More on RCTV, media polarization, social mobilization, and Twitter.

RCTV, the Venezuelan network that was pushed off the air by Chavez in 2007, is still a very polarizing subject in Venezuela. Here is an alternative viewpoint, an argument about the public interest, and the government’s role to protect it. Here are arguments supporting the closing. The video, which is about an hour long, was produced by Avila.tv, Panafilms, ANMCLA, and the Foro Itinerante de Participacion Popular, all of which are examples of community media in Venezuela.

To contrast, here is a piece disparaging the documentary The Revolution will not be televised. This one was produced by El Gusano de Luz. It’s about an hour and a half long, but I think that the most interesting parts are right at the beginning, when they denounce The Revolution will not be televised as blatant media manipulation, and the end credits and acknowledgments, which include thank yous to Venevision, RCTV, Televen, and Globovision. All of them are private media companies in Venezuela, so you can really see where the story is heading.

The interesting thing about both videos is the polarizing discourses, and how both, Chavez sympathizers and their opposition, are making use of online media to voice contesting viewpoints. This kind of use is what has made some of us, media junkies, characterize the internet as a public sphere. Mind you, I’m not entirely sold on that argument, but I will accept that there are segments of the Venezuelan public that find a space for debate online. The question is, however, who is listening? who is using this information to make informed decisions? and more importantly, at least for me, is this type of media use fostering debate, or ushering in more polarization?

It’s not impossible to say. More media polarization is on the horizon.

Twitters, Facebookers, and bloggers

Last summer, we watched in awe as Iranians flocked to twitter. This year, however, only Fox News seems to have picked up on the story of the Venezuelan twitterrorists (apparently that’s what Chavez is calling them). Venezuelans have been using Twitter to protest media crackdowns since last year. However, the recent closing of RCTV (no, I don’t mean 2007; I mean January of this year) sparked the latest surge of protest. The Chavez government ordered cable providers to pull RCTV International off the airwaves. The reason? the network violated Venezuelan media law for not broadcasting some of Chavez’s speeches (Daniel, 2010). You can follow the action on twitter, through the hashtag #FreeVenezuela.

This trend is a little bit harder to predict. The Venezuelan Student Movement, which coalesced after the first closing of RCTV, is using the hashtag to mobilize public opinion. However, the international news media have been slow to pick up on the story. As far as I could tell, only FoxNews and the Miami’s Nuevo Herald have reported on the twitter angle. Both stories came out last week, so where’s everyone else? Are we suddenly tired of mass mobilization via Twitter and Facebook? The hashtag is not a trending topic, but wouldn’t that be a chicken and egg argument? I mean, what sparks these stories? is it that things trend and then they get picked up by the media, or is it the other way around?

I’m definitely following this story. It will be interested to see if more mainstream media pick up the Twitter angle, and how it will affect the emerging philosophy of social mobilization. We’re pinning great hopes on electronic media, because we have some examples of how it can be used successfully.

Filed under: Class notes, Global Media Systems, media and democracy., public interest, RCTV, Venezuela

Venezuela and Chavez

When it comes to Venezuela, it’s impossible to understand today’s media landscape without thinking about Hugo Chavez. The controversial Venezuelan president is one of the most media savvy politicians in the Americas. Alo Presidente, Chavez weekly radio/television show, is an unscripted, populist stage, but it serves Chavez well. His countrymen see him as the populist hero, who sings, rides around in tractors, or horses, and explains his hopes, ambitions, dreams, and plans to the average Venezuelan.

Venezuela is technically a free media market. The commercial sector has a long history in the country, and what Chavez has done is curtail their influence. He did not renew the license for Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), a media company that supported the 2002 failed coup against Chavez. He has also openly criticized and ridiculed any media outlets that dare speak against him. But it doesn’t stop there, as journalists can probably live with ridicule. Censorship, on the other hand, is a completely different animal. With a new law governing media content, Venezuelan media cannot broadcast anything that can be deemed against national security, they cannot “disrespect” the president or other government officials, and cannot broadcast information that could cause civil unrest, which is a direct jab at the media’s role in the 2002 Coup (Diehl, 2005). RCTV, Venevision, and Globovision strongly supported the coup. However, Chavez only shut down RCTV, surprisingly waiting five years to do so.

Moreover, Chavez’s controversial closing of RCTV is still felt. The station, no longer free to broadcast over the air, made the move to cable and was still available there. However, in late January of 2010, cable companies dropped RCTV and 6 other stations. The reason? they failed to broadcast Chavez’s speeches, and were thus deemed in violation of Venezuelan telecommunications law (Bright, 2010). In 2003, a new statute required all Venezuelan broadcasters to broadcast government announcements in matters including, but not limited to, development policies, education, conservation, and democratic participation. The speeches, probably, fall under any of those rubrics.

Duffy and Everton, in their chapter  in, Global Communications: Toward a Transcultural Political Economy, try to explain the government’s position. To them the measures introduced in the Media Law passed in 2003 are very similar to statutes in place in Canada, Europe, and the United States. They include a ratings system, to protect children, and “prioritize social and cultural objectives above the commercial imperatives of owners” (Duffy & Everton, 2008, p. 137). The authors, who from the tone of their writing, are very much in favor of the Chavez communication policies — in terms of promoting community access to broadcasting, the government has, in fact opened up spaces for marginalized groups — have to rationalize the need for reform. While they admit that “open ended language in these clauses could open the door to authoritarian abuses in the future” (p. 137), they wax optimistically about the Venezuelan experience:

These measures suggest both an innovative model of the state as facilitator of relatively autonomous participatory democratic initiative and also the possibility of a post-neoliberal communicative order based on a radical reconceptualization of democratic communication rights. While history unfortunately offers no guarantees, and Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution is a complex political phenomenon with its own potential internal contradictions, it is nonetheless possible that this trajectory of structural media reform could indeed play an important role in the construction of a democratic “socialism for the twenty-first century” (Duffy & Everton, 2008, p. 139)

I do agree that developing a stronger community media fosters greater democratic participation. However, I fail to see how quashing dissent can be liberating to anyone. In fact, I also fail to see how the closing of RCTV can be construed as anything other than censorship. In 2007, as the closing was announced, Reuters suggested that the big beneficiary from the closing would be Venevision, another one of Venezuela’s top media companies. Gustavo Cisneros, the owner of Venevision, is also part-owner of Univision. He met with Chavez, according to Reuters, and agreed to stop criticizing the government. In return, Venevision had its license renewed, while RCTV, who became even more virulent, lost its license (Reuters, 2007). I don’t know how these events fit into Duffy and Everton’s rosy views of the Venezuelan media landscape.

Isn’t that interesting?

According to Human Rights Watch, the media laws in Venezuela promote self-censorship. The government can use the legal system to persecute the opposition, which has left the Venezuelan public airwaves practically deprived of opposing viewpoints. Globovision is the only television station left that is still openly critical of the president. In July of 2009, 32 radio stations lost their licenses for the same reason (Human Rights Watch, 2009).

———-

References

• Bright, A. (2010, January 26). Venezuelan students protest Chavez’ TV Censorship. The Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/0126/Venezuelan-students-protest-Chavez-s-TV-censorship
• Diehl, J. (2005, March 28). Chavez’s Censorship, where disrespect can land you in jail. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html
• Duffy, R. & Everton, R. (2008). Media, democracy, and the State in Venezuela’s “Bolivarian Revolution”. In P. Chakravartty & Y. Zhao (Eds.), Global Communications: Toward a Transcultural Political Economy. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Human Rights Watch (2009). Venezuela, Events of 2009. http://www.hrw.org/en/node/87530
• Reuters (2007). Self-censorship by Venezuelan media mogul rewarded. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2020065720070620

Filed under: Class notes, Global Media Systems, censorship, Chavez, Global Media Links, media and democracy., RCTV, RESORTE, self-censorship, Venezuela