"When Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy interviewed representatives of Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists—all groups that have condemned Venezuela's action in denying RCTV's license renewal—he found that none of the spokespersons thought broadcasters were automatically entitled to license renewals, though none of them thought RCTV's actions in support of the coup should have resulted in the station having its license renewal denied. This led McElwee to wonder, based on the rights groups' arguments, "Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right to not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it?"
McElwee acknowledged the critics' point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez's presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: "Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made."
Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:
"The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107
From the link I provided (which I am sure no one read, based on the arguments)
Hugo Chavez used legal powers in use before he was elected to shut down the station. It is being reported (wrongly) that he simply went in and took over the station. As I said before, this (the license renewal) has been playing out in the Venezuelan Judicial System for months. I have been following this for some time now. If people have a problem with the way their government is run, use the voting process to change it.
Hugo Chavez isn't an angel by any means, and a lot of the actions he takes are probably detrimental to Venezuelan society. However, as is noted in the article, in how many democracies would this actually fly in? It's easy to critique it in another country (constantly vilified in American media), but I would expect nothing less in the USA.
The fact that the station allowed coup leaders the platform to rally people, businesses, and the international community would not go unpunished in any society, ours included.
Also:
"The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet."
McElwee acknowledged the critics' point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez's presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: "Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made."
Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:
"The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves."
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3107
From the link I provided (which I am sure no one read, based on the arguments)
Hugo Chavez used legal powers in use before he was elected to shut down the station. It is being reported (wrongly) that he simply went in and took over the station. As I said before, this (the license renewal) has been playing out in the Venezuelan Judicial System for months. I have been following this for some time now. If people have a problem with the way their government is run, use the voting process to change it.
Hugo Chavez isn't an angel by any means, and a lot of the actions he takes are probably detrimental to Venezuelan society. However, as is noted in the article, in how many democracies would this actually fly in? It's easy to critique it in another country (constantly vilified in American media), but I would expect nothing less in the USA.
The fact that the station allowed coup leaders the platform to rally people, businesses, and the international community would not go unpunished in any society, ours included.
Also:
"The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet."
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-05-29 10:10:37)
