The Chrsitian Science Monitor

Bart Jones article appears once more. Now, it made it's appearance on The Christian Science Monitor which is a publication by the First Church of Christ, Science.

The link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html?page=1

Is interesting that if you google Bart Jones + RCTV, there are several sites running his piece. One of the most interesting is FAIR: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=8882, which already has it's own piece on the matter.

Now, more interesting is that all this sites are either a newspaper or some sort of portal for free speech, freedom of press or the like. The most interesting thing is that by running this article, they are siding with Bart and applauding the closure of a TV station based on the claims of it's participation on a failed coup.

Well, freedom of speech give you that right. But applauding the closure of freedom of speech in a pro freedom of speech site it's a but ironic.

I already talked about Bart's article here: http://chavezcrap.blogspot.com/2007/05/news-hounds-part-i.html

so I'm not doing it again. What did do is find this link: http://www.steerforth.com/books/display.pperl?isbn=9781586421359
. Yes, Bart wrote a biography about Chavez called Hugo!. Notice the exclamation point in the title exalting Hugo's name. Seems to me someone loves Chavez quite a bit...am I wrong?

So it's clear that Bart is a little biased with Chavez, and actually, I don't think there is nothing wrong with that. He's entitled to have his own opinion and it's ridiculous to claim that a journalist can be completely fair when reporting a matter that somehow appeals to them. Yes people, I am defending Bart's right to say good things about Chavez and to say that it's ok for him to close down a TV station. Now, that doesn't make him right and it doesn't mean I'm ok with it either. All I'm saying is that he has the right to think and write however he wishes. With that said, to Bart and all his followers I ask: If Bart has the right to report the news as he sees them, didn't RCTV had the same right? Weren't they in the right to say: "We don't like Chavez." Isn't freedom of speech about saying what you like or don't like?

Some may argue RCTV is an institution, a TV station while Bart is just one person. RCTV is one of the major TV channels in Venezuela while Bart is just a simple writer. RCTV should report what it's audience wanted, not what its directors wanted; Bart, well he can do whatever he wants since he is a free human being enjoying all the goods that come with it. All this arguments are completley valid arguments except maybe for one: "RCTV should've reported what it's audience wanted. This one comes from the statement that RCTV participated on the coup by transmitting anti Chavez protests and encouraging people to go protest..Hmmm, so if the people watching RCTV were the ones that were protesting, or the ones that wanted to know about the protests, wasn't RCTV reporting what it's audience wanted? Doesn't VTV, and now TVES reported all day yesterday Chavez support gathering because that is what it's audience wanted? (Important to note here is that VTV and TVES are supposedly public stations that should be of the use of the whole public and not the people sided with the government while RCTV is a private owned station that can transmit what they want as long as it is within the rules).

More and more, as I keep writing this posts, I come to the conclusion that Chavez supporters are just defending this closure repeating the same argument over and over. And argument that is as false as it is empty and without logic. Their argument, Chavez didn't close a station, he just didn't renew it's license because they participated on a coup, leaves lots of holes that they don't seem to care, seem to omit or plain simple seem to report in order to make their case.

We can keep going on and on, and I will keep my work of finding this posts and rebuking them here. The truth is Chavez is a tyrant governing with totalitarian power who has divided my country and who has not done any good for his people (yes, some people have seen some improvement, specially the new oligarchy of government officials). But when on a democracy you fail to govern for all your people, well the a government by the people for the people base of a democracy is lost and you become a fascist. Oh my, see this Chavez supporters who love calling the opposition fascist? When you people with your leader just govern for yourselves and call the opposition, how has the right of not thinking like you and even not like you, the enemies of your revolution. Go with statements like they will not come back or they will not pass, you become fascists. Here's a definition for you:

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control fascism and brutality -- J. W. Aldridge>

Taken from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=fascist

It's important to note the Fascism militants denominated themselves "Black Shirts." Chavistas changed the color to red and we all know how there protests or gatherings look: Red, Red...Red...Rojo Rojito.