Venezuela Analysis has some proof now?

I don't think so, or they failed to show it.

The Link: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=2070

The source article was also featured on: http://redpepper.blogs.com/venezuela/2007/06/chavez_and_rctv.html & the actual source: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/index.php

The article dwells on the same issue: Is it ok for Chavez t to close down a TV statin that is not in line with his socialist message?

I am not going to comment on all of it since I've already done enough postings on the matter. But I will comment about a couple of paragraphs that just jumped out of the page.

"Likewise, it is a simple fact, not a claim, that RCTV was deeply complicit in the 2002 military coup - and the views of the West's Venezuelan bete noire should be placed front and centre only if we are content for media demonisation to undermine this truth." I guess they have proof or maybe they recorded the trial..oh wait, there was never a trial to prove RCTV's involvement. So how come it is a simple fact and not a claim? I have yet to understand.

"In a rare example of media honesty, the Los Angeles Times reported last month that RCTV had initially been focused on providing entertainment: "But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavour: ousting a democratically elected leader from office." (Bart Jones, 'Hugo Chavez versus RCTV - Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup,' Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2007." Oh....oh...they are using Bart as their source and calling him honest. Bart, the man that wrote a book about Chavez and it's completley biased towards him, did an honest reporting, sure.

The best part of the paragraph, and maybe the whole article is the: "In a rare example of media honesty.." Media Honesty? By Bart Jones? Someone who is clearly biased for Chavez? Who is Media Lens or Red Pepper or whoever to say this is fair reporting and the other is not. People please, if you really want to defend Chavez on the grounds that RCTV allegedly participated on the coup, you still have to show proof of this participation since the Venezuelan Government, Chavez etc never showed this proof and never sent RCTV or it's owners to a trial.

Is it really "honest, fair reporting" to print things like: "On the same day, RCTV allowed leading coup plotter Carlos Ortega..." coup plotter??? I mean you can call him coup plotter if you want but you should at least be "FAIR" & "HONEST" and explain to people that he was also the head of the CTV (Confederacion de Trabajadores de Venezuela) or the main Venezuelan Workers Union or Association which basically represented all workers in Venezuela. Also, RCTV "allowed (Carlos Ortega)  to call for demonstrators to march on the presidential palace." RCTV allowed him to call for demonstrators making them part of the coup? Weren't they reporting the events and transmitting an interview of one of the main persons in the events that were happening in Venezuela? Didn't Carlos Ortega have the right to call for demonstrators? I believed we had the right to protests but I guess I'm wrong.

Of course the article cites Izarra, who at the time was news director for RCTV and after condemning RCTV he was last seen as Information Minister (I need to find the correct word seriously) and head of Telesur, a sure sign of honest and fair reporting. 

You know, I need to finish the articles before I start writing. I was wrong when I said before that the best part of the article was the rare example of Media honesty. I mean, it was really good but not as good as: "In fact it turned out that the US had conspired with the coup plotters to overthrow the government. Likewise, Chavez supporters had been +defending+ themselves against sniper attack. The Venezuelan media had misrepresented film footage to present the required version of events." I really wish I could sit down with this people so they can show me all this coup plotting proof they have. Although since I'm being paid by the CIA to write imperialist ideas it might not be of their interest. Anyways the US alleged particpiation is not as good as "Chavez supporters defending themselves against snipers." WTF? Do I really need to remind this people that almost all the people that dies were protesting against Chavez? And that of all the ones that were shot & killed by snipers, all of them were protesting against Chavez? Are they really saying that the Puente Llaguno images (I believe this is the " misinterpreted film footage" they claim) were distorted since the Chavistas were shooting at the snipers? I'm sorry but I thought snipers where up on buildings and this people looked as if they were looking down. And well there is also the problem with the shadow and the film was cropped, etc.

I'm just going to leave this post here as it is clear that Pro Chavez news, blogs, etc will always use the exact same argument: RCTV participated on a coup so they got shut down. And they will always fail to fill in the blanks: When where they found guilty of this participation? I might have missed it... I don't know, after all I am just a paid CIA employee hooked up to an imperialist, idea feeding machine.