Venezuela: Chávez’s war on independent media
25 Jun 2009

globovision10Steps taken by the government to remove Globovisión’s free-to-air licence poses a fresh threat to the country’s independent media. Daniel Duquenal reports

In a move that signals a renewed attack on Venezuela’s independent media, President Hugo Chávez’s government fined the broadcaster Globovisión the equivalent of $4.1 million on 5 June for tax avoidance and broadcasting on unauthorised airwaves.

Globovisión transmits free-to-air over three states and the capital Caracas, as well as being available nationally through cable television. In its attempts to silence the network, the government employs two strategies. The first is to bankrupt Globovisión. This is pursued by harassing its directors and accusing them of the most ridiculous crimes, for example, the ecological “crime” of possessing old animal hunting trophies. Along the way, ridiculous fines have been levied on Globovisión and old lawsuits have been revived. But this approach is backfiring. On 13 and 14 June, ordinary Venezuelans, in their droves, donated money to public collection centres set up by Globovisión to bail out the beleaguered broadcaster. It seems the fines will be paid by the audience of Globovisión.

The government is also trying to close down Globovisión via the courts, or at the very least to change its licence to cable-only status. President Chávez is leading this attack himself by demanding all the powers of the state, including the High Court, condemn Globovisión. All obliged and took measures against Globovisión in the days that followed.

From almost the beginning of Chávez’s rule in 1999 to his re-election in 2006 we have witnessed a consistent increase in pressure on the free media. “Free media” here denotes media that is not afraid to criticise government actions, mildly or otherwise. At one point or another all have come under attack. For example, in the troubled years of 2002-2004, critical journalists were accused of being mercenaries and became fair game for pro-Chávez mobs. Many journalists have been killed, injured and sent to trial, actions that have now been duly condemned by all sorts of major international organisations.

But Venezuelan journalists showed their mettle. Donning bulletproof vests and helmets, they kept reporting. A second measure of control — the law on “Social Responsibility in Radio and Television” — became necessary. That law restricted the type of information that could be broadcast according to the perceived audience, with disproportionate penalties distributed accordingly. For example, coverage of violence, strikes and the like could only be shown after 11pm. The overall objective was to try to generate self-censorship. The government also reserved the right to emit — free of charge — a certain number of “institutional” messages, which most of the time were mere propaganda.

However, Chávez’s biggest weapon is the cadena, the simultaneous mandatory broadcast of official messages on all TV and all radio stations. The cadena was originally introduced as a way of announcing national disasters or glories, and has been transformed by Chávez into his main propaganda platform. Some weeks he will give almost one cadena a day, each lasting from one to three hours (some have gone past the five-hour mark). There are only two ways to escape a cadena: turn off your TV or radio, or subscribe to cable TV and watch a foreign channel.

Yet all of this was not enough to ensure Chávez dominated the airwaves. The second period of Chávez’s onslaught was designed to obtain a majority presence in state media. It started in a modest manner — by making the state media (VTV and RNV) purely Chávez propaganda outlets. But soon new networks were added, both radio and TV. The government pursued its goal, announced by information minister Andres Izarra in 2007, of a “communications hegemony” — the state as the sole source of information.

The culmination of this phase was the year 2007, when Chávez decided to close RCTV under the flimsy pretext of not renewing its free-to-air concession. The real reason was that RCTV had the largest coverage in Venezuela and usually its largest audience. RCTV was also very critical of the Chávez regime. By transferring the RCTV broadcasting system to a new “public service” system named Tves, the government killed two birds with one stone: silencing its main critic and reaching areas where before RCTV had been the sole free-to-air broadcaster. The strategy backfired badly and contributed greatly to the loss of a constitutional reform referendum in December 2007, denying Chávez the increased powers he sought. Since then the government was forced to review its communications strategy and that is why we are now seeing a renewed attack.

Since May 2007, when RCTV was closed, Venezuela has seen an extraordinary increase in cable TV subscription, driven not only by the incessant stream of cadenas but also because RCTV had the best soap operas. A 14 June article in El Universal claimed that now at least 16 million Venezuelans, more than half the population, have access to cable TV. This number is probably significantly higher, as the illegal pirate market for cable connections is acknowledged as large and difficult to measure. The cable market has expanded enough that now RCTV enjoys decent ratings.

The relatively unfavourable results of the regional elections of 2008 convinced the government that the opposition was still reaching voters, in particular in the key cities — richest in votes — of Caracas and Valencia. These two constituencies are also some of the few places where Globovisión broadcasts free-to-air.

The current strategy is to silence Globovisión and control the cable TV system. The latter will be subject to a new law limiting the presence of foreign media and also forcing the transmission of “institutional” messages. The excuse for these restrictions — according to Representative Luis Tascon, creator of the Tascon List, which published the names of people who had signed an anti-Chávez petition — is that the foreign media makes “fraudulent offerings”. One example is National Geographic’s transmission of political programmes unfavourable to Venezuela. Then again, we should expect these types of excuses from a government that banned the Simpsons from our TV sets.

Silencing news channel Globovisión will be more difficult, but this is not stopping Chávez — even he must be aware that whatever is left of his reputation as a democrat will disappear once he accomplishes it. Whether the closure of Globovisión is successful is far from settled, as even the reticent US State Department is starting to speak out against some Latin American governments’ attacks on the press. Indeed, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa is having his own disputes with TeleAmazonas. The stakes are high but unfortunately Chávez has too many things to hide: after ten years of rule, fatigue has set in, incompetence has become obvious and corruption flares up everywhere. An autocrat is of course tempted to shoot any messenger.

6 responses to “Venezuela: Chávez’s war on independent media”

  1. firepigette says:

    What is striking is that Chavez’s appetite for control is insatiable.After closing down Globovision you can be sure there will be a new chapter in the Telenovela against another ” mortal threat” to the Revolution.Perhaps he will choose the newspapers or something else.

  2. MyRealName says:

    I find it very amusing, that people still come with the “documentary” “The revolution will not be televised”. Especially PSFs love to show, how much they know about Venezuela by citing the “documentary”. You should try to watch “X-Ray of a lie” afterwards.

    I actually like Globovision, although it misses often the “real journalism” it is at least not afraid in calling a swine “a swine”. And they have done some neat pieces of investigative journalism. And compared to Canal 8 (VTV), they’re angels. VTV fails completly in journalism and that might be the reason, why they want to go against the ethical rules of journalism. Because if these rules would be applied as they should be, many people there couldn’t work as journalist anymore. (I could also imagine, that many of the VTV-“Journalists” aren’t even journalists by profession.

    When Chavez is gone one day and all the things come out to the rest of the world, people will say again : We couldn’t know about all this… but then they will applaude to the next caudillo claiming to make a “socialism”.. and this time all will be much better.. yeah, right…

    btw Daniel, thanks for not giving up on writing in your blog..

  3. FC says:

    I find the whole “Illegal Coup” excuse flimsy and laughable, if it were true then Venevision and Televen should have also been closed, but they weren’t, why? They negotiated a truce with the government and they longer criticize it. The closing of RCTV was political retribution, nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to confuse and muddle the issue. The worst part of is that due to the censor laws even RCTV was forced to be mostly mildly critical, far far far worse things have been aired on VTV, the public TV network, which is dubbed: “Discovery Chavez”.

  4. Vinz says:

    Various problems are underlined by the author in this article. We can see a real contradiction between a “free democracy” and a system where the government vertically imposes its views on the population, using an abusive intromision in other institutions.
    We cannot speak of freedom and liberty when rules and laws are “commanded” and imposed by the executive, with no regards as to what the pubic sphere has to say about the measures.
    There is no counterbalance: All we have is a very pervasive system that chooses, based on political whims and blatant discrimination, who it will chase and strangle, be it on corruption charges (Baduel, Rosales), or on TV coverage.
    This “selective authoritarianism” is a perverse, uncomprehensible system that leaves opponents naked in front of an all-commanding, tout puissant, executive that controls every institution and uses it at its will.
    Make no mistake: This is far from being democratic, just or fair. I don’t like Globo, but I’m not as blind so as to understand this witch hunt is baseless and shows Chavez’ steamroller, bulldowzer, mow-down-the-opposition, strategy. You need to listen to the violent and insulting discourse to understand this deterioration and see its consequences in full.
    Globo is a symptom of how things are being handled, unilaterally, without discussion or consensus, in current Venezuelan society.
    Chávez doesn’t govern: He commands. He never tries to open spaces for free discussion and never accepts another point of view. Agreeing with him on one issue or another doesn’t mask this terrible, abuse of power, fact.

  5. Gringo says:

    It is ironic that an “illegal coup” is brought up as a reason to move against RCTV, since President Chavez participated in an “illegal coup” in 1992, and every year celebrates the anniversary of the 1992 “ilegal coup.” I guess since Chavez was the perpetrator of the 1992 coup, commenter GS considers it a “legal coup.”

    Another point is that in 2002 RCTV was not the only TV company/channel that was against Chavez. The others moderated their tone after 2002 in return for being able to stay on the air. As they say, plomo o plata, at least in metaphor.

    It is also ironic that “decades of corrupt regimes” is brought up as a reason to support Chavez.While Chavez campaigned against corruption in 1998, by all accounts corruption is the worst it has ever been. Consider Diosdado Cabello and José Vicente Rangel Avalos ( Junior). Check out the Boliburgués. The Economist had a good article several years ago on them.

    If you want to learn more about Venezuela, check out Daniel’s blog (Google daniel venezuela blogspot). Also Caracas Chronicles (first time visitor ? “start here) and Devil’s Excrement

  6. GS says:

    RCTV’s license was not renewed as this private (and biased for US interests and the corrupt opposition) company was heavily involved in the illegal coup against president Chavez (and 2 days installment of an illegal president). It did not and has not adherted to any unpartial media rules. Watch ‘The Revolution will not be televised’ – a documentary which is suppressed but can be downloaded feely in the internet – which is fully supported by the film makers). I assume such a TV station would not have been allowed one second if they would have supported the removal of the elected president (and maybe supported the installment of an Iran-connected president). It would be recommendable to investigate the true happenings before crying out about censorship. I do not have any deeper information regarding the Globovision case, but it seems that taxes have been avoided in a non-legal way, as far as I understand. For me, Venezuela has been an extraordinary, real democracy since Hugo Chavez became president and I, for once, think that this country, after decades of corrupt regimes working against the majority, is THE social and justice-based democracy example for the whole world – especially many Western countries, who think SO great of themselves – but invade other countries if they feel like.