Presidential speeches should have to be broadcast by just one station

A milestone in government misuse of the broadcast media was reached when President Hugo Chávez delivered his 2,000th networked speech or “cadena” yesterday on the 11th anniversary of the start of his first term. The “cadenas” are nowadays enforced under the 2004 Radio and TV Social Responsibility Law (Ley Resorte), which in theory just ensures that the government and state agencies are given broadcast time for public announcements. In practice, the law allows the president to deliver long-winded speeches that are broadcast simultaneously on all the terrestrial TV stations and some of the cable ones. Under pain of a heavy fine or suspension, the stations concerned have to transmit a networked signal provided by the main state broadcaster, Venezolana de Televisión (VTV). President Chávez’s total time on the air in the course of the 2,000 “cadenas” adds up to around two months of non-stop talking. This does not include the show called “Aló Presidente,” which Chávez himself hosts every Sunday on VTV. The latest episode in the government’s war with RCTV Internacional (RCTVI) has underscored the problem posed by the “cadenas.” What right does the president, who already has his own Sunday programme, have to inflict his speeches on so many stations when one would suffice? Especially when he can impose a “cadena” whenever he likes and for as long as he likes. Used in this manner, the “cadenas” violate each station’s right to choose its own programming, the right to a pluralist debate, and every viewer and listener’s freedom of choice. A public figure must accept being the target of criticism and caricature. It is true that some privately-owned media went too far when they supported an attempted coup against Chávez in April 2002 but that is now being used by the government as an argument for punishing them by means of the “cadenas.” It is also used as a justification for bringing systematic charges against outspoken media, for deliberately branding mistakes as lies, and for identifying any criticism of the government as “conspiracy against the state.” The most recent example of this came on 29 January, when communication and information minister Blanca Eeckhout accused the daily Tal Cual of camouflaging “calls for violence” as humour. She was alluding to columnist Laureano Márquez, whose satirical comments have angered the president’s office in the past and cost the newspaper fines totalling 50,000 dollars. Similar accusations were made against Miguel Ángel Rodríguez of RCTVI when the station was temporarily barred from broadcasting by cable. The current climate of polarisation has fuelled a series of demonstrations by students in which two students were killed and at least five journalists were injured or attacked. (Photo : AFP)