Madam, - I am writing to heartily congratulate you on your balanced, incisive and nuanced editorial (May 30th) following the non-renewal by the Venezuelan government of the licence of the private television channel RCTV . As the title of your editorial ("Chávez in context") underlines it is of great importance to distance ourselves from the shrill cries of the media in support of "freedom of speech" and many western governments by placing this action in a broader context.
As your editorial points out, RCTV "led and provoked the violent coup attempt against Mr Chávez in 2002". While in Venezuela in early 2002, I witnessed the television and print media constantly referring to the dangers of Chávez, to his presumed "madness" and to the need for Venezuela to "get rid of him", including in some cases through assassination. After the coup, I also witnessed coup leaders on television, including well known "journalists", congratulating the media on their crucial role in the coup. This behaviour goes well beyond "freedom of expression" and towards outright sedition which would have been severely punished by any of the states now so loudly pronouncing against this recent move by the Venezuelan government.
It is, however, also important to point to international media support for the coup and their continued negative portrayal of the Chávez government. According to Fair (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, www.fair.org) many major US newspapers printed editorials against Chávez and in favour of the coup plotters, including the New York Times and The Washington Post. More recently, Fair in a review of op-eds on Venezuela in top US newspapers found that 95 per cent expressed clear hostility to Chávez. Yet these are amongst the many media outlets now supposedly defending democracy and freedom of expression.
What is also disturbing about this is the coincidence between such negative media reporting and some western countries' hostile stance towards Venezuela, such as that of the US and also the UK. Both these countries immediately offered support to the illegal de facto government in Venezuela in April 2002 and leaders of both countries have been consistently negative about Venezuelan democracy and its democratically elected president in particular.
This coincidence in opinion between these leaders and major media outlets has troubling implications for freedom of expression in the West, especially when one considers media behaviour before and during the current Iraq War.
This uniformity in press reporting on Venezuela is denying the public its right to accurate and balanced information on that country from a plurality of sources and opinions, something which is essential for healthy democratic debate. It is salutary to see The Irish Times going against that trend and offering an alternative viewpoint.
- Yours, etc,
Dr BARRY CANNON, Centre for International Studies, School of Law and Government, Dublin City University,Glasnevin, Dublin.