Like many people, I was extremely disturbed by the news that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had failed to renew the contract of RCTV, the nation’s oldest television network. “Had the Chavez followed the all-too-familiar pathway from socialist revolutionary to dictator?” “Had the last site for democratic opposition been snuffed out by the government?” After moving beyond the unfactual and hyperbolic rhetoric of the corporate media outlets, I realized that things are much more complicated than they seem.

According to media reports, RCTV was simply a rival television station that offered critiques of Chavez’s goverment. Based on this logic, Chavez’s failure to renew its contract could be viewed as a signpost of the impending elimination of free speech within the Venezuelan public sphere. Such logic, however, is the product of a global anti-Bolivarian movement rather than actual facts.

In reality, RCTV, along with the four other anti-Chavista corporate media outlets in the country, has not only been a critical voice of Chavez, but an active force against a democratically elected president. For example, a few days before the coup of 2002 (which was supported by the United States), RCTV encouraged people to attend a march aimed at staging a putsch against the Chavez-led government. Also, RCTV ran doctored video clips that falsely implicated Chavez for the deaths and injuries of innocent citizens. Although the Venezuelan people protested in the streets over the displacement of Chavez and the installation of dictator Pedro Carmona, the folks at RCTV completely ignored covering the uprisings. Instead, they showed telenovelas and random American movies during the protests. According to the station’s news director, he was ordered to play “nothing related to Chavez or his supporters…. The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country.” Soon after the coup was realized, the executives at RCTV met with other Venezuelan corporate media honchos –all of whom have been staunchly anti-Chavez since he began his presidency due to his threat to their oligarchy– to pledge their allegiance to the illegally installed dicatator.

Now let’s place this in a United States context. Imagine if one of the nation’s leading television networks not only challenged George W. Bush, but encouraged and financed his kidnapping, imprisonment, and a takeover of the American government. Is there any doubt that the network would be shut down and all parties connected to it, however tangentially, would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for treason? Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution is quite clear on the subject:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

At best, they’d be found guilty of sedition under Section 2384 of the US code, Title 18, which allows for sentences up to 20 years for seditious conspiracy:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Although Venezuelan law takes a similar stance against treason against the government, Chavez gave them a relative slap on the wrists. Rather than prosecute them or shut down the network before its contract ended, he merely failed to renew their license to operate. Within this context, Chavez’s actions are fully justifiable and, in fact, logical.

Despite the legitmacy of Chavez’s actions, there are still reasons for concern. In order to sustain democracy, it is necessary that Globovision, Televen, CMT and Venevision, the other remaining networks, are permitted to operate as ideological antagonists to the Chavez Administration. While the status of Globovision is in serious peril –Globovision was the chief ally to RCTV during the 2002 coup– the other three must be protected. Also, the new station should have space reserved for programming that represents dissenting voices.

More imprtantly, the media oligarchy that currently controls Venezuelan television –RCTV and Venevisión control 85% of publicity investment, 66% of transmitting capacity, and 80% of the production of all messages, information, and media content in the country– must be dismantled and replaced with a more diverse and democratic distribution of media outlets. Without such measures, we invariably end up with a monovocal media sphere, which is the starting point for a truly anti-democratic regime. For those who express genuine concern for free speech in Venezuela, the energy that has been directed toward Chavez should be redirected toward this goal.