez was campaigning, a
certain
Moukhdad was extremely generous. That debt had to be
repaid,
and now Iran is to make Venezuela an operational base,
in
exchange for training Venezuelans in Iranian
organisations
for the defence of the Islamic Revolution. Terrorism is
in
our midst" (3).
On 21 March El Nacional ran the headline: "Hugo Chávez
admits to being the head of a criminal network." Next
day
Tal Cual referred to "the feeling of nausea provoked by
the
aggressive words he uses to try to frighten
Venezuelans".
The president was insulted, compared with Idi Amin,
Mussolini or Hitler, called a fascist, dictator or
tyrant,
and subjected to a spate of attacks. In any other
country
actions would have been brought for libel. "An ongoing
and
disrespectful attack," was how the minister of trade,
Adina
Bastidas, put it. "They accuse me of funding the
planting of
bombs in the streets. And I cannot defend myself. If you
attack them, they complain to the United States!"
Chávez responded to this media bombardment, sometimes
using
strong language, especially during his weekly broadcast
Aló
presidente! on the only state-controlled television
channel.
But his regime in no way resembles a dictatorship, and
his
diatribes have not been followed by measures to control
the
flow of information. Since Chávez took office, not a
single
journalist has been imprisoned, and the government has
not
shut down any media. Yet it is accused of "flouting
freedom
of information" and of "attacking social communicators".
'Tell the truth'
On 7 January a group of the president's supporters
besieged
the offices of El Nacional chanting hostile slogans.
Shouting "tell the truth!", they hurled objects at the
building. The number of attacks on journalists is
increasing, according to Carlos Correa, general
coordinator
of Provea (4), an organisation for the defence of human
rights, and they are being criminalised. "Although there
have been no deaths, the situation is serious. Since the
media bosses decided to oppose Chávez politically, it is
no
longer possible to have a reasonable discussion about
the
country's problems. But to claim there is no freedom of
expression is outrageous."
"You read the newspapers, you watch the TV news and you
have the impression that the country is gripped by
conflict,"
says Jesuit Father Francisco José Virtuoso sadly.
"Naturally
that all adds to the tension." The popular majority is
striking back in this war in which it is the target, no
longer prepared to tolerate journalists who consider
themselves above the law or the anti-democratic control
of
information.
Incidents are on the increase. The official agency
Venpres
described three media personalities as
"narcojournalists";
the journalists in question - Ibéyise Pacheco (editor of
Así
es la noticia, a member of the El Nacional group),
Patricia
Poleo and television presenter José Domingo Blanco
(Globovisión) - decided to make capital out of the
accusations. After condemning their "persecution" in
front
of the cameras at the US embassy, they left for
Washington,
where they got a heroic welcome. The Venpres article,
signed
by a J Valeverde (5), was repudiated by President Chávez
and
condemned by the defence minister, José Vicente Rangel;
it
led to the censure and resignation of the director of
Venpres, Oscar Navas. But that did not halt a campaign,
in
Venezuela and abroad, against a government accused of
"muzzling the media".
The media has proved adept at using the self-fulfilling
prophecy - both in relation to government supporters and
the
government. By protesting about infringements of
liberty,
when under no threat, and using lies and manipulation,
the
media provoked a reaction, sometimes inciting its
victims to
do wrong. Those misdeeds were then portrayed as the
cause
(and not the consequence) of the media's unhappy
relationship with the government and much of the
population.
We must condemn the attacks by the president's
supporters
on television units or journalists. But how could those
supporters tolerate always being described as "Taliban"
or
as "villains"? We should protest when journalists, even
if
they are aggressive and completely identified with the
oligarchy, are described as "narcojournalists". But
those
journalists had themselves bombarded the president with
false accusations and portrayed him as the accomplice of
Colombian "narcoguerrillas".
Led by men of influence and top journalists, the media
is
taking over from other players in the process of
destabilisation: Pedro Carmona's employers' association
(Fedecámaras), Carlos Ortega's Confederation of
Venezuelan
Workers, dissident members of the military, the
technocrats
of the national oil company (PDVSA) and a few discreet
US
officials (6). United in the Venezuelan Press Bloc
(BPV),
the media finally showed its hand when it joined in the
first general strike on 10 December 2001.
Scaremongers
"Free" opinions published in print -"Time for a change
of
government" or "Time to overthrow this government" (7) -
were reinforced by dubious manipulation of the broadcast
media. On 5 April two TV presenters gave their own
commentary on a strike of petrol stations that was
linked to
the PDVSA conflict: "Have you remembered to fill up?
Hurry,
because tomorrow there won't be a drop left in the
country."
By encouraging motorists to rush out to buy petrol, they
provoked unnecessary chaos, though the strike was only
partial and the stations were still receiving supplies.
On 7 April Ortega and Carmona announced that there was
to be
a general strike. The editor of El Nacional, Miguel
Enrique
Otero, stood shoulder to shoulder with them and spoke on
behalf of the press: "We are all involved in this
struggle
in defence of the right to information." Two days later
the
BPV, which had just been visited by the new US
ambassador,
Charles Shapiro, decided to back the strike. From then
on
the television companies broadcast live from the
headquarters of the PDVSA-Chuao, the designated assembly
point for opposition demonstrations.
"Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April
(in
an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one
step
backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión.
Another
TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets
on
Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom
and
democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will
defeat
us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so
obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the
telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all
television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20
minutes' air time to broadcast its views. But the
broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to
urge
rebellion.
On 11 April military and civilian press conferences
calling
for the president's resignation marked the next phase.
On
RCTV, Ortega called on the opposition to march on
Miraflores
(the presidential palace). At about 4pm, when the scale
of
the conspiracy was apparent, the authorities gave the
order
to block the frequencies used by the private channels.
Globovisión, CMT and Televen went off air for a few
moments
before resuming their broadcasts using satellite or
cable.
All screens broadcast an image that had been edited to
show
armed counter-demonstrators firing on "the crowd of
peaceful
demonstrators". As a result the Bolivarian Circles, the
social organisation of Chávez supporters, were blamed
for
deaths and injuries (8).
The conspirators, including Carmona, met at the offices
of
Venevisión. They stayed until 2am to prepare "the next
stage", along with Rafael Poleo (owner of El Nuevo Pais)
and
Gustavo Cisneros, a key figure in the coup. Cisneros, a
multimillionaire of Cuban origin and the owner of
Venevisión, runs a media empire - Organización Diego
Cisneros. It has 70 outlets in 39 countries (9).
Cisneros is
a friend of George Bush senior: they play golf together
and
in 2001 the former US president holidayed in Cisneros's
Venezuelan property. Both are keen on the privatisation
of
the PDVSA (10). Otto Reich, US assistant secretary of
state
for Interamerican affairs, admits to having spoken with
Cisneros that night (11).
At 4am on 12 April, to avoid bloodshed, Chávez allowed
himself to be arrested and taken to the distant island
of
Orchila. Without presenting any document signed by
Chávez to
confirm the news, the media chorused his "resignation".
The
boss of the bosses, Carmona, proclaimed himself
president
and dissolved all of the constituent, legitimate and
democratic bodies. Venezolana de Televisión, the only
means
of communication available to the government, was the
first
broadcaster forced to shut down when Carmona took power
(12).
Ready for the coup
The press greeted the coup (though they censored any use
of
that word) with undisguised enthusiasm. And for good
reason.
Interviewing Admiral Carlos Molina Tamayo and Victor
Manuel
García, director of statistical institute Ceca, at
6.45am,
presenter Napoleón Bravo boasted that he had allowed his
own
house to be used to record a call to rebellion by
General
González González. García described his role at the
dissident military centre of operations at Fort Tiuna:
"We
were short of communications facilities, and I have to
thank
the press for their solidarity and cooperation in
helping us
to establish communications with the outside world and
pass
on the instructions that General González González gave
me."
"One step forward" was the triumphant headline in El
Universal. Journalist Rafael Poleo, who had filed the
account of the first meeting of the rebel leaders, took
responsibility (with others) for the document setting up
the
new government. During the afternoon "President" Carmona
offered Poleo's daughter, Patricia, the post of head of
the
central information bureau. The decree establishing a
dictatorship was countersigned by the employers, the
church
and the representatives of a pseudo "civil society", and
also by Miguel Angel Martínez, on behalf of the media.
Daniel Romero, private secretary of the former
social-democrat president Carlos Andrés Pérez, and an
employee of the Cisneros group, read it out.
The desire for revenge provoked repression. The interior
minister, Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, and a member of
parliament, Tarek William Saab, were arrested, and
heckled
and manhandled by a crowd. RCTV triggered a manhunt by
publishing a list of the most wanted individuals and
broadcast violent searches live, aping the hectic pace
of US
news broadcasts. The live broadcast on all channels of
attorney general Isias Rodríguez's press conference was
suddenly taken off air after only five minutes when he
talked about the excesses of the "provisional
government"
and condemned the "coup".
On 13 April the Chávez supporters were unleashed, and
officers loyal to him retook control. But the only way
Venezuelans could get information was through CNN
broadcasts
in Spanish - available only on cable, or on the internet
sites of the Madrid daily El País and the BBC in London.
Announcing the rebellion by the 42nd parachute division
in
Maracay, CNN expressed amazement that the press were
saying
nothing. The freedom of information that had been
clamoured
for had been replaced by silence. Screens were filled
with
action films, cookery programmes, cartoons and baseball
games from the major US leagues, interspersed only with
repeats of General Lucas Rincón's announcement of the
"resignation" of Chávez.
Thousands logged on to the internet and got on their
mobile
phones, but only the alternative press was able to beat
the
blackout. Popular newspapers, television and radio began
life in the poor districts, and were an important source
of
communication and information. Short on experience, they
were the first targets of the "democratic transition".
According to Thierry Deronne, the presenter of
Teletambores,
Chávez had never asked them to broadcast his speeches.
But the anti-Chávez powers did not hesitate long after
their
coup before arresting editorial staff and seizing
equipment,
ensuring that the only way the people could find out
what
was really happening was via the opposition press. In
Caracas, Radio Perola, TV Caricuao, Radio Catia Libre
and
Catia TV were searched and personnel subjected to
violence
and detention.
In the late afternoon of 13 April, crowds gathered in
front
of RCTV (then Venevisión, Globovisión, Televen and CMT,
as
well as the offices of El Universal and El Nacional),
throwing stones and compelling journalists to broadcast
a
message calling for "their" president to be restored. It
was
an intolerable attack on the press; terrified
journalists
broadcast an appeal for help on air - conveniently
forgetting that they were supposed to be on the rebel
side.
"We too are part of the people; we too are Venezuelans
and
we are doing our duty. It is not possible that the
supporters of Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chávez [no mention
that he was head of state] should consider us their
enemies."
It was 20 hours before the state channel Venezolana de
Televisión came back on the air with the help of
militants
from the community media and from soldiers from the
presidential guard. The silence was broken and
Venezuelans
then found out that the situation was changing. Except
for
Ultimas Noticias, no newspaper was published next day to
announce the president's return. The private television
channels broadcast no bulletins. Globovisión alone
rebroadcast the information that had been transmitted by
the
international agencies (13).
Although the restoration of democratic normality did not
result in media repression, the media continues play
victim.
It gives priority to the "coup heroes", speaks of a
"power
vacuum" and calls for the resignation of Chávez -
described
as a "murderer". Openly called the "hate media", it
claims
to be the "coup media".
------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Seze on www.analitica.com.
(2) Gúzman claimed to have done it to show just how
unreliable the Venezuelan press was.
(3) "Entrelíneas", El Nacional, 15 March 2002.
(4) Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en derechos
humanos.
(5) It was later discovered that this was the pseudonym
of
an unsavoury character called Rafael Kries.
(6) See "Venezuela: a coup countered", Le Monde
diplomatique
English edition, May 2002.
(7) "Overthrow the government", El Universal, 20 March
2002.
(8) See Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, May
2002,
and the photographs posted on our website.
(9) Including: Univisión (80% of broadcasts in Spanish
in
the United States), Canal 13, Chilevisión, DirectTV
Latin
America, Galavisión, Playboy TV Latin America, Playboy
TV
International, Uniseries, Vale TV, Via Digital, AOL
Latin
America.
(10) The former would like to see it in the hands of a
US
company close to his interests, and the latter has his
eye
on Citgo, the American subsidiary of PDVSA.
(11) Newsweek, Paris, 22 April 2002.
(12) The same applies to Radio Nacional de Venezuela and
the
official news agency Venpres.
(13) Some journalists have resigned in disgust, like
André
Izarra, of RCTV where the management has imposed a ban
on
pro-Chávez reporting.
Translated by Julie Stoker
