Danger for freedom of expression

The omnipotence of private media has peaked the free press in Latin America. Venezuela seeks way out – and harvested for criticism

The shot at the media policy Venezuelas does not rub off. After the private television station "Radio Caracas Television" (RCTV) has lost the rights of use for the second state channel last weekend, it hails to blame Europe and the USA. The freedom of the press is in danger, alleged the EU prasid. The FDP sees a "worrying course" and the organization reporters without limits even a "huge misstep" by Prasident Hugo Chavez. Whose government insists unauthorized on their position. The decision to allocate the second state channel after 53 years of a new public broadcaster for the democratization of the media, is called in Caracas.

Who has right in the conflict between government and private press, is difficult to see at first glance. It helps a look into the media history – not just in the Venezuelas.

Danger for freedom of expression

Putschprasident Pedro Carmona with junta – in the private TV channels only he was to see

Caracas at the beginning of the eighties. The Christian Democratic Prasident Luis Herrera Campin has that the TV channels of the Sud American country no longer broadcast advertising for alcohol and cigarettes. He argues with the youth protection and the negative consequences of the application of addictives for the health of the population. The TV channel start a campaign against the decree that is caught by the sender RCTV. When Herrera remains hard, Radio Caracas decides to boycott. The Prasident disappears out of the headlines and will not be mentioned after his descent in 1984. The for the media companies earnings for addictive funding will be admitted again after his term of office.

Bolivia, in April 2002. Maria Teresa Guzman de Carrazco, the wife of the publisher of the daily newspaper "El Diario" rises in her car. A few minutes later explodes the vehicle that dies journalist. The following day calls on the Inter-American Press Association based in Miami Bolivia’s state authorization to "prevent violence against press and freedom of information". When the prosecutor’s office also receives against him, the Witwer Jorge Carrasco uses his leaf to accompany the judiciary of the improvement and vacuum of free press. A few months later is clear: The publisher itself has commissioned the murder. His wife had a ratio with a former bodywork. The prosecutor had bent the prere from the inside and abroad – the crime would never have been clarified.

Ecuador, early this year. Prasident Rafael Correa Stayed to ban the scanning of Coca shrubs with herbicid glyphosate in the border area with Colombia. While the use of the poison is defended by governments in Bogota and Washington, basic organizations protest for years against the aggressive method because they flavored for the health of the residents. Although the toxic effect of glyphosate itself is recognized by the World Health Organization, Correa has not only resist the state authorities in Colombia and the USA. The media companies of their own country also make mood against him. While the prassident is hardly a word, the former ambassador in the US, Edgar Teran, a broad forum is snapped. Teran claims: Glyphosat is a safe. This statement remains.

Media- against state power

Three examples from different states and governments. Three examples that prove that private media companies in Latin America – independently of the ruling regimes – always persecuted their private, economic or political interests.

Danger for freedom of expression

Presentation of a demonstration of appendages of the Government of Chavez on the state channel VTV ..

Unlike Europe, in the American continent, a media education has never been formed, which has developed in a debate with the respectively recognized ethical guidelines for the work of the journalists. If a representative cross-section of the Venezuelan daily press were submitted to the German Press Council – one had to deliver a family pack of baldringe beds. Advertising members are presented in cartoons as monkeys, racist insults of the prasident and his trail are almost on the agenda. And in the prelude to the coup attempt in April 2002, the coarse private TV stations Nonstop called for participation in anti-government protests. Similar examples can be bought from other states of the region in which the government acts against the interests of the media companies. Private media are often not the fourth power of the rule of law in Latin America, but the fun column of antisocial particile interest.

Danger for freedom of expression

… and at the same time on the private channel Globovision

This development was stompared by the neoliberal policy of the past two decades. Especially in Venezuela, the media companies are now economic coarse actors. The "Organizacion Diego Cisneros" (ODC) for example was founded in Venezuela 1929 as a transport company. With the acquisition of the transmitter Televisa – today Venevision – the group became a medial global player in 1961. In recent years, the ODC has entered the financial corporation. Due to speculation, the Group generates in an intersection of five billions of US dollars. It is also involved in Chillevision (Chile), Caracol (Colombia) and the "Caribean Communication Network". In the USA, ODC is represented by the Spanish-speaking channels UNIVISION and GALAVISION.

A similar picture results in other press companies of the Sud American country. Three coarse entrepreneurs – Luis Tofilo Nunez Arismendi, Guillermoculoaga, Nelson Mezerhane and Alberto Federico Ravell – have 89.9 percent of the Globovision station. The channel started at the end of 1994 is also active in banking bridge and in the tourism sector. And finally rctv. The transmitter is part of the media empire "1 broadcasting caracas" (1BC). A total of FUNF coarse companies in 1BC, including a flight line.

Venezuela: requirement of small editors

The economic power of some less companies did not have a positive effect on the media variety in Venezuela. Of 99 television stations that send to FM and UHF frequencies, according to the Telecommunication Ministry, last two – Veneavision and RCTV – three quarters of the revenue of the industry contributed. The remaining 97 channels accounted for 25 percent.

Venezuela’s government has tried in recent years to counteract this trend. According to the ministries for telecommunications as well as for information in the past four years 195 media have been founded, 167 radios and 28 television stations. A declared goal of the new public television TV is therefore to demand small and independent production companies.

In the industry, this meets positive reactions. "There are now about 500 independent production companies created, producing news broadcasts, short-term contributions or films," says Julio Rivero, producer of the small company Panafilms based in Caracas, opposite Telepolis. This does not only contribute to the variety of opinions, "it also creates workplaces because each company has to engage technical staff". In the new channels TVes, Rivero lays rough hope. With him, for the first time, there is a public channel, which is 24 hours a day and 365 days. "This will hopefully fill a place with the new municipal media, which was not occupied by the commercial providers – politically and content," says the filmmaker.

Chavez ‘departure from the neoliberal policy of the free market has long provoked the critique of private media. The regulatory intervention of the state into the media industry now attack as a restriction of the press freedom. According to the adoption of a new media law 2005, this reaction was also to be observed as well as the current decision, RCTV not to demand the license for the second state channel. There is nothing against a debate about the new policy. The situation is problematic, however, because alone the coarse private broadcasters – at the same time the minority in the national media landscape – via channels to launch their views abroad. The local television stations and municipal media do not have such connections. The only serious competition, the state channel and the state-supported international channel telesur, is defamed by Globovision as a "propagandamedium" (information instead of freedom).

The conscious and open-minded reversal of neoliberal policy in Caracas is torpedoed by the media companies but not only propagandist. Since the established parties have lost influence with the social crisis since the beginning of the nineties, the corporations complain of this room. The media giants have since not only an economic power, but at the same time opinion makers and political actor. At the latest since the interaction between the civil militarish junta and the press companies in the attempted coup d’April 2002, the resulting danger has become apparent. The government does not penalize the press. It responds to an existing danger for democracy.

Wrong look at Venezuela

There is still little reason for abroad. Notwithstanding the open political role of private TV channels, the Latin America Commissioner of the FDP Bundestag Faction, Marina Schuster, Unlegst explained:

Since the election of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela heads a worrying course, which is first aimed at the nationalization of companies and now also on the restriction of freedom of expression and democracy. This may not remain without reaction by EU, and also on the part of the German Federal Government, which speaks in its guidelines for the politics of the states of Latin America by a ‘strategic partnership’.

Marina Schuster, FDP

One of the main arguments of Venezuelan state authorization – the transmitter actively participated in stancing the democratically chosen government – is wiped aside aside. Despite this prehistory, "this act of censorship is another building block of the increasingly autoritarian domestic policy of the prasident," says Schuster.

Danger for freedom of expression

Example of manipulation: Pendant of the government push in front of the coup of the Llaguno-Brucke in the center of Caracas. The private television channels present the pictures as evidence of surpasses on the peaceful opposition and thus provide the occasion to coup dout. Only later comes out: The Chavistas have set against unknown sharpening. Goods of the coup have been successful, the truth is not known until today.

It is considerable that obviously political criteria is also used by a stand-up organization. A representative of the Spanish section of the "reporters without limits" plays the offenses of the channel in the interview with the German wave:

RCTV, like other media also, advocates the coup in 2002. But he failed yes, in the end, Chavez remained in office and also by the last elections in office. Therefore Chavez has nothing to fear of the opposition. But there should still be the right to criticism and that does not justify that five years later the retention of a television station.

Mercedes Arancibia, reporter without limits

What raises several questions: is the participation in a coup covered by the "right to criticism"? And: goods have been better to shut the sender immediately in April 2002 instead of waiting for the end of the contractual usage period? Such irrational comments bounded that the criticism of Venezuela’s media policy in European and American abroad follows primarily political interests. The offense of the government is not dealing with a private broadcaster, which successes that sudden from soap potters and plagued US game shows. The offense is broken radically with the economic and socio-political requirements from the industrialized countries. The differently is the biggest part of the facts free Beckmessierei at the politics in Caracas is hardly to explain.

At the same time, the criticism clearly, how strong the scope for governments in dealing with private economic power is shrunk after decades of neoliberal indoctrination. After all – and that should really think – Venezuela defenders convert the supposed human rightlist to a quote of the former Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The CDU politician had explained in 1985 with the opening of the international radio exhibition, which Venezuela’s neosocistural state of state Chavez had improved several times several times in recent days:

Media must pursue the purposes, which lie outside your own. You can not make yourself for a purpose. They are not there to rule, but they serve man.

Helmut Kohl

This over the political camps probably undistaked dogma does not win in Latin America without reason. As in hardly any other continent, people have been affected by neoliberal politics here. In the context of the social strugs and low-threshold resistance against the antisocial state policy, own information networks have been formed here at least since the eighties. Due to the new egary media policy Venezuelas manifests this democratic potential in a true explosion of the municipal press.

In the industrialized north, this remains largely unnoticed. Here, almost only the transnational media companies with their view are perceived, international media look at Venezuela through the opposition glasses. To what extent this is the image of Venezuela (and other states of the Suden) and violates the freedom of information of the media consumers is a debate that was worthwhile goods worthwhile. If media find yourself.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: