A Thoughtful Response III
Hey Folks,
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response.
Here is Part III. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
And as much as you enjoy blogging your opinion, you might not be able to enjoy doing it in Venezuela. In an editorial on January 14 attacking the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Washington Post wrote, “Mr. Chavez has pushed through a new law that allows the government to fine or shut down private media for vaguely defined offenses against 'public order'.” Something to think about.
Well, let’s assume the Post has it right and isn’t overstating anything. It follows then that there is some pressure on the Venezuelan press relative to what they print or broadcast.
That shouldn’t be surprising for a number of reasons. First, we in the US take it for granted that we have a free press; so, Chavez’s law sounds terrible. But we do not have a free press.
Most of the ubiquitous press sources are owned by conservative businesses. Most depend on advertising dollars provided by conservative businesses. Most play to the lowest common denominator to maximize ratings (and hence revenue) by avoiding controversy and “boring” nuance.
Broadcast journalists are under the thumb of government-controlled regulators and have to be careful about what they say - or face painful regulatory punishment. And public broadcasting is totally at the mercy of the government.
All this hardly adds up to a free press. The press censors itself, either for gain or out of fear, and the government rolls along.
In Venezuela’s case it was just the same before Chavez; the press were part of the elite, white/European/non-Indian minority, and have from the beginning done whatever they could to help thwart Chavez. No self-censorship there.
But the point is this: when the press twisted the news to suit the ruling elite, that was called freedom of the press because the government didn’t need to clamp down. But you better believe they’d have clamped down on hard-line opposition media.
It’s the same here.
Don’t think so? Well, consider Katharine Graham – also of the Washington Post, its owner at the time - who blew the whistle on Viet Nam by publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Ms Graham is a universally-recognized journalistic hero for printing the Pentagon Papers. That’s a given.
In the face of practically everyone at the paper – especially the lawyers – who warned of the most dire consequences if she proceeded, she went ahead.
Her behavior was so courageous that she is seen as a great hero. It is seldom considered, however, that all she did was put a true and important story in the newspaper she ran. People do that every day.
Nothing courageous there – UNLESS we don’t REALLY have freedom of the press in this country.
Remember when the president’s spokesman warned that we had to watch what we say? That’s not just idle talk.
A while back I posted two Hugo Chavez-related items: “Truth and Fiction” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/truth-and-fiction.html and “Did I miss something?” http://www.ukuleleman.net/2006/09/hey-folks-did-i-miss-something-i.html .
A long, thoughtful comment was added at the second posting (click above to see the entire comment). I think it deserves a thoughtful response.
Here is Part III. My comments are in red.
- Uke Man
And as much as you enjoy blogging your opinion, you might not be able to enjoy doing it in Venezuela. In an editorial on January 14 attacking the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, the Washington Post wrote, “Mr. Chavez has pushed through a new law that allows the government to fine or shut down private media for vaguely defined offenses against 'public order'.” Something to think about.
Well, let’s assume the Post has it right and isn’t overstating anything. It follows then that there is some pressure on the Venezuelan press relative to what they print or broadcast.
That shouldn’t be surprising for a number of reasons. First, we in the US take it for granted that we have a free press; so, Chavez’s law sounds terrible. But we do not have a free press.
Most of the ubiquitous press sources are owned by conservative businesses. Most depend on advertising dollars provided by conservative businesses. Most play to the lowest common denominator to maximize ratings (and hence revenue) by avoiding controversy and “boring” nuance.
Broadcast journalists are under the thumb of government-controlled regulators and have to be careful about what they say - or face painful regulatory punishment. And public broadcasting is totally at the mercy of the government.
All this hardly adds up to a free press. The press censors itself, either for gain or out of fear, and the government rolls along.
In Venezuela’s case it was just the same before Chavez; the press were part of the elite, white/European/non-Indian minority, and have from the beginning done whatever they could to help thwart Chavez. No self-censorship there.
But the point is this: when the press twisted the news to suit the ruling elite, that was called freedom of the press because the government didn’t need to clamp down. But you better believe they’d have clamped down on hard-line opposition media.
It’s the same here.
Don’t think so? Well, consider Katharine Graham – also of the Washington Post, its owner at the time - who blew the whistle on Viet Nam by publishing the Pentagon Papers.
Ms Graham is a universally-recognized journalistic hero for printing the Pentagon Papers. That’s a given.
In the face of practically everyone at the paper – especially the lawyers – who warned of the most dire consequences if she proceeded, she went ahead.
Her behavior was so courageous that she is seen as a great hero. It is seldom considered, however, that all she did was put a true and important story in the newspaper she ran. People do that every day.
Nothing courageous there – UNLESS we don’t REALLY have freedom of the press in this country.
Remember when the president’s spokesman warned that we had to watch what we say? That’s not just idle talk.
As for my blogging, that's small potatoes. I'm under the radar. Look at Noam Chomsky. He's well-known, intelligent, widely read; but - even with the plug he got from Chavez - he is no threat to the power lords.
Freedom of the press at this time in this country means: You can say or print anything you want - as long as it has no effect.
- Uke Man
1 Comments:
Hi Tom,
I'm enjoying your thoughtful responses. You have such a strong knowledge of history. Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home