IFJ: Criticizes Chavez war on media

Normally the International Federation of Journalists is — how shall I put this — a bit soft on populist/leftist governments. Never to an extent that the IFJ actually threw press freedom under the bus but some times it seemed the IFJ rationalized actions that most American journalists would find questionable.

But today, the IFJ made if clear that Hugo Chavez is no friend of free media. (IFJ Says Chavez “War on Media” Is Disastrous for Democracy in Venezuela)

When a coup against Chavez occurred and failed in 2002, the IFJ was critical of the unprofessional nature of the media at the time. Of course, at the time the main media outlets were run by supporters of the coup. And the way the media practitioners acted back then would make any ethical journalist upset. But the IFJ was not equally critical of the anti-free press attitude of Chavez at the time. (Yes, they were critical but that criticism was blunted by their complaints against the media outlet owners.)

The latest statement is the latest in a series of complaints by the IFJ and other international journalism groups over the past couple of years about the anti-free press attitude of Chavez.

Now only die-hard leftist organizations with little pretense of support for democracy or free-media principles support the actions of Hugo Chavez.

It will be interesting to see what the IFJ regional meeting in Brasilia will have to say about the situation. (Many of the Brazilian journalists are REALLY upset with what is going on in Venezuela. Hopefully that will lead to new steps by the regional and international free journalism community to pressure Chavez to end his growing dictatorial ways.)

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Censorship, Harassment, International News Coverage, Press Freedom

2 responses to “IFJ: Criticizes Chavez war on media

  1. Pingback: Journalism and the World » Blog Archive » IFJ criticizes Chavez

  2. Yuca

    There is an important point to make. The unprofessional nature of the media at the time, is still the case today in Venezuela. So, if we want to defend to free press, we have to demand professionalism, balanced approaches of at list the two sides of the history, and contrast of valid opinion makers. I don’t even ask the simple principle of objectivity or impartiality, that is almost impossible in Venezuela’s journalism. The commitment of the media owners is not to defend the free press, is to defend their political preference in how the society must be ruled. That is damaging the democracy in my opinion, when the decision making process is diverted from the population into the preferential concepts managed by the media itself.

    In Venezuela the level of distrust between journalist is such that the opinion programmes do not invite the key opinion makers to be summated to questions, they limited to invited their own partisans and cross referencing each other by video flashbacks. The few cases where an official opinion maker was invited, the levels of insults and grotesque management of the programme was horrendous.

    How to defend the free press when a rational minimum approach is discard in benefit of the personal-passionate militant journalism, ones in ultra defence of private property and profit making, and others in ultra defence of communal property and social justice. Do we need an arbiter? who can do that role? maybe a extraterrestrial being.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s