[A-List] Venezuela: US/local reactionary alliance

["Keaney Michael" <Michael.Keaney@xxxxxx>]

Thanks to Lou Proyect for bringing this to my attention.


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

Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2002

"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