Fair, responsible media debatable in Venezuela

August 23, 2004

This article was published in the Orlando Sentinel on Aug. 23, 2004.

By: Ronnie Lovler
Ronnie Lovler is the former director of news and public affairs at the University of Florida and a former correspondent for CNN in Latin America.

Reading a newspaper article or watching a television newscast is not the same in Venezuela as it is in the United States — especially when the political future of the country is at stake. The referendum on Aug. 15 was a key event, of course. But as interesting as anything else taking place was the debate taking place in the media.

On one side was President Hugo Chavez with the executive privilege that allowed him to take to the air with presidential pronouncements when he considered it opportune. On the other, were the owners and managers of the privately owned television networks and newspapers who used their media not only to report on what Chavez was doing but to lambaste him as well.

Owners and managers of the private television stations in Venezuela have been openly aligned with the political opposition to Chavez for years. Chavez has even accused them of backing the failed coup attempt to topple him in April 2002, the signature event that kicked off the process leading to August’s recall.

Diplomats say Chavez had a valid gripe about the way the private media cover his government. That coverage has been an effective tool in focusing world attention on what’s going on in Venezuela.

Just how effective the opposition media have been is evident by the importance accorded to them by Nobel Peace Prize winner and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Carter and his Atlanta-based Carter Center have been instrumental in forging the agreements leading to the referendum. In Venezuela, Carter regularly met with media owners to discuss commitments to a democratic political process.

The media owners have a high public profile. They have been pretty influential in terms of opposition politics. There is nothing analogous in the United States. What’s happening with the broadcast media in Venezuela would be akin to media figures such as Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch playing a role in the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign.

Billionaire businessman Gustavo Cisneros, owner of Venevision, one of Venezuela’s oldest and most influential media networks, is a key spokesman for the opposition media. He and other media owners no longer have their publications or networks simply report the news — they are a part of it. After his meeting with Chavez and Carter, Cisneros issued his own public statement — words that were probably more widely reported than those of Chavez.

The involvement of the media in the ongoing Venezuelan political debate was evident to me during the few days I spent there in May to observe a voter-verification process leading up to the recall. I talked with one journalist from a local newspaper in the northeastern state of Sucre who complained about the way local government officials limited her access and those of others at her newspaper when they showed up to cover events.

“We are impartial and objective,” she said. “I don’t understand why this happens.” Then she added that the owner of the newspaper where she worked was an opposition candidate for mayor of the regional capital. In other words, it would be difficult for Chavez supporters to see journalists from that newspaper as anything but supporters of the opposition. Yet Chavez is no slacker when it comes to using the media to attack his opponents. He has his own weekly radio and television program, Halo Presidente, that airs on Sundays on the government-owned radio and television network.

A new law also gave Chavez the ability as president to call a cadena, or take over all the airwaves to make a public pronouncement on a particular issue. All television and radio stations are compelled to broadcast what he has to say — for however long he takes to say it — which sometimes can be hours. Verbal assaults by the government and physical attacks on journalists and on the offices of newspapers and radio and television stations, allegedly by Chavez supporters, are well documented. But to date, no media outlet has ceased operations, and it appears there have been no long- term limitations on people’s access to information. What has been limited, however, is their right to fair and impartial reporting about key political events in their country.
A fair and responsible media are a key ingredient to a working democracy. Now that the referendum has been held, it may be time for the Venezuelan media to take up that issue.