Le Monde diplomatique
-----------------------------------------------------
August 2002
HOW HATE MEDIA INCITED THE COUP AGAINST THE PRESIDENT
Venezuela's press power
_______________________________________________________
Never even in Latin American history has the media been so
directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela's 'hate
media' controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly
over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed
attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in April.
Although tensions in the country could easily spill into
civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident
elements to overthrow the democratically elected president -
if necessary by force.
by MAURICE LEMOINE
_______________________________________________________
"We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have
the opportunity, let me congratulate you." In Caracas, on
11 April 2002, just a few hours before the temporary
overthrow of Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez,
Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez congratulated
journalist Ibéyiste Pacheco live on Venevision
television. Twenty minutes earlier, when Pacheco had
begun to interview a group of rebel officers, she could
not resist admitting, conspiratorially, that she had long
had a special relationship with them.
At the same time, in a live interview from Madrid,
another journalist, Patricia Poleo, also seemed well
informed about the likely future development of
"spontaneous events". She announced on the Spanish
channel TVE: "I believe the next president is going to be
Pedro Carmona." Chávez, holed up in the presidential
palace, was still refusing to step down.
After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main
privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas
Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the
10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El
Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El
Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional
political parties, which were damaged by the president's
electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has
put them in a strong position. They give the opposition
support, only rarely reporting government statements and
never mentioning its large majority, despite that
majority's confirmation at the ballot box. They have
always described the working class districts as a red
zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people
and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic,
they ignore working class leaders and organisations.
Their investigations, interviews and commentaries all
pursue the same objective: to undermine the legitimacy of
the government and to destroy the president's popular
support. "In aesthetic terms, this revolutionary
government is a cesspit," was the delicate phrase used by
the evening paper Tal Cual. Its editor, Teodoro Petkoff,
is a keen opponent of Chávez. Petkoff is a former Marxist
guerrilla who became a neo-liberal and a
pro-privatisation minister in the government of rightwing
president Rafael Caldera. The Chávez government is not,
of course, above criticism. It makes mistakes, and the
civilian and military personnel who surround it are
tainted by corruption. But the government was
democratically elected and still has the backing of the
majority. It can also be credited with successes,
nationally and internationally.
When it comes to discrediting Chávez, anything goes.
There was a scandal in Caracas in March when a faked
interview with Ignacio Ramonet, the director of Le Monde
diplomatique, was circulated. In a statement alleged to
have been made to Emiliano Payares Gúzman, a Mexican
researcher at Princeton University, Ramonet was supposed
to have said: "Chávez lacks a respectable intellectual
corpus, and that is why his ship is always off course.
When he won the elections, it seemed to me that he had
something about him. But populism won out, as so often
happens in such cases. I have seen videos in which he
sings boleros while setting out his economic programme,
if indeed he has one. I think those true and verifiable
facts speak for themselves, I don't need to voice my
opinion of somebody like that."
Venezuela Analítica
(1) immediately posted the "statement" on the web,
without checking on its authenticity, and it then became
headline news in El Nacional. The paper was delighted to
give credence to the idea of Chávez being isolated
internationally, and made no attempt to check with the
supposed interviewee. When Ramonet denied having made the
statement, El Nacional rounded on the hoaxer (2) and,
less overtly, without even apologising, on Ramonet.
The "information" that has been published has verged on
the surreal. For example, "sources from the intelligence
services have uncovered agreements entered into with
elements linked to Hezbollah on the Venezuelan island of
Margarita, who are controlled by the Iranian embassy. You
will remember that when Chávez was campaigning, a certain
Moukhdad was extremely generous. That debt had to be
repaid, and now Iran is to make Venezuela an operational
base, in exchange for training Venezuelans in Iranian
organisations for the defence of the Islamic Revolution.
Terrorism is in our midst" (3).
On 21 March El Nacional ran the headline: "Hugo Chávez
admits to being the head of a criminal network." Next day
Tal Cual referred to "the feeling of nausea provoked by
the aggressive words he uses to try to frighten
Venezuelans". The president was insulted, compared with
Idi Amin, Mussolini or Hitler, called a fascist, dictator
or tyrant, and subjected to a spate of attacks. In any
other country actions would have been brought for libel.
"An ongoing and disrespectful attack," was how the
minister of trade, Adina Bastidas, put it. "They accuse
me of funding the planting of bombs in the streets. And I
cannot defend myself. If you attack them, they complain
to the United States!"
Chávez responded to this media bombardment, sometimes
using strong language, especially during his weekly
broadcast Aló presidente! on the only state-controlled
television channel. But his regime in no way resembles a
dictatorship, and his diatribes have not been followed by
measures to control the flow of information. Since Chávez
took office, not a single journalist has been imprisoned,
and the government has not shut down any media. Yet it is
accused of "flouting freedom of information" and of
"attacking social communicators".
'Tell the truth'
On 7 January a group of the president's supporters
besieged the offices of El Nacional chanting hostile
slogans. Shouting "tell the truth!", they hurled objects
at the building. The number of attacks on journalists is
increasing, according to Carlos Correa, general
coordinator of Provea (4), an organisation for the
defence of human rights, and they are being criminalised.
"Although there have been no deaths, the situation is
serious. Since the media bosses decided to oppose Chávez
politically, it is no longer possible to have a
reasonable discussion about the country's problems. But
to claim there is no freedom of expression is
outrageous."
"You read the newspapers, you watch the TV news and you
have the impression that the country is gripped by
conflict," says Jesuit Father Francisco José Virtuoso
sadly. "Naturally that all adds to the tension." The
popular majority is striking back in this war in which it
is the target, no longer prepared to tolerate journalists
who consider themselves above the law or the
anti-democratic control of information.
Incidents are on the increase. The official agency
Venpres described three media personalities as
"narcojournalists"; the journalists in question - Ibéyise
Pacheco (editor of Así es la noticia, a member of the El
Nacional group), Patricia Poleo and television presenter
José Domingo Blanco (Globovisión) - decided to make
capital out of the accusations. After condemning their
"persecution" in front of the cameras at the US embassy,
they left for Washington, where they got a heroic
welcome. The Venpres article, signed by a J Valeverde
(5), was repudiated by President Chávez and condemned by
the defence minister, José Vicente Rangel; it led to the
censure and resignation of the director of Venpres, Oscar
Navas. But that did not halt a campaign, in Venezuela and
abroad, against a government accused of "muzzling the
media".
The media has proved adept at using the self-fulfilling
prophecy - both in relation to government supporters and
the government. By protesting about infringements of
liberty, when under no threat, and using lies and
manipulation, the media provoked a reaction, sometimes
inciting its victims to do wrong. Those misdeeds were
then portrayed as the cause (and not the consequence) of
the media's unhappy relationship with the government and
much of the population.
We must condemn the attacks by the president's supporters
on television units or journalists. But how could those
supporters tolerate always being described as "Taliban"
or as "villains"? We should protest when journalists,
even if they are aggressive and completely identified
with the oligarchy, are described as "narcojournalists".
But those journalists had themselves bombarded the
president with false accusations and portrayed him as the
accomplice of Colombian "narcoguerrillas".
Led by men of influence and top journalists, the media is
taking over from other players in the process of
destabilisation: Pedro Carmona's employers' association
(Fedecámaras), Carlos Ortega's Confederation of
Venezuelan Workers, dissident members of the military,
the technocrats of the national oil company (PDVSA) and a
few discreet US officials (6). United in the Venezuelan
Press Bloc (BPV), the media finally showed its hand when
it joined in the first general strike on 10 December
2001.
Scaremongers
"Free" opinions published in print -"Time for a change of
government" or "Time to overthrow this government" (7) -
were reinforced by dubious manipulation of the broadcast
media. On 5 April two TV presenters gave their own
commentary on a strike of petrol stations that was linked
to the PDVSA conflict: "Have you remembered to fill up?
Hurry, because tomorrow there won't be a drop left in the
country." By encouraging motorists to rush out to buy
petrol, they provoked unnecessary chaos, though the
strike was only partial and the stations were still
receiving supplies.
On 7 April Ortega and Carmona announced that there was to
be a general strike. The editor of El Nacional, Miguel
Enrique Otero, stood shoulder to shoulder with them and
spoke on behalf of the press: "We are all involved in
this struggle in defence of the right to information."
Two days later the BPV, which had just been visited by
the new US ambassador, Charles Shapiro, decided to back
the strike. From then on the television companies
broadcast live from the headquarters of the PDVSA-Chuao,
the designated assembly point for opposition
demonstrations.
"Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April
(in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not
one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on
Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans,
take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring
your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not
surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow
the head of state became so obvious that the government
applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More
than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it
requisitioned 15-20 minutes' air time to broadcast its
views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and
continued to urge rebellion.
On 11 April military and civilian press conferences
calling for the president's resignation marked the next
phase. On RCTV, Ortega called on the opposition to march
on Miraflores (the presidential palace). At about 4pm,
when the scale of the conspiracy was apparent, the
authorities gave the order to block the frequencies used
by the private channels. Globovisión, CMT and Televen
went off air for a few moments before resuming their
broadcasts using satellite or cable. All screens
broadcast an image that had been edited to show armed
counter-demonstrators firing on "the crowd of peaceful
demonstrators". As a result the Bolivarian Circles, the
social organisation of Chávez supporters, were blamed for
deaths and injuries (8).
The conspirators, including Carmona, met at the offices
of Venevisión. They stayed until 2am to prepare "the next
stage", along with Rafael Poleo (owner of El Nuevo Pais)
and Gustavo Cisneros, a key figure in the coup. Cisneros,
a multimillionaire of Cuban origin and the owner of
Venevisión, runs a media empire - Organización Diego
Cisneros. It has 70 outlets in 39 countries (9). Cisneros
is a friend of George Bush senior: they play golf
together and in 2001 the former US president holidayed in
Cisneros's Venezuelan property. Both are keen on the
privatisation of the PDVSA (10). Otto Reich, US assistant
secretary of state for Interamerican affairs, admits to
having spoken with Cisneros that night (11).
At 4am on 12 April, to avoid bloodshed, Chávez allowed
himself to be arrested and taken to the distant island of
Orchila. Without presenting any document signed by Chávez
to confirm the news, the media chorused his
"resignation". The boss of the bosses, Carmona,
proclaimed himself president and dissolved all of the
constituent, legitimate and democratic bodies. Venezolana
de Televisión, the only means of communication available
to the government, was the first broadcaster forced to
shut down when Carmona took power (12).
Ready for the coup
The press greeted the coup (though they censored any use
of that word) with undisguised enthusiasm. And for good
reason. Interviewing Admiral Carlos Molina Tamayo and
Victor Manuel García, director of statistical institute
Ceca, at 6.45am, presenter Napoleón Bravo boasted that he
had allowed his own house to be used to record a call to
rebellion by General González González. García described
his role at the dissident military centre of operations
at Fort Tiuna: "We were short of communications
facilities, and I have to thank the press for their
solidarity and cooperation in helping us to establish
communications with the outside world and pass on the
instructions that General González González gave me."
"One step forward" was the triumphant headline in El
Universal. Journalist Rafael Poleo, who had filed the
account of the first meeting of the rebel leaders, took
responsibility (with others) for the document setting up
the new government. During the afternoon "President"
Carmona offered Poleo's daughter, Patricia, the post of
head of the central information bureau. The decree
establishing a dictatorship was countersigned by the
employers, the church and the representatives of a pseudo
"civil society", and also by Miguel Angel Martínez, on
behalf of the media. Daniel Romero, private secretary of
the former social-democrat president Carlos Andrés Pérez,
and an employee of the Cisneros group, read it out.
The desire for revenge provoked repression. The interior
minister, Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, and a member of
parliament, Tarek William Saab, were arrested, and
heckled and manhandled by a crowd. RCTV triggered a
manhunt by publishing a list of the most wanted
individuals and broadcast violent searches live, aping
the hectic pace of US news broadcasts. The live broadcast
on all channels of attorney general Isias Rodríguez's
press conference was suddenly taken off air after only
five minutes when he talked about the excesses of the
"provisional government" and condemned the "coup".
On 13 April the Chávez supporters were unleashed, and
officers loyal to him retook control. But the only way
Venezuelans could get information was through CNN
broadcasts in Spanish - available only on cable, or on
the internet sites of the Madrid daily El País and the
BBC in London. Announcing the rebellion by the 42nd
parachute division in Maracay, CNN expressed amazement
that the press were saying nothing. The freedom of
information that had been clamoured for had been replaced
by silence. Screens were filled with action films,
cookery programmes, cartoons and baseball games from the
major US leagues, interspersed only with repeats of
General Lucas Rincón's announcement of the "resignation"
of Chávez.
Thousands logged on to the internet and got on their
mobile phones, but only the alternative press was able to
beat the blackout. Popular newspapers, television and
radio began life in the poor districts, and were an
important source of communication and information. Short
on experience, they were the first targets of the
"democratic transition". According to Thierry Deronne,
the presenter of Teletambores, Chávez had never asked
them to broadcast his speeches.
But the anti-Chávez powers did not hesitate long after
their coup before arresting editorial staff and seizing
equipment, ensuring that the only way the people could
find out what was really happening was via the opposition
press. In Caracas, Radio Perola, TV Caricuao, Radio Catia
Libre and Catia TV were searched and personnel subjected
to violence and detention.
In the late afternoon of 13 April, crowds gathered in
front of RCTV (then Venevisión, Globovisión, Televen and
CMT, as well as the offices of El Universal and El
Nacional), throwing stones and compelling journalists to
broadcast a message calling for "their" president to be
restored. It was an intolerable attack on the press;
terrified journalists broadcast an appeal for help on air
- conveniently forgetting that they were supposed to be
on the rebel side. "We too are part of the people; we too
are Venezuelans and we are doing our duty. It is not
possible that the supporters of Lieutenant Colonel Hugo
Chávez [no mention that he was head of state] should
consider us their enemies."
It was 20 hours before the state channel Venezolana de
Televisión came back on the air with the help of
militants from the community media and from soldiers from
the presidential guard. The silence was broken and
Venezuelans then found out that the situation was
changing. Except for Ultimas Noticias, no newspaper was
published next day to announce the president's return.
The private television channels broadcast no bulletins.
Globovisión alone rebroadcast the information that had
been transmitted by the international agencies (13).
Although the restoration of democratic normality did not
result in media repression, the media continues play
victim. It gives priority to the "coup heroes", speaks of
a "power vacuum" and calls for the resignation of Chávez
- described as a "murderer". Openly called the "hate
media", it claims to be the "coup media".
____________________________________________________
(1) Seze on www.analitica.com.
(2) Gúzman claimed to have done it to show just how
unreliable the Venezuelan press was.
(3) "Entrelíneas", El Nacional, 15 March 2002.
(4) Programa Venezolano de Educación-Acción en derechos
humanos.
(5) It was later discovered that this was the pseudonym
of an unsavoury character called Rafael Kries.
(6) See "Venezuela: a coup countered", Le Monde
diplomatique English edition, May 2002.
(7) "Overthrow the government", El Universal, 20 March
2002.
(8) See Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, May 2002,
and the photographs posted on our website.
(9) Including: Univisión (80% of broadcasts in Spanish in
the United States), Canal 13, Chilevisión, DirectTV Latin
America, Galavisión, Playboy TV Latin America, Playboy TV
International, Uniseries, Vale TV, Via Digital, AOL Latin
America.
(10) The former would like to see it in the hands of a US
company close to his interests, and the latter has his
eye on Citgo, the American subsidiary of PDVSA.
(11) Newsweek, Paris, 22 April 2002.
(12) The same applies to Radio Nacional de Venezuela and
the official news agency Venpres.
(13) Some journalists have resigned in disgust, like
André Izarra, of RCTV where the management has imposed a
ban on pro-Chávez reporting.
Translated by Julie Stoker
____________________________________________________
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED © 1997-2002 Le Monde diplomatique
<http://MondeDiplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela>
-------------------------------------------
Macdonald Stainsby
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
--
In the contradiction lies the hope.
--Bertholt Brecht
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
