May 28, 2007
It is therefore, as I say, extraordinary to see the mainstream media in the U.S. and Britain insinuating that this move by Chavez somehow represents an attack on democracy and freedom. In fact, the move - totally constitutional - may well result in a media that is more pluralistic, not less...Wow. Just... wow.[Fear of a successful socialist Venezuela] is the true explanation for the hysterical anti-Chavez propaganda. It has nothing to do with concern for human rights in Venezuela, or a fear that Venezuelan freedom of speech is under threat. That is totally irrelevant to the corporate media, as evidenced on countless other occasions. The problem for the U.S. establishment (and hence the establishment media) is that Chavez represents an alternative to U.S.-imposed neo-liberalism and a direct challenge to U.S. domination. He, like Castro’s Cuba, represents the "threat of a good example". The deepest fear of U.S. planners is that if states like Cuba are permitted to follow a path of independence unchallenged, other states might start getting similar ideas. Hence the decades long American campaign of economic warfare and terrorism against Cuba.
Posted by: Ragnar at
03:40 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: The Opinionator at May 28, 2007 05:48 PM (SGQUx)
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at May 28, 2007 05:58 PM (q6AiT)
Posted by: Coffee260 at May 28, 2007 06:47 PM (n5AL4)
constitutional because he rules by decree ? and they think that's a good thing? They mutter the words "King George" out one side of their mouth, and then praise the guy that makes the law of the land with the utterance of a sentence?
Coffee260:
They believe it's a worthy cause that other people die, it reduces the carbon footprint ™
Posted by: davec at May 28, 2007 07:04 PM (kcDpP)
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at May 28, 2007 07:52 PM (MZgPV)
ya know cause its "In fact, the move - totally constitutional - "
/sarc
Posted by: waza at May 28, 2007 09:20 PM (XOMSo)
So, Chavez closes down a dissenting station and replaces it with one of his choosing (which will certainly be propagand), and the American media is being called propaganda? First of all, I though dissent was patriotic? Where are the calls of fascism? Where is the outrage against free-speech and freedom of press?
Posted by: The Gentle Cricket at May 29, 2007 01:05 AM (83ddZ)
34 queries taking 0.0677 seconds, 162 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
