Wednesday, May 28, 2003
(05-28) 22:45 PDT (AP) -- CHRISTOPHER TOOTHAKER <a href=www.sfgate.com>Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- No live coverage of political violence. Limited daytime newscasts about terror attacks. No radio stations devoted exclusively to rock or other "foreign" music.

Venezuela's news executives say all this could happen if President Hugo Chavez succeeds in enacting a law that imposes harsh restrictions on what and when Venezuelan television and radio stations can broadcast.

Ruling party lawmakers defend the proposed law, saying it will protect children from violence and end what they call "selective censorship" by the news media, which they accuse of supporting the opposition. The also contend it will make broadcasters accountable to citizens.

"This project is a weapon to defend us as a people and guarantee public freedoms," said Juan Barreto, a member of the committee which drafted the bill and a journalism professor at the Central University of Venezuela. It upholds "freedom of expression, which doesn't belong only to channels and journalists but also to the people," he said.

Many press rights advocates, however, disagree. They say the law, now before the Chavez-dominated Congress, will allow an increasingly authoritarian government to silence opposition ahead of a possible recall vote on Chavez's presidency.

Chavez designed the Law for Social Responsibility in Radio and Television to bring "the news media to its knees," said Victor Ferreres, president of Venevision television.

"We would have to broadcast a blank screen and ignore almost everything that is occurring in the news" to comply with the law, Ferreres claimed.

Chavez has long accused Venezuela's news media of conspiring to topple him. Most broadcasters slanted coverage of a brief 2002 coup against Chavez, and many supported an opposition general strike this year.

Among other provisions, the law would ban "rude" and "vulgar" language; prohibit images and sounds related to alcohol and drug consumption, gambling and sex; and ban "psychological" or physical violence, all between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Similar limits would apply to early morning and evening newscasts.

Sixty percent of all programming must be produced within Venezuela, and of that, more than half must be created by "independent producers" approved by Conatel, the state media watchdog.

Broadcasters say the law will allow censors hand-picked by Chavez to crack down on the mostly opposition news media. Violators can be punished with $37,000 fines or have their broadcast licenses revoked.

Advertisers, too, can be held liable -- a provision critics say is meant to starve stations of publicity at a time when Venezuela's news media are confronting an economic crisis.

Congress is expected to pass the bill by simple majority vote within weeks. Six of nine members of a committee to enforce the law would be appointed by Chavez.

"If there is a terrorist attack this morning, I'd have to tell listeners we have to wait to inform them during the news at 11 (p.m.) because it could be labeled 'violent content,"' said Leopoldo Castillo, a talk show host with Globovision television news channel.

Deputy Willian Lara, a Chavez confidante, said the law won't stop TV and radio from broadcasting news.

"The news can be reported like it is now, only the grotesque images are restricted," he said.

Critics are wary.

The legislation "is completely incompatible with international standards" of press freedoms, said Jose Vivanco, executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch. Definitions are so cloudy that some of Venezuela's prized daytime soap operas could be banned, he said.

Opposition groups pushing for a referendum on Chavez's presidency later this year are organizing marches against the law.

A leftist former army paratrooper, Chavez was elected in 1998 and re-elected to a six-year term in 2000.

By Rupert Goodwins <a href=msn.com.com>MSN.com-ZDNet (UK) May 20, 2003, 8:27 AM PT

COMMENTARY: London--Referendums are everywhere. We'll soon find out whether Tony Blair will be asking us to vote on the euro; meanwhile, it's a full-time job these days watching television and deciding which celebrity to eject, which poem is finest or whether surfing horses make a better advert than potato-eating Martians.

We can e-mail, text or phone our choices in from the sofa, while the government is dead keen on introducing similar electronic voting for less important decisions such as national and local elections. Truly, the voice of the people is loud across the land.

Yet we've never felt more detached from the mechanisms of state. Everyone knows that the euro vote will only happen when Tony's sure of the outcome, and the biggest demonstrations the country has ever seen made not a scrap of difference to the Iraq adventure. It's a commonplace that democracy doesn't work without an informed electorate, so perhaps some of this cynicism is reflected in the slow demise of the newspaper industry--felt most keenly by those parts of the press that take themselves most seriously as organs of truth. People don't trust journalists, and it's hard to escape the feeling that a lot of the media repays the compliment.

Our new technologies were supposed to remove these sorts of barriers, but attitudes harden instead: online media discussion groups turn into cliques, suspicious of outsiders and proud of their prejudices. In the US, the world's poster child for the glorious Internet revolution, it's even worse: patriotism and sectarianism are the order of the day, while the old leaders of the traditional high-tone press are in spasms of self-doubt. The New York Times' recent public self-flagellation over its rogue reporter has been met with raucous laughter, while huge stories go unreported. For anyone who believes in the necessity of a healthy, diverse and skeptical press as a guard against abuses of power, these are worrying times.

But where to look?

Try South Korea. A phenomenally successful experiment in new media--it actually makes money--called OhmyNews has been blossoming for four years. As an exclusively Korean-language publication, it's remained beneath the radar in the Western media (Thanks to Dan Gillmore of the Mercury News for pointing it out). But it's making the agenda in its home country, where it is widely held to have helped the election of a reformist presidential candidate.

Like all good news sources, it comes as both a weekly paper and constantly updated Web site, with the weekly publication using the best parts of the site. But unlike any other news source, it's largely written by its readers or 'citizen-reporters' as they're known. Anyone can submit contributions to the Web site; the articles the people write are scrutinized by the permanent staff and rated before publication. Of the 200 or so submitted daily, around 140 make it onto the site.

The more the editors like a story, the higher its position on the site, the better its chances of making the paper and the more money the contributor gets--although since the top payment is around £15, nobody's retiring early yet. That's good enough for the 15,000 people who've got their bylines into OhMyNews, a pool of contributors hundreds of times bigger than any paper you'll read.

And while the paper version is mostly written by the staff journalists, the leads they get from their contributors are invaluable. With hit rates as high as 20 million--in a country of 40 million--the readers who don't write seem just as keen as those who do.

Some of the credit for the publication's success goes to the South Korean policy of aggressively introducing broadband across the nation. It's also been helped by the lack of diversity in newspapers prior to its launch. But it's also earned its spurs by running with serious stories the other outlets didn't cover, as well as creating that bond with its readers that all newspapers need by the simple method of printing things that matter to them on a personal level.

OhMyNews doesn't abdicate the important editorial principle of filtering and ranking the news--somewhere that other online quasi-journalistic phenomena such as blogs fall down--rather, it underlines the unfashionable idea that the best quality news comes from the widest possible input. People trust it, and use that trust to take part in the national debate that has to be at the heart of democracy. Not bad for an organization with a staff of 50.

We desperately need to repeat the experiment, here and in the United States. Pure grass-roots activism is too easy to ignore, while the mainstream media still sees its readers as circulation fodder--demographics to be placated or inflamed. Whoever takes on the task can take pride in their role in reinvigorating democracy at an important time, in helping to recreate a vibrant national community and in demonstrating the strengths of new technology--and did I mention that it makes money? I'd vote for that.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic NewsPosted: Friday, May 23, 2003 By: Paul Volgyesi

Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 17:15:49 +0200 From: Paul Volgyesi sanbasan@interware.hu To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Open letter to Head of Reporters Without Borders

Dear Editor: Open letter to the Head of Reporters Without Borders

Dear Monsieur Menard,  Shame on you for the previous treatment you gave Nicolas Rivera. Shame on you for hiding your real mission, that is "freedom of the press" for Mainstream Media's obedient servants and screw alternative journalists.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>The only angle that I can agree with you is about the Venezuelan government being responsible for all the attacks on opposition journalists by Venezuelan pro-government citizens.

Said government must however immediately be absolved from responsibility, since if it had to face a Venezuelan opposition as opposed to the Global Corporate Mafia, otherwise it would have responsibly done what any other government would have done ... your own, Monsieur Menard, among the very first: throw the coupsters, their press boss friends and their journo-lackeys into the can where they belong and throw away the key.

This would have saved the citizenry from trying to take the law in their own hands, for lack of government action. And you know damn well, Monsieur Menard (if you don't, you should resign your job for incompetence), that had the Venezuelan government done what it was elected by its people to do, Mr. Shapiro would have called in the Marines within the hour.

Now, Monsieur Menard another border you and RWB also seem to be without is that of elementary decency in noticing the ridiculously low material and physical damage that occurred to the opposition media martyrs at the hand of the "Chavista Hordes" compared to what happened (or still happens) the other way around.

I just hope, Monsieur Menard, that RWB's budget can afford to have you shaved by a barber so you don't have to look at yourself in the mirror. Is the same good conscience that makes your site devoid of a contact e-mail address?

Not that you respond to incoming mail, at least not to mine!

Have a bad day, Monsieur Menard, you deserve it.

Paul Volgyesi sanbasan@interware.hu Budapest, Hungary

PS. I don't pick on you for being who you are ... that's you bad luck. What sucks is WHERE you are, which puts you on the same moral level as a pedophile educator.

<A href=www.rsf.org>Reportes without Borders, Venezuela 11 April 2003

Reporters Without Borders issues a report on press freedom on the first anniversary of an abortive coup

One year after the coup attempt of 11 April 2002, in which President Hugo Chávez was ousted for 48 hours, Reporters Without Borders is issuing a report on press freedom violations in Venezuela since Chávez took office in February 1999. The report is entitled "Caught between an authoritarian president and intolerant media".

Reporters Without Borders stresses in its conclusions that, "the chief responsibility for the decline in press freedom lies with President Chávez and his government" and it condemns the repeated physical attacks by the president's supporters against journalists with the privately-owned news media.

It also deplores a presidential offensive against the press since January that includes the possible closure of several privately-owned TV stations, the reintroduction of exchange controls that could deprive the print media of newsprint, the use of taxation to put pressure on the media and a proposed law limiting press freedom. The report makes recommendations to the authorities on each of these press freedom violations.

The report also analyses the serious breaches of profession ethics by the privately-owned media, which have for months been locked in a head-on battle with the president. It notes that, "while taking a stand as press freedom defenders as regards the president, the privately-owned media would paradoxically be happy to see the pro-Chávez community media shut down."

A key point made in the report is that, "The situation has become extremely sensitive for press freedom since the privately-owned media openly sided against the government. It was without question their right to do so, but the excesses they have committed in so doing have undermined press freedom."

Reporters Without Borders makes two recommendations to the privately-owned news media in the report : that they should show more respect for professional ethics and that they should unequivocally condemn all physical attacks against journalists " including, obviously, those against journalists who work for news media that support President Chávez."

The report is based on information gathered by Reporters Without Borders over the past four years and during a fact-finding visit to Venezuela from 11 to 18 February. In the course of this visit two of the organisation's representatives met with journalists, editors and lawyers of the privately-owned press, journalists with the state-owned media, journalists with community media, foreign correspondents, the head of CONATEL (the government agency that regulates broadcast licences) and opposition members. Reporters Without Borders regrets that neither President Chávez nor any member of his government responded to its requests for an interview.

Read/download the complete report (.pdf) :

Caught between an authoritarian president and intolerant media Reporters Without Borders Venezuela Report (application/pdf, 232 KB)

• April 2003

<a href=www.rsf.org>Reporteros sin Fronteras Un año después del intento de golpe de Estado del 11 de abril, Reporteros sin Fronteras publica un informe sobre el estado de la libertad de prensa en el país

Un año después del 11 de abril de 2002, y del intento de golpe de Estado, durante el cual el presidente Hugo Chávez fue desposeído del poder durante cuarenta y ocho horas, Reporteros sin Fronteras vuelve a hablar de los atentados a la libertad de prensa, perpetrados en el país desde el comienzo del mandato del presidente Chávez, en febrero de 1999.

Al final de su informe, titulado "Entre el autoritarismo del Presidente y la intolerancia de los medios de comunicación" (disponible en www.rsf.org), la organización subraya que "la principal responsabilidad en la degradación de la situación de la libertad de prensa, corresponde al presidente Chávez, y a su gobierno". Denuncia las repetidas agresiones a periodistas de la prensa privada, por parte de algunos partidarios del Presidente. Denuncia igualmente la "ofensiva" que éste ha encabezado contra la prensa, desde enero de 2003 : peligro de cierre de varios canales privados, restablecimiento del control de cambios que amenaza el aprovisionamiento de papel para la prensa escrita, presiones fiscales ejercidas sobre los medios de comunicación, adopción de una ley liberticida para la prensa...Reporteros sin Fronteras formula algunas recomendaciones a las autoridades, sobre cada uno de estos atentados a la libertad de prensa.

La organización analiza también las graves faltas a la deontología, cometidas por la prensa privada que, desde hace varios meses, está comprometida en una oposición frontal contra el Presidente. "Lo paradójico es que la prensa privada, que al mismo tiempo se erige en defensora de la libertad de prensa frente al Presidente, no vería con malos ojos el cierre (de los medios de comunicación considerados cercanos a él)".

Reporteros sin Fronteras precisa que "la situación de la libertad de prensa se ha vuelto de lo más delicada, desde que la prensa privada tomó abiertamente partido contra el gobierno. Aunque se trata de un derecho indiscutible, los excesos a que se ha librado debilitan la libertad de prensa".

Reporteros sin Fronteras formula, por tanto, dos recomendaciones dirigidas a los responsables de los medios de comunicación, reclamando mayor respeto a la deontología profesional y una condena sin equívocos de cualquier agresión a periodistas "incluso, está claro, cuando las víctimas trabajan para medios favorables al presidente Chávez".

El informe de Reporteros sin Fronteras se ha realizado sobre la base de informaciones recogidas por la organización desde hace cuatro años, y en el transcurso de una misión, llevada a cabo en el país entre el 11 y el 18 de febrero de 2003. En esa ocasión, dos representantes de Reporteros sin Fronteras pudieron entrevistarse con periodistas, direcciones y servicios jurídicos de los medios de comunicación privados, periodistas de la prensa pública, periodistas de medios comunitarios, corresponsales de la prensa extranjera, el director de Conatel (entidad pública encargada de regular las licencias concedidas por el Estado), y miembros de la oposición. Reporteros sin Fronteras lamenta que ni el Presidente, ni ningún miembro del gobierno, hayan respondido a sus peticiones de entrevistas.

Leer/Descargar el informe completo en .pdf :

Informe Venezuela Entre el autoritarismo del Presidente y la intolerancia de los medios de comunicación - Abril de 2003 Informe RSF Venezuela Abril 03 (application/pdf, 146 KB)

(PDF, 146.2 ko)

Reporteros sin Fronteras (RSF) defiende a los periodistas encarcelados y la libertad de prensa en el mundo, o sea el derecho de informar y estar informado, en conformidad con el artículo 19 de la Déclaración Universal de Derechos Humanos. RSF cuenta con nueve secciones nacionales (Alemania, Austria, Bélgica, España, Francia, Reino Unido, Italia, Suecia y Suiza), con representaciones en Abidyán, Bangkok, Buenos Aires, Estambul, Montreal, Moscú, Nueva York, Tokio, y Washington, y con un centenar de corresponsales en el mundo.