The American Media vs. Hugo Chavez

[Agnapostate]

The mainstream American media has consistently engaged in biased vilification of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is portrayed as a dictatorial tyrant in U.S. media outlets. In reality, Chavez is far more democratic than George Bush is. Unlike the case of George Bush's ascencion in 2000, Chavez legitimately won his presidential election: http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2020.pdf

Chavez is typically presented as a dictator because of his unsuccesful attempt to extend presidential term limits, which the American media portrayed as an egotistical move by an authoritarian tyrant. But how can it be seriously claimed that such a move is a serious blow to democracy? A referendum was held on the issue, thereby making Chavez and Venezuela greater supporters of democracy than the United States. The U.S. does not hold national referendums. It relies on unaccountable elected officials to push through their policies of statism.

Moreover, just how is it anti-democratic for citizens to vote for and elect their preferred candidate as often as they please, as opposed to a system which limits the candidate field? The democratic system is a far better check on tyranny than more tyranny.

Much attention has been focused on Chavez's refusal to renew the license of RCTV, which the American media portrays as a news agency that was "critical" of him, according to the Associated Press. CNN reported that RCTV would be shut down because "Chavez is not a big fan of it." In reality, RCTV was not simply a "political critic" of him; they actively supported and encouraged the 2002 coup attempt of him. A news agency openly promotes the overthrow of a democratically elected leader, and when their license is not renewed (five years later), they are portrayed as a persecuted martyr? In the U.S., such an activity would be punished by prison time and treason charges rather than five years of broadcasting time after the fact and an eventual lack of a license renewal.

The American media functions to promote propagana and anti-socialist sentiments have been a typical control mechanism that they have used over the years. Propaganda model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[justone]

The mainstream American media has consistently engaged in biased vilification of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is portrayed as a dictatorial tyrant in U.S. media outlets. In reality, Chavez is far more democratic than George Bush is. Unlike the case of George Bush's ascencion in 2000, Chavez legitimately won his presidential election: http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2020.pdf

Chavez is typically presented as a dictator because of his unsuccesful attempt to extend presidential term limits, which the American media portrayed as an egotistical move by an authoritarian tyrant. But how can it be seriously claimed that such a move is a serious blow to democracy? A referendum was held on the issue, thereby making Chavez and Venezuela greater supporters of democracy than the United States. The U.S. does not hold national referendums. It relies on unaccountable elected officials to push through their policies of statism.

Moreover, just how is it anti-democratic for citizens to vote for and elect their preferred candidate as often as they please, as opposed to a system which limits the candidate field? The democratic system is a far better check on tyranny than more tyranny.

Much attention has been focused on Chavez's refusal to renew the license of RCTV, which the American media portrays as a news agency that was "critical" of him, according to the Associated Press. CNN reported that RCTV would be shut down because "Chavez is not a big fan of it." In reality, RCTV was not simply a "political critic" of him; they actively supported and encouraged the 2002 coup attempt of him. A news agency openly promotes the overthrow of a democratically elected leader, and when their license is not renewed (five years later), they are portrayed as a persecuted martyr? In the U.S., such an activity would be punished by prison time and treason charges rather than five years of broadcasting time after the fact and an eventual lack of a license renewal.

The American media functions to promote propagana and anti-socialist sentiments have been a typical control mechanism that they have used over the years. Propaganda model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike the case of George Bush's ascencion in 2000

Fact check fails.

But how can it be seriously claimed that such a move is a serious blow to democracy?

If It is not constitutional, who does ever about democracy?

1, A referendum was held on the issue, 2.thereby making Chavez and Venezuela greater supporters of democracy than the United States.

1. does not guarantee to the conclusion 2. unless you know what was THE referendum

The U.S. does not hold national referendums. It relies on unaccountable elected officials to push through their policies of statism.

We hold the Constitution. The system of checks and balances. Fact check fails.

Moreover, just how is it anti-democratic for citizens to vote for and elect their preferred candidate as often as they please, as opposed to a system which limits the candidate field?

It is very democratic. The Constitution is not. It puts limits on demos.

Etc., etc.,

All the above does not even matter as much as the fact that Hugo has made a number of actions and statements you are happily avoiding to mention.

 

[justone]

besides the media allowed us to listen to Hugo, it is not like Putin with his Russian... it is a straight forward case, not to much media can do..

 

[mikhail]

I actually agree ive read several things about chavez that are just not true.Im not a supporter of him but the is a very strange over interest in his affairs.

 

[Agnapostate]

Then why doesn't President Bust just admit that the U.S. does not practice democracy, in that case?

 

[justone]

I actually agree ive read several things about chavez that are just not true.Im not a supporter of him but the is a very strange over interest in his affairs.

That MAY NOT be true. the media likes things that are not true, but then you have your overal impression.

I have heard a lot of weirds things from you, but I am glad you are not a supprter of him, the opposite would not be even weird.

 

[justone]

Then why doesn't President Bust just admit that the U.S. does not practice democracy, in that case?

Because he never had a chance of me imposing such a question on him.
He has received liberal education that practices the idea of democracy which does not have roots in the declaration/constitution.

as long as he is not in the position of hugo and the constitution puts checks on him why would anybody care? He will be gone soon and another schmuck if I am typing tashah's expression correctly is going to take his place. Hopefully he will not be Hugo sympathizer Obama.


But even then All the above does not even matter as much as the fact that Hugo has made a number of actions and statements you are happily avoiding to mention.

 

[John1234]

Our media is way out of control.
The bias over the Georgia attack on South Ossetia and a Russian base was mind boggling.
McCain even gave us a battle cry. "We are all Georgians".

We are not all Georgians. We are Americans.
Georgians launch attacks on civilians and beat Jehovah's Witnesses.

Anyhow...

The case with Chavez is not very concerning.
If he had called Bush the devil in a press conference that would be one thing.
But for him to say that to the United Nations just made him World Moron Number 1.

The media bias is easilly explainable in this case and there is little indication of a conspiracy.
Chavez was begging for media bias. And American bias towards him as well.

 

[justone]

We are not all Georgians. We are Americans.
.

G-d bless your soul my democratic political ''enemy''. And we are proud of being Americans

We are Americans! I am proud of you.

 

[justone]

But for him to say that to the United Nations just made him World Moron Number 1.

I cannot even believe you vote for democrats, when I see you supporting my point.

All the above does not even matter as much as the fact that Hugo has made a number of actions and statements you are happily avoiding to mention.

Actually you have done a better job than I because i couldn't immediately single out an example.

 

[Agnapostate]

Giuliani repeated McCain's claim that we were all Georgians, which was puzzling to me, since he's the only one who married his cousin.

 

[John1234]

I cannot even believe you vote for democrats, when I see you supporting my point.

I do not see the relevance.
My point on Chavez is that he had it coming for being a moron and bringing both his personal feelings and religion into the United Nations.

Personally I do believe that Bush is likely to be under the influence of Satan.
But I am not a world leader or speaking at the UN.

And that is neither a Republican or a Democratic issue.

 

[justone]

I do not see the relevance.

Good, why would you continue then? I made a moronic post or two recently and quite a few in the total history, - whatever are the reasons, they shouldn't be of your concern, nor I care to submit excuses. It is not like you have to argue seriously to each and every moron. You are too passive in your life.

 

[Tashah]

Just within the past week the media reported:

1) Venezuela expels U.S. ambassador - Los Angeles Times

2) Venezuela expels U.S. rights group for criticism | International | Reuters

Media propaganda or the simple unvarnished truth?

 

[jin1776]

The mainstream American media has consistently engaged in biased vilification of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is portrayed as a dictatorial tyrant in U.S. media outlets. In reality, Chavez is far more democratic than George Bush is. Unlike the case of George Bush's ascencion in 2000, Chavez legitimately won his presidential election: http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2020.pdf

That was only the first election, A) Carter got payed millions by the Chavez junta, and B) I take it you have never heard of the Maisanta program or the Tascon lists?

Chavez is typically presented as a dictator because of his unsuccesful attempt to extend presidential term limits,

That's only one of many many things he has done, I'll just mention the two most aggregious blows to a liberal democracy, his first rewriting the Constitution in the midst of a populist fervor and then ending the independence of the judiciary by packing the courts in violation of that very rewritten Constitution.

which the American media portrayed as an egotistical move by an authoritarian tyrant. But how can it be seriously claimed that such a move is a serious blow to democracy? A referendum was held on the issue, thereby making Chavez and Venezuela greater supporters of democracy than the United States. The U.S. does not hold national referendums. It relies on unaccountable elected officials to push through their policies of statism.

It's called a tyranny of the majority, a liberal democracy respects the will of the minority but guarantees the rights of the majority.

Moreover, just how is it anti-democratic for citizens to vote for and elect their preferred candidate as often as they please, as opposed to a system which limits the candidate field? The democratic system is a far better check on tyranny than more tyranny.

Much attention has been focused on Chavez's refusal to renew the license of RCTV, which the American media portrays as a news agency that was "critical" of him, according to the Associated Press. CNN reported that RCTV would be shut down because "Chavez is not a big fan of it." In reality, RCTV was not simply a "political critic" of him; they actively supported and encouraged the 2002 coup attempt of him.

A news agency openly promotes the overthrow of a democratically elected leader, and when their license is not renewed (five years later), they are portrayed as a persecuted martyr?

A) That is not the only thing Chavez has done to limit the freedom of the press, he has, also, set about expanding the desacato laws and it is now illegal to speak out against government officials in Hugo's Venezuela, B) show me one quote from the RCTV which promoted the overthrow of Chavez, C) Chavez has attempted to shut down more than one private media outlet which has been criticial of his regime, and D) It's funny that a Hugo Chavez supporter would be so opposed to the overthrow of a democratically elected leader considering the Hugo Chavez attempted to do exactly that.

 

[tr1414]

The mainstream American media has consistently engaged in biased vilification of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is portrayed as a dictatorial tyrant in U.S. media outlets. In reality, Chavez is far more democratic than George Bush is. Unlike the case of George Bush's ascencion in 2000, Chavez legitimately won his presidential election: http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2020.pdf

Chavez is typically presented as a dictator because of his unsuccesful attempt to extend presidential term limits, which the American media portrayed as an egotistical move by an authoritarian tyrant. But how can it be seriously claimed that such a move is a serious blow to democracy? A referendum was held on the issue, thereby making Chavez and Venezuela greater supporters of democracy than the United States. The U.S. does not hold national referendums. It relies on unaccountable elected officials to push through their policies of statism.

Moreover, just how is it anti-democratic for citizens to vote for and elect their preferred candidate as often as they please, as opposed to a system which limits the candidate field? The democratic system is a far better check on tyranny than more tyranny.

Much attention has been focused on Chavez's refusal to renew the license of RCTV, which the American media portrays as a news agency that was "critical" of him, according to the Associated Press. CNN reported that RCTV would be shut down because "Chavez is not a big fan of it." In reality, RCTV was not simply a "political critic" of him; they actively supported and encouraged the 2002 coup attempt of him. A news agency openly promotes the overthrow of a democratically elected leader, and when their license is not renewed (five years later), they are portrayed as a persecuted martyr? In the U.S., such an activity would be punished by prison time and treason charges rather than five years of broadcasting time after the fact and an eventual lack of a license renewal.

The American media functions to promote propagana and anti-socialist sentiments have been a typical control mechanism that they have used over the years. Propaganda model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a sick jackass you are. Keep drinking the coolaid .... wow, the you wonder why people say liberalism is a metal disorder. Do as all a favor and OD.

 

[Agnapostate]

I can't drink the "coolaid" because I'm too busy sipping my latte.

 

[scourge99]

Then why doesn't President Bust just admit that the U.S. does not practice democracy, in that case?

We are NOT a democracy. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

NOT... I repeat, NOT a democracy. How many times do I have to repeat this?

 

[Agnapostate]

A republic is widely considered to be a form of informal, representative democracy.

 

[scourge99]

A republic is widely considered to be a form of informal, representative democracy.

Which is called..... a republic for short!!!:2razz:

For speeches "democracy" is used because of the imagery and notions its stirs in the listener. But, this doesn't change the fact we are NOT a democracy.

 

[Agnapostate]

Do you have any comments regarding the topic at hand?

 

[scourge99]

Do you have any comments regarding the topic at hand?

No. Just correcting errors or misrepresentations when I see them.