As soon as you begin to scratch the surface of the coverage regarding the RCTV’s failure to be granted a new operating license, it becomes clear that global south’s media commentators and analysts are actually copy-cats: they repeat the ideas disseminated by the north’s think-tanks. Let’s go piece by piece to see just who places the ideas, and who plays the fool—acting as if freedom of expression didn’t have a long and sad history that, on this continent at least, includes disappeared journalists and the slow but persistent trickle of firings of those who work in the media.
The idea-generators of conservative thought in the U.S. and Europe are behind the better part of the arguments put forward by rightwing Latin American journalists and politicians. Until now, U.S. think tanks had the most influence in the region. But this seems to be changing. A good example of this shift is the Spanish group Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies (FAES in its Spanish initials), an organization from which President of Spain José María Aznar—a supporter of Francoism—is able to influence Latin American rightwing parties. Aznar presented his most recent regional report –“A plan for Freedom”—in late May in Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo. The report defines the continent’s primary problems as: “popular revolutionary-ism,” “neo-stateism,” “indigenous racism,” and “nationalist militarism.”
Aznar’s report claims that our continent’s rightwing parties (liberal, democratic Christians and conservatives) should consider have a “common goal [of] democratically defeating the “21st Century Socialism” project. He also affirms that the U.S. ought to have a more active presence in Latin America. His local contacts, however, reveal just how democratic Aznar’s wants this road to be. In Argentina, he presented his report along side analyst Rosendo Fraga, a supporter of Argentina’s final military dictatorship—the one responsible for the largest genocide in his country’s history. In Brazil, Aznar made his presentation next to Jorge Bornhausen, leader of the Democratic Party (formally the Liberal Front Party)—someone intimately connected to that country’s 1960’s military dictatorship. Despite Aznar’s own friendships, he continues to characterize the Chavez government as “sinister” and “totalitarian.”
Beyond the personalities, it’s interesting to note how the media reproduces the analysis churned by the bastions of conservative thought. One of the most influential media outlets on the continent is the Argentine daily newspaper La Nación (The Nation). It is partial towards anti-popular fronts and faithfully represents multi-nationals’ interests. On Sunday May 27th the paper published a one-page, six-column report entitled “South America’s Press in the Gaze.” The journalists focuses on what he sees as a “war between the press and the government,” turning his attention to seven of the subcontinent’s ten countries (Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela) leaving us to assume that the other three (Colombia, Paraguay and Peru) pose no threat to the press. In all, he chose to report on the governments that to some degree have begun to question the neo-liberal model.
The severity of critique against Chilean President Michelle Bachelet is notable. Based on information from a “source” who “preferred to remain anonymous,” the journalist concludes that “the President is obsessed with leaks” due to her “ideological mentality” in regards to her predecessor Ricardo Lagos. “Many channels of information were thus closed,” the journalist notes. There are also reports of some foreign correspondents who complained of “official mistreatment” because she gave little time to the media.
Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva doesn’t come across well either. He is attacked because his connection with the media “was never strong,” because he “evades contact with the media whenever he can,” because “unlike Bachlete, Lula took his inscrutability to the next level,” and because he has criticized the press for publishing “only bad news.” In La Nación’s crescendo, Tabaré Vasquez takes third place. “His government used to accuse the media of ‘conspiracies and plotting’ and got to the point when in 2006 the President released a media black-list of those he accused of being part of the ‘opposition.’” Using a March report from the media business association (Inter-American Press Society), the writer affirms the existence of “harassment against freedom of the press and against the independent press.” La Nación is relentless with Argentine President Néstor Kirchner; their characterization of him as “authoritarian” is about the nicest they get.
The piece’s main dish is the analysis of those governments most visibly critical of Washington and the international financial institutions. According to the article, Chávez paved the way for “putting the lock on freedom of expression;” Evo Morales and Rafael Correa have followed along. The thesis is thus interesting: since the political parties have emptied out and are no longer representative of the people, the media has assumed the role of criticizer and for this, the government punishes them. The article virtually begins with this conclusion: “Untrusting and suspicious, our region’s governments opt again and again for confrontation as their strategy for dealing with the media.” In other words: now that the neo-liberals neither control nations nor hold much popular support, they have no other choice but to use the media to further their interests.
The Spanish journalist David Carracedo recently published an exhaustive report in which he shows that in the last 293 years, 77 television channels and 159 radio stations in 21 countries have been subjected to closure, license revocation or the non-re-granting of their licenses. In Colombia alone, 76 communal radio stations were closed down. In March of this year, TeleAsturias (Spain) had its transmission wave revoked for technical reasons. The report, though, does not include the closing of Uruguay’s Radio Panamericana—the most serious attack against freedom of expression since the return of the electoral system in 1985.
On August 26, 1994 Luis Alberto Lacalle’s government issued a resolution to close down Panamericana Radio and Centenario Radio for 48 hours for having covered the events that took place in Hospital Filtro two days before. That day, there was a protest against the extradition of several Basque citizens accused of belonging to the armed Basque group ETA and who were being detained in the hospital. The demonstrators’ efforts to prevent the extradition caused a large police contingent to be dispatched. In the end, there was one death and dozens were injured, some seriously. The day the temporary shut-downs were ordered, another resolution revoked Panamerica’s transmission authorization.
The Colorado and National parties supported the President’s decision. But the media-owners’ association, ANDEBU in its spanish initials, had serious difficulties coming to an internal agreement that would allow them to make a public statement. Two weeks before Panamericana’s shut-down, ANDEBU had expressed its “concern regarding the Executive branch’s recent acts.” However, in the same statement, the organization also made clear its “concern for Panamericana Radio’s program content,” (specifically the radio station’s call for solidarity with the detained Basques). This, they said, goes “against the principles that govern Uruguayan radio station conduct.” Seen in a current context, this declaration stands in stark contrast to the statement issued recently regarding RCTV in which ANDEBU characterizes the Venezuelan events as a “serious agression against freedom of expression.”
Ex-President of Uruguay Julio María Sanguinetti recently stated that “Venezuela is entering dangerous territory in which democracy deteriorates” and assured that the case of RCTV is a “collapse of freedom.” The nationalists who were in the government in 1994 when Panamericana was shut down affirmed President Chavez’s decision as a “human rights violation” and party President Jorge Larrañaga declared it as “attack on freedom of the press, a blow to public freedom that proves that, with regards to democracy, the Chavez regime doesn’t have two legs to stand on.”
The contrast between the events of 1994 in Uruguay and the right-wing’s current attitude with respect to RCTV makes it clear that freedom of expression is just an excuse to attack and bring down governments seeking separation from the neo-liberal model. As orphans of popular support, the right-wing can only go on the offensive by provoking an instability so great that a coup would be possible. And it’s a strategy designed by Aznar, faithful friend of Bush, Blair and Sarkozy.
RSS Feed