Channel Chavista
posted by Trevor Loudon at
6/06/2007 12:54:00 PM
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Russia's Plan for the EU?
- NZ's Student Marxist/Muslim Alliance
- Will We See a Major Campaign to Boycott "Apartheid...
- Putin Threatens Europe
- Re-Building the Eastern Bloc
- 100,000 Socialists March Against G8 Summit
- Bad Move by Helen Clark?
- Marxism 2007-The Workers Party Plots Revolution
- Treason?
- "Lynchem" Len-Libellous "lliance Leading Leninist ...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
18 Comments:
That picture is certainly worth a thousand words.
As usual Trevor you have cherry picked the info to support your biased world view.
Read the full story here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html?page=1
Some highlights:
"But after Chávez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office. Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy, including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chávez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.
RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chávez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chávez. A stream of commentators spewed vitriolic attacks against him – while permitting no response from the government.
Then RCTV ran ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chávez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovisión ran manipulated video blaming Chávez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.
Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The US government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt – and thrown its owners in jail. Chávez's government allowed it to continue operating for five years and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish."
Looks a bit different now doesn't it? That's one of the problems with blogs, and especially with blogs like this, you never paint the full picture so your readers are just consuming a never-ending stream of bull shit.
What a crock anon
"When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovisión ran manipulated video blaming Chávez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries"
Where's your proof of that statement?
BTW, I own this bridge in Auckland-goes over the Harbour-great investment-I'd be willing to take the title to your house as security-interested?
My evidence for that is that it is reported by the respected journalists of the Christian Science Monitor. I trust that publication to give me a more honest representation of the facts than this blog.
Anonymous, please. I certainly bet that if the likes of Hugo Chavez was right-wing and a Pinochet supporter who is plotting to misuse Venezuelan democratic process to prop up his dictatorship and was supported by the U.S., you would probably be the first one on the scene to condemn Chavez if he were leaning that were, wouldn't you? Bet you would condemn Chavez also if RCTV happen to be a left-wing orientated station, in a hypothetical world of Chavez being dictatorialy right-wing, and happen to support Pinochet?
Why is it that whenever someone on the far left in Latin America supports Fidel Castro and misuses the democratic process to charge his opponents with being involved in a "U.S. coup", it's suddenly acceptable? Where in another universe if that same person happen to be a right-winger supporting Pinochet and placing all sympathizers of Pinochet in his government aligned with the U.S., you would be the first ones to complain?
Guess some totalitarian states are more acceptable than others.
Not at all, mah. I detest Castro and everything he stands for, and cannot for the life of me understand why some people think he is great. I detest dictators of all stripes. Chavez has won several elections, and had a legitimate reason to shut down this station. You don't seem to want to understand that.
"Not at all, mah. I detest Castro and everything he stands for, and cannot for the life of me understand why some people think he is great. I detest dictators of all stripes. Chavez has won several elections, and had a legitimate reason to shut down this station. You don't seem to want to understand that."
Somehow, with your apologetic attitude toward Chavez, and Castro's propaganda organs such as the Granma, Prestina Latina overseeing the development of Chavez's policies unfold, that's full of what a dog leaves on the grass.
Anon-even if the CSM was right-which I doubt, that is not a "legitimate reason" to shut down the station. If the stations directors broke the law they should have been prosecuted and given fair trials.
If there was not enough evidence to prosecute, their station should still be on the air.
That is how things are done in a free country-comprende?
Non-comprende. They advocated the overthrow of the government of the country they were broadcasting in. They wouldn't last five minutes in Bush's America, and they deservedly got the boot in Venezuela.
"Non-comprende. They advocated the overthrow of the government of the country they were broadcasting in. They wouldn't last five minutes in Bush's America, and they deservedly got the boot in Venezuela."
Then I suppose you won't take a complaint if Bush were to do the same thing to Bill Moyers, George Soros, and left-wing commentators on the various U.S. media outlets? Since you seem to justify Chavez's reign.
They have not called for the overthrowing of the Bush administration and you know it.
Anon-deliberate non-comprende.
If they did indeed call for the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government, the directors should have been legally prosecuted.
Chavez was prosecuted after his failed coup in the '90s.
Why were they not prosecuted anon? Could it be because the evidence was not strong enough.
Tit for tat retaliation is not the mark of a civilised country.
Answer this question please?
"They have not called for the overthrowing of the Bush administration and you know it."
How about those signs from the "peace" crowd of "Regime Change Starts At Home"? Couldn't Bush use the same "arguments" Chavez used to crush his opposition? I think it's not hard to not miss those sort of signs.
How also about George Soros backing most of the far left circles of the Democratic leadership, naming the likes of Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards, the Clintons to name just a few? Couldn't Bush use those "arguments" Chavez made to oust his opposition? I certainly bet that if Bush did those things, you anonymous would probably be the first one to step up the bat into condemning Bush.
Wonder if Bush could use these same "arguments" against Danny Glover, you know the far left Hollywood type who was given millions of dollars by Chavez's government to fund his films and other assorted propaganda stuff? Couldn't Bush use what Chavez "made" against RCTV and apply it to Danny Glover joining the John Edwards campaign? But I doubt you would support that either.
I guess funding some people to promote a one form of propaganda is more equal than another form of "propaganda".
"The latest manifestation of this mind-set is the condemnation of the Venezuelan government's refusal to renew the license of RCTV, a private television station. This has been denounced by the American government and media, and all other right-thinking people, as suppression of free speech, even though they all know very well that the main reason, the sine qua non, for the refusal of the license renewal has to do with RCTV's unqualified support for the 2002 coup that briefly overthrew Chávez. If there was a successful military coup in the United States and a particular TV station applauded the overthrow of the president (and the dissolving of Congress and the Supreme Court, as well as the suspension of the Constitution), and if then the coup was reversed by other military forces accompanied by mass demonstrations, and the same TV station did not report any of this while it was happening to avoid giving support to the counter-coup, and instead kept reporting that the president had voluntarily resigned ... how long would it be before the US government, back in power, shut down the station, arrested its executives, charging them under half a dozen terrorist laws, and throwing them into shackles and orange jumpsuits never to be seen again? How long? Five minutes? The Venezuelan government waited five years, until the station's license was due for renewal. And none of the executives have been arrested. And RCTV is still free to broadcast via cable and satellite. Is there a country in the entire world that would be as lenient?"
From William Blum's Anti-Empire report.
"From William Blum's Anti-Empire report."
You mean that same William Blum who was being promoted by the likes of Osama bin Laden? That's the fellow we should believe? (Shakes head in disbelief).
If what he says is based in fact then yes, you should believe it, or you can continue to believe the bull shit you read on blogs (not naming any in particular).
Can you back up your claim?
"If what he says is based in fact then yes, you should believe it, or you can continue to believe the bull shit you read on blogs (not naming any in particular)."
Sorry, I don't buy the propaganda from William Blum. He was praised by the likes of Osama bin Laden. Gee, wonder why bin Laden seems to like the fellow and would also agree with Chavez on how Venezuela is a target of the U.S. to be "oppressed".
I'm not going to buy into propaganda promoted by terrorists who struck on 9/11.
Here's proof on bin Laden praising Blum and why Blum's work is nothing more than propaganda:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001971.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home