Very simple. Who was the station calling out on to the streets in support of the coup? That is where your answer lies. If it was genuinely a cross section of Venezuelan society then I bow to your judgement.

I didn’t bring class and race into it to justify their failure to have their broadcast license renewed – I mentioned it because what you see going on in Latin America is a democratic assertion of rights by the people of indigenous extraction.

What would be acceptable as concrete proof – what is concrete proof when divisions are institutionalised?

Are you kidding me? You said this: The station is a repulsive institution representing their class and only their class based on racial superiority. You either back it up, or you are slandering. How do you back it up? The burden of proof is on your side.

In fact, can you tell me why did you bring the racist card to this conversation? Is it to give more credence to the closing of the station? But aren’t you now saying that all TV and media stations are repulsive and representing their class based on racial superiority?

What would be acceptable as concrete proof – what is concrete proof when divisions are institutionalised?

I would look closely at the living conditions of various ethnic groups, their employment and educational prospects, income, infant mortality rates and access to medical services. And of course access to the levers of power – which you could argue, in a democratic system, would include journalism.

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl’s colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), “RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests,” resulting in the coup, “and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal.” The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), “[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez.”

As FAIR’s magazine Extra! argued last November, “Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela.”

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/7739

What would have been your preference? No action at all?

An investigation to start with, and then a trial if evidence is found that the top management was active in planning subverting democracy – the same kind of trial that Chavez got in 1992 when he tried to subvert a democratically elected government through a military coup, and tried to reinstate a military authoritarian regime. As such, there is no evidence of such involvement – you can accuse the TV station of being biased against Chavez, but that’s hardly a reason to revoke its license. Furthermore, other TV stations were also pro-coup, but they didn’t get their licenses revoked – Chavez didn’t have to… he just needed one TV station to set the example.

Yes I do think racism runs deep.

Unless you have concrete proof, you are just slandering. I also think you have no idea what you are talking about – in fact when 83% of the Venezuelan population disagrees with you, when you have students protesting against Chavez and for freedom of speech, when they say they are worried about what is happening in their country, then you probably should ponder, and revise what you are defending.

You know that is not the case. A trial for the coup plotters and administrative action against the TV company would seem reasonable.

What would have been your preference? No action at all?

‘defending a racist institution’

Yes I do think racism runs deep. Be glad to hear otherwise. It would be fascinating to see how media ownership contributes to the overall democratic well-being of the region.

Can’t seem to get to the NY article, requires registration. If you can provide it I’d like to have a read.

Action was necessary and revoking their license was appropriate.

In #32, you said that a trial would be the appropriate measure. It seems like you are now debating yourself, and I guess you do not need me, then.

I do think there are a large number of institutions in Latin America which are racially biassed. Why else are we seeing the changes in the region, specifically when it comes to redistribution?

That is a silly and a very weak justification for accusing a TV station of being racist. I have never read anything of the sort – I guess accusing everything we don’t like as racist is pretty easy, uh?

Action was necessary and revoking their license was appropriate. Regardless of whoever opposed the action, do you want to elaborate what action you would have taken? And having many individuals and NGOs from around the world criticising the decision does not transform the institution.

I do think there are a large number of institutions in Latin America which are racially biassed. Why else are we seeing the changes in the region, specifically when it comes to redistribution?

Ravi, stop splitting hairs. The station is a repulsive institution representing their class and only their class based on racial superiority.

I guess that the many individuals, international organizations and NGOs from around world who criticised such decision must be red-faced for defending a racist institution. And so should the 83% of the people from Venezuela who also didn’t approve such decision. But what do these people know, eh, Refresh? You are the man.

I would be interested to know more about your childhood in Venezuela and whether people defined themselves by the TV station they support.

In a nutshell, all those aforementioned were being interviewed by the TV anchor when he asks (I paraphrase)

You see, there is a difference between a TV anchor supporting the coup, and the whole TV station who has been serving the country for half-a-century. And isn’t it hypocritical for Chavez (and his supporters) to accuse anyone of high-treason, when he himself tried a coup in 1992, and tried to subvert a democratically elected government?

Now doesn’t that go well beyond a Big Brother Shilpa Shetty spat?

I am sure that revoking C4 license for blatant display of racism crossed your mind for everything poor Shilpa (and Kismet Hardy) had to go through.

And who is to say that there wasn’t a review of the actions of the TV station prior to the station having its license revoked?

There was no trial – and there was vast condemnation everywhere including in Latin American countries. Not sure why you think that supporting censorship is on the best interest of the Venezuelan people. The fact is, Chavez doesn’t care about Democratic institutions as one can see from his actions in 1992, and his actions of curbing democratic institutions while President.

To be fair, I have seen only one Evo Morales interview, and I liked him. But I want to wait and see whether the changes Bolivia needs are not dealt with extremist measures, which is often the case.

In a nutshell, all those aforementioned were being interviewed by the TV anchor when he asks (I paraphrase), “when did you all agree and conclude that you should go ahead with the coup”.

One of the military head, bursts out laughing and says (paraphrasing) ” what do you mean? You were there, we decided at your house!”. And they all laughed uproariously.

Now doesn’t that go well beyond a Big Brother Shilpa Shetty spat? Or even the multi-million rip-off that was interactive TV?

And who is to say that there wasn’t a review of the actions of the TV station prior to the station having its license revoked?

Perhaps with hindsight, the owners should have been put on trial, forced to divest and denied any rights to own any media outlets. And broadcasting license for the station retracted.

Wait, wait… the whole point of a trial is to assert guilt – how come you are already declaring a verdict and punishment? You really have an authoritarian streak, don’t you? You can’t support trial and then state the outcome.

No there was a lot more to it. As I said you should re-visit it.

‘At least, he got a trial and your support.’

Perhaps with hindsight, the owners should have been put on trial, forced to divest and denied any rights to own any media outlets. And broadcasting license for the station retracted.

Wouldn’t that have been the line of action if it had happened here?

I may be wrong, but I thought the station exists still, but has had to move to cable?

How directly do you need it to be when LIVE on air, in their excitement the anchorman, heads of the armed forces and various assortment of thugs revelled when they thought they’d pulled it off?

Sorry, is that the best you can do to justify the annulment of a 53-year old TV station? Are you kidding me? There was no trial or evidence that they were actively trying to subvert Chavez. Funny enough, did you know about the coup in 1992? Guess who headed that one. Is that high-treason? At least, he got a trial and your support.

Its definitely one of your weakest assertions.

I can assure you there is a lot more where that came from.

How directly do you need it to be when LIVE on air, in their excitement the anchorman, heads of the armed forces and various assortment of thugs revelled when they thought they’d pulled it off?

I think you should re-visit that episode. Its definitely one of your weakest assertions.

And has the water supply in Cochabamba ( or La Paz) got any better after the de-privatization ?

I find it hard to believe you measure Chavez’ faults by the closure of THAT TV station.

Check the link in #22 for a complete list of grievances.

If he had gone on to close down all the rest then perhaps you might have a point.

Perhaps? By closing down a TV station for daring to criticise him, isn’t he giving a signal to other media that – you know – it could happen to them as well? So stay in line?

It may be worth remembering that THAT TV station and its rich owners were central to the coup against a directly elected president. I would have thought charge of High Treason would have been more appropriate.

Of course you would, Refresh. Would you say that anyone who tried a coup against a democratically elected government guilty of high treason? Would you politically support anyone who tried that?

I know that that TV station supported the coup, but not sure they were directly involved in it.

Compare and contrast that to the emasculation of the BBC by the mother of all democracies after they exposed the ’sexing up’ the case for invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Yep, we know all about it because our media is free enough to discuss about our government’s mishaps. Still care to compare with Venezuela?