Talk:RCTV

Bias

It appears to be that this article has taken a very biased tone in the defense of the news channel. In fact, everyone in the world community knows that shutting it down is justified.

Reporters Without Borders

I'm removing mention of the referendum which Reporters Without Borders claimed, since Venezuela's info minister claims they were lying. [1] Further, Wikipedia's own entry on RWB casts doubt on its bias within Latin America. [2] -- Tayssir 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying that if a government says another institution is lying, one should delete the quotation from that other institution? Can you tell me what government announces it IS violating human rights?

There is a BBC headline about a protest in Caracas over RCTV. Can someone quote it onto this article? --DanCBJMS via 134.117.168.237 06:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Verify credibility of this organization

Please, verify the credibility of the Human Rights Foundation. Its president Thor Halvorssen is (or was) member of an "advocacy group" per request of Carlos Ortega (former labor movement president) and Carlos Fernández(former head of chamber of commerce) [3]who were the leaders of the 2002 strike/lockout, a failed attemp to overthrow Chávez government. JRSP 23:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Event Status & Proposed Renaming of section?

I propose we rename the Criticism section into something along the lines of Opposition and/or Shutdown controversy given the current happenings with RCTV, or at least make it a subsection. And why haven't I read anything on the mass protests against its shutdown? Reuters article on protests Franck Drake 06:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RCTV Update

I updated some, had to mention briefly two things, first as of Saturday RCTV has shut down its live internet stream, and for those broadcast history buffs (like me) had to make mention of the final program airing on RCTV.

On a personal note, someone should know where to send the idea to 1BC to have RCTV FULLY on the internet as well as on cable/satellite. The protest got a bit tense by the way and water cannons were being used, Im providing "Live" Instant coverage as I am watching the live feed of Globovision of the demonstration, hope its ok Lugnuts6 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

People showing support for RCTV are being chased away from the building by cops with gas bombs. The supporters are throwing rocks and bottles at the police.

I see my brief posting of the police action on the demonstrations was removed, but thats ok. I just wanted to contribute a bit to history Lugnuts6 04:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Did See (via globalvision web steram) the first few moments of TVes,Is it against rules to request a barf bag for what is in fact "the chavez channel" Lugnuts6 05:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Final moments

I found this Youtube clip of RCTV's last 12 minutes. Maybe we can write more about its final minutes. It appears like Guardian messed up the order of events in the last broadcast in an article about RCTV closure(there is a link to it at TVes's article)... Tarmo Tanilsoo 13:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Shutdown section

Needs to be cleaned up and re-written for neutrality. There are egregious violations on both sides. Notably, single sources that are part of the controversy are used as authoritative (ie HRW) and statements of support are not sourced. Thanks!--Cerejota 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also notice some weasel-wording and original research. Please, don't!--Cerejota 11:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RCTV failing to pay taxes to the Telecommunications Commission

Article: The truth about RCTV (29-May 2007)

CaribDigita 14:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

POV changes to the lead

This edit — surprisingly marked as NPOVing the lead inthe edit summary — has introduced POV to the lead, and should be reverted or rewritten. It introduces unsourced claims, and states as fact that the license expired, which is disputed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure how that made it more POV. I primarily removed most of the personal references to Chavez. When American government does something, even if it was influenced or decided by the president, we don't present it as Bush's private matters, but rather like government business. I also presented the other side of the story, which was completely absent from the lead before.

As for "dubious" claims: the many newspaper articles I read about the matter say that the license expired 20 years after its introduction in 1987. That the station was the loudest opposition voice is also reported widely in the Western media, and I don't remember anybody anywhere disputing that RCTV supported the coup attempt - it was even thanked by the perpetrators when it seemed that the coup will win. Zocky | picture popups 15:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Irish documentary is not a reliable or unbiased source; it's the equivalent of sourcing a Michael Moore "documentary". The article continues to trend more and more pro-Chavez POV. "The government accuses the network of participating in the 2002 failed coup d'état that briefly overthrew Venezuela's democratically elected government." The other side of the story is that Chavez resigned at the request of his military leaders after they refused to follow his orders and open fire on marchers, so this sentence clearly presents only a pro-Chavez POV. The opening paragraphs of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and MSNBC don't state that they are anti-Bush, biased, pro-liberal; singling out that a Venezuelan TV station exercised its (previously) democratic right to freedom of the press is pro-Chavez POV. In the US, CNN can bash Bush and push a liberal agenda all day long, and that isn't mentioned in the lead of their article. A TV station in what used to be a democracy is not disallowed from supporting ... um ... democracy ... as they choose. The lead continues to become more pro-Chavez POV, and is not at all neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

When American government does something, even if it was influenced or decided by the president, we don't present it as Bush's private matters, but rather like government business. Apples and oranges. Bush doesn't control the executive, legislative, judicial, military, electoral processes, and police. In other words, the USA is a functioning democracy; Chavez rules Venezuela by decree (you're aware of that, right?). All decisions are his decisions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of this content might be merged if neutrality is the goal — saying only that RCTV supported a "coup" against a democracy is a blatantly non-neutral version:

On April 11, 2002, anti-Chávez and pro-Chávez demonstrators clashed at the Miraflores palace. According to BBC News, a sector of the Armed Forces asked for the resignation of President Hugo Chávez, whom they held responsible for a massacre during the demonstrations. Commander of the Army, Lucas Rincón Romero, reported in a nationwide broadcast that Chávez had resigned his presidency, a charge Chávez would later deny. Chávez was taken to a military base while Fedecámaras president Carmona was appointed as the transitional President of Venezuela, following mass protests and a general strike by his opponents.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, the problem here is that this can't be made "neutral" in the sense that we present both sides as equally right. Everybody knows RCTV supported the coup, and the Venezuelan government exercised its legal prerogative to refuse renewal of the license. We can like or dislike Chavez, but that has nothing to do with what actually happened. In this case, I'm afraid, Chavez has the law on his side, and RCTV doesn't. However we write the article, that fact will remain. Zocky | picture popups 19:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm only getting jibberish in that explanation. We don't decide who's right; we report what reliable sources say, without using undue weight to any version. The story now is weighted only one direction. RCTV (and every other station) supported what happened on April 11, which is described now in a POV fashion, giving undue weight to the Chavez version, and ignoring others. Perhaps there was some logic in your explanation above that reflects Wiki policies, and I didn't read or interpret it correctly. You seem to be saying we decide what's true (and you seem to believe you know what that truth is). And it's plainly redundant to say that Chavez has the law on his side, when he rules by decree and he *is* the law. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

2002 coup removed Venezuela's democratically elected government

The 2002 coup removed Venezuela's democratically elected government. Nobody should try to obscure that fact, and anyone who wants to dispute it should feel free to present references supporting their disputation here.

Look up; previous section. Tell the *whole* story, not just the pro-Chávez version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume you mean this: "The other side of the story is that Chavez resigned at the request of his military leaders after they refused to follow his orders and open fire on marchers". Please cite your source for this.

Already stated above in two BBC sources, although there could be string of others. In case you don't want to sort through the text above and many sources, here are some excerpts:

• "Aunque se desconoce aun la identidad ni la filiación política de los francotiradores, un sector de la Fuerza Armada Nacional pidió la renuncia del presidente Hugo Chávez, a quien responsabilizaron por la masacre. Tras varias horas de incertidumbre y desinformación la madrugada del 12 de abril, el Gral. Lucas Rincón anunció en cadena de televisión que "ante la gravedad de los hechos" se le había solicitado la renuncia de su cargo al presidente "la cual aceptó. Pedro Carmona Estanga, entonces jefe de la patronal Fedecámaras, se encargó de un "gobierno de transición", gobierno que habría de durar menos de 48 horas."[4]
• Business leader Pedro Carmona has been sworn in as Venezuela's caretaker president at the request of the armed forces after Hugo Chavez was ousted from office. ... Military leaders said Mr Chavez resigned at their insistence after he ordered troops and civilian gunmen to fire on a crowd of more than 150,000. At least 13 people died and more than 240 were injured. But Mr Chavez's daughter rejected that and said he was the victim of a coup. 'It is a lie, all lies, he said he never resigned, that a group of military took him away and he is being held incommunicado,' Maria Gabriela Chavez told a Cuban television station." [5]

Exactly as stated in the text above, and repeated throughout the press worldwide, pick any number of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A secret resignation given only to the people holding him captive is interesting, but beside the point. Those carrying out the coup also dissolved the National Assembly, declared the country's constitution to be null and void, and suspended the judiciary. [6] This is why it is correct to say that the coup removed Venezuela's government, and it is incorrect to say that the coup removed just Chavez.

Is RCTV shutdown?

According to this BBC article (fouth section from bottm) RCTV is still avaliable on cable-tv. To me that would disqualify it from beeing called "defunct". --Jonte-- 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is my understanding, but it is defunct in terms of what it used to be (the most popular TV station accessed by "most" people). Consider which segment of the population watched it most, and which have access to cable TV in Venezuela. It's effectively defunct, although theoretically still operating; not sure if that can be fixed from the sourced material? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But the main problem is that the article then cofirms that the station was "shut down" by the government while it in reality only lost it's service on the public tv-net. --Jonte-- 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on my personal knowledge (without combing the sources), I believe you are correct and the wording should reflect that. What it means is more brainwashing of the masses, as they have less access to cable tv, and in my personal experience, RCTV was the more preferred at lower incomes (not sure if there is a reliable source to back that up, though). Anyway, as to whether you can adjust the "defunct" in the text, it's a matter of what the sources say, but I think you're correct. If there is a source which explains how this impacts the lower income groups, it would be good to explain that. (It's also probably part of why Chavez chose RCTV and not one of the other channels. It's all in the same vein as the indoctrination that is now beginning in the schools — start with RCTV, the channel watched by the popular classes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am just as biased as you, as a Chavéz supporter I am happy that RCTV finally lost their license after repeted violations agianst the regulations. But our personal opinions should not reflect a wikipedia article. We must make them as neutral as they can get. --Jonte-- 20:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, your text should say what the sources say, not what we know to be the case, in the event reliable sources haven't reported it (I don't know if a reliable source reports on the population segments that are affected by the RCTV shutdown). By "regulations", I'm assuming you're referring to the restrictions Chávez put on freedom of the press, so that he couldn't be criticized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was in Venezuela about 6 months ago and was surprised to see Fox News on the television in my hotel room. Is this not the most anti-chavez tv station in the world? You can be imprisoned in the USA for signing up for Al-Manar (the most anti-american tv station in the world), so I wonder if Chavez restrictions on the press are really all that broad.

Stubbiness

There are four stubby sections in the middle of the article; each of one sentence or less. They should be merged to one, with the correct use of combined templates at the top of the section per WP:GTL. A section for one sentence doesn't look good for an article linked on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Recentism

I am a bit concerned that this article is starting to suffer from Recentism. Almost a third of the article now is about the recent shut down. Perhaps some of this detailed content should be moved to May 2007 RCTV protests (and that article could be renamed to something more like 2007 RCTV shutdown. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but ... Might make more sense to do that after it's off the main page, because it will just get added back in while it's there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag explanation needed

Can anyone explain the neutrality tag on the Reasons section? What important information is left out, given undue weight, or what imbalance needs to be addressed (please provide reliable sources backing up claims). Unless specifics are provided, it can't be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the problems in this article have not been explicitly stated, and I'm not convinced that there are enough to warrant the tag.
Blaiseball 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Further sources

Possible info to be added, and some sources:

• El Universal — Venezuela's main newspaper — in English
• Second Venezuela TV is under fire. BBC News (29 May 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29
• TV row widens Venezuela's rift. BBC News (28 May 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
• Romero, Simon. Venezuela: Government Sets Sights on Globovisión and CNN. New York Times (May 29, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
• Romero, Simon. Venezuela Police Repel Protests Over TV Network’s Closing. New York Times (May 28, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
• Romero, Simon. Chávez’s Move Against Critic Highlights Shift in Media. New York Times (May 27, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.
• Associated Press. Court: Venezuelan TV station must stop broadcasting. CNN News (May 23, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-05-29.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Context

Venezuela is in the midst of a socialist revolution in which a broad range of industries deemed central to the peoples interest are being nationalized . Some mention of this seems appropriate. Lycurgus 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)