T Nation

Chavez Mutes His Opposition

Predictably, Chavez expands the silencing of opposition voices. How come they couldn’t see this coming?

Interesting.

  1. Man runs on the idea on the idea that his people are victims of some bullies.

  2. Man identifies a class of people who control the money at his people’s expense and vows to take it from the money people and give the money back to its rightful owners.

  3. The people buy the story, elect man.

  4. Man begins to consolidate power and stomp out political opposition, all the while say he is doing so in the name of helping out the original people who were victims of the money holders.

We have seen this story before. Never forget you can’t have “Nationalist Socialist” without “socialist”. This is a familiar playbook - and those who apologized for Chavez are complicit in apologizing for fascism.

Wonder if all those Hollywood superstars want to hug him now, like that shitbag Danny Glover?

All liberalism ends with this, a thug pointing a gun at those who are expected to produce the bonanza, for the benefit of those who don’t want to be bothered. The thug, of course, brooks no opposition from anyone.

Shame, libs…

Without saying Chavez is anywhere close to a saint, this particular case is a non-issue.

In 2002, that particular TV-station was evidently involved in the coup against the democratically elected government. What do you expect in such cases?

I thought we had settled this in another thread. Well, for the new comers to the issue, please read the following and then come back with a sound refutation of anyone of their arguments.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=12900
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=12933

Yes, Chavez is bad[/b], but saying that he was wrong in taking the decision not to renew the RCTV’s license is simply ignoring the facts and biting at the first chance to slash the guy.

If it happened in the US, the station would have been taken down in a matter of days. Chavez gave it five years.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
All liberalism ends with this, a thug pointing a gun at those who are expected to produce the bonanza, for the benefit of those who don’t want to be bothered. The thug, of course, brooks no opposition from anyone.

Shame, libs…[/quote]

Puff, puff, pass. Stop hogging it all…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Without saying Chavez is anywhere close to a saint, this particular case is a non-issue.

In 2002, that particular TV-station was evidently involved in the coup against the democratically elected government. What do you expect in such cases?

I thought we had settled this in another thread. Well, for the new comers to the issue, please read the following and then come back with a sound refutation of anyone of their arguments.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=12900
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=12933

Yes, Chavez is bad[/b], but saying that he was wrong in taking the decision not to renew the RCTV’s license is simply ignoring the facts and biting at the first chance to slash the guy.

If it happened in the US, the station would have been taken down in a matter of days. Chavez gave it five years.[/quote]

I wonder, Lixy, if the same set of facts faced George Bush whether you would be so apologetic.

If Bush refused to renew a media outlet’s license on the basis of politics - claims of opposition - alternative “news” outlets would go ballistic with claims of fascism.

And yet - Chavez censors speech that opposes him, and he remains untouchable by the radical Left - why? Because he says all the stock phrases about “imperialism” and “oppression”. His actions are excused as long as he provides the right kind of rhetoric.

Awful.

And just to add, Zmag’s “journalism” pieces look as though they were written by Chavez’ press machine itself. Rank propaganda.

Zmag certainly can’t be trusted to give an honest view on what is happening.

And as for the criticism of “corporate-owned” media - what kind of media would be most likely to keep an eye on the government, corporate-owned media or Chavez-owned state media?

“Corporate owned” media doesn’t have to be perfect - which it isn’t - it only has to be better than state-run news - which it most certainly is.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I wonder, Lixy, if the same set of facts faced George Bush whether you would be so apologetic. [/quote]

If said media was involved in a coup, I don’t think it’ll even come up in the discussion. The answer is crystal clear.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Interesting.

  1. Man runs on the idea on the idea that his people are victims of some bullies.

  2. Man identifies a class of people who control the money at his people’s expense and vows to take it from the money people and give the money back to its rightful owners.

  3. The people buy the story, elect man.

  4. Man begins to consolidate power and stomp out political opposition, all the while say he is doing so in the name of helping out the original people who were victims of the money holders.

We have seen this story before. Never forget you can’t have “Nationalist Socialist” without “socialist”. This is a familiar playbook - and those who apologized for Chavez are complicit in apologizing for fascism.[/quote]

Wait… you know the nationalist part is the fascist part right?

…I see what you did here…

I’d post a slowpoke, but I don’t think many of you would get the joke…

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“Corporate owned” media doesn’t have to be perfect - which it isn’t - it only has to be better than state-run news - which it most certainly is. [/quote]

I still think independent media are best. All over the world, many prominent papers aren’t corporate whores. I have yet to see a single independent media in the US make it to the mainstream.

To answer your question, yes, corporate media beat state-controlled ones by a long shot. But you seem to forget RCTV’s involvement in the coup. Ever watched “The revolution will not be televized”? If not, I recommend you start there.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

Once more, Chavez didn’t quite turn out to be the good guy we all hoped for, but condemning his decision on this case makes no sense at all.

[quote]lixy wrote:

I still think independent media are best.[/quote]

This I don’t doubt. You aren’t interested in objectivity - you want to hear “news” that comports with all your opinions. This alternative media, with no pretenses of objectivity, feeds you exactly what you want to hear ideologically.

Of course you like it better. “Independent” media takes sides.

Yes, and there is a good reason for that. It should be obvious - the “independent” media are far from the mainstream: radical, ideological, uninterested in objectivity.

So-called “corporate” media isn’t perfect, and I criticize them often - but between “independent” media, which is really nothing more than propaganda, and corporate media, the choice is easy.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Once more, Chavez didn’t quite turn out to be the good guy we all hoped for, but condemning his decision on this case makes no sense at all.[/quote]

Did you seriously think Chavez was a good guy?

He is acting exactly as expected.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

Did you seriously think Chavez was a good guy?

He is acting exactly as expected.[/quote]

Yes, this is an interesting question worth exploring.

Why is the presumption always that a guy like Chavez is a “good guy”, when history has taught us to instantly be wary of the kind of leader he is?

Why is there the naivete to give a guy like this a shot, when we could be 100% sure he would turn Venezuela into a fascist state?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:

I still think independent media are best.

This I don’t doubt. You aren’t interested in objectivity - you want to hear “news” that comports with all your opinions. This alternative media, with no pretenses of objectivity, feeds you exactly what you want to hear ideologically.

Of course you like it better. “Independent” media takes sides.

All over the world, many prominent papers aren’t corporate whores. I have yet to see a single independent media in the US make it to the mainstream.

Yes, and there is a good reason for that. It should be obvious - the “independent” media are far from the mainstream: radical, ideological, uninterested in objectivity.

So-called “corporate” media isn’t perfect, and I criticize them often - but between “independent” media, which is really nothing more than propaganda, and corporate media, the choice is easy.[/quote]

This didn’t make sense at all. Why would you call independent media, who answer to nobody, propaganda? Is it because you don’t like what they report on? Is it because they lack a sports section? Examples of “unobjectivity” would be nice.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Did you seriously think Chavez was a good guy?
[/quote]

You’d expect that from a Bolivarian. Ok, maybe not you, but I sure as hell did.

[quote]lixy wrote:

This didn’t make sense at all. Why would you call independent media, who answer to nobody, propaganda?[/quote]

Ridiculous. Just because they say “independent” doesn’t mean “non-ideological”. They use “independent” as a term of art to make sure dupes like you can sing their praises.

“Independent” means only that they aren’t corporate-owned (presumably). So what? That neither says that they are objective news or not.

And they most certainly answer to somebody - their extremist readers. You think if one of these indie rags didn’t belch out idea-confirming propaganda to its ideological readers they would stay in business? Of course not.

You really are quite naive.

And, if FOX can’t be trusted to be honest when reporting, why does that rule not hold for the other side of the spectrum? Seems what is good for one is good for the other.

Nope - they unabashedly are opinion reports. No problem, but just don’t pretend like they give a fair take on information. They - like you - have already decided winners and losers, who is good and who is evil, all before learning and reporting on facts.

Indie rags are big editorial pages - which is fine. Referencing them as news? No way - and it makes you look like a fool when you try and pass off these low-budget editorials as examples of straight news.

Here is ZMag’s mission statement:

Z is an independent monthly magazine dedicated to resisting injustice, defending against repression, and creating liberty. It sees the racial, gender, class, and political dimensions of personal life as fundamental to understanding and improving contemporary circumstances; and it aims to assist activist efforts for a better future.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/zmagtop.htm

Seriously.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ridiculous. Just because they say “independent” doesn’t mean “non-ideological”. They use “independent” as a term of art to make sure dupes like you can sing their praises.

“Independent” means only that they aren’t corporate-owned (presumably). So what? That neither says that they are objective news or not.

And they most certainly answer to somebody - their extremist readers. You think if one of these indie rags didn’t belch out idea-confirming propaganda to its ideological readers they would stay in business? Of course not. [/quote]

They are a heck of a lot more objective than corporate media. I’m thinking of Democracy Now!, The Guardian, Arte, and such. Speaking of DN!, you should watch the debate they hosted about the RCTV situation today.

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2007/may/video/dnB20070531a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=

That’s a LOT more objective than anything else I’ve seen about the case in the mainstream US media. I don’t think you can refute that.

I like the part where you that independent media answer to their readers/viewers only, and that’s exactly the point I was trying to make. If you think the media answering to some rich guys in a cigar filled room is better than them answering to their readers, I can’t help but chuckle at that. You made my argument stronger with that. Thanks.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Here is ZMag’s mission statement:

Z is an independent monthly magazine dedicated to resisting injustice, defending against repression, and creating liberty. It sees the racial, gender, class, and political dimensions of personal life as fundamental to understanding and improving contemporary circumstances; and it aims to assist activist efforts for a better future.

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/zmagtop.htm

Seriously.[/quote]

TB,

While Zmag are forthright about their goals, Fox calls their reports “fair and balanced”. Which one’s intentions do you think are more questionable?

I asked you to refute the arguments made in the articles. I don’t wanna get into a an argument over the objectivity of Zmag. All the arguments are clearly referenced, and the rest is easily dug up. Show me what you think Lendman and the other guy said that’s challengeable and then we can debate it.

Saying Chavez is evil is one thing and I can’t argue that. Saying that he had no right to refuse renewing RCTV’s license is a totally different story, and that myth needs to debunked.If you can handle that, let me know. If you prefer to focus on blasting the messenger to divert from your lack of knowledge over the situation, then you’re not being constructive at all.