Bowdlerisation in Venezuela?

Merko · 10th August 2007, 01:53 PM

Randi wrote:
"I really think that any other TV authority anywhere in the civilized
world - with the exception of Venezuela, as we've recently learned -
would be not only alarmed, but seriously concerned about such blatant
bowdlerization,
..."

What has Randi learned about TV authorities in Venezuela, that I
missed?

(general discussion in the Politics forum please - let's keep this
to bare*facts)

rymdman · 10th August 2007, 04:38 PM

Probably because Chavez shut down a tv station since it was critical to his politics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/...085952,00.html

dudalb · 10th August 2007, 05:13 PM

But that Television station was Counterrevolutionary and a tool of the Capitalist Oppressors!
All These Negative things about Comrade Hugo are Lies,Lies,Captalists Lies!

That is the message I am getting from some of the Loony Left in the US.
As opposed to the Loony Right.

Merko · 11th August 2007, 04:10 AM

rymdman: Except it wasn't shut down. It's still airing, over satellite
and over cable. The *broadcast license* was not renewed, that's all.

So it's like saying the US FCC are censoring because they don't offer
Showtime a broadcast license. Except FCC's reason is that Showtime displays
too much nudity, whereas the Venezuelan authorities cite RCTV's open
support for the violent overthrowing of the democratically elected
government during their previous term, as their reason.

I mean - broadcast frequencies are limited. Right, wrong?
A democratically elected government is the proper arbiter of this
scarce resource. Right, wrong?
One sensible principle is that a broadcaster must not use its
broadcasting priviliges to assist a violent overthrowing of the
democratically elected government. Right, wrong?
RCTV, during their previous term for broadcasting license, did openly
assist the violent overthrowing of the democratically elected
government. Right, wrong?

I'd like to know where in the above reasoning I'm going wrong. Because
I just can't see a problem here. What exactly is the problem?

TsarBomba · 12th August 2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Merko

So it's like saying the US FCC are censoring because they don't offer
Showtime a broadcast license.

Huh? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. The FCC doesn't go to cable networks and "offer" them a broadcast licnese. Broadcasting licenses have to be applied for by a local broadcast station, which then decides what programming it will broadcast. If they get Showtime's permission, they can broadcast Showtime, with the caveat that they can be fined or loose their broadcast license if they broadcast obscene material.

What Comrade Chavez did was censorhip of a television station that criticized his government's policies. He then replaced it with a more "responsible" broadcaster. That is censorship, pure and simple. Any attempt at a whitewash of such a basic derrogation of human rights is no more than whistling in the wind.

Tumblehome · 12th August 2007, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by richorman

What Comrade Chavez did was censorhip of a television station that criticized his government's policies. He then replaced it with a more "responsible" broadcaster. That is censorship, pure and simple. Any attempt at a whitewash of such a basic derrogation of human rights is no more than whistling in the wind.

A free press is a luxury that exists only in peaceful times. Canada has the War Measures Act which allows for suspension of civil liberties when the security of the country is threatened, and you can bet the U.S. would act drastically in the same situation (I guess it did to a certain extent with the Patriot acts). Chavez, after being overthrown by a U.S.-aided coup, and no doubt feeling the threat of another attempt in the near future, is merely doing the same thing.

And it's not like the TV station operated responsibly when it had its license. From rymdman's link:

Quote:

When a military coup ousted Mr Chávez in 2002, RCTV and three other private networks backed it. When the streets filled with people demanding the president's return, the channels ran cartoons in a vain effort to ignore the popular will.

Mr Chávez...allowed them to continue broadcasting after he was reinstated. Under its director, Marcel Granier, RCTV's hostility did not abate. Its news bulletins focus on crime, economic woes and Mr Chávez's increasing power and play down evidence of social progress.

I think Chavez showed restraint and patience in not acting sooner against the station.

JoeEllison · 12th August 2007, 07:28 PM

You've got to remember, when reading American media reports on Venezuela, that most American media outlets supported the coup attempt against the democratically elected Venezuelan government, and pretty much flat out lied about the specifics in many cases.

Chavez is no saint, but I'd take what you read about him with an entire salt lick.

TsarBomba · 14th August 2007, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tumblehome

A free press is a luxury that exists only in peaceful times.

Or not at all in the socialist utopia that Comrade Chavez would like to create.

Quote:

Canada has the War Measures Act which allows for suspension of civil liberties when the security of the country is threatened, and you can bet the U.S. would act drastically in the same situation (I guess it did to a certain extent with the Patriot acts).

How about some evidence for the assertion that the U.S. would do the same in such a situation. Can you give one example, just one, of the U.S. goverment shutting down a newspaper or telvision station because of something that they said or wrote since, say, 1800? (apart, maybe from proscutions for obscenity prior to our current law case law as it applies to the First Amendment) The closest thing that I can think of was Roosevelt threatening action against a Chigago newspaper that almost published information about troop movements that could have assisted the enemy. But even in war, the the United States, freedom of the press, and freedom to criticize the government, applies. As for yoour assertion that freedom of speech was curtailed by the Patriot Act, where the hell does that come from? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Is there a provision in the Patriot Act that you can point to that would limit freedom of speech, or freedom of the press? Is there an instance of censorship in the U.S. that you can point to that would have any relationship whatsoever? Additionally, Canada does not have anything like the First Amendment, and freedom of speech can be curtailed in Canada where it could not in the U.S. , i.e. prosecuting people for "hate crimes" because they have the gaul to criticize religion. So citing to some law in Canada hardly constitutes an argument that the U.S. would act in the same way.

Quote:

Chavez, after being overthrown by a U.S.-aided coup, and no doubt feeling the threat of another attempt in the near future, is merely doing the same thing.

Ah, so the Citizens of Venezuala should loose access to any dissenting information on broadcast TV because there was a "U.S.-aided coup" in the past? For how long should this restriction on a basic human right remain in place? Would YOU be okay with being subjected to government harassment for speaking your mind? Should the fact that someone else did something in the past be a justifiable reason for the goverment to restrict your freedom of speech?

Quote:

And it's not like the TV station operated responsibly when it had its license. From rymdman's link:

I think Chavez showed restraint and patience in not acting sooner against the station

As Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said to an interviewer on Candadian Telvision

Quote:

“I don’t find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom."

Maybe you should think about that before you start supporting wannabe despots who infringe on other people's human rights.

Tumblehome · 14th August 2007, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by richorman

As Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said to an interviewer on Candadian Telvision:

“I don’t find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom."

Ms. Ali was absolutely right, we don't know what it is not to have freedom. We don't know what it's like to have a foreign superpower impose its will on us by engineering a coup against our freely and democratically elected gov't. We don't know what it's like to live with the threat of it happening again hanging over our heads. Yet we're encouraged to impose our values on Chavez, who does know what it's like and is living with it every day.

I didn't say the Patriot Act suppressed opposing media, though maybe it allows for that, I don't know. I said it curtailed civil liberties, as did the internment camps for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, so the American gov't isn't squeaky clean either. And why should it be squeaky clean? Don't you agree those actions were at least somewhat understandable after attacks on the country? The difference is that the U.S. was powerful enough to deflect those threats. The gov't was never in imminent danger of being taken over by force, so more drastic measures weren't necessary. Venezuela's gov't has been taken over by force, and is still under threat. The stronger the threat gets, the stronger you can expect the reaction from Chavez will be.

Gurdur · 15th August 2007, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by richorman

....How about some evidence for the assertion that the U.S. would do the same in such a situation. Can you give one example, just one, of the U.S. goverment shutting down a newspaper or telvision station because of something that they said or wrote since, say, 1800?

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

First Red Scare, 1917-1920

U.S. postal inspectors refused to distribute materials they deemed as subversive to the war effort. Many foreign language and radical or anarchist publications were disrupted or closed as a consequence.

And related, though different in tactics but very harsh, are of course the HUAC and other actions of the 1950's and 1960's.
________

A modern British example is Thatcher, as Prime Minister, refusing to renew the TV licence of Thames Television, because of one TV documentary, Death On The Rock. A sheerly political reason, and rather unjustifiable.

quixotecoyote · 15th August 2007, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by Gurdur

From Wikipedia:

And related, though different in tactics but very harsh, are of course the HUAC and other actions of the 1950's and 1960's.
________

A modern British example is Thatcher, as Prime Minister, refusing to renew the TV licence of Thames Television, because of one TV documentary, Death On The Rock. A sheerly political reason, and rather unjustifiable.

I was going to mention the McCarthy era, but you beat me to it. Although I guess he's the second red scare of the 40's and 50's.

Merko · 21st August 2007, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by richorman

Can you give one example, just one, of the U.S. goverment shutting down a newspaper or telvision station because of something that they said or wrote since, say, 1800?

Wait a minute. So if I give you an example of the US government shutting down a newspaper or television station, this doesn't count unless the government explicitly claimed that it was because of something said or written?

How about the FCC's decision, in 1988, to revoke the broadcast license for the TV channel KQEC?

Or how about when, in 2001, they revoked Kevin Mitnicks HAM radio license?

It's not hard to find such examples from Google. Of course, even though FCC's decisions are debatable, and must be in a lively democracy, it seems absurd to me to say that the FCC should never ever be able to revoke anyone's license, and that doing so would automatically be 'censorship'.

K-W · 24th August 2007, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by richorman

What Comrade Chavez did was censorhip of a television station that criticized his government's policies. He then replaced it with a more "responsible" broadcaster. That is censorship, pure and simple. Any attempt at a whitewash of such a basic derrogation of human rights is no more than whistling in the wind.

Except of course that the station was not shut down, had nothing taken away from it and has no special right to a broadcast license.

RCTV's license had an expiration date. The government was under no obligation to renew the license and RCTV has no more right to a broadcast license than anyone else in Venezuela. The broadcast spectrum belongs to the people of Venezuela not RCTV and is administered by the elected government who felt that the spectrum space could be better used by an organization that doesn't support violent anti-democratic coups.

You must have an interesting theory of Human Rights if it includes the right of corporations to automatically get broadcast license renewals.

10th August 2007, 01:53 PM	#1
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,901	Bowdlerisation in Venezuela? Randi wrote: "I really think that any other TV authority anywhere in the civilized world - with the exception of Venezuela, as we've recently learned - would be not only alarmed, but seriously concerned about such blatant bowdlerization, ..." What has Randi learned about TV authorities in Venezuela, that I missed? (general discussion in the Politics forum please - let's keep this to bare*facts)
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,901

11th August 2007, 04:10 AM	#4
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,901	rymdman: Except it wasn't shut down. It's still airing, over satellite and over cable. The broadcast license was not renewed, that's all. So it's like saying the US FCC are censoring because they don't offer Showtime a broadcast license. Except FCC's reason is that Showtime displays too much nudity, whereas the Venezuelan authorities cite RCTV's open support for the violent overthrowing of the democratically elected government during their previous term, as their reason. I mean - broadcast frequencies are limited. Right, wrong? A democratically elected government is the proper arbiter of this scarce resource. Right, wrong? One sensible principle is that a broadcaster must not use its broadcasting priviliges to assist a violent overthrowing of the democratically elected government. Right, wrong? RCTV, during their previous term for broadcasting license, did openly assist the violent overthrowing of the democratically elected government. Right, wrong? I'd like to know where in the above reasoning I'm going wrong. Because I just can't see a problem here. What exactly is the problem?
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,901

12th August 2007, 02:28 PM	#5
TsarBomba One Damn Dirty Ape Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: 5430 feet above you Posts: 796	Originally Posted by Merko So it's like saying the US FCC are censoring because they don't offer Showtime a broadcast license. Huh? Sorry, it doesn't work like that. The FCC doesn't go to cable networks and "offer" them a broadcast licnese. Broadcasting licenses have to be applied for by a local broadcast station, which then decides what programming it will broadcast. If they get Showtime's permission, they can broadcast Showtime, with the caveat that they can be fined or loose their broadcast license if they broadcast obscene material. What Comrade Chavez did was censorhip of a television station that criticized his government's policies. He then replaced it with a more "responsible" broadcaster. That is censorship, pure and simple. Any attempt at a whitewash of such a basic derrogation of human rights is no more than whistling in the wind.
	__________________ Signature line? I don't need no stinking signature line!

12th August 2007, 07:24 PM	#6
Tumblehome Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Beside the point Posts: 1,445	Originally Posted by richorman What Comrade Chavez did was censorhip of a television station that criticized his government's policies. He then replaced it with a more "responsible" broadcaster. That is censorship, pure and simple. Any attempt at a whitewash of such a basic derrogation of human rights is no more than whistling in the wind. A free press is a luxury that exists only in peaceful times. Canada has the War Measures Act which allows for suspension of civil liberties when the security of the country is threatened, and you can bet the U.S. would act drastically in the same situation (I guess it did to a certain extent with the Patriot acts). Chavez, after being overthrown by a U.S.-aided coup, and no doubt feeling the threat of another attempt in the near future, is merely doing the same thing. And it's not like the TV station operated responsibly when it had its license. From rymdman's link: Quote: When a military coup ousted Mr Chávez in 2002, RCTV and three other private networks backed it. When the streets filled with people demanding the president's return, the channels ran cartoons in a vain effort to ignore the popular will. Mr Chávez...allowed them to continue broadcasting after he was reinstated. Under its director, Marcel Granier, RCTV's hostility did not abate. Its news bulletins focus on crime, economic woes and Mr Chávez's increasing power and play down evidence of social progress. I think Chavez showed restraint and patience in not acting sooner against the station.
	Last edited by Tumblehome; 12th August 2007 at 07:31 PM. Reason: removed a contentious sentence that had nothing to do with the discussion

14th August 2007, 12:09 PM	#8
TsarBomba One Damn Dirty Ape Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: 5430 feet above you Posts: 796	Originally Posted by Tumblehome A free press is a luxury that exists only in peaceful times. Or not at all in the socialist utopia that Comrade Chavez would like to create. Quote: Canada has the War Measures Act which allows for suspension of civil liberties when the security of the country is threatened, and you can bet the U.S. would act drastically in the same situation (I guess it did to a certain extent with the Patriot acts). How about some evidence for the assertion that the U.S. would do the same in such a situation. Can you give one example, just one, of the U.S. goverment shutting down a newspaper or telvision station because of something that they said or wrote since, say, 1800? (apart, maybe from proscutions for obscenity prior to our current law case law as it applies to the First Amendment) The closest thing that I can think of was Roosevelt threatening action against a Chigago newspaper that almost published information about troop movements that could have assisted the enemy. But even in war, the the United States, freedom of the press, and freedom to criticize the government, applies. As for yoour assertion that freedom of speech was curtailed by the Patriot Act, where the hell does that come from? Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Is there a provision in the Patriot Act that you can point to that would limit freedom of speech, or freedom of the press? Is there an instance of censorship in the U.S. that you can point to that would have any relationship whatsoever? Additionally, Canada does not have anything like the First Amendment, and freedom of speech can be curtailed in Canada where it could not in the U.S. , i.e. prosecuting people for "hate crimes" because they have the gaul to criticize religion. So citing to some law in Canada hardly constitutes an argument that the U.S. would act in the same way. Quote: Chavez, after being overthrown by a U.S.-aided coup, and no doubt feeling the threat of another attempt in the near future, is merely doing the same thing. Ah, so the Citizens of Venezuala should loose access to any dissenting information on broadcast TV because there was a "U.S.-aided coup" in the past? For how long should this restriction on a basic human right remain in place? Would YOU be okay with being subjected to government harassment for speaking your mind? Should the fact that someone else did something in the past be a justifiable reason for the goverment to restrict your freedom of speech? Quote: And it's not like the TV station operated responsibly when it had its license. From rymdman's link: I think Chavez showed restraint and patience in not acting sooner against the station As Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said to an interviewer on Candadian Telvision Quote: “I don’t find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom." Maybe you should think about that before you start supporting wannabe despots who infringe on other people's human rights.
	__________________ Signature line? I don't need no stinking signature line!

10th August 2007, 04:38 PM	#2
rymdman Scholar Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 53	Probably because Chavez shut down a tv station since it was critical to his politics. http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/...085952,00.html

10th August 2007, 05:13 PM	#3
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,836	But that Television station was Counterrevolutionary and a tool of the Capitalist Oppressors! All These Negative things about Comrade Hugo are Lies,Lies,Captalists Lies! That is the message I am getting from some of the Loony Left in the US. As opposed to the Loony Right.

12th August 2007, 07:28 PM	#7
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	You've got to remember, when reading American media reports on Venezuela, that most American media outlets supported the coup attempt against the democratically elected Venezuelan government, and pretty much flat out lied about the specifics in many cases. Chavez is no saint, but I'd take what you read about him with an entire salt lick.

14th August 2007, 08:19 PM	#9
Tumblehome Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Beside the point Posts: 1,445	Originally Posted by richorman As Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali said to an interviewer on Candadian Telvision: “I don’t find myself in the same luxury as you. You grew up in freedom, and you can spit on freedom, because you don’t know what it is not to have freedom." Ms. Ali was absolutely right, we don't know what it is not to have freedom. We don't know what it's like to have a foreign superpower impose its will on us by engineering a coup against our freely and democratically elected gov't. We don't know what it's like to live with the threat of it happening again hanging over our heads. Yet we're encouraged to impose our values on Chavez, who does know what it's like and is living with it every day. I didn't say the Patriot Act suppressed opposing media, though maybe it allows for that, I don't know. I said it curtailed civil liberties, as did the internment camps for Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, so the American gov't isn't squeaky clean either. And why should it be squeaky clean? Don't you agree those actions were at least somewhat understandable after attacks on the country? The difference is that the U.S. was powerful enough to deflect those threats. The gov't was never in imminent danger of being taken over by force, so more drastic measures weren't necessary. Venezuela's gov't has been taken over by force, and is still under threat. The stronger the threat gets, the stronger you can expect the reaction from Chavez will be.

15th August 2007, 04:45 PM	#10
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875	Originally Posted by richorman ....How about some evidence for the assertion that the U.S. would do the same in such a situation. Can you give one example, just one, of the U.S. goverment shutting down a newspaper or telvision station because of something that they said or wrote since, say, 1800? From Wikipedia: Quote: First Red Scare, 1917-1920 U.S. postal inspectors refused to distribute materials they deemed as subversive to the war effort. Many foreign language and radical or anarchist publications were disrupted or closed as a consequence. And related, though different in tactics but very harsh, are of course the HUAC and other actions of the 1950's and 1960's. ________ A modern British example is Thatcher, as Prime Minister, refusing to renew the TV licence of Thames Television, because of *one* TV documentary, Death On The Rock. A sheerly political reason, and rather unjustifiable.
Gurdur Person Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 4,875

15th August 2007, 08:16 PM	#11
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by Gurdur From Wikipedia: And related, though different in tactics but very harsh, are of course the HUAC and other actions of the 1950's and 1960's. ________ A modern British example is Thatcher, as Prime Minister, refusing to renew the TV licence of Thames Television, because of *one* TV documentary, Death On The Rock. A sheerly political reason, and rather unjustifiable. I was going to mention the McCarthy era, but you beat me to it. Although I guess he's the second red scare of the 40's and 50's.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

21st August 2007, 07:29 AM	#12
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,901	Originally Posted by richorman Can you give one example, just one, of the U.S. goverment shutting down a newspaper or telvision station because of something that they said or wrote since, say, 1800? Wait a minute. So if I give you an example of the US government shutting down a newspaper or television station, this doesn't count unless the government explicitly claimed that it was because of something said or written? How about the FCC's decision, in 1988, to revoke the broadcast license for the TV channel KQEC? Or how about when, in 2001, they revoked Kevin Mitnicks HAM radio license? It's not hard to find such examples from Google. Of course, even though FCC's decisions are debatable, and must be in a lively democracy, it seems absurd to me to say that the FCC should never ever be able to revoke anyone's license, and that doing so would automatically be 'censorship'.
Merko Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,901

24th August 2007, 09:40 AM	#13
K-W New Blood Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 7	Originally Posted by richorman What Comrade Chavez did was censorhip of a television station that criticized his government's policies. He then replaced it with a more "responsible" broadcaster. That is censorship, pure and simple. Any attempt at a whitewash of such a basic derrogation of human rights is no more than whistling in the wind. Except of course that the station was not shut down, had nothing taken away from it and has no special right to a broadcast license. RCTV's license had an expiration date. The government was under no obligation to renew the license and RCTV has no more right to a broadcast license than anyone else in Venezuela. The broadcast spectrum belongs to the people of Venezuela not RCTV and is administered by the elected government who felt that the spectrum space could be better used by an organization that doesn't support violent anti-democratic coups. You must have an interesting theory of Human Rights if it includes the right of corporations to automatically get broadcast license renewals.
K-W New Blood Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 7