Venezuelan sociologist Maria Clementina Stelling

The general coordinator of an organization called Media Global Observatory points out - based on studies on different media - that there is plenty of freedom of expression, and states that the media are part of an ideological confrontation joined by international organizations.

Venezuelan sociologist Maria Clementina Stelling explains what happens in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela regarding freedom of expression, an issue on which some media have cast doubts. Notwithstanding, she points out that “the media say there is not freedom of expression; it’s like swimming in the middle of the sea and say there is no water around.”

Freedom of expression includes the citizens’ press freedom and freedom of thought in all fields. In this sense, Stelling explains that such a tool “is a constitutional right promoting and making it possible for citizens to express with absolute freedom about all the topics of life.”

This principle is provided for by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, ratified by different countries in their constitutions.

“In Venezuela it is abided by; it’s not a dead letter and it can be shown by the studies we conduct in the Observatory on the media, which are the most suitable channel in order to prove if there is or there is not freedom of expression,” made clear the researcher and professor of the Andrés Bello Catholic University (UCAB, Spanish acronym).

Ideological confrontation

“The media in Venezuela have been in the midst of the ideological confrontation of two groups with different projects and visions of the world; and freedom of expression has become some kind of weapon to attack, to accuse the other that there is not freedom of expression,” she stressed.

Stelling assures that the pro-opposition private media “accuse the government as if it is restricting freedom of expression. This is also a stance shared by some pro-opposition human rights NGOs and the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA), which have taken on position in Venezuelan politics.”

The Venezuelan sociologist highlights that there’s no point in the Government taking on a stance to defend itself against accusations of restricting freedom of expression. “We rather reach the conclusion that there is communication anarchy: ethics is broken; it is lax; everything is allowed. We have trespassed to the lack of ethic limits, including communication, culture, economics, and family. The reason why this happens is the same fact of making sure that we are not accused nation- and worldwide of restricting freedom of expression.”

Far from ethics

“There are not limits when saying anything to destroy the enemy, and as if we were in a war, everything goes,” says the Venezuelan university professor.

In this regard, she makes clear that:

“the opposition media use strategies to destroy the government’s management: they exaggerate criminality figures; they show an evil picture regarding inflation; they discredit some politicians to the detriment of other politicians and they silence positive news. That’s the reason why I think that (the president’s) nationwide broadcasts are a response to that communication used by the private media.”

In this sense, she says that questioning private media is not due to the fact that they do not highlight the government’s work and success, since they are not obliged to do so; it is due to the fact that they twist and distort information and their ethic is low.

Stelling pleads for balance regarding information in the Venezuelan media, but she affirms it is not possible in the short term, especially in a pre-electoral context.

Regarding the state-run media, she criticizes their institutionalization: “News is institutional; they are practically government’s advertising and I think it is a response to this battle between private media and state-run media; it contributes little to balance in information, though.”

Stelling concludes that balance in information does not exist because the media have moved to having a partisan and war participation.

Illegitimacy is not the same as illegality

Last year, RCTV’s broadcasting license expired and the Venezuelan state decided to not renew it. That was a legal measure; however, a sector of the population thought it was illegitimate.

“That illegitimacy depended on RCTV’s handling, the private media’s tentacles and all the human rights organizations. There was a well-orchestrated strategy,” she warned.

According to Stelling, the Venezuelan President gave them advantage when he announced the license would not be renewed five months earlier. “RCTV used this time to get organized by using its actors and actresses, who shed all the necessary soup opera-like tears in order to touch the Venezuelans, so in this context of emotions, a group of the population thought the decision was illegitimate.”

The Media Observatory talks about TVes (Televisora Venezolana Social)

“I think the birth of a public service television station is excellent. This has happened in other countries and I think it is interesting that the proposal was made by the government.”

Nevertheless, she assures that the population should be educated regarding the content of a TV station with features of TVes, since she thinks that citizens are still looking for a different kind of entertainment and content.

“We think that it has been working on a trial-and-error basis. Currently, it is seeking its own way. We can not deny its achievements regarding musicals, but they must review if we are obliged to repeat the patterns of the private, mercantilist and capitalist TV stations,” she stressed.

Finally, Stelling expressed she admires the work of TVes’ Director. “I really admire what Lil (Rodríguez) has done because she has weathered the storm with responsibility.”

By: Dexy García*/Minister of People’s Power for Communication and Information (MinCI)

Contact Dexy Garcia at: dgarcia@minci.gob.ve