Saturday, August 17, 2013

Exit Globovision


I did not like many of the Globovison features and it had been quite a while that I only watched Alo Ciudadano, as the only place in Venezuela where news were actually discussed in depth and the only TV in Venezuela where viewers could place a call and speak their mind. If many of the calls were exasperating, they did at least reflect the mood of the country opposition. Even chavistas had to call El Ciudadano because there is no place of the state media where you can call and complain.

But I never shared the rather effete and cavalier attitude of some pages that criticized Globovision as not following journalism standards of their liking. The fact was that very early under Chavez tenure Globovison was holding a war journalism. Not only its journalists had to hit the streets with helmets and gas masks, but the judicial system was sending fine after fine. Failing to understand this and making allocations for the output of the network was, for me, intellectual cowardice. (1)

Eventually the owners sensing that the regime would drive Globovison  to bankruptcy decided to sell (after the RCTV closure that drew international condemnation the regime knew better than closing networks outright).  I am not one to condemn the Zuloaga family for selling. First, I am sure that they did not get as much as they would have got for it if Venezuela were a more "normal" country. Second, with or without the Zuloaga family at the helm, the journalists of Globovision were doomed to lose their jobs sooner than later.  I am even willing to say that the Zuloagas thought that they were getting a reprieve of at least one year for their personnel. It did not last 3 months. Any clear minded observer of Venezuela knew that the regime could not afford a critical voice anymore now that Chavez was gone and that the economy was going to the dogs. The question was not if, it was when.

The 'when' thus came in two parts.

First, it was the selling of the network to some rather new money working in insurance companies, as if that was a credential to own and direct the most famous network of Venezuela. We all suspected that the real buyers were others and that Cordero and co. were only front men. Who in Venezuela today would throw good money at a TV network who will see its share plummet once its editorial line would be changed? This could only be dirty money thrown at a network for some form of laundering operation while the regime would get rid of its best critics.

The second part came in installments. Buenas Noches was the first talk show to go. Even though it was a lousy and strident show it did not leave for its quality but for censorship reasons. Next were Yo Prometo. Soon, the tone of the news became less critical of the regime though in spite of doomsayers Globovision still did show what others would not. Early this morning Chuo Torrealba headlines round up announced that it was it was his last appearance. But the unexpected came tonight with Alo Ciudadano that even pessimists like me though would last until December. And as a staff protest about the fast speed to self censorship the nightly news was boycotted by journalists leaving Globovison with the rebroadcast of a Colombian network on its screen.

Why that sudden finishing off? Because do not be fooled, without Alo Ciudadano Globovison will become an irrelevant network. The reason why the regime decided to finish off Globovison is very simple: things are about to get so bad that they simply have to try to silence as many news outlets as possible. In the century of social networks it is a lost cause for them, but when you are desperate...... At least whomever truly bought Globovision will own the concession and can use it for the internecine chavista warfare. I, for one, could not care less to watch those.

To end this post: for those who criticized from the opposition Globovision and for those who could not be bothered in defending the last pulpit we had, now let's see what you are going to do. And for those who salivate at the potential of getting the viewers and revenue share of Globovision, wait, your turn to be closed or bought out for peanuts will come. Totalitarianism is inexorable.


1) Yet another example of ignorance and misinterpretation on Globovision comes from the AFP release of today, in Spanish, sorry. At the end they write that the new management was allowing government officials to visit again. This is untrue, shoddy journalism. El Ciudadano in particular got tired of exhibiting the many invitations he sent to public officials that often would not even be courteously declined. The reason why they did not come is that Leopoldo Castillo would not censor the incoming phone calls. And chavista officials do not like to be held accountable.


  1. Charly10:36 AM

    "... or bought out for peanuts will come". Exactly what I have been thinking for some time. This tropical communism will not last very long. Giordani is already on his way out. With a government that owns every judge and others, the opposition has no chance in hell to come to power. The future? Like Russia the country will be re privatized with the Diosdado Cabello types buying everything at vile price and ending up with a Putin like democrato-fascism. I have seen this kind of fire sale first hand in an ex-socialist African country, it is not pretty.

    1. NorskeDiv4:30 PM

      Sadly, that is probably the long term outlook. Eventually Venezuela will be Putinized, and that is actually a better outcome. Another possibility is Cubanization.

  2. margareth2:10 PM

    This was to be expected, and things will get worse. Diosdado(the brain) & Maduro (el ilegitimo, y "Colombiano") work together. El ilegitimo needs to sign the documents, but if he really is a Colombian all those documents are worthless. They know they are/were losing ground. So they had to come with something big. Both have no charisma and then all the mayor problems Venezuela has had many years and now exploding. So by shutting the mouths of all who are against the "Military Regime" for months to come they will gain in the end.
    Welcome to Comunism...... or more then 7 million into the streets to stop IT.

  3. Island Canuck2:18 PM

    Nest to come will be El Universal & El Nacional.

    The process has already started.

    1. I tend to agree, sadly.

  4. In my opinion some in the opposition ,as is often the case, have done a grave disservice to its own cause in criticizing unduly the standards of Globovision as it was before its new structure/political affiliation.

    The distinctions between neutrality and objectivity should be( if they are not already actively percolating) in the journalistic professions. If we want to continue to associate with objectivity, it would be helpful to explain the difference between objectivity and neutrality in order to attain to professed "objectivity" .

    There is a distinction that most of us are not accustomed to making and a difference that is worth noting - and explaining them can help us make the case for a more active and honest engagement with society.

    The general public usually thinks of these two terms, “objectivity” and “neutrality,” as being synonymous , yet nobody seems to precisely define what they mean.To be “neutral” is to say that he or she has no opinions or values about the matter at hand. To require a kind of neutrality in matters relating to professional activities is not only unrealistic (we all have opinions, and we cannot help but have them affect our performance), but also unnecessary if we are trying to be “objective.” Objectivity allows someone to have a position or opinion on a matter, as long as the associated behavior is based on logic, fairness, and honesty. Objectivity would allow a person to try to attain some level of truth, and report more accurately the nature of reality whereas Neutrality might at times only give a sensate viewpoint without any reference to motivation, strategy, or valid perception.

    It is good to have a plurality of viewpoints, each correlating to the unique reality of each person's world.But to pretend to a "neutrality" that is unattainable does a grave disservice.


  5. Anonymous6:59 PM

    If you want to make a splash, put the pressure on CNN until they get thrown out.

    1. I am sorry but I do not get it. How does that work out?

    2. Anonymous8:15 PM

      Just a wild idea with many challenges....Closing a Venezuelan domestic news source is easily overlooked by the rest of the world. Tossing out CNN would be noticed. The challenge is challenging CNN to headline enough oppo truth on a consistent basis to get them in trouble with Chavisimo. It's a rare CNN headline that goes against the govt.

  6. margareth8:02 PM

    CNN? Many poor in Venezuela don't have cable. They look at State tv or nothing.

  7. There is no opposition media allowed in a lot of countries. Even in the US 99% of the media is in bed with the government statists.

  8. Anonymous7:01 AM

    Poor guy, you are absolutely wrong, incorrect, not, you are talking bs.
    In the U.S. the Fox Network are always kicking Obama, and hard. There is vibrant opposition media in every western country that i know anything about.


Comments policy:


