FAIR. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Hell yeah, we found some people that are completely for freedom of speech. Not only that, they are against media biasing. I can't believe I am so lucky to...wait, oh, they are actually justifying RCTV's closing. Who would've thought that "FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986" would actually applaud censorship?

Could it be that they forgot their own motto, mission statement or whatever they want to call their bullshit "criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986" claim? To answer this we will remit to their article posted here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107

Now, the article itself is written pretty well and it cites different source. It offers a good comparison between both sides which is hard to come around these days when dealing with Venezuelan news. All that is fine and it goes with their line of thought about them being the media police of the world, or at least trying to be I don't know. Now, the problem comes right at the end when they decide to conclude, with a quote from Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy where he states: "The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves." Actually (damn it, how could I miss this) their stupid title:
"Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story"
implies their position about what's happening in Venezuela right now.

Of course, the documentary comes in as their first source of information. I am still trying to understand how this documentary became the ultimate source for all the pro-Chavez people out there. Did anyone thought about fact checking for a second? I am going to repost both videos here just so this people can watch the documentary again and then see the analysis that was made of it pointing the lies it says.



The Documentary


The analysis of the lies in it made by Wolfgang Schalk



Now, to really prove my point, I am going to say that the documentary is true as well as the analysis. Basically, they are two different points of views, completely biased to either side of the argument. So with that, I am taking the liberty of canceling both of them as evidence of the question, is it ok to shut down a tv station? Cause yes, that is the question we are discussing here.

Moving on: " On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." So here, they are saying that RCTV, by transmitting a message of top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, are becoming terrorist and coup plotters themselves. An interesting thing is that they fail to point out to people around the world who Carlos Ortega is or was. Well, he was no other than the leader of the labor? workers? association (Presidente de la Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela, CTV). Let me attempt the translation, President of the Workers Confederation of Venezuela. Now, to me this is kind of important cause it identifies Ortega as something more than just a coup plotter; he represented Venezuelan workers.

The next interesting thing on this paragraph is the quote from Vice-Admiral Victor Ramirez Perez: "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." I guess they are trying to make a point with the connection of the quote, being transmitted by the media...or some sort of weird thing that I just don't get. Seriously, a Vice-Admiral says they have a weapon, sorry, a deadly weapon: THE MEDIA, and this people signal him, actually not him, but THE MEDIA, as the baddest, meanest coup plotter in the world? I can't even keep going on this paragraph because is hard for me to make sense about what they are trying to point out. Maybe is just me, I might be really dumb or something, who knows?

The next paragraph most important quote comes from Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post: "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal."" I was under the impression that freedom of speech basically gave you the freedom to express yourself. Under that premise, I am under the impression that a privately owned media, has the right to express themselves....you know what, not themselves, but the collective sentiment of their major audience, which in this case was no other than the ousting of Chavez from power. One thing though, I need to make clear, people were protesting because is their right. They were protesting because Chavez had fired people from PDVSA (the state owned oil company in Venezuela) because they were not in the line of thinking of his revolution. This, and lots of bad politics form Chavez, caused the people to take the streets three days before the coup and the world became witness of the biggest protest and concentration of people that had ever taken place in Venezuela.

http://www.urru.org/11A/Fotos.htm (Look at the pictures (1) (2) etc on the fourth link from top to bottom).

As for the coup, yes, it happened. The opposition leaders made horrible mistakes and most of it's sectors didn't like the dissolution of powers and other unconstitutional decisions that were made, but I can't still see the Media's involvement in the whole thing so lets keep going.

"Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela." This is one of the best lines this article offers. You know, it implies that Chavez was nice to the media, he didn't prosecute them, he didn't jail them, basically, he forgave them. Seriously FAIR people, what's up with fact checking? actually, what's up with common sense? Let's take a look at time here.

April 11, 2002; we have a coup involving the media.
May 27, 2007; we close one of the station that participated in the coup.

So based on the point you guys made above, either Chavez is a saint, or there's something up. If the media and it's owners where involved in the coup, why weren't they tried, put in jail, etc? Why were the officers that publicly called for the stepping down of Chavez tried, and put free (which is a good thing by the way and every person on the military should follow in their steps). Why, even after Luis Tascon (Senator or Congressman, or whatever he is, for the Officialism) called for the "interpelacion" (might translate to judgment...trial maybe) of media owners, this never took place? Why does Chavez decides five years later, that he is going to shut down a tv station, leaving a lot of people out of work, people that just worked on the Tv station. People like janitors, diner cooks, cameraman, boom operators etc, that have been doing their job. Why do this when all he had to do was try the media owners? And really, if the TV station had to been shut down because the law said so (more on the license later), why is it that now we get stuck with a TV station, completely biased in favor of the government, who is not covering any of the vents that are taking place on the streets? Actually, why, you the god of fairness in media, seem to have no problem with this fact, or the fact that no goverment tv station gives serious coverage to any of the opposition events, specially when they are kids being shot at, arrested and the like?

http://www.youtube.com/elobservadorenlinea
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=175779&id=705311608&l=6a357

Try to look for any of those images or photos on any media in Venezuela. What's that? you can't find any...or some of them barely...if you look and look. Do you know why? Well, for one, government TV stations, news papers, radio etc are not reporting anything about it. From time to time they call the protest as small, insignificant and violent. Now the first two are just stupid, just look at the pictures and videos, but the third one is not. The protests are indeed violent thanks to the police, military and Chavez's foes attacking kids (age average of the protests is 15.5).

Next paragraph: " When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman." RCTV station was being attacked by Chavez foes, look at the second video posted here, towards the end. How can you expect them to cover something if they were being attacked? Seriously people...what's up with fact checking? This paragraph also has this quote from former NPR editor John Dinges: "What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles." Wow, this people just amaze me more and more as I read. So, I think we established that RCTV, and the other stations, were being attacked so that sort of prevent them from reporting. Maybe, they could've just gone out and fight the crowd and die doing their job, like some journalists in Venezuela have done. But you see, when you fail to report what's happening because you...let me read, oh...wait, during a period of national crisis...not because you are forced to but because you don't agree....holly fucking crap, so I guess the Chavez media not covering the protest that I've shown on the links above does not apply to this claim? Really, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

My god...I had to stop after that last paragraph. The irony of it was just insane.

Following paragrpah: " The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet." So...I am now one of the most dissident people on the planet...right on! This people call anyone against the government: "The Most Dissident in the Planet." It even sounds like a movie...wow, I'm proud of being part of the most dissident people in the planet. ok, seriously...how many TV stations are left...that are dissident? 3? Venevision, Televen and Globovision? Well, Televen has been Chavista for quite sometime, and Venevision, after it's owner Gustavo Cisneros, had a meeting with Chavez has been very non "most dissident people in the planet." So that leave Globovision, which Chavez already threaten to close. I guess their "failure to note our dissident media" is not a failure after all since we only have a nationally broadcasted TV station that actually is not seen that well on some parts of the country.

But all right, the license had expired and it didn't get renewed because of the alleged RCTV involvement in the coup and there was no political reason behind it. Sounds legit, the media owners were not tried because...who knows..so then when the license expires Chavez decides not to renew it. Fair enough, for the sake of continuing the argument...let's say it's fair enough..license expire...no renewal because of coup, absolutely no political reason.

So now, McElwee is talking about Venezuelan law, and the licensing system etc. So technically, the license expires and that's it. But shouldn't the governing media authority (CONATEL) be the one calling for the none renewal? Why is Chavez the one that decides to not renew it? Why when RCTV tried to appeal this (I don't think the right term is appeal) it was negated since their appeal named Chavez and Chavez had nothing to do with this and they should've directed their thing to CONATEL? And again, why leave thousands out of a job instead of trying the real people involved?

Finally, we are back at the conclusion: "The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves." I am not going to say anything else about the article and I will let people judge for themselves.

I am going to end this post by asking FAIR people a couple of questions: How can people defending freedom of speech and fairness, applaud the shutting of a TV station? Maybe, I I'm misinterpreting and you don't applaud in any way this shutting down. Maybe, you are just trying to be "FAIR" and present both sides of the argument. But if that was really the case, why do you end...and actually start in your title, by defending Chavez decision? If you are trying to be air, why do you omit relevant pieces of information like the non coverage of the protest by the Chavez Media? How can you be ruling for censorship, cause seriously people, a non-renewal of a license...based on an alleged coup participation, five years ago; participation based on the fact that they reported the protests and displayed anti Chavez comments? Are you that blind or stupid? Are you that fool that you don't see the irony that exhumes from your article?

Actually, I'll end this with a promise I made to my sister in law. She asked me to invite all of you people that support Chavez to experience these protests with her. She asked me to describe the feeling of panic and fear when being attacked in the middle of a protest by the same people that are supposed to protect you as well as armed people in motorcycles, how are defending their revolution called for by their leader, Hugo Chavez. She asked me to describe you the feeling of inhaling tear gas and running blindly for your life. She asked me this things after barely calming down right after this events took place. But I have to tell her, that I can't fulfill my promise because I have no words to describe these situations to you. My hands shake just at the thought that someone that I care deeply about, risked her life for what she believes in and people, like you assholes in stupid FAIR crap, are justifying Chavez's wrongdoing. To you, in her name, in the name of all the people being attacked, I say FUCK YOU. Women like my Rabbit, and like the one in the picture below:



have more balls and integrity than what you can ever dream of having.

Ps: that is a tear gas bomb she's kicking.