Free Speech and the Corporate Media

If a news station supports an anti-democratic coup against a democratically elected president, does that station have the right to broadcast ultra-right propaganda over public airwaves? If the government shuts that station down for its democratic violations, does that constitute an attack on freedom of speech? Do the people of a country have the right to decide what they allow broadcasted in their airspace? Or do the corporations have that right?

These are some of the central questions generated by Venezuela’s recent shutdown of “RCTV”, a right-wing television channel that supported the coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002. The station reported several lies during the coup, actively encouraged citizens to riot against the government, and then failed to report Chavez’s return to power three days later, instead deciding to broadcast cartoons.

Now, the Venezuelan government has declined to renew RCTV’s broadcast license, and in it’s place, has created a new progressive public television channel. RCTV, obviously facing a big dip in their profits (since they can no longer broadcast in Venezuela), has used their remaining corporate media friends and contacts to incite several protests all across the country, a few of which have turned violent. At the same time, pro-socialist and progressive forces have staged several mass rallies in support of the government’s decision to rid their country of the right-wing propaganda machine.

So who is the greater threat to democracy? A television station with a large audience, vast amounts of wealth, and a proven willingness to lie to it’s viewers and incite them to violence and large-scale anti-democratic actions like, say, a coup? Or a democratically elected government supported by a majority of the population that decides to revoke the news station’s license to broadcast lies over public airwaves?

And isn’t there something hypocritical about a corporation screaming about the violation of its democratic right to free speech, when it has a well documented history of grossly anti-democratic behavior?

In fact, RCTV’s actions, had they taken place in practically any major industrialized democracy around the world, would quite likely have resulted in a much quicker license revocation. The FCC has certainly barred media stations from broadcasting for actions far less significant than treason in the US.

So does this constitute a violation of free speech? Quite simply, no. The ultra-right media capitalists at RCTV still have the right to spread lies, incite people to violence, and support coups. The people of Venezuela have simply decided that RCTV can no longer use their airwaves to do so. They’ll now have to stand on soapboxes out in the streets like everyone else.

I write all of this not to say I completely agree with the particular course of action the Venezuelan government has taken. For starters, a media corporation with as much capital, and with as many friends in the worldwide corporate media (and particularly the US corporate media) should have no problem spinning the Venezuelan’s governments actions as “authoritarian” and anti-democratic. In fact, RCTV’s corporate media friends both in Venezuela (i.e., Globovision) and around the world (e.g., FOX News, CNN, Bloomberg Corporation, etc.) have already started a concerted and coordinated media saturation campaign against the Venezuelan government attempting to convince people that it is an “authoritarian” and “un-democratic” regime.

Yet even if RCTV weren’t part of a very powerful media conglomerate with even more powerful friends, I probably still wouldn’t have supported a license revocation. In my opinion, censorship is never the answer. It gives that which is censored a legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve. I would have instead advocated for a different tactic: lure away the station’s top talent with higher salaries and newer, better shows and launch a concerted campaign to generate much larger audiences, thereby eating into RCTV’s advertising revenue and viewing audience. Furthermore, I would have also advocated doubling or tripling taxes on the corporate media.