The case of Chavez against RCTV (freedom of expression vs. public service broadcasting)

The following guest posting was submitted by Masters student Diego Gonzales-Crespo. It focuses on the decision of the Venezuelan government not to renew the concession to broadcast enjoyed by a private operator (on the basis of an alleged lack of impartiality), and the replacement of this channel with a new PSB. We'd like actively to encourage comment and counterpoint. For background details, see this from the Financial Times, this from the Committee to Protect Journalists, and this from Z Magazine.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Over the past 6 months the Venezuelan-socially-inspired government has announced that it will not renew the concession of Channel 2 concessionaire 1BC Group which owned Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). According to the government the concession is due next May 27, 2007. RCTV has had a long tradition in the development of media ever since the birth of television. Venezuelans like me can truly remember the impact of RCTV in the lives of people. But that is besides the point, so one thinks, especially when you find the true reasoning behind the government in renewing the TV plant’s concession rights and to publicly fund a public service broadcasting television station (TVes) to be its substitute.

In an inauguration speech the newly appointed president of TVes seemed to give importance of the idea of nationality (venezolaneidad, or venezolaniticity) and the promotion of idea of socialism in contrast to capitalism. A lot of things had happened between the starting point and where it truly ends making me think about real politik of governments and their pursuit of control over media outlets.

After the interruption of the constitutional order in April 2002 (as determined by a final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice, later criticized by the government as a turd), the government made direct accusations to RCTV of transmitting cartoons and not divulging newsworthy material indispensable to the institutional order and the protection of the constitutionally elected government. In short, RCTV collaborated directly and was partial to the attempted coup against elected president Hugo Chavez Frias in April 2002.

According to the views of [Golding and Elliot] impartiality has to do with a disinterested approach to news lacking in motivation to shape or select material according to a particular view or opinion whilst objectivity to a complete untainted capture of the world. In this sense, the government alleges RCTV was partial. Without any previous administrative proceedings (allegedly breaching due process) the government publicly announced that it will not renew the concession of RCTV on sovereignty grounds, and announced the creation of a public service broadcasting network. Now with TVes, the government of Venezuela has a collection of media outlets, totalling almost to 5 different directly publicly funded media outlets. (VTV Channel 8, Telesur, ANtv and different community television stations).

RCTV supporters have rallied throughout the streets of Caracas, even unveiling the biggest poster in Latin America for the protection of freedom of expression. The true meaning, they fear, is that the government is sending a message to all media outlets including journalists, either they support the government or they will be shut up, -or down as in the case of RCTV. They argue that this would be a breach of freedom of expression, but also to the protection of private property. RCTV attorneys filed a constitutional action before the Supreme Court of Justice but to no [political] avail. The Court seems to be on Chavez’s behalf. Even though it seems that due process has been violated when the President has announced in different public scenarios and even made a mockery that he will not renew the concession. Additionally, this has created impasses with the Secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Latin American Press Council, including a group of representatives of the European Council.

The question in my mind, is how can a government truly justify the renewal of a concession right legally granted? The answer can not be acquired rights, but also has to shy away from the scarcity rationale, especially when you consider that the government already controls and publicly funds more than enough media outlets. Concerning the argument of the public service broadcasting for the creation of the new formed TVes, it assumes, according to [Born and Prosser – (2001) Modern Law Review, 64, 5], the promotion of citizenship, universality and quality of services and output. So far the government has tried to spin the argument of freedom of expression into the need for the promotion of the venezolanicity and socialist ideas to contrast capitalism. In my views not enough justifications for more public service broadcasting while hiding its true intentions. That is a message to everyone else…don’t be like RCTV.

Diego Gonzales-Crespo