Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Chavez denounces international criticism of TV shutdown

FABIOLA SANCHEZ

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 12:05 PM EDT 02/06/07

‘Nobody should interfere,' Venezuelan President says ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Frank Lee My Dear I Don't Give A Damn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Stop the presses. Man the barricades. Shut down CNN. Kill the FOX. Saint Hugo has spoken. And when he speaks, you better listen. For the pearls of wisdom that drop from Saint Hugo's liberation mouth will inspire all people.

    Or else.
  2. Jim Proventia from SP, Brazil writes: There is definitely some minor truth in Col. Chavez's words, however he detracts from his own ideology of giving the power back to the people. He now walks the razors edge in dealing with this matter. If he over plays his hand, all hell is going to break loose. The radio station has found alternate ways to get the word out, Mr. Chavez should heed this one before it grows on many other fronts. If not this is just the beginning of things of which Col. Chavez will attempt to control, but ultimately lose on. Possibly with US government assistance too. We don't wear white hats in any of these Latin America countries.
  3. Andrew S. from Toronto, Canada writes: The TV station was not shut down. The government of Venezuela has merely declined to renew the station's licence to broadcast on public airwaves. Nothing stops the station from broadcasting on cable or over the internet.

    And why does it come as a shock that Venezuela would refuse to renew the station's licence? The station not only supported a coup against Venezuela's democratically-elected government, it actively assisted the coup leaders. In most democracies around the world, the owners and managers of the station would be in prison for treason. Chavez showed a great deal of restraint by allowing the station to continue to operate without any consequences until the station's licence expired.
  4. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: In Canada, it takes much less for the CRTC to decide not to renew a station's license. It can be for not respecting the terms of their licence conditions (not playing as many golden oldies as they said they would) or for too many controversial words from talk-show hosts. The US and others are trying to milk this for all it's worth. In the US, it's Colin Powell's brother who decides who gets licences.
  5. Phil G from Ottawa, Canada writes: Pesky journalists... always finding out stuff.
  6. asm oak bay from Canada writes: Andrew S from Toronto: you are a fine example of the perverse thinking of the fellow traveller. In fact, Chavez is a despot in the making, a little man with big ideas of his own self-importance. unfortunately, it will be the people of Venezuela who will suffer, both economically and in terms of their freedoms, from his grandiose viosions of socialist tyranny.
  7. P Sullivan from Canada, Canada writes: Ahh, slowly destroy the opposition. This is straight out of the dicktators handbook.
    Maube we should do the same for the CBC, then again who watches CBC. You never really know if they are spouting truths or lies or just part of the truth.
    If I want the real story on the world I tune into the BBC (not perfect but pretty good).
    If I want the the best TV coverage on the US I watch Fox. Most of the rest save for a few small local stations are so one sided that Ii look at them as divorced spouces. IE: There is always truth in what they say but it always covered in a lot ot mis-truths or just plain bull.
  8. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: asm oak bay says "(Chavez is a) little man with big ideas of his own self-importance. Unfortunately, it will be the people of Venezuela who will suffer, both economically and in terms of their freedoms, from his grandiose viosions of socialist tyranny"

    Change Chavez for Bush, Venezuela for US and socialist for neo-con and you got it!
  9. asm oak bay from Canada writes: Leon Russewll: sorry, you are wrong. Chavez brings oppression to his people. The USA defends freedom and under the leadership of Pres. Bush it has confronted tyranny and called it what it is throughout the world. Freedom and rights based liberals should welcome such leadeship. It is a sign of their cowardice and duplicity that they do not. They would rather have the Clintons of the world who talk aglib story but do nothing of substance. Anyway, Chavez is probably frightened that one day his shabby little cult of personality will draw the attention of the free world. And none too soon in my estimation as far as the interests of the venezuealan people are concerned. Chavez is a dictator and tyrant. A wannabe Castro. Do not be mistaken about that.
  10. Andrew S. from Toronto, Canada writes: asm oak bay - I was surprised that your response did not address any of the points that I raised. You do exactly what Fox News does - you call Chavez a despot and claim he is implementing a "socialist tyranny" without a shred of evidence, as if the conclusion is too obvious to bother substantiating. I made a number of substantive points about why the TV station's licence should not have been renewed (and would not have been renewed in most other democracies). Care to respond?
  11. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: asm of oak bay says "Leon Russewll: sorry, you are wrong" Oh darn, not again!
  12. Lemmy Nothor from Barcelona, Spain writes: If that TV station had been in Russia............Putin would have sent them to the Gulags.
    In Iran, they would have burnt the station to the ground.
    In the USA, they would have made a little more room in Guantanamo.
  13. asm oak bay from Canada writes: Andrew S: Chavez is methodically shutting down and silencing all opposition. He typically labels all those who oppose him as "puppets of American hegemony" or "enemies of the people" etc. etc. Surely you are aware of this. I did not think I needed to restate what has been widely reported in the free media, including the NY Times, G&M, NPR, PBS, CBC etc. Finally, you seem to have uncritically accepted Chavez's allegations against the TV station as being true. you ought to be a bit more careful in what you are willing to believe from cultists like Chavez. Finally, in a free and democratic country, the TV station would not be shut down. Rather, if there was evidence that gave rise to a reasonable prospect of conviction, criminal prosecutions of the offending operating minds of the station would occur. Even the station itself might be prosecuted and fined if found guilty. That is the correct response. Chavez is merely using his ginned up story as a ruse to slience those who oppose him. A cowed and tyrannized media takes him a long way down the road to unquestioned power and unchallenged tyranny.
  14. Leon Russell from Gatineau Qc, Canada writes: ...in Canada, they go cable.
  15. Frank Lee My Dear I Don't Give A Damn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    And let's not forget that Hitler was initially elected into office as well.
  16. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: Frank Lee My Dear I Don't Give A Damn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    "And let's not forget that Hitler was initially elected into office as well. "

    That means everyone who's ever been elected could turn into a Hitler. Even Stephane Dion?

    (And it's a bit early in the discussion to be proving Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law)
  17. Can Am from Leftie Left, Canada, Canada writes: Chavez will next appoint himself as President for Life which I am sure will make Andrew S. a happy person.

    Andrew S. - Do really beleive the non-sense you write? I can't imagine living in your world. Who are your handlers anyway? Get a clue and wake up!!!!
  18. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: Funny to read the rantings of those brainwashed by Faux News. I've been following this story for a while now. This "TV station" openly supported the coup against Chavez in 2002 and before that, they collaborated with the opposition that planted armed moles in the pro-Chavez demonstrations to provoke panic by firing off shots. The "rightist opposition" in Venezuela uses tactics that would be labelled as terrorist in any other country. Typical CIA standard procedure. Much the same was done in Cuba before Castro and many other right-wing Latin American dictatorship. All sponsored by the biggest terrorist regime in the world, the good ol' US of A. Whenever a right-winger says that "the US supports freedom," what they're really saying is, "the US supports terrorism." I don't believe Chavez will make Venezuela into a one-party state. But even if he does, it will still be no worse than the American-backed tyranies that the US has supprted over the last century or two. Castro may have killed a few people and his daughter may be living in exile, but Cuba is still better than most Latin American countries. One of the few where you can walk around without getting kidnapped. The education system and healthcare are excellent. Most people in Cuba support the Castro regime as well. People still have living memory of the time before Cuban socialism. They prefer the way things are now.
  19. asm oak bay from Canada writes: Keith W: and the ones who don't support Castro's regime are either dead, in prison or forced exile. Your idea of a socialist paradise maybe, but not mine. beware those who make a cult of their personality. Chavez and Castro are both such types.
  20. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: I agree with your distrust of the personality cult. I have studied the history of the Soviet Union and I've read alot about China too. I am a Marxist, but I have no doubt that I would have ended up in a Soviet gulag with most of the other Marxists had I lived through the Russian Revolution. I believe the Cuban regime is liberalizing. I don't believe Venezuela will become a one-party state. Not all dissidents in Cuba are jailed and/or killed. That sort of thing happens less and less these days too. Even people that fled Cuba to the U.S. are let back in and aren't bothered by the authorities. That actually happens more than you might think. Even the Chinese are opening up to dissent. The country that seems to be advancing most quickly towards authoritarianism seems to be the U.S.
  21. rob saunders from Canada writes: Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada My cuban sister-in-law wouldn't agree that Castro and Cuba are liberalizing. Not all dissidents in Cuba are jailed and/or killed.liberalizing. That sort of thing happens less and less these days too. ---------------------------------------------- What not all dissidents, shocking? Just most! Do you realize how stupid this sounds. Chavez is dangerous. As a Marxist, YOU ARE ALREADY PROVING THAT YOU HAVEN'T GOT A CLUE ABOUT hISTORY OR HUMAN NATURE.
  22. Michael Manning from Mississauga, Canada writes: Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: "I am a Marxist"

    And you crow about this? That's like announcing that you're a Fascist. It's a statement that doesn't do much to add weight to your arguments. In fact, it automatically groups you with the lunatic fringe inhabited by bigots, holocaust deniers, Creationists, conspiracy theorists and that guy who claims to be from Seattle and feels compelled to post moronic opinions about everything.

    I have to conclude you're still young. Young people tend to be in a hurry to right wrongs and so find Maxism (and Facism) attractive. However, by the time you start shaving every day you will come to realize that there are no simple answers and those who think that there are are the authors of some of the most horrific mistakes in history. (Anybody want to invade Iraq?)
  23. Tor Sandberg from Toronto, Canada writes: Thank you Andrew S., I'm glad there are some people out there who can look past poor reporting.

    To reiterate, the station was not shut down; it's license was simply not renewed. What a slanderous title to this story.
  24. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'm a socialist. A socialist troll. I said I'm a Marxist to guage the reaction. Typical troll activity.
  25. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: What does Marxist mean? I've read Karl Marx. I agree with most of his theories. Marx believed that the move towards socialism was inevitable. The capitalist status quo, Marx argued, necessarily led to disaster. His predictions proved correct. WWI brought about The Soviet Union. The Great Depression brought the capitalist system to its knees and WWII brought about the modern welfare state. Marx predicted that capitalism would only be preserved with massive military proliferation. Today the U.S. spends more money on its military than any nation in the world and is the no. 1 defender of the capitalist status-quo. History has burdened the words "Marxist" and "communist" with too much baggage to be able to respectably call oneself a Marxist. I do, however, believe that his theories remain valid to this day. Marxist analysis remains valuable in interpreting the actions of major powers. "Marxism" may be an unrespectable word. But Marx remains valuable, he's well worth the read.
  26. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Sure Comrade Hugo. Whatever you say.
  27. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: The more I think about it, the more I want to call myself a Marxist. Marxism is responsable for millions killed, or so the story goes. But how many are marched off to war to defend the interests of empire? When someone dies of AIDS because they can't afford retroviral drugs, do we say that person was killed by capitalism? When people die of starvation because they don't constitute a "market," are those people considered victims of the same? What was WWI fought over? Tariff barriers? Lack of colonies for Germany, denying them the white man's right to empire? I'm not a Stalinist. I don't deny that he killed millions. I don't deny that Mao was a crazy man. I don't advocate for repression of political expression. The terror unleashed by The French Revolution took place before the ideas of Marx were even articulated. Marx didn't advocate what Stalin did. Stalin killed tens of millions, that's a given. But how many millions have been killed so some ruler or another can acquire more shiny rocks? How many billionaires does it take to justify the misery of the third world? We pretend to live in a free society, but people freak out whenever anyone questions the system that underlies global conflict and war. Whose interests does global capitalism represent? Not ordinary people, that's for sure. It's unacceptable to call oneself a Marxist in polite company. I don't feel like being polite. As Marx said "the philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Ridicule me all you like for calling myself a Marxist. Marx didn't invent what he was talking about, he observed it and drew conclusions to form it into a theory. As long as people continue to die to enrich the rich, as long as people are pitted against each other in order to make them forget their common interest, Marxism will live on. I'm not a Marxist because I like it. I'm a Marxist because Marx's theories are true.
  28. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: No one will take my bait. Such is the life of a communist troll.
  29. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: Open your minds, people. Keith who is from Ottawa is right. You can't be afraid to call yourself a Christian just because of the atrocities committed in the Crusades. And you can't be afraid to read Marx just because a Marxist government went bad. A Socialist is someone who believes in a system that places the general good of society above that of the individual. Some governments give it a bad name, but it works well in other places, well implemented and by the right people. It's amazing ANY socialist countries can survive with the US harassment.
  30. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: I believe society necessarily puts the general good of society (or however that good is defined) above the interests of the individual. The general good is a socially defined concept. I believe it is important to respect the rights of the individual. I'm against religious persecution of any kind. That sets me apart from Karl Marx. Marx was definitely an anti-semite (by today's standards) but then again practically everyone back then was. I'm not a muslim, but I hate Islamaphobia. I believe Islamaphobia is being used as a tool to justify wars which have an economic motive; oil. This represents a huge threat to the individual rights of many individuals. No one person's personal greed or motives can justify this action. Most wars are fought over economic motives and human nature will dictate that defending one's self and one's community will always be necessary. But this should not entail condoning of mass slaughter and promoting bigotry in pursuit of economic goals. Which is the world which is lived in today. In alot of ways, we still haven't evolved much since Roman times. It would be a shame if we all incinerated ourselves before we could evolve a little further. PS-China is not communist. China is still practically feudalist. Even a Chinese Communist would probably secretly agree with that.
  31. sean smith from Canada writes: I'm glad to see there are others like Leon, Keith Tor and others who are looking past the Washington manufactured spin we're forced to read over any nation that disagrees with the New World Empire.

    A few points to add: I wonder if all of these "guardians of freedom" reacted the same way when that "dictator" Thatcher refused to renew Thames Television's license in the late 80's over a programme that questioned some IRA deaths at the hands of the SAS (look up "Death on the rock")? How come there is no mention that European and North American governments have refused to renew the licenses of a total of over 600 TV stations? BTW, these numbers don't include the Conservative Bennett government forcibly changed ownership or canceled radio licenses to the majority of the radio stations at the time to ensure more Canadian content in the early 30's. Why can't I subscribe to English al Jazeera in Canada?

    Inquiring minds want to know.
  32. sean smith from Canada writes: Here is a sample of the "quality" reporting of RCTV. In this clip the presenter is railling against the "excesses" of socialism while showing a car park full of Hummers in the background. Above the Hummers is a big banner saying "Fuerte Tiuna" (a military base near Caracas). Watch til the end of the video and you will see the picture is actually of a parking lot in California that was taken from Alan Greenspan's blog with the sign simply pasted over it. These guys made Fox News almost "fair and balanced" in comparison. here's the link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmjX7_uvT1Y
  33. sean smith from Canada writes: Keith to take one of your points a little further, when over 10 million Russians died prematurely as a result of Yeltsin's kleptocracy (average male life expectancy plunged by 10 years to give just one example), no western media source ever stated this was as a result of the failures of capitalism. It clearly was. These deaths were entirely preventable and resulted directly from the "shock therapy" of the Washington consensus. This is just one example of many were millions have suffered and died as a result of the west pursuing their economic interests. In fact the ultimate two largest disasters of the 20th century (WW1 and WW2) were as a direct result of an feud within the European Royal families for the first and right wing fascist aggression for the second. In both cases the same corporations on all sides laughed all the way to the bank. Look up "profits uber alles".
  34. Frank Lee My Dear I Don't Give A Damn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Duh. That's a very simplistic response Leon. All I am pointing out to the people who defend Chavez because he was 'democratically' elected is that he has already changed Venezuela's constitution. This sets up the framework for Chavez to become the absolute ruler of Venezuela. Just like his pal Castro is in Cuba.
    Could this happen in Canada? I doubt it. Besides, Celine Dione rules in Las Vegas. So why should she return to become Canada's dictator?
  35. Frank Lee My Dear I Don't Give A Damn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Hold on just a second here. How come we're able to read all the anti-democracy rants here? Where are the censors? Why are they not doing their jobs and eliminating those blogs (and bloggers)?

    Yikes. For I minute there I forgot that I live in a democracy where dissenting opinion is allowed without fear of imprisonment.
  36. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: "Yikes. For I minute there I forgot that I live in a democracy where dissenting opinion is allowed without fear of imprisonment. "

    That depends what you dissent. We have laws here as well, and they are just as intimately linked to our "ideology" (capitalism) as the laws of socialist countries. And as for dissenting opinion, I have to watch what I say around my wife, let alone my boss.
  37. Frank Lee My Dear I Don't Give A Damn from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Well, that's your problem. Too bad you don't have an open and honest relationship with your wife and your boss. Or they one and the same?
  38. Leon Russell from Gatineau, Qc, Canada writes: Frank Lee My Dear I Don't Give A Damn, the point is that all the rhetoric about the "freedoms" we enjoy is just that: rhetoric. The levels of freedoms in Venezuela and Canada are comparable, though there are infinite ways to define "freedom". In commerce and enterprise, you can't even turn around without breaking regulations, here, in Canada, or practically anywhere else. I'll bet your could make the case that China is freer. No, there's no need to step in and get indignant unless there's evidence of mass killings and total chaos in the country. And the States actually does the opposite: steps in and creates mass killings and chaos. Half the time when there are mass killings and chaos in another country, the US can't be bothered. Live and let live. We have the right to our style of government and society and they have the right to theirs. As was pointed out, it's just a radio station that isn't granted a broadcast license. And some wonderful oil-company nationalizations, a great idea for Canada as well. If it weren't for the States. Free indeed.
  39. k st-pierre from Toronto, Canada writes: Given the fact that most media outlets are just infomercials for specific political parties and corporate agendas I don't see what is so bad about shutting down a station. I would have prefereed a model where in all employees,owners, and if it is publically traded company, shareholders are held financially and criminally responsible for the content of that station. There is very little to no integrity left in Big Media. Very few if any legitimate journalists.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top