MEDIA MISREPRESENTS KEY FACTS IN THE RCTV CASE
mmven...@gmail.com
LETTERS NEEDED TODAY
Yesterday and today a slew of biased editorials, op-eds, and articles
appeared in the U.S. press about the Venezuelan government's decision
not to renew the broadcasting license of RCTV. Those most egregious
and devoid of any real factual content were the Los Angeles Times'
"Venezuelan TV Station Goes Dark" by Chris Kraul (May 28), an
editorial by the Financial Times (May 29) and "Chavez Changes
Channels", the Economist's Top Story today.
Almost all frame the RCTV issue as one of deteriorating press
freedoms, rather than a government's legitimate response to a station
that helped plot and carry out a coup. By stating that the Venezuelan
government has "alleged" and "accused" RCTV of involvement in the
coup, rather than presenting it as fact, accepted by many independent
observers, news sources mislead the reader.
YOUR BRIEF LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ARE NEEDED! Send a letter to one or
all! Some important facts are outlined below. Feel free to use them in
your letters and remember to include your name, address, phone, email
and title if applicable.
To submit a letter to the LA Times send it to: let...@latimes.com
To submit a letter to the Economist send it to: let...@economist.com
To submit a letter to the Financial Times send it to:
letters...@ft.com
KEY POINTS:
Neither the Economist, Financial Times, nor the LA Times brings a
logical view to the case. What media in the world would criticize the
U.S. government or any other democracy for not renewing a broadcasting
license for a station that had promoted a coup? This is clearly an
example of irresponsible broadcasting, as it violates legal norms.
The media does not mention the fact that, even after the non-renewal,
the vast majority of Venezuela's media remains in private hands. In
fact, the other major TV stations critical of Chavez, whose licenses
were up for renewal, did receive them.
What's worse, the public broadcasting station which has taken RCTV's
place- Venezuela's first ever- is condemned. The government gave an
initial $4 million to the station to begin but its autonomous board of
directors will try to diversify funding by looking for corporate
advertising in October. Why should the U.S. press decry the creation
of a Venezuelan PBS? A station that benefits the public good and
promotes educational, cultural, and national themes in a neutral
fashion is truly needed in Venezuela.
Finally, it is interesting that other nations who have recently
decided not to renew broadcasting licenses for stations that violated
radio and TV laws, such as Peru in April of this year, and Uruguay
last December, received little if any press coverage or condemnation.