Alignment With the Regime
In early 2013, a group of businesspeople associated with the President of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, acquired Globovisión — a television channel linked to the opposition — to undermine Nicolás Maduro’s administration, bar his reelection, and pave the road for Cabello’s run for the presidency. At the time, I thought the media group would not effect a radical change in the network’s programming and editorial line in the short term, since presumably profitability would prevail over political affinities. The owners would not give up their natural audience, the urban middle classes won over by the network in December, 1994, when it began broadcasting.
I was wrong. I failed to notice the complex mix of interests, beyond the economic arena, between that sector of the boliburguesía (the Bolivarian bourgeoisie) and the ruling elite. The recent stampede out of the network by its most distinguished journalists, some of whom were founders of the network, and support staff, and the reasons given for their quitting, heighten the situation to a new level. The owners chose to align with the communications hegemony established in April, 2002, when Hugo Chávez was ousted for 50 hours. The audience is not very important right now.
The remaining broadcasters will have a very hard time upholding the notion of a “defense of [media] spaces,” as they have until now. Some journalists with a stronghold of their own could try to preserve their own plurality and autonomy. However, independence is no longer part of the network’s strategy. The cornerstone is now subordination to the ruling group. The drastic changes seen in the last few weeks are associated with criticism from Nicolás Maduro and with that fragile and tense pact between the president and the shadow behind him, Lieutenant Cabello.
The old Globovisión — quarrelsome and defiant, the sounding board for the opposition — was tolerated by Hugo Chávez, a caudillo with soaring self-esteem. He applied fines, threatened, and harassed the network, but he never shut it down. It would have been an unacceptable display of weakness for a leader who felt anointed by the gods, with a universal fate. In the end, the strategy chosen was the one designed by the late commander, to turn the network into a business bound for bankruptcy, with a single escape route: sale.
Weak Government: No Tolerance for Criticism
Of course, this transaction would not be authorized for the first anonymous party who came knocking on the doors of the National Telecommunications Commission (Conatel) requesting permission to carry out the operation. There was the risk that the network would fall into the hands of a group even more critical of the government. The deal had to take place with members of the ruling circle, or at least of one of the more politically-powerful factions.
And that’s precisely what happened. Conatel approved its transfer to a faction associated with Cabello. At first, it was convenient to disguise the deal a bit and give the idea that Globovisión would keep its critical line, dulling only its sharper edges. However, Maduro does not approve of any criticism reaching the general public through television screens.
His crippling insecurity, the serious problems he faces, the corruption in his inner circle, and his ministers’ ineptitude leave no room for tolerance. He was, for example, unable to accept even a slightly critical remark from Alberto Nolia, presenter of Los Cuadernos de Mandinga, a show previously broadcasted by Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), regarding Maduro’s policy of citizen security. The impudence of this journalist, a stalwart of the regime, got him ejected from VTV.
If this happened with an unconditional champion like Nolia, in charge of the government’s dirty work, how could it be tolerated with a network bought with the regime’s leaders’ approval? It simple could not continue being a venue to denounce and criticize the outrages and mistakes of Chavez’s mediocre heirs.
Globovisión’s new owners should be reminded that this administration does not get along with democracy, but accepts it halfheartedly and grudgingly, because it has no other option. International regulations demand a certain degree of composure, even for Cuban tyrants, who adamantly resist any change, no matter how harmless.
Maduro gave the channel owners a reminder. He started by branding them as conspirators, an attack which exploded like a missile in the network’s headquarters. It was only a matter of time before tolerance for criticism within the channel would go down, and down it went. Amid such an environment of self-censorship, it was natural for the journalists who felt most affected to quit.
The regime likes networks like VTV and journalists and “intellectuals” like those swarming about within them. The only broadcasters and “intellectuals” who are allowed to work and voice their opinion there are those who sing praise of the late lieutenant colonel and admire the “triumphs” of his revolution, now maintained by his heirs. A mere suggestion of criticism is demonized as an expression of right-wing ideologies, imperialism, or any of the countless similar follies in the government jargon. Of course, the critical analysis that Mario Vargas Llosa demands in La Civilización del Espectáculo (Civilization of Spectacle) was pulverized in the “network of all Venezuelans.”
The same will happen to Globovisión. That is why it is being transformed.
The Opposition: Mourning and Moving On
What is happening with Globovisión is obviously a painful blow to the opposition. The network was an essential tool of the heroic resistance of the Venezuelan people against the installation of a Cuban-style totalitarian dictatorship.
Globo was not a neutral network, in the asexual sense of the term. There is no place in Venezuela for value neutrality. To invoke that neutrality is a ruse of the timid and the regime’s covert agents. No-one can be impartial when faced with a project bent on destroying democracy and the Republic, like the one launched in 1999. It would have been terribly irresponsible to claim being “chemically pure” towards the behavior of a ruling class determined to “re-found the Republic” through the demolition of democratic institutions, the establishment of a single line of thought, and the abolition of any form of independence in state institutions and civil society organizations.
Globovisión took the side of freedom of information, expression, communication, and thought — a set of values from the western culture which gave birth to modern democracy and the struggle against the all-embracing power embodied in absolute monarchs. The alliance between Globovisión and the democratic opposition was a natural one, because they shared values and interests. Both parties defended similar principles.
This coalition is now broken. Globo will be, at most, a less aggressive, or kinder, counterpart of VTV. It will be a bland, decaffeinated product designed to make the tragedy we live in more palatable. The defense of the principles inherent to freedom, democracy, and the Republic in the communications arena will no longer be among its concerns.
There is a need to complete the mourning process and move on, however painful it may be. Until now, the opposition was lucky to have this powerful image and voice. From now on, it must reinvent itself and innovate, lest the mourning becomes perpetual.
Translated by Ceteris Paribus.