Tweet
Source: The Observer (editorial), Tuesday, June 11, 2013
A journalism prize to an enemy of the Press?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Anyone who has been keeping abreast of current affairs in Venezuela would likely have been surprised by last week's award of the National Journalism Prize to that country's late president, Hugo Chavez.
An Associated Press report on the incredulous decision told us that the National Journalism Prize Foundation said that its jury voted unanimously to give Mr Chavez the prize because he gave voice to "the oppressed of the world" and fought a "constant battle against media lies".
Clearly, the National Journalism Prize Foundation jury consists of individuals who share former President Chavez's political views.
Indeed this 'prize' is a slap in the face of the ideals of democracy and a free Press, for Mr Chavez, during his tenure in office, had distinguished himself as an opponent of free speech.
Who could forget that in 2007 Mr Chavez pushed one television station off the air simply because it had been strident in its criticism of his presidency.
Then, in 2009, the Venezuelan Government revoked the licences of 32 radio stations and two local television stations in order, they said, "to democratise the radio-electric spectrum".
That, of course, was really a move against media opposed to the president and was correctly described as being "motivated by the Government's desire to silence dissent".
We recall as well that in 2010 Mr Oswaldo Alvarez Paz, a former presidential candidate and ex-governor of the oil-rich state of Zulia, was placed under house arrest after saying in a television interview that Venezuela had become an operations centre that facilitates drug trafficking. Mr Alvarez, an outspoken critic of the Chavez Government, was charged with inciting hatred and supplying false information.
Probably one of the most egregious acts committed by the Hugo Chavez Admnistration was its decision, in January 2010, to pull from the air a cable television channel for defying new government regulations requiring cable channels to televise the president's speeches whenever government officials deemed it necessary.
Not surprisingly, the media house -- Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) -- did not share President Chavez's political views, and as such was accused by Mr Chavez of plotting against him and of supporting a failed coup in 2002.
Readers will recall that in 2007, RCTV switched to cable after the Chavez Government refused to renew its licence to broadcast on regular airwaves. The move against RCTV, therefore, was in keeping with the Government's aggression towards the station.
It is therefore ironic that an organisation claiming to uphold the principles of journalism could deem it fit to make such an award to Mr Chavez, a man who expended so much energy in trampling on press freedom.
But maybe we shouldn't be surprised, because during the years when Mr Chavez took action to stifle the Press, we never heard the slightest murmur of protest from the National Journalism Prize Foundation.
This is indeed a bad day for journalism everywhere.
A journalism prize to an enemy of the Press?
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Anyone who has been keeping abreast of current affairs in Venezuela would likely have been surprised by last week's award of the National Journalism Prize to that country's late president, Hugo Chavez.
An Associated Press report on the incredulous decision told us that the National Journalism Prize Foundation said that its jury voted unanimously to give Mr Chavez the prize because he gave voice to "the oppressed of the world" and fought a "constant battle against media lies".
Clearly, the National Journalism Prize Foundation jury consists of individuals who share former President Chavez's political views.
Indeed this 'prize' is a slap in the face of the ideals of democracy and a free Press, for Mr Chavez, during his tenure in office, had distinguished himself as an opponent of free speech.
Who could forget that in 2007 Mr Chavez pushed one television station off the air simply because it had been strident in its criticism of his presidency.
Then, in 2009, the Venezuelan Government revoked the licences of 32 radio stations and two local television stations in order, they said, "to democratise the radio-electric spectrum".
That, of course, was really a move against media opposed to the president and was correctly described as being "motivated by the Government's desire to silence dissent".
We recall as well that in 2010 Mr Oswaldo Alvarez Paz, a former presidential candidate and ex-governor of the oil-rich state of Zulia, was placed under house arrest after saying in a television interview that Venezuela had become an operations centre that facilitates drug trafficking. Mr Alvarez, an outspoken critic of the Chavez Government, was charged with inciting hatred and supplying false information.
Probably one of the most egregious acts committed by the Hugo Chavez Admnistration was its decision, in January 2010, to pull from the air a cable television channel for defying new government regulations requiring cable channels to televise the president's speeches whenever government officials deemed it necessary.
Not surprisingly, the media house -- Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) -- did not share President Chavez's political views, and as such was accused by Mr Chavez of plotting against him and of supporting a failed coup in 2002.
Readers will recall that in 2007, RCTV switched to cable after the Chavez Government refused to renew its licence to broadcast on regular airwaves. The move against RCTV, therefore, was in keeping with the Government's aggression towards the station.
It is therefore ironic that an organisation claiming to uphold the principles of journalism could deem it fit to make such an award to Mr Chavez, a man who expended so much energy in trampling on press freedom.
But maybe we shouldn't be surprised, because during the years when Mr Chavez took action to stifle the Press, we never heard the slightest murmur of protest from the National Journalism Prize Foundation.
This is indeed a bad day for journalism everywhere.
Comment