Is Chavez becoming a liability?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Were I an American, I would quite probably be neoconservitive. Of course I’m not, I’m a European, and so to support a doctrine of apparent supremacy by a foreign power, from which I am almost completely disfranchised from, would make little sense to me. So, why do some Europeans do exactly that?

not entirely helping your point. I don't like the americans, but I'm just like them

that being said, you are definitely winning the argument so far in this thread.. it's really not even fair.

FYI

The non-renewal of RCTV'S licence was completely legal - and ethically justifiable.

The Corinthian wrote:

Can you read? It was FYI and not I who suggested that supporting the failed coup may not be against the law, I simply followed his logic thereafter. What is it with this idiotic reasoning that brands anyone who may criticize Chavez as Fascist/pro-American/Whatever

Your 'argument' is stretching beyond breaking point. Hence you're skewing even the very plain comments I've made in order for them to fit you're unsubstantiated contention. I did not say supporting the failed coup was not against the law - I said I don't know whether it is or isn't, given I'm not a solicitor of any sort - I cannot make a authoritative judgement on it, therefore I can only leave open the possibility it is not. Certainly many British newspapers supported the invasion of Iraq, but whether the level of complicity or the vocality of support is an easy indication of criminality is not my field. Though if I were to make an educated guess I would presume support for an illegal coup is against the law, but I don't know where the responsibility chiefly lies. The ONLY reason I made the point was in order to disregard it as a hinge around which this issue revolves. But if you persist in diving head first down this path then it might be prudent to remember that corporations have developed many similar rights to individuals and thus cupability in this case is not so clear cut in favour of individuals within RCTV. Again though, as I've said before, this is beside the point. RCTV violated the 'public interest'. To which you responded...

The Corinthian wrote:

You've just described political censorship.

When a government my define a legal political view as being either in "the public interest" or not and censor it on that basis then that's what it is - plain and simple.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What can RCTV's performance in the lead up to, during and after the failed coup be described as other than a complete failure to act in the interests of the public? While it was though from all sources a purposeful and conscious failure, it was a failure nonetheless. Therefore the illegality is a side issue, possibly to be resolved at a later date.

Your dismissal of the argument as 'political censorship' simply higlights your unwillingness to consider anything outside your narrow frame of reference...Chavez = dictator (NOTE: fix facts around policy)

Have a look at RTE's 'Corporate Responsibility 2006', similar documents exist for many other companies, and I would assume most if not all public and private broadcasters:

RTÉ’s Values are to:

} Operate in the public interest,
providing News and Current
Affairs that is fair and impartial,
accurate and challenging
} Connect with our audiences by
understanding and satisfying
their needs
} Deliver a value for money service
} Be creative in everything we do
} Be honest and transparent in all
of our activities
} Take personal responsibility for
pursuing the Organisation’s goals
} Be responsible to our staff
and consider everyone as an
individual
} Optimise the performance of
each person, department, division
and the Organisation by working
together
} Respect each other and our
diversity
} Take pride in everything we do,
everything we are and everything
we create.
Trust is the foundation stone of
RTÉ as a Public Service Broadcaster.
Our audiences expect that they
can trust us to be independent,
impartial and honest in all of
our activities. As we develop our
Corporate Responsibility reporting
we believe it will give our audiences
an added measure of assurance,
which they deserve from their
national Public Service Broadcaster.

RTÉ’s approach to Corporate
Responsibility is based on the moral
case that, as Ireland’s Public Service
Broadcaster, we have a responsibility
to do the right thing for Irish society.

democrates

The RCTV spectacle raises a couple of issues.

Journalistic integrity is paramount in reporting the news, but opinion is permissable in discussing it. Given the Venezuelan media are overwhelming privately owned, I can accept the wisdom of bringing balance to this with state funded outlets charged with impartial news reporting and giving all mainstream opinions fair billing.

That RCTV transmissions have transgressed is hardly open to serious debate. But would prosecuting a few fall guys just deal with a symptom and leave the problem? If a few officers of a company use it to break the law do you punish the company too, or is it to be seen as a legal entity seperate to its officers and never to be addressed over anything they use it for, like some kind of untouchable above the law?

In the bank overcharging scandals here, individuals were sanctioned but so were the companies. Smart Telecom failed to pay its debts here and the regulator revoked one of the companies licences. I think it's wise to hold the body corporate liable as a legal entity, in fact that was the whole idea behind limited liability - to dump responsibility onto the company and limit the owners exposure to risk to the value of shares held.

The law was not deployed to deal with RCTV, instead market regulation via licencing was used. The same principle applies though with the body corporate as an entity held to account over the actions of its officers - it can hardly act without them, its actions are their actions, and in RCTV's case this was driven by the owners who unlike the officers have limited liability. The licensing power is vested with the presidency since before Chavez' tenure. That's too authoritarian a situation in my book, and he hasn't changed it, but used it.

All considered I think RCTV deserved to lose that particular license at this point in time. Perhaps with good behaviour they'll get it back in the future, time will tell.

One issue remains for me, if the board of RCTV feel they have a legitimate case against the loss of this license, do they have any opportunity to pursue it through the courts? I feel they should have that chance and if they don't that's a bad thing.

bobbyjoe

democrates wrote:

The RCTV spectacle raises a couple of issues.

Journalistic integrity is paramount in reporting the news, but opinion is permissable in discussing it. Given the Venezuelan media are overwhelming privately owned, I can accept the wisdom of bringing balance to this with state funded outlets charged with impartial news reporting and giving all mainstream opinions fair billing.

That RCTV transmissions have transgressed is hardly open to serious debate. But would prosecuting a few fall guys just deal with a symptom and leave the problem? If a few officers of a company use it to break the law do you punish the company too, or is it to be seen as a legal entity seperate to its officers and never to be addressed over anything they use it for, like some kind of untouchable above the law?

In the bank overcharging scandals here, individuals were sanctioned but so were the companies. Smart Telecom failed to pay its debts here and the regulator revoked one of the companies licences. I think it's wise to hold the body corporate liable as a legal entity, in fact that was the whole idea behind limited liability - to dump responsibility onto the company and limit the owners exposure to risk to the value of shares held.

The law was not deployed to deal with RCTV, instead market regulation via licencing was used. The same principle applies though with the body corporate as an entity held to account over the actions of its officers - it can hardly act without them, its actions are their actions, and in RCTV's case this was driven by the owners who unlike the officers have limited liability. The licensing power is vested with the presidency since before Chavez' tenure. That's too authoritarian a situation in my book, and he hasn't changed it, but used it.

All considered I think RCTV deserved to lose that particular license at this point in time. Perhaps with good behaviour they'll get it back in the future, time will tell.

One issue remains for me, if the board of RCTV feel they have a legitimate case against the loss of this license, do they have any opportunity to pursue it through the courts? I feel they should have that chance and if they don't that's a bad thing.

They are appealing to the supreme court.

democrates

bobbyjoe wrote:

They are appealing to the supreme court.

If it leads to a thorough airing of the facts that'll be a good thing so, but maybe not for officers and owners of RCTV.

Given the galactic idiocy of ending up absent from parliament I wouldn't be surprised if they've failed to consider the full consequences of taking legal action either.

FYI

democrates wrote:

The RCTV spectacle raises a couple of issues.

...

Thanks for that, though I'm 'beginning' to think it is counter-productive to continue lending credence to this thread.

democrates

FYI wrote:

Thanks for that, though I'm 'beginning' to think it is counter-productive to continue lending credence to this thread.

It certainly ran a lot longer than I originally expected, but I can see why, the question lends itself to it resurfacing with each news break. Some excellent points have been made and even where there have been diversions into the motives of posters this too is advisory for younger posters - don't be blindly pro or anti anything.

Venezuela still remains "one to watch" for me, the mix of measures being implemented there is unique in history and could establish some proofs in helping the people. What is not unique is the question of where power lies. Any look at the plight of the suffering and injustice would tempt one to resort to "whatever it takes" for the fastest solutions, therein lies the risk. This is a tired old way for despots and oligarchs to seize and solidify power.

On the other hand it's hardly fair to hold up peacetime perfection mode as the only acceptable system ever, and particularly given the realities on the ground there. The business as usual of endless red tape would be like the rebels in "The Life of Brian" swooping into action on hearing the crucification is happening - immediate meeting to discuss and build consensus.

Venezuela is at peace in some ways, at war in others. The threats both internal and external seem fairly real, but how that's dealt with can easily be so extreme that its counter to the interests of the people. Look at the USA to understand how bad it can get. I wouldn't wish that on anyone let alone Venezuelans.

nacho libre

The Corinthian wrote:

Here's a whole thread. Feel free to join adulthood in your next post.

Bloody kids...

okay fair enough. However, I, and i don't think i'm alone on this, have seen nothing in your posts so far that auguments your contention that Chavez is on the 'road to becoming dictator'. The recourse for RCTV to appeal his decision to the supreme court is hardly indicative of a man whose hell bent on autocratic rule.
In future please desist from patronising insults it's unnecessary, not constructive, and it seems to go against the charter of this board. I noted Democrates point: I'm certainly not a defender of autocratic rule just because the leader's views may mirror my own.

Sand

I'm certainly not a defender of autocratic rule just because the leader's views may mirror my own.

Then why are you?

No liberal [and I use the term not as some shorthand for socialist but in its own right] can defend Chavez and his polices with regard to the centralisation of power and the destruction of liberal democracy in Venezeula. As I already pointed out to FYI, Pakistan - which FYI considers a dictatorship [rightfully] has a stronger independant legal system than the Venezeula of Chavez does.

nacho libre

Sand wrote:

Then why are you?

.

I'm not defending him. I was merely challenging what i perceive to be a dearth of evidence to support The Corinthian's thesis.

In fact many of his views would be different to my own.
for example:Chavez says he respects the right to own private property. yet expropriating several privately owned buildings in Caracas and allowing the homeless to live there as part of his Negro Hipolita mission, which provides housing and rehabilitation for substance abusers.


if Chavez is in fact guilty of what you say he is, how then do you reconcile the following: RCTV being able to appeal his decision to the supreme court? 90 percent of the media is privately owned and anti-chavez.
The submitting of any upcoming constitutional changes to a public vote.
A point about the judiciary: if he has stacked it with bias appointees then it does undermine the independence of the judiciary and is wrong. I can't defend that.