Enemy of the Revolution: Monopoly Media

March 12th, 2013

Published on Dissident voice, by Kim Petersen, March 9, 2013.

… The net is likely to pressure even television, as video has become commonplace online. A recent CBC News item on the passing away of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez provides a classic example of why so many media consumers turn away from monopoly media.2  

There is enough information presented such that the CBC News piece may claim balance. However, is the truth best represented by a balance? If the sea is muddy brown, should information still be presented of the sea being azure blue to provide balance despite the counter-information being factually false? Balance can serve as a canard. Therefore, a media consumer needs to maintain an appropriate skepticism as to whether news actually is balanced or whether that balance is actually a skew.

The CBC News presents opposing views, but to the discerning reader, there is a palpable skew.

CBC News writes, “… many Venezuelans are divided over Chavez’s legacy…” It also states, “… Chavez created a socialist, anti-American regime that polarized both Venezuelans themselves and the world around them.”

I wonder in what country there is unanimity about a leader’s legacy? Are Americans undivided about George W. Bush? Are Britons undivided about Tony Blair? Are Danes undivided about Anders Fogh Rasmussen? Are Japanese undivided about Junichiro Koizumi? Why then did CBC state the obvious? What was the purpose? Does socialist sentiment not exist within all capitalist countries? Does the CBC ever refer to the Canadian government as an anti-Venezuelan regime? If not, one can logically assume that the rhetoric is biased. In this case, the bias points to being opposed to socialism and against governments, no matter how democratic (the CBC reports this despite being fully aware that the current right-wing Canadian government is very assailable on its democratic credentials having won the last election using deceitful robocalls to send voters to the wrong balloting stations3 ) that threaten an unchallenged world capitalism.

Approximately midway through the article appears a blurb encouraging further reading: “Can Hugo Chavez’s high-stakes revolution survive his death?”

High stakes? A source in the Canadian military confided to me some years back that the Canadian military was poised to participate in the overthrow of Chávez’s government in Venezuela, and, of course, although the source did not say so, the orders were coming from south of the border. Why is the revolution high stakes, and for who is it high stakes? The poor have little to lose and much to gain. The 1%-ers, however, stand to lose their ill-begotten wealth, ill-begotten because it is gained through exploitation of workers. Socialism is anathema to the 1%; it threatens their perch at the top of the capitalist pecking order, and it is therefore resisted unrelentingly by the 1%-ers. Consequently, the seed of Venezuelan socialism is a threat to 1%-ers the world over. Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution has been a beacon of hope to the masses of people seeking to share equitably in the wealth of their country. Other South Ixachilan [American] states have shifted leftward … //

… Since when does criticism of a country’s leader denote opposition to the rest of the country’s people? Many Americans say far worse about their presidents. Furthermore, “donkey,” “devil,” and “clown” are pretty mild epithets for men who presided and still preside over armies wreaking murderous havoc abroad. It was the US which applauded the coup that briefly unseated Chávez in Venezuela until a people power mass rally brought him back to the presidency (speaking volumes to American fidelity to the principle of democracy).

“Chavez,” states the CBC article, “distinguished himself through his anti-American platform …” I visited Venezuela along with my colleagues in 2006 and witnessed first-hand the progressivist changes taking place in Venezuela and the sanguinity of Venezuelans for the future of their country.9

Is there any wonder why the capitalist media refuses to acknowledge and celebrate the sharing of prosperity among the masses? Equality threatens to topple elitist perches and be replaced with a shared view. Elitist-owned and controlled media will fight egalitarianism. Hence, people must be vigilant; they must question their information sources; and they must demand their rights to share in the wealth of their country. Prosperity is not meant to be an enclave of 1%; it is meant for all people.

For this reason, the revolution must proceed onward in Venezuela, and it must spread throughout the world, including the bastions of capitalism.
(full text and notes 1 to 9).

Links:

American Overkill, on Dissident Voice, by Ron Jacobs, March 10, 2013;

We need to take a lead in the fight, on Socialist Worker Online, by Jerry Hicks, March 5, 2013;

Grass Roots Left.

Comments are closed.