The Venezuelan government has shut down the operations of 34 radio stations, many of which have been critical of President Hugo Chavez and his policies. The government says closing these stations will create a stronger democracy in Venezuela, because about a third of Venezuelan radio stations are owned by 27 families.
Click here to read an article about the radio station closings, and then respond to one or more of the following prompts:
How important is a free press to democracy? How could closing media outlets pose a threat to democracy in Venezuela? Do you agree with the Venezuelan government that closing some radio stations will strengthen democracy there?
How do you think international scrutiny of the radio station closings will affect this situation, if at all?
Do you think this type of situation could occur in the U.S.? Why or why not?
According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, spin control is "the act or practice of attempting to manipulate the way an event is interpreted by others". Is spin control taking place in this situation? If so, who are the spin doctors (those who practice the art of spinning)? Does our own point of view affect our answer to this question? How so?
18 comments:
By definition democracy is a government run by the people. If they want it to be strong, the government officials need to allow citizens to express what they are feeling about different ideas or policies. Free Press is a great way to do this; it allows anyone to say what they are thinking about important issues that can affect everyone. By closing these sources of free press, the government is taking away one of the strongest voices of the people. In my opinion, this is only going to hurt democracy. The government officials will no longer have to deal with the critical opinions and points brought up by the people, and they can continue on their way doing only what they want. I definitely don’t agree with the Venezuelan government and think that this action is giving only the government officials more power and not the people.
I don’t think the international scrutiny will have any affect at all. The Venezuelan government has already closed these stations “due to the stations' failures to meet legal operating requirements.” If they were to all the sudden open them back up, or stop closing them, it would prove that they had no legal reason to close them in the first place. So I think that the Venezuelan government will keep the stations closed, and maybe close more.
Free press is vital to democracy. Without it, the people will loose their right to express their opinions. The Venezuelan people are probably feeling as though this is what is happening, and if the people continue to loose the radio stations, and their rights, a rebellion against Chavez's actions is likely to arise. In my opinion, a rebellion is probably just what Chavez would need to keep him from trying to take too much control over his people. After all, taking these radio stations will in no way strenghten the democracy, but threaten it. The Venezuelan government should probably rethink taking these radio stations and think more about accepting that the people have just as much right to express their voice as the officials do.
In my opinion, freedom of the press goes right along with freedom of speech. By limiting media, the Venezuelan government is limiting the outlets people use to express their opinions and support. One of the beauties of democracy is the diversity of thoughts and feelings surrounding different topics. By limiting expression of these ideas, you take away the very essence of democracy -- the thoughts and ideas of the people.
While media outlets are closing, it’s very possible for the citizens of Venezuela to feel that their voice is being challenged, thus instilling doubt that a democracy is really the government’s intent. This in turn could cause disconcerting feelings between the people and the government. I can’t see the people warming to a government that is limiting their rights, and it wouldn’t be surprising if rebellions started to occur.
Personally, I don’t agree with the Venezuelan government’s decision to close the radio stations. To me, limiting the media seems more tyrannous than democratic. I think the people of Venezuela should be able to voice their opinions freely, whether they agree with the government or not.
Now I see how you can say that this seems unfair because of the freedoms of speech and press, and by having the freedoms of speech and press this should build a stronger democracy and it seems like banning these stations is just bringing the democracy down and voiding the freedoms, but it's NOT. We're seeing this from just ONE SIDE of the situation and we need to open our eyes, these may be families but these are wealthy families who own corporations, not poor families who barely make a living, these opinions being given are by people not only in Venezuela, but by people INTERNATIONALLY, and not only is Hugo Chavez NOT the main proprietor of this situation he isn't even involved in the conflict other than being the president of Venezuela and being mentioned in these articles he has nothing to contribute to this other than his name. We aren't looking into this thoroughly enough as we definitively should be causing us to have diluted and misconstrued visions on this subject.
The stations alone are bringing down the democracy in more than one way, they are denying to pay taxes causing loss in revenue for the country when the nation needs it most. Many of the stations that have or are will be having their transmissions terminated also constantly lie about, discredit, and stigmatize Venezuela as a whole, I know I wouldn't want to have radio stations in the United States doing that.
The Venezuelan Government is just doing what it can to protect the integrity of it's country by banning the transmission rights of these stations, I would not want anything more than the same for our country. Because of the massive spin control on this, we did not see the underlying truths, we need to practice this more often and look out for spin control in future situations.
(sources used: [http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4694] [http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/08/01/venezuela.radio.stations/index.html] [http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-08-01-venezuela-begins-shutdown-of-34-radio-stations] and given article)
(BEGINNING OF COMMENT)
Everyone knows to look out for bias and false assumptions, but no one knows to look for them in even the most trust worthy places. Just like taking trust in your best friend, you'll always stand up for them on a subject that is partially true if you don't know anything about the subject other than what they gave you right? Now let's say your best friend happens to be CNN, even though CNN tries, CNN can not be everywhere on the face of the earth on any given time so CNN has to get their information by hear say or by an affiliate agency if one of their reporters is not on scene. We all know how things can be distorted when passed along because at one point or another we have all played the telephone game and we know that the further away from the source things get the more diluted, distorted, and disassembled they can become.
I have been looking through many different articles on this subject from all areas of perspective and all together just not finding a very cohesive story in any of the given articles; but then I noticed all of the articles that I was looking at we're all written by American broadcasting companies or American based news organizations. So I decided to dive into Venezuelan news to find real answers, and the truth is, Spin Control is TAKING OVER this situation.
Of the 34 stations that were ordered to terminate only thirteen or so have actually stopped transmitting. Along with this; ALL of the stations that go on air and broadcast are all expected to follow certain journalism laws and the code of ethics, this new law that constitutes the banning of these stations "... incorporates everything that is unequivocally expressed in the Law of Journalist Practice and the Code of Ethics, which establish a series of perspectives over what the treatment of the news and the role of the journalist should be." Consisting of these stations, the reasons for being terminated as stated are "the publication of false, manipulative or distorted information that causes 'harm to the interests of the state' or that threatens 'public morale or mental health.'failing to register or pay fees to CONATEL (Venezuela's telecommunications agency)" as well as the lack of the only critical private broadcaster in Venezuela not paying taxes on advertisements, with the price of these taxes rising to $2.3 million dollars. Along with these 34 stations, decisions are still pending on another 206 stations.
I agree with Kalee that we really have to be more open minded about the whole situation. It's true that it seems like the Venezuelan government is taking away one of the people's democratic rights, and they very well may be, but try to put yourselves in the shoes of the people of Venezuela.If we do our research, it shows that their is much bias review. It worries me that in our wonderful country with our wonderful free press, our media is drastically bending the truth. Who wants free press if the press is feeding us biased or completely false information? Can anyone say Big Brother?
I dont really think international scrutiny makes any difference. When has it in the past for Venezuela? If their government is true in saying that they closed the radio stations for actual democratic reasons, then why should they give a hoot whether the U.S. cares? It seems to me that according to the Venezuelan media, which i personally would trust over our own media, its reasons for closing the radio stations is completely legitimate.
I think our individual points of view affect our answers greatly to this question of spin control. For all we know, our media are the spinners. However, the Venezuelan government/media could very well be the manipulators in the situation. It all depends on what our media has informed us of in the past and whether we believe any of it. Either way, our own opinion of our government determines what we believe. Do you trust the U.S. and its media, or not?
This article is very biased,
making it seem as though the government is limiting the rights of Venezualans. There may be other
reasons that the stations have been closed that are not fully
mentioned in this article. The stations should not be shut down
because of what they are airing, if the country is a democracy the people should be able to speak their minds. The closing of these stations does hurt democracy in the country making the citizens feel as though they are being limited on what opinions they can voice. As part of a democracy the people are supposed to run the government, this includes the people being able to be critical of leaders at times. Citizens of a country do not have to agree with all the decisions of their
leaders and should have the opportunity to speak their minds.
I do think that spin control is taking place. The article is demonstrating spin control, it
only tells that the Venezuelan government has closed stations
that were being critical. The article limits the mention of any other reasons that the stations would have been closed, therefore controlling how the readers view the situation. Spin control is also a factor in Venezuela,
by closing the stations they are limiting the information that the citizens can share with one another and the opportunity to voice their opinions.
This issue walks a very fine line. As I read the different post my views seem to sway back and forth…each side making very valid points. From this article it really seems that the freedom of press and speech is really being broken because the government is shutting down all these radio stations. On the other hand though is this working towards more democracy because there seems to be a monopoly over this industry where the rich seem to be running the show and the poor are not having their voices heard.
This reminds me of back in the early 1900’s when they had to regulate and break monopolies so that there was not such a large gap between the rich and the poor. So based on that correlation I’m going to assume that this is a similar situation where the majority of the Venezuelan people (though some may not be fond) will find this to their behalf. I do think that the government is trying to expand democracy by breaking this monopoly. So in my personal opinion I think that the true purpose behind this action is beneficial though it may seem as if it impeding freedom of speech.
-Cori Martin
I think free press is extremely important to democracy. People should be able to express their feelings towards government, and everyone has different opinions that should be shared. How is their country ever going to improve if there are not good ideas and opinions to be expressed? I agree with Monica in the fact that a rebellion might occur because the people are going to feel as if they are being controlled, when they’re government is supposed to be a democracy. They’re just going to find new ways, maybe more violent ways to express their opinions, so the Venezuelan government’s best interest is to keep the radio stations and television broadcasts. However, this may be biased. We don’t know what kind of rumors or lies people are telling on these radio stations. In America, some of the things said about our president are ridiculous, and just said to ruin his reputation. But, people should be smart enough to know what is true, and Chavez needs to just have trust in his people, and not be so controlling, because in the end, it’s just going to hurt him.
I believe free press is absolute to democracy. Closing media outlets poses a huge threat to democracy because how can a government be run by the people if the people cannot voice their opinion. I do not agree with the Venezuela government that by closing some radio stations will help democracy, it will destroy it. Because if you do not have free press, you do not have freedom of speech therefore you do not have democracy. At this time, I do not think this will happen in the United States. Although, every few years the first admendment is challenged by a new name and face to promote their agenda.The Fairness Doctrine has been imposed, repeated and is still being pondered under the Obama Administration.
In my opinion, I believe there is some "spin control" taking place in this situation and that the "spin doctors" are the people who wrote the article. Our point of view affects our answer because although to us it seems wrong, if you were to spin it the other way it might seem right to somebody.
Freedom of press is very important in a democracy, even one attempting to incorporate socialism into their government, as in Venezuela. If you begin taking away general freedoms, then your government fails and you can say hello to a future dictatorship. This article is very one sided; from reading it, I didn’t understand how Chavez was trying to improve democracy because it wasn’t explained. Chavez claims he’s shutting down the stations because he wants to take power away from the greedy capitalists who were reaping the benefits of the media industry, and make them publically owned, giving back to the people, which is a key concept in socialism. Personally I don’t think Hugo Chavez is closing down the media because he wants to improve democracy; I think he wants silence the people with opinions different from the government, to give the government the apppearence of being one sided, which isnt just taking away freedom of press, but freedom of speech as well. Isn’t that the opposite of democracy? The closing of Radio Caracas Television didn’t make Chavez’s claim that he was shutting down media stations on the premise of a stronger democracy look very accurate. He refused to renew their broadcasting permit in 2007 because of their critisism of his politics in 2002. Now how does shutting down a station for those reasons improve democracy? It doesn’t.
Also, I don’t believe international scrutiny will affect the closings of the broadcasting stations. Chilian lawmakers passed a resolution objecting to the shutting down of Radio Caracas Television, and Chavez called them “a bunch of fascists,” and continued closing stations. If he’s claiming that this is ‘improving democracy,’ then it would be foolish to back down because of a little heat from other nations. Unless, of course, it isn’t improving democracy…..
As Sarah Kerns said, democracy is a government run by the people. In America, talk shows, blog posts, radio shows, etc. that discuss issues on politics are an everyday thing. It's expected for ideas to clash, *in fact Mrs. Stotler encourages it. The wonderful thing about democracy is that people have the freedom to express themselves.
By casually canceling 34 radio stations and possibly 45 television stations due to criticism of the Venezuelan president and government, democracy will not be strengthened. On the contrary, the citizens will feel violated and question their government- not support it. This was not a good move on the Venezuelan government's part.
Ni Hao, Mrs. Stotler! I believe that a free press plays a huge role in a democracy. I believe that, because a true democracy is run by the citizens of the country, and free press gets out how certain people feel about different things. I feel that closing media outlets would be a potientual disaster, because people will get mad because they can't express how they feel towards certain subjects, expecially politics, which could lead to a revolt. I respectfully disagree with the Venezuelan government, because as I previously stated cutting off some media could lead to a revolt against the government. I feel the government has no right to take away media.
Toshiro
Without free press, can a government really call itself a democracy? Free press is an esential part of democracy. Without it, freedom of speech is severly limited. Freedom of speech/ expression is another essential part of what makes us democratic. Closing media outlets definately poses a threat to Venezuelan democracy. Most of the radio stations closed in the country are critical of Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. We in America know that in a democracy we have the right to hold our opinions and express them, whether through the press, petition, protesting, etc. A large part of our opinions are critical. By Venezuela closing these radio stations they limit our right to our opinions and of expression, essential parts of democracy. The only part of Venezuela closing these radio stations that I agree with is that it is supposively closing several of the stations owned by only 27 families, which make up 32% of Venezuelan radio broadcast stations. When a small portion of the public own a large amount of the press, democracy is restricted. If Venezuela is closing these radio stations for the fact that they are owned by only 27 families, then I believe it will strengthen their democracy. However, because these radio stations are critical of President Hugo Chavez, than I hardly doubt they have no interest in strenghtening their democracy.
This situation could never occur in the United States of America. Democracy is fermly rooted in our souls. It is something that we in America are proud of. If the government was to shut down radio stations because they are critical of the government than U.S citizens would protest, refuse, and uprise against it.
- Brian Fairbrother
Freedom of the press has an important role in a democracy. By closing 34 radio stations the Venezuelan government has reduced their people's right to freedom of the press, and I feel that by doing this they also hindered the right to freedom of speech. People need to be able to express how they feel about a certain policy or idea. Democracy is suppose to be a government run by the people, but when government leaders don't listen to what the people want, then it is no longer a democracy. Now the Venezuelan government didn't completely take away the people's freedom of the press by shutting down radio stations, but I don't believe that they took a step toward becoming a stronger democracy.
Now could a situation like this occur in the US? I don't think so because if it did Americans would excersise their right to freedom of assembly and rebell. Americans would not allow the government to reduce or hinder their rights. Venezuelans could do the same thing but I guess we'll have to wait and see.
How is closing down the stations making the democracy in Venezuela any strong?! Thats silly. They're taking away rights and freedoms, which isn't democracy at all! Free Press strongly relates to freedom of speech. If the government takes away the right to freedom of speech, or freedom of press, they are furthering themselves away from democracy, not making it stronger.
I agree with Sarah. I don't think international scrutiny will be a problem. They probably will shut more down. If I was the Venezuelan government, I would be kind-of scared about how the people will take to losing many of their freedoms. This could turn into a huge problem. What if riots occur over rights being taken away? Many people could be turned off by the thought of losing citizenship rights, making them leave the country. But, maybe a riot will help put things back into perspective.
This could hurt Venezuela, badly.
Democracy and freedom go hand in hand, you can't have one without the other. Closing down radio and TV stations, and the general restrictions being placed on the press do not benifit a stuggling democracy. To have a strong and true democracy the government must allow complete freedom of speech and press, without those freedoms how could the people possibly voice their options or influence and partake in their government. We are lucky in this country because freedom of speech and press are guaranteed to us in the bill of rights. I find Chavez's idea of restricting freedom as a way to increase democracy almost laughable.
Post a Comment