We always knew this day would come…

Plenty of scars to show for its trouble

And so, as long expected, the government has decided to shut down the last remaining opposition broadcaster: Globovision. And as long surmised, the decision is to be implemented not with tanks or a militia platoon, but via a dry, ostensibly technical administrative decision.

By design, the details are slightly murky. With a decision to shut Globo out of the digital TV switchover, the station is sentenced to a slow, graudal death until the day when, long forgotten, the analog signal is finally switched off.

The government, it seems, learned its lesson from the RCTV fracas. There will be no countdown to midnight this time, no celebrities weeping as the clock ticks down. Globovision’s shutdown will be a process, not an event. And yet, having been denied a digital frequency, its fate is sealed.

When the time comes to write the history of the Chávez Years, one big fat chapter of it will be titled “Globovision”. And if the historian is thorough and tough, it will be a complex chapter with plenty to make both sides of our hyperpolarized public sphere cringe.

Is Globovision a bulwark of resistance to autocracy, fearlessly reporting the stories and asking the tough question the regime fears and loathes? Or is it a resonance chamber where the most socially backward element of the old elite talks to itself in circles, locking itself away in its own certainties and losing touch with the realities of life for the millions born outside the bubble of privilege?

It’s both, and much else besides.

For years, Globovision acted as a de facto opposition news agency, with regional papers and broadcasters taking their leads from Alta Florida when choosing stories and front pages. For years, Alberto Federico Ravell and María Fernanda Flores played the parts of a tropical Roger Ailes – their willingness to put you and keep you on the air could make or break the career of an aspiring opposition politician. For years, much more than any Coordinadora Democrática or MUD instance, it was what they decided that became the opposition “line”.

Perfectly attuned to the concerns of their core audience – by scrutinizing their ads you shall know them – they were catastrophically tone deaf to the concerns of everyone else in the country in ways they only started to address far too late, through the addition of shows like Radar de los Barrios that, while vital, were tokenistic. At times, they just plain surrendered any pretense to be perpetrating an act of journalism, through their absolutely unashamed boosterism for the opposition cause du jour, as chronicled in this classic Nagel post from the 2006 presidential campaign.

Yet for all its many faults, for the ways, big and small, it drove me crazy, they were the guys out there doing it. It was their drivers getting their trucks shot at, their reporters getting hounded, beaten, intimidated and harassed every time they set foot on chavista “territory”, their anchors asking the obvious questions the government was determined to leave unanswered, their lawyers dealing with a zillion and one insane government actions against them, and their owners ploughing their money into a concern they could expect nothing but losses from.

As the government moves decisively now to pull the (digital) plug on the station, the time has come to salute Globo: Y’all had no idea what you were doing, but you did it with cojones.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.


  1. Francisco, Your take on Globo is outdated. Since the ouster of Ravell, the station has been run by Maria Fernanda Flores, the only remaining member of the founding group to work daily at the station in Caracas. She takes journalism seriously. For the past few years, Globovision has been alone in covering protests — including those by people in red shirts. The reporters and cameramen bravely go into any neighborhood in Venezuela and cover what would be newsworthy in any country. Sadly, they are alone, as in Venezuela most reporters are too chicken, bored, classist or politically to document what is happening around them.

    • OK on rereading I see you cover these points, and I am just griping about the focus on ancient history. 2006 is already a long time ago. Anyway, I’m sure these threats will do what they are meant to do — rile up the far-out corners of oppo-land into a froth, so that candidate Maduro can have an easy straw man to go after.

    • But I wonder about your chronology. I mean. MFF was head of programming for the station throughout the Chávez years, with AFR more the public face. Even at the nadir of its propagandistic period, Globovision did do some straight journalism on the side.

      The trouble with their turn to seriousness of late is that it looks as though it was their fallback option, the last resort they turned to after the proliferation of investigations and fines and threats made it politically riskier and riskier to keep doing what they always clearly preferred doing, and long after their power had peaked.

      Like I said in the post, the historians of the future will have their work cut out for them with this one…

      • Quico, you seem to be suggesting here that what the government finds intolerable about Globo is – as they’re so fond of saying – its ‘acting as a political party’. Whereas I think that really serves the chavista cause, and is one of the reasons Globo is still on the air (aside from the fact that it enables them to claim there is unfettered freedom of speech in Venezuela). What they absolutely can’t stand is that its reporting shows them up as a bunch of lying incompetents.

  2. What’s funny is how Toro writes this whole thing in the past tense, claiming Globovision is being “shut down”, when clearly they will only lose their ability to broadcast over the air (which they only do in two cities anyway), and the whole country can continue to view them by cable, etc. All of this drama because Globovision will lose a tiny minority of their regular viewers who don’t have cable.

    The comparison to Fox News is an interesting one. Can you get Fox News in the United States over the air? Nope. Gotta have cable…. So, wait a minute, are you telling me there are no television channels that are critical of Obama on the open air waves? Oh my god!!! That’s a dictatorship!!! Toro should be outraged… except that he didn’t even notice.

      • Yep. The slogan “Aporrea for escuálidos” is a perfect one. There’s no use even debating with them. But I enjoy watching them squirm around trying to avoid the massive holes in their arguments.

        • Well, give them credit for getting the essential point right in this case, despite their permanent determination to exaggerate, dramatise, etc.

          Globo is being phased out. They’ll lose commercial value with this drop in viewership, and the big “line extension” of new state and community channels will further dilute the audience of private channels.

          In the end, the final solution is that Globo can’t survive without the major food, drink, and cosmetics industries paying them to whore their products every 10 minutes.

          • Right so maybe they should go knocking on the governments door to give them money with the condition that they’ll “behave” (Showing everything but the utmost ass-kissing towards the government and not reporting on the many, many mistakes they make because that would be unpatriotic) I mean, its not like something like that has never happened, right Venevision?

          • Since when was being a capitalist ever about morals? You have a duty to maximise profit, and by clinging to a minority ideology Globo is in breach of that duty.

          • Well this is what i get for trying to discuss with someone whose mentality comes right out of 1930 soviet Russia, you seem to have a hard time with concepts like “Double-standard” and “Self-Censorship”, come back when you Google those champ.

          • No chico ese yoyo quedó rueda libre hace rato…si algún día tuviera que enfrentar seriamente, por ejemplo, la censura de la cobertura de El Rodeo se le deshilacharía la cabulla…

          • Globo is being phased out.
            It’s all in the Socialist Verbal Barrage ain’t it?

            You say phased out…. I say destroyed.
            I can’t wait until the “necessary harvest” is made and watch you twist like the shit you are.
            Remember, farms are good.

        • Get a Clue,
          Get a clue,

          The main thing I blame the blog owners for is in not eliminating you and those like you from their discussions.Freedom of speech is not a free for all.A free for all takes away true freedom to discuss .

          You demonstrate time and time again your disrespect for others and as such are totally not believable in terms of being someone who cares about others and in any way would support a government with any semblance of morality.

          If you get your kicks out of making others squirm, your deserve to be here wasting your time.

    • GAC: “I just found a massive hole in Toro’s argument! DERP DERP DERP!” Jesus, it’s like reading the rantings of a schizophrenic, tropical Glenn Beck.

    • Fox News may not be Over The Air, but Fox channel in fact is an OTA channel and they have the usual News block 4 times a day with the same line than Fox News.

      • Well, I congratulate you for actually responding to what I said, something no one else here has been able to do.

        But let’s be serious: Fox channel has the same line as Fox News??? Is that before or after the Simpsons and Seinfeld? Are you claiming that their little 9 o’clock local news show is the same as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity?

        • Yes, their local news keep the same line even though obviously it’s not a purely news channel so they don’t have as many opinion programs (although they do have some), but in terms of direct critics against Democrats in every news is exactly the same line. And I have never heard or read about intentions of closing the channel, they’re usually just refuted with facts or ignored.

      • Its called a comparison Torres. We could also make the comparison to Colombia, or to Mexico if you’d like. None of them have such aggressively opposition channels like Globovision, not even on cable!! So maybe we should be decrying the lack of freedom of expression there?

        • No, Get a clue, it’s called diversion. We don’t have to compare to anyone in a sovereign nation. We just have to judge for ourselves to see that the current government is taking steps to further limit the media for expression of its opposition, act which you are supporting, which you would not support if the opposition were taking steps to comparably limit all chavista channels if the opposition were in power.

          • Right, so its not that there’s a lack of freedom of expression when compared to other countries, its just that there’s a lack of freedom of expression when you live in the bubble of baseless nonsense.

          • So to you it’s not whether a government is limiting the media to non opposition; it’s just whether others are jumping off the bridge doing so, while accusing those who don’t jump of being in a bubble of baseless nonsense? We see your true colors Get a clue.

        • Get your facts right. Almost 1 out of 2 people have cable TV at home.

          Cable TV market share in Venezuela = 47.21%

          Haven’t you freakin’ heard of prepaid DirectTV/InterCable?
          Once prepaid, it goes a long way.

    • I read somewhere that cable broadcasting in Vzla is link to general broadcasting. So if they lose the ability to broadcast at large, they will not be able to be seen in cable.
      True or false? If I were a journalist I would look into this matter.

  3. I don’t understand what the Globovision whining is about.

    The analog shut down won’t happen until Santa Elena de Uairén has digital TV coverage and every single home has its own tuner. The shut down has been scheduled for January 1st, 2020. Globovisión’s concesión will expire in 2015. They will cease to exist exactly the RCTV way, not because they were not included on the ISDB switch. And if by then we still have chavismo ruling Venezuela, we deserve it.

      • You are absolutely right that a decision to cut Globovision off from any part of its audience is an important milestone in the destruction of freedom of speech in Venezuela. Apologists for the regime can point out that the water has not come to a rolling boil quite yet; but for those actually concerned about the health if the frog, the tactic and its intended results are transparent.

      • I’m not saying this is not important. But come on, did anyone expect the Government to friendly invite Globovision to be a part of this? I mean, we’re talking about Venezuela here. Having Globovision on the air during the last 14 years has not stopped them from getting away with whatever les sale del forro.

        • Perhaps the more interesting story is why they’ve waited this long. My sense is that they’ve effectively outsourced much of SEBIN’s intelligence work to it – why go through all the trouble of tapping phones and hacking into computers to find out what the opposition is saying to itself when it’s right there on the tube?

          • why go through all the trouble of tapping phones and hacking into computers to find out what the opposition is saying to itself when it’s right there on the tube?

            Because Soviet-bred Cold War habits
            (a) are hard to break.
            (b) employ the unemployable.

          • if it weren’t for Venezuelan largesse, Cubans would be far less employable than they’ve been. #Cubanstateinfrastructurehasitslimits

      • Francisco, Ricardo is totally right, and it’s a landmark of certain sort. Here’s why.

        First and foremost, no TV broadcaster needs to ask for a digital frequency. There’s no such thing. They are to reuse the TV concession they already have. What they need is a new digital platform set up in parallel to the analog platform, just like mobile phones in the 1990s.

        Globovisión may purchase new equipment of their own and go digital soon but haven’t done it for two reasons:

        1) Very importantly, their license is going to expire in two years, so there’s no guarantee they’ll have a return of investment on switching to digital TV.

        2) Just like when first announced, neither Venevisión, Televen, LaTele nor any Venezuelan TV station have set up a digital infrastructure of their own for economic unfeasibility and uncertainty, not because of a government prohibition. Since the only digital TV infrastructure available belongs to the state (like in the 1950s), this time they’ve picked who’s “invited” to broadcast on the state’s platform (quoting minister Arreaza). When in better conditions, private TV stations may go platform-independent just like they currently are in the analog realm.

        So, as Ricardo said, were Globovisión to die, it would do so in the RCTV way.

  4. Globovision has been the scapegoat of chavismo for a long time. Uribana? It’s Globovision’s fault. Unstoppable crime? That’s nothing but Globovision’s lies. Product scarcity? Those Globovision’s bastards with all their lies!

    Sadly, amid the chaos in Venezuela, Globovision stopped being a news channel and became the news. And it never got the opportunity to reverse that.

    But after the government declared Globovision Public Enemy #1 and the paramilitary declared Globovision and its journalist legitimate military targets, what the hell were they supposed to do? Pretend that nothing ever happened and go on with their lives?

    I’ve never been a huge fan of Globovision, but… what is the alternative? The sellouts of Venevision or Televen? The non-stop denialism of VTV? The almost nonexistent TVES?

  5. This is just another “stripe for the tiger”, at the end of the day the government doesn’t really care what the international community says (Only if it favors them of course) even their own allies were pretty much against closing down RCTV but they’re still going to force Globo out.

  6. @hal9000

    Re: “Self-Censorship”, if Globo were a single human being you might have a point. But it’s a collective of hundreds of people serving millions of people. Thus it seems the true act of self-censorship is to ensure one’s own demise by refusing to cater for a diverse audience.

    • Yoyo, your hand-wringing about Globo’s not catering for a diverse audience rings somewhat hollow in view of the state media’s blanket ban on dissident voices. ANTV, to take perhaps the most perverse example, only interviews chavistas and mentions opposition legislators only to mock and pillory them (with no right of reply, incidentally). Interspersed, naturally, with unremitting, pre-recorded government propaganda. And that from the broadcaster whose remit is specifically to cover parliament, which by definition represents a diversity of views. I’m well aware that it’s pointless to draw attention to the ‘massive holes in your argument’, thanks to the efficient filter that prevents you acknowledging inconvenient facts. Pero, ahi te lo dejo.

      • You’re missing the point. Every channel should have a point of view, especially one owned by the government or a small collective.

        A major capitalist channel like Globo employs hundreds of people. Can they all be expected to agree with the owner? Maybe, since the owner interviewed and employed every one of them.

        But the managers should concentrate on increasing profits as the shareholders demand, not pushing the self-destruct button. In this case, that means adapting your product to appeal to the widest audience.

        (Ignoring that the audience itself is actually the product being sold to the advertisers.)

        • I see. We should only give access to viewpoints that are popular. Interesting point coming from someone who is probably familiar with the term “manufacturing consent”. I guess it is not the ‘manufacturing of consent’ that’s really the concern for you, but the question of on whose behalf the consent is being manufactured.

          • When people say the left in north america is coddled, which is only partly true, THIS is exactly what they are talking about. Great post by the way.

          • A major capitalist channel like Globo
            A bad lead should always be buried. Try again. Get more money.

          • Really “a capitalist channel like globo” ok the audience….well yes that should be the reason even in La Torre de David there is lots of DIRECTV antennas, because all the government, communitaries, etc, channels are so appealing… And if you are going to talk about a capitalist channel they should have one with only telenoveleas ( what people want right? and I’m one of them) or one with Diosa canales et al…hey they are popular…really that thing of a capitalist thing…but of course the government has to tell me what is good for me, what should i want…and why to have a choice at all?

        • Yoyo, if the PSUV owned a tv channel it would be entitled to use it to promote its message. ANTV is owned by the state and financed with public money and therefore has a duty to reflect the widest possible variety of opinions. The PSUV has no right to use public funds to broadcast its political message – in fact that is illegal and unconstitutional. The same goes for the public broadcasting system as a whole – but as I said, ANTV is a particularly egregious example because it was specifically set up to cover parliament and – inter alia – to reduce the dangerous level of political polarisation in Venezuela.

    • Cater to a diverse audience? Thats another term you need to look up on Google since you don’t seem to understand its meaning. Its one thing for people to call you out on your double standard, but when you yourself take pride on how biased you are its really amazing Yoyo.

  7. Globovision is important because we live in a country where an essential feature of the regime is the methodical use of lies deceits and communicational manipulation to disimulate or hide its mismanagement, blunders, corruptions and totalitarian vocation , to candify and farcially glorify its leaders arrogant narcicism and pompous hubristic bluster , and to bury its enemies in insults , threats and infamy. This is what makes globovision precious for people who dont want to see the country through the idiotized eyes of the ideolatrically faithful. Someone said in spanish you could recognize tyranny because it could only move between ‘el vituperio y la aclamacion’. People who cant stand other people to have their own view of things , who are offended that they have a way of expressing themselves publicly ,moreover who sadistically take sattisfaction in denying them that freedom and that dignity dont deserve to be recognized the freedom they deny to others. and yet we in their place would not deny them that right .

    • This is absolutely right. This is why having any institution at all to break the autocratic cerco is so crucial. But it’s also why it’s so frustrating that the one institution we had in a position to do so spent YEARS shooting itself in the foot with mindless boosterism.

      • Yes, because everyone knows that Globovision is the ONLY place in Venezuela where one can hear dissenting opinions…. or… wait….maybe that’s not exactly true…. oh what the hell, it sounds more dramatic that way so let’s go with it…

    • “yet we in their place would not deny them that right .”

      what right is that? “to express themselves publicly”? how could you even suggest that ‘they’ are denying ‘you’ this right? globovision may continue to operate through satellite and cable TV as well as the internet. are you aware there is no “right” to broadcast over the public airwaves? there broadcasting companies are not automatically entitled to renewal of their licenses (in Venezuela or any country in the world). it would appear that you are, in fact, denying ‘them’ an actually existing right, the democratic right to regulate the open-access airwaves, a public resource. the government is entitled and even obligated to regulate these airwaves in the interest of the general public.

      • If you applied the same rule which is being applied to Globovision to regime friendly stations you would be foaming at the mouth , if your pretend to any honesty , please make a more plausible effort , Please understand that a power is not legitimate where it is exercised in a partial and persecutorial spirit which is evidently the case here .

      • I’ve long been baffled at how PSFs are seemingly incapable of doing the following thought experiment: what if Bush had behaved the same way towards MSNBC or PBS? Is it moral bankruptcy or political immaturity to be able to hold, say, Assange as a hero and Berlusconi a villain but at the same time defend (if not celebrate) venezuelan radio and tv stations being restricted?. It is one thing to be a Palast-level hack or a Weisbrot-level tarifado but I doubt yoyo et al are actually getting paid.

      • honestly, no one is questioning the state’s right to regulate the airwaves. Merely emphasising its duty to regulate them in pursuit of the public interest, not the narrow, sectarian interests of the ruling party. In democracies these matters are debated publicly and decided by bodies that, as far as possible, are at arm’s length from the political party in power. In what way is the exclusion of Globovision from digital tv a step forward for the public interest? The argument that denying the channel a foothold in digital tv is not an issue of free speech is a real stretch: by this measure, any partial restriction on freedom of expression is unimportant and not to be protested – only when they shut you up completely do you have a case. And then – guess what? – just like RCTV, you have no voice with which to protest. What a very weaselly and politically convenient line of reasoning.

        • “In what way is the exclusion of Globovision from digital tv a step forward for the public interest? ”

          For the same reason that any organization whose #1 goal is to overthrow the democratically elected government should be neutralized. And its not just that some Chavistas claim that Globovision would like to overthrow the government, they actually DID it once, remember?

          • Such a pity, then, that the MBR200 was not effectively neutralised after its abortive attempt to overthrow the government in 1992, before it morphed into the MVR and the PSUV. In many countries, coup leaders are – quite properly – legally barred from seeking public office. Had that been the case in Venezuela we might have been saved an awful lot of grief. So odd, too, that if such a grave charge does indeed lie behind this unstated, undebated, non-transparent decision, no one in Globovision has ever been so much as questioned over it, much less prosecuted. In democratic countries, the courts are where these matters are decided. They are not unilaterally resolved by the affected party via executive fiat in an underhanded and cowardly way that precludes public debate.

          • “Such a pity, then, that the MBR200 was not effectively neutralised after its abortive attempt to overthrow the government in 1992”

            Well, they went to jail. If only the owners of Globovision could get the same punishment.

            “So odd, too, that if such a grave charge does indeed lie behind this unstated, undebated, non-transparent decision, no one in Globovision has ever been so much as questioned over it, much less prosecuted. In democratic countries, the courts are where these matters are decided.”

            A grave charge? Its not a charge, its a basic fact, as anyone with eyes could clearly see as they watched Globovision’s coverage on April 11th, 12th and 13th.

            And, no, media concessions are not decided by the courts. They are decided by the executive. That’s the same way it works in many democracies around the world.

          • To labour a very obvious point: the courts are where matters such as plots to overthrow the government are dealt with. If the government believes individuals in Globovision were involved in such a plot, the only sane and logical course is to pursue them through the judicial system. It has never done so .. I wonder why. It is perverse and – frankly – barmy to suggest that the issue should be dealt with via the award of broadcasting concessions.

          • Right, so Globovision is not guilty of participating in the coup because the government never pursued charges against them.

            And the bankers of Goldman Sachs were not guilty of participating in the subprime mortgage crisis because Obama never pursued charges against them. #Logic Fail

          • And I find it funny that you all claim that Chavez has complete control over the courts, but then you ALSO claim that Chavez never tried Globovision for the coup because he couldn’t. According to you that hasn’t stopped Chavez from throwing other people in jail unfairly… Its one or the other, but it can’t be both…

          • “And, no, media concessions are not decided by the courts. They are decided by the executive. That’s the same way it works in many democracies around the world.”

            Name one. Media concessions in democracies to the extent I am aware are determined by independent adminstrative tribunals through transparent hearings, with reasons, available to- in Canada at least- practically anyone to participate or make submissions. They are also subject to independent judicial review. Similarly in the US with the FCC.

            It is not the perogative of a government in a normal democracy to dispense of publicly controlled frequencies as it sees fit. It is done- in normal places- according to rule of law. In Venezuela, it is done essentially by executive fiat. For political aims. Which are broadcast, if there is any doubt, in cadena, for all to see.

          • “Media concessions in democracies to the extent I am aware are determined by independent adminstrative tribunals through transparent hearings”

            Yes, administrative bodies that are appointed by the executive, same as in Venezuela.

          • The wilful distortion of the meaning of “executive” and the wilful oblivion of the word “independent”, by GAC who pretends not to know any better, is precisely why legal documents always include definitions.

          • I didn’t claim they were independent. I said they are appointed by the executive (which is the branch of the government headed by the president, how exactly did I “distort” that?).

            You can’t refute that, so instead you make a brainless comment accusing me of distorting…

          • GAC the critical distinction that you and your friends here don’t seem to get is the distinction between the executive branch and the judicial branch. Not surprisingly, because neither does the regime you support.

          • Yoyo couldn’t really be this stupid. Chavez himself actually DID it, But that was then and this is now. Additionally, apart from fascist regimes, tv channels don’t get chopped down for DOING it, until the regime proves it, in a court of law. Independent court, too.

  8. I am struck by the lack of anger in these discussions. Freedom of information is fundamental to human dignity. It’s being taken away in a very quiet, but very deliberate manner. This is evil. Everyone should recognize it as such. The fact that some Chavistas are coming onto these blogs and celebrating the removal of opposition voices is disturbing. No, it’s frightneing. Are you that afraid of differing opinions? Wow.

    • I too am also struck by the lack of anger at violations of freedom of the press. Not just in Venezuela but all over Latin America. I’ve just chalked it up to the fact that we Latin Americans don’t view freedom of speech as sacrosanct as it is within the Anglo-American political system. For most political hacks in Latin America freedom of the press is OK as long as it agrees with their side. And besides, most chavistas are mental so does it really surprise you when they celebrate this?

    • I believe you are in grave error to think that there are Chavistas here “celebrating the removal of opposition voices”? Could you please point to a single comment on this site as an example of what you’re talking about?

        • You link to yoyo’s comment asking about capitalist morals. I don’t quite understand what he or she is driving at, but this isn’t a “celebration of the removal of opposition voices” under any interpretation. My point is asking for an example is to suggest that what we are doing is not celebrating… but questioning the very thing you imagine us to be celebrating.

          For example, in this case, we are not celebrating “the removal of opposition voices” as much as challenging your interpretation that that is the effect of this decision. GAC and I have merely pointed out that since this decision in no way affects Globovision’s ability to express itself on satellite, cable, or the internet, it is hardly stifling of this opposition voice.

          So, in case you are not following, I do not support the removal of opposition voices. However, I would not regard this decision as constituting such a removal. If the effect of this decision is the removal of Globovision as an opposition voice, I would not support it. In fact, I cannot say at this moment, not knowing the reason for the decision, etc., that I am in *favor* of this decision, that I like it, that it is wise, that I celebrate it.

          • Honestly/GAC:

            Stop it with the innocent routine, as though you cannot identify with the intellectually impoverished logic that forms part of leftist rabble-rousers [cf. yoyo’s interpretation of the government’s decision to BAR ENTRY TO GLOBOVISIÓN in the available channels for digital conversion, such channels available to the wider public, in Venezuela. (*) ]

            In light of the immaturity and obvious lack of experience in the real world, demonstrated by those who pray to the gods of castrismo, chavismo, and seanpennismo, let me turn yoyo’s legacy statement on its ears, as follows:

            Since when is carrying forth a vision in the commercial world; risking one’s finances to do so; demanding excellence from and caring for those workers employed; making a profit, the bulk of which must be reinvested in capital expenditures, so as to ensure market competiveness and be able to offer employment, to meet one’s obligations, etc. about immorality?

            Since when is the issue solely about profit maximization?

            Since when is clinging to a particular view that satisfies over 6 million people, in a supposedly “multi-polar” and “pluri-plural” world, a breach of duty?

            Honestly, I don’t know how old you all are. But we’re not fooled by your collective attempts to deviate these discussions to one of an immature and inexperienced vision of the world. Get this straight: In a reasonably regulated marketplace, making money by one’s efforts, rather than by sucking on a government’s teat, is not an immorality.

            (*) Yoyo dixit: Since when was being a capitalist ever about morals? You have a duty to maximise profit, and by clinging to a minority ideology Globo is in breach of that duty.

          • I repeat: how is this an example of Chavista’s “celebrating the removal of opposition voices”? I have nothing invested in this discussion about capitalist, immorality, etc.

      • Maybe for the usual PSFs like your or GAC this isn’t so much of a celebration outside of the fact that it feeds your Sean Penn approved smugness of “I know how things are because I see them on Tv” But chavistas in general are smiling ear to ear at this step backwards in the field of freedom of speech in Venezuela, forgetting the blackouts and the devaluation.

        • “But chavistas in general are smiling ear to ear at this step backwards in the field of freedom of speech in Venezuela,”

          I do not share your interpretation that this decision represents a “step backwards in the field of freedom of speech” (since neither Globovision nor any other broadcasting company is entitled to broadcast on state owned and regulated public airwaves, and since Globovision remains free to express its opposition voice on cable, satellite, online and other means.) But if this is or was the intention of those smiling Chavistas (to limit freedom of speech), then please do not count me among them.

  9. The use of catch phrases “pluri-plural” and “multi-polar”, which cuban/chavista apparatchiks and system defenders engage in, are nothing more than an exercise in lining up the noodle letters in vegetable soup. The words have no weight.

    Yesterday in Brasilia, Yoani Sánchez made the differences crystal clear, while outside the chambers, Raúl’s directive to disrupt continued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoFntvQrPGc

    • I don’t watch much television but I have fond memories of watching that show a while back while I was bedridden in 40 degree heat with an insect-borne parasite. It struck me as an example of good public-interest journalism. Something the regime would find particularly distressing.

  10. At least we know who wont be arround to gloat over Globos shut down in 2015 .Unless of course he is given the mantle of inmortality by the demon -gods of Throlldom.

  11. Once, in a far away land, a man was condemned to be executed. In his final appeal to the King, he pleaded, “Your Majesty, if you will just commute my sentence, I swear that I can teach your horse how to sing.” The King was intrigued by this. After all, who would not want to have a horse that could sing? It must also be said that this king was not sharpest arrow in the quiver. So the King replied, “Very well. I will grant you one year of clemency. If my horse cannot sing by the end of the year, you will be executed. Do you accept?” The man agreed to the King’s terms. Later, one of the man’s friends said to him, “Are you crazy? You can’t teach that horse to sing!” To which the man replied, “Yes, my friend. I know that. But I have a year to live. And in that time, much could happen: I could die. The horse could die. The King could die. And who knows? Maybe the horse will learn how to sing.”

    By the time this measure takes effect, it may well be moot.

  12. And all this suffering, all this struggle, in the name of, what? One more, of the myriad stillborn Third World-ist Socialisms whose ruins and failure you can see around the world, doomed to die and fail as soon as its founder who is now agonizing, dies.

    Now, don’t take me wrong, I think that Globovision is a particular kind of monster, one grown on unusual and freakish conditions and with characteristics that make people in the opposition cringe.

    But the fact remains that Venezuela will have let die a TV station that could have been a superb news outlet under better conditions, in the name of… absolutely nothing. Well, maybe the pockets of those members of Boligarquia who manage to pass under the radar when this is finally over, maybe of authoritarianism a la Maduro or a la Cabello, whoever the winner may be does not matter…

  13. Come on guys!!! Engaging with GAC and the like is such a waste of time. These guys defend Castro after the disaster he has done in Cuba. Do you think for a second that his/their mind(s) is(are) ready to have a coherent thought? It is entertaining, I admit it, but put your time to better use.

  14. We all know that Globo is being attacked because its a TV station (along with some crucially located radio station) while critical print media is largely left alone because the hard core regime follower whose gross delusions and passions must be catered to dont read print , they are virtual illiterates unless you count the most primitive form of reading material . Chavez made himself noticed by some remarks over TV , he has never written anything not only because he cant write anything of note but also because he doesnt have to , all he has to do is rant for hours before a microfone to get heard. The regime is involved in a war to destroy the opposition and establish its absolute power over Venezuelan life using as one of its main weapons its capacity to communicate lies slogans propaganda and silence the searing criticism of its tv media enemies . Being virtual illiterates they cant be reached through reasoned expose’s or analytic reports only via media manipulation of the kind that works best on TV and Radio .
    The trolls are a distraction which give us fun but they mean absolutely nothing to the end game because this is being played in a different field where reasoned discourses dont count , only the capacity to manipulate peoples grossest delusions and passions count , and this game is best played using tv media and radio . ordinary illiterates dont read papers and take no cognizance of mismanagement disasters unless presented in the most lurid and visual manner. If not Globo another media is needed to continue the fight.

  15. Good comment. It would be nice if we could make a difference, but can we, and to what extent? Globo is important to us, but not to the Chavista masses, since its reach/share were truncated by Government confiscation of key transmission equipment some time ago. The illiterate masses buy print “Ultimate Noticias” to some extent, but its pro-Govt. skewed news content will never be a game-changer. Chavismo will probably have to collapse from within, as did Eastern European communism, and the process has probably already started, but the timetable is uncertain. What never ceases to amaze is the intellectual dishonesty of supposedly-educated troll(s), such as GAC=Yoyo=Honestly=Ad Infinitum, who try to defend the indefensible, with specious time-consuming arguments; it’s hard to believe that this is a non-remunerated past-time, as is the honest defense of Truth/Democracy by the vast majority on this Blog.

    • Therein lies your false assumption NET, their time is NOT non-remunerated, they are not defending anything but engaging some of you/us into trying to argue back to them.

      And they are also keeping track of what its said here.


  16. There are at least 45% of Venezuelans who adamantly oppose the government and who need to keep their spirits up and aroused , many of them read print and listen to radio, we can be of use there, there is a hard core set of regime supporters which are innaccessible (30%) because they have too much fun and angry excitment playing the roles of chavista machos and arguing with them is useless because they get more riled up the more they are contradicted , but its important for the opponents to know that some in the opposition stand up to them (part of the process of keeping their spirits up) , then there are some 25% who like the regime because they are getting goodies and attention which they missed in the old days , but who are not blind to its shortcomings , more so who often get angry at things the regime does or doesnt do . Getting to this 25% is the goal , studying their habits of mind and thought , their responses to different situations , what makes them angry and what makes them tick and them creating different messages that reach them is the job of the oppo communicators . The regimes many mounting misdeeds and badly cosmetized failures are bound to be of help in the process of turning these into part of the opposition , Infiltrating the regimes followers is also part of the game , spreading gossip and catchy well presented stories about the regimes many disasters can also help, finding voices they can identify with can also be important , Someone with good harsh macho looks who speaks with aggresiveness but also with blistering humour , in a deep hard tone of voice might also help. The problem of course is that you need to use two registers , one for the traditional opponent and another for these new proto opponents in the making and both might not match . The throlls are basically unimportant , may be they can tell us what is in the regime mind from what sort of subjects they raise but we should use them as parring partners to keep our dialectical skills honed and sharp . We shouldnt spend too much time delving in the inner miseries of their lives and minds , they are basically fodder for our intellectual exercises. These are just some thoughts , they are many others which are already being used and which will crop up later to help in the fight . .

  17. Sorry if this offends, but the demise of Globovision could well be a good thing for Venezuela long term. It removes the ambiguity about where this government is headed. For some people the presence of an overwhelmingly opposition news channel has been taken as evidence of the regime’s tolerance.

    In any case, the world is changing so TV channels will soon be old hat. I suppose you could counter with how easy is it to switch off the web? But the web is so integral to modern & future development that even Cuba & China are having to open up and even in his regime’s dying days Mubarak’s Egypt couldn’t suppress it either.

  18. Bob : there is no ambiguity anywhere as to where the regime is headed , read any paper or media in the world and they know its a tyranny in the process of becoming more and more absolute , the surface pseudo tolerance is window dressing , and every body knows it.. Because the regime would rather avoid scandal it wont hack globo with an ax , instead it will innoculate it with a form of HIV and let it die slowly and with minimum fuzz . The loss of Globo is a real loss. Its substitution by other forms of media doesnt take account of the level of organized resources needed to produce the news that Globo reports, the cost of the new communicational gadgets and the skills needed to run it make it much less accesible to the general public.. Also it takes time before its use spreads . It will in the end be useful , but a tv station would be a better weapon in the war which is being waged. thanks for your comments anyway.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here