Can Chavez get any more mental?

[sandinista]

What the US really really really don't like about Chavez is that he's not for sale.
They really can't get their heads around that concept.
.

LOL - lot's of would-be dictators aren't "for sale."

It seems you can't make your mind up. Is he a dictator, or a would-be dictator?
The latter is presumably down to your mind-reading ability.

As far as the media goes, I don't blame him one bit. The right wing in Venezuela own the media, and blatantly use it to try to engineer a change of government, either by a coup, or one-sided reporting.
I think every country should have a system of media scrutiny, and ownership bias should be massively fined.
Chavez has wisely adressed this problem. No wonder the loony american right hate him. He's seen what they're up to, and trumped it.
.

[sandinista]

Chavez to seize Venezuela's golf courses and "put them to other uses." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-3 ... -uses.html

Thats a great idea! Since when did you start posting positive Chavez stories?

[Warren Dew]

I think every country should have a system of media scrutiny, and ownership bias should be massively fined.
Chavez has wisely adressed this problem.

Because government controlled media is never biased. Pravda never printed anything but the truth. And the Iraqi News was correct when they said Americans were not in Baghdad - I'm sure that even now, the idea that American troops are in Iraq is a figment of U.S. media controlled by the right wing.

[mistermack]

I've not called him a dictator, yet.

Big liar. Or forgetful mebbe.

The rabid right has control of the media in most of the 'free' world. That's an unfortunate fact. Most countries just put up with it, and rely on the ability of the populace to see through the bias.
Chavez decided to do something about it. Fair play to him.
Journalism should be about reporting politics, not directing it, or influenceing it. He's simply fighting fire with fire.

[Coito ergo sum]

I've not called him a dictator, yet.

Big liar. Or forgetful mebbe.

Link, please - or quote? I reviewed this whole thread to make sure.

The rabid right has control of the media in most of the 'free' world. That's an unfortunate fact. Most countries just put up with it, and rely on the ability of the populace to see through the bias.

And, who has control of the media in the "unfree" world?

The rabid right surely doesn't have control of the media in the US. The media in the US laughs at the rabid right, and even the not-so-rabid right, here, and the mainstream media was four-square behind Obama for President.

Chavez decided to do something about it. Fair play to him.

A President seizing and shutting down the media is not "fair play." You obviously don't care about a free press. You care about a leftist press.

Journalism should be about reporting politics, not directing it, or influenceing it. He's simply fighting fire with fire.

He is shutting down the reporting he doesn't like, or reporting that shows him in a negative light. He's a government censor. He's, essentially, a book burner, only with newspapers and radio stations.

[mistermack]

I'll not call Obama a communist, but Chavez is a dictator.

Short memory, crap review.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'll not call Obama a communist, but Chavez is a dictator.

Short memory, crap review.

Yep. It's a fair cop.

I overstated.

He is well on his way, though. Presidents that seize media outlets and shut them down because they don't say what he wants them to say, for example, are acting dictatorial.

[mistermack]

If Chavez was having a go at a free press, I would object. But he's not.
And to call the press "free" in the US is a joke. Do you even know what free means?
The press is free to do what it's owner wants. There is no practical difference between the right wing press of USA, or the left wing of the old soviet bloc.
If you're not saying what the owners want, you won't get the job in the first place, and will soon be out, if you start doing your own thing.

What's my solution? Have a comission for unbiased reporting, like a court system.
With big fines for bending the truth. Money is the only thing that talks.

Without going and checking, I believe I read that the main one that Chavez shut down took an active part in the coup attempt. That would have incurred severe penalties in the United States as well.
.

[sandinista]

I'll not call Obama a communist, but Chavez is a dictator.

Short memory, crap review.

If Chavez was having a go at a free press, I would object. But he's not.
And to call the press "free" in the US is a joke. Do you even know what free means?
The press is free to do what it's owner wants. There is no practical difference between the right wing press of USA, or the left wing of the old soviet bloc.
If you're not saying what the owners want, you won't get the job in the first place, and will soon be out, if you start doing your own thing.

What's my solution? Have a comission for unbiased reporting, like a court system.
With big fines for bending the truth. Money is the only thing that talks.

Without going and checking, I believe I read that the main one that Chavez shut down took an active part in the coup attempt. That would have incurred severe penalties in the United States as well.
.

It's a compliment to the US propaganda system that people actually "believe" they have a "free" press. Some people even call the US press "left wing", or "the left wing media". It's truly amazing. Sure the US media criticizes the "right", but never the "system". The media is lock step in line with neo-liberal capitalist ideology. Besides that, when it comes to an issue like, say, the invasion of Iraq, none of the US media even questioned it. It was the party line through and through.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a compliment to the US propaganda system that people actually "believe" they have a "free" press.

It's at least as free as any other place on the planet.

Anybody can start a newspaper, website or blog. We still have dozens of newspapers, hundreds of radio stations, hundreds of television stations, and hundreds of web-based sources to choose from.

Please - what's not free about it?

Some people even call the US press "left wing", or "the left wing media". It's truly amazing. Sure the US media criticizes the "right",

Yes - all the time. The media is in bed with the liberal factions of US politics. That generally is not as far left as "The Left," if by that you mean Trotskyite communists and other far left radicals.

but never the "system". The media is lock step in line with neo-liberal capitalist ideology.

The government doesn't control what they say.

Just look at how Olberman skewered Bush with impunity when Bush was president. Every day almost, a Bush Administration official was labeled "the worst person in the world!" and Olberman and others routinely accused the President of war crimes, etc. We have folks who openly published in the media about the former President having been behind 9/11 and been the murderer of thousands of Americans in a purposeful plan to murder hundreds of thousands of foreigners and steal oil resources from other countries.

Likewise, we have media outlets now who rail against Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. with wild abandon, and once again - as under Bush - it scarcely matters if there is a grain of truth.

You may not like what they publish - but, they certainly don't seem to be controlled by the Chief Executive.

Besides that, when it comes to an issue like, say, the invasion of Iraq, none of the US media even questioned it. It was the party line through and through.

Bull. The War was railed against by many, and there has never been a shortage of criticism. When "WMD" were not found, you had the media turn against the war like it was nothing - nobody feared for any repercussions -nobody was told not criticize the war. The media refused any government requests to tone down their coverage too - remember the whole controversy about media outlets displaying flag draped coffins and recounting the number of dead back in 2003 and 2004? The government said that such coverage harmed the war effort, and the media said "fuck you."

But, in any case, I love it how you folks seem to think that the American press, which is not controlled by the government, and very often represents a hindrance to the wishes of whoever is in power, is not free - but, in Venezuela, where the PResident just grabs media outlets and shuts them down....that's a "free" press...

[mistermack]

It's a compliment to the US propaganda system that people actually "believe" they have a "free" press.

It's at least as free as any other place on the planet.

Anybody can start a newspaper, website or blog. We still have dozens of newspapers, hundreds of radio stations, hundreds of television stations, and hundreds of web-based sources to choose from.

Please - what's not free about it?

Bloody hell Coito, I don't expect you to agree, but I did think you'd UNDERSTAND by now.
Anybody WHO HAS LOTS OF MONEY can start a newspaper or TV channel. Websites and Blogs are not in the same league.
This is the problem, the media is naturally in the hands of those with LOTS OF MONEY, and they use that money to mould the impressionable public.
If you think it doesn't have any effect, talk to Unilever or Kraft.
Put it on TV, people soak it up.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a compliment to the US propaganda system that people actually "believe" they have a "free" press.

It's at least as free as any other place on the planet.

Anybody can start a newspaper, website or blog. We still have dozens of newspapers, hundreds of radio stations, hundreds of television stations, and hundreds of web-based sources to choose from.

Please - what's not free about it?

Bloody hell Coito, I don't expect you to agree, but I did think you'd UNDERSTAND by now.

I understand perfectly.

Anybody WHO HAS LOTS OF MONEY can start a newspaper or TV channel. Websites and Blogs are not in the same league.

Sure. Or, you can start a small outlet first, and work your way up.

But, how the fuck is it FREER in a place where the government shuts news outlets down for not saying the right thing?

This is the problem, the media is naturally in the hands of those with LOTS OF MONEY,

It's either that, or President Bush and speaker Trent Lott (when Bush was President), right? Take your pick.

and they use that money to mould the impressionable public.

But, the government wouldn't?

Look - when you have a wide variety of sources, big and small, you get competition. And, when you get competition, even in the marketplace of ideas, the best ideas tend to float to the top. Of course it isn't perfect, but it's a whole FUCKLOAD better than having Hugo Chavez, or George Bush, or Barack Obama deciding what is good, true and fair!

If you think it doesn't have any effect, talk to Unilever or Kraft.
Put it on TV, people soak it up.

That's not the point. The point is that many different media outlets have many different agendas, including many that have the agenda of reporting the news at least in some conformity with rules of journalistic ethics.

How the heck is it better to have them all locked up by the President?

[mistermack]

Chavez was faced with a media that was all one way. He wasn't acting against a free press. I don't blame him one bit for trying to redress the balance.

As far as the rest of the world goes, I stick to my original suggestion.
Most countries have independent legal systems. I would extend that, and have an independent tribunal that could hand out very stiff penalties for media bias, with specially high penalties for blatant bending of the truth.

Not a perfect solution, nothing ever is, but better than what's there now.
It might make proprietors concentrate on making money, instead of trying to influence the next election.
It would make TV companies and Newspapers less attractive to buy for politically motivated billionaires..
.

[sandinista]

It's a compliment to the US propaganda system that people actually "believe" they have a "free" press.

It's at least as free as any other place on the planet.

Anybody can start a newspaper, website or blog. We still have dozens of newspapers, hundreds of radio stations, hundreds of television stations, and hundreds of web-based sources to choose from.

Please - what's not free about it?

Bloody hell Coito, I don't expect you to agree, but I did think you'd UNDERSTAND by now.

You're expecting too much mistermack. Even reading the post above by coito shows he doesn't understand. Quotes like this "Sure. Or, you can start a small outlet first, and work your way up." American pipe dreaming at it's best...or worst. Then to follow it up with "It's either that, or President Bush and speaker Trent Lott (when Bush was President), right? Take your pick." I mean, really, WTF? There is no separation between the government and the corporate media, corporations=government=media, its all the same people, same ideals. "even in the marketplace of ideas, the best ideas tend to float to the top. Of course it isn't perfect, but it's a whole FUCKLOAD better than having Hugo Chavez, or George Bush, or Barack Obama deciding what is good, true and fair!"...the best ideas float to the top??? Not even close to true. Thats like saying the "best" music is what is popular or on the radio. Nothing to do with "best" Only with what makes money. The two are quite different. Corporate media is NOT A FUCKLOAD better than government media. Not even close. In essence government media SHOULD be the peoples media, of course in the west where corporations and governments are on in the same that does not apply.

[mistermack]

You're expecting too much mistermack. Even reading the post above by coito shows he doesn't understand. Quotes like this "Sure. Or, you can start a small outlet first, and work your way up." American pipe dreaming at it's best...or worst.

Yeh, it's not saying "we have a free press", it's saying "it's theoretically possible for a free press to happen".
In reality a dream world, as you say.
Is the press remotely free now? NO. Thats what counts.
The trouble is, when I say "the rabid right", it means something different to americans, so it's a communication breakdown really.
To me, I would include practically all US media. But if you live in america, it means something else. It means complete raving loonies.

But the reason that the US is like that, is BECAUSE it's always had a press that's tied to the opinions of billionaire owners. The americans have been soaking up that shit for over a century.
Now they can't even smell it.
.