Sean Penn’s Hero, Killer of Free Speech
By Mary Theroux • Monday March 18, 2013 3:42 PM PDT • 6 Comments
Joining those mourning the passing of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela recently, Sean Penn called him “a great hero to the majority of his people.”
But how would he know?
The final nail was driven into the coffin of independent journalism in Venezuela last week with the forced sale of the last remaining television network critical of the government, Globovision. Guillermo Zuloaga, Globovision’s truly heroic owner, explained that the station became unviable after a campaign of harassment against it, including the imposition of millions of dollars in fines:
Globovisión is “on the wrong side of an all-powerful government which wants to see us fail,” Mr. Zuloaga wrote. “On the contrary, we are harassed by the institutions of the state, backed by a Supreme Court which is its accomplice and collaborates in everything that can hurt us.”
His license for Globovision up for renewal in two years, Mr. Zuloagao also faced the specter of owning a television station with no license:
As president, Mr. Chávez moved aggressively to take over the airwaves, opening a plethora of state-run channels that gave him supportive coverage. In 2007, the government went after private broadcasters, ordering that the license of the biggest and most outspoken broadcaster, RCTV, not be renewed. The move forced it off the airwaves. The government then later forced the channel off cable television as well.
Mr. Zuloaga was forced to flee Venezuela in 2010, after his arrest for “saying on a television show that Venezuela lacked freedom of expression.”
Well, yes, being arrested for saying there’s a lack of freedom of expression might be a sign of the statement’s veracity.
The “sale” is to a man believed to be a front for the government, and sends a chill down the spines of all who value independent journalism.
A value one would have assumed those such as Mr. Penn would hold dear.
If Mr. Penn is holding to a strictly utilitarian view—”the ends justify the means,” “one must accept the loss of a little freedom in exchange for the benefits being provided the downtrodden,” etc.—he might be interested in a few facts on that count, as well:
The central bank admits that over the past 10 years inflation in food and nonalcoholic beverages is 1,284%, and that food shortages are increasingly prevalent.
Given that food comprises a disproportionately high share of the poor’s expenditures, one might think this would be seen as disproportionately hurting the poor. But I guess not for Mr. Penn.
Further:
Economic hardship isn’t the only heavy burden that Chávez’s constituents bear. The official murder rate in 2012 was 73 per 100,000 inhabitants and the killing is happening mostly in low-income neighborhoods. Families of crime victims have no hope of getting justice for their loved ones.
By contrast, the murder rate in the U.S.—with “epidemic” gun violence—is 4.2 per 100,000.
I’m not sure just what Mr. Penn’s definition of “hero” is, but surely even in Hollywood it’s a stretch to so label a man who gags the press, puts life’s necessities out reach, and greatly increases the poor’s chances of death by violence.
___
See also the related post on our Spanish-language blog: “Venezuela: Desaparece el único canal crítico de la tiranía chavista”
Tags: Censorship, Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Corruption, Criminal Justice, Gun Control, Inflation, Latin America, Media, Personal Liberty, Poverty, Presidential Power, Propaganda, Totalitarianism 
If one looks at history,Hugo Chavez was the Juan Peron of the 21st Century and did to Venezuela what Peron did to Argentina 60 years ago. With that said,who pays any attention to Mercedes Marxists like Sean Penn? I wouldn’t waste my time.
libertarian jerry | Mar 19, 2013 | Reply
Wonderfully, one-sided article.
Makes it sound like RCTV is just good old-fashioned journalism. No mention of the fact that they were complicit in the coup against Chavez.
It also cherry picks statistics. Yes violence and inflation are bad. But what about poverty, unemployment, literacy, health care, education. No mention of those things.
Ultimately though, the truth lies in the hands of the voters, and the constant re-elections speak volumes of what the poor think of Chavez.
adamgreenwood | Mar 19, 2013 | Reply
Adam:
As is pointed out in the article linked to in relation to the inflation and crime statistics, voters tend to choose with their hearts. Despite extending economic malaise and foreign aggression, President Obama outdrew Mr. Romney 81% vs. 18% on the question “cares about people like me.” Similarly, poor Venezuelans may have felt Mr. Chavez cared about them—indeed was a man of the people—but whether or not that “care” translates into actual freedom and opportunity is another question.
When one is without food or dead, “care” doesn’t matter much. And these facts are widely acknowledged, even by the staunchest cheerleaders of the Chavez era: “indeed there have been persistent blackouts, some food shortages, and rising crime.”
Whom then try to add “Buts”: “BUT, poverty is better.” By what measure? If by GDP, it’s widely acknowledged Venezuela’s spectacular growth resulted from the oil boom. Is it fair to compare this “spectacular” improvement in Venezuela’s fortunes to its neighbors?
From the World Bank:
Big spike: oil boom. Meanwhile, $49 billion (known) siphoned off by Chavez to an off-budget fund overseen only by him. The oil companies have been nationalized, and are today being bailed out by the government, as are the state-owned mining and industrial conglomerates.
Is this “sustainable” growth? Has wealth and opportunity trickled-down to the poor? How are their prospects today?
By any measure persistent blackouts, food shortages, inflation in food prices of 1,284% over the past ten years, and one of the world’s highest murder rates does not sound a worker’s paradise to me.
The lesser of two evils is not by definition “Good.” There is such a standard as “Good,” which most of us would define, at a minimum, as civil and individual liberties, security in our person and property, and economic opportunity. This ain’t it.
Best wishes,
Mary
Mary Theroux | Mar 19, 2013 | Reply
Not to belabor the point, but that you (Adam) use the reelection as “evidence” of something more than what it was is problematic. He was an authoritarian who controlled his nation (and its media) through violent and economic coercion. He got reelected over and over by promising desperate poor people things he couldn’t deliver...and without allowing free speech to discount his claims. What does this prove? Who’s cherry picking? I think it’s supporters of Chavez. Is he just the realization of what most politicians these days desire? Probably...but that doesn’t make him any less disgusting. The problem with socialism has always been that eventually you run out of other people’s money...and then what? You break skulls to maintain power...that’s what.
libertys ghost | Mar 19, 2013 | Reply
Adam,
As do all apologists for Hugo Chavez, you point to his uninterrupted string of election victories as proof positive of his overwhelming popularity among Venezuelan voters.
What if that were a lie? What if the government’s been rigging the vote all these years?
That’s exactly what they’ve been doing, beginning in 2004. You won’t hear Sean Penn talk about it, and you certainly won’t hear Jimmy Carter admit it, but then Carter’s been a vocal backer of Chavez ever since Chavez came to power and has heedlessly rubber-stamped every election the Carter Center’s been invited to observe (with expenses paid by the Venezuelan government).
Two of the most prestigious peer review academic journals in the world, The International Statistical Review and Statistical Science, have published 8 papers since 2006 which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chavez rigged the 2004 presidential recall referendum. In fact, in the landmark International Statistical Review paper by Dr MM Febres Cordero and Dr Bernardo Marquez (6 December 2006) the authors go to great pains to explain how Chavez didn’t win that election 59-41 but actually lost it 44-56.
The authors used the same methodology to analyze the recent 2012 presidential election returns, and conclude in a study released last week (http://esdata.info/2012) that Chavez also rigged these elections, and that by their calculations Chavez didn’t win by 10 points, but that was likely a dead heat.
Observers of Venezuela’s election system know full well that the Chavez-controlled elections commission is a black box, that the voter rolls haven’t been independently audited in ten years, and that every trick in the book, such as fingerprint scanners hooked up to electronic voting machines manned by specially trained government officials,, is used to intimidate voters and scare off independent observers. Free and fair suffrage? Hardly? Guarantees that your vote will be secret, and you won’t end up on a government blacklist if you vote the “wrong way”? Not a chance.
In fact, in Venezuela there’s even have a documented precedent for such a practice, the infamous Tascôn List, named after a chavista congressman who publicly revealed the names of the almost 5 million voters who dared sign what they thought was a confidential petition demanding that the government hold the recall referendum in 2004.
Adam, what would you think if in ten years, with no opposition supervision (Chavez threw out checks and balances in government a decade ago), the number of registered voters increased by 58% while the population grew by 14%?
Welcome to Venezuela, where nothing is as it seems, especially to gullible if well-intentioned gringos like Sean Penn, and perhaps yourself.
I invite you to read an article I just published (in Spanish) which argues that the opposition candidate in next month’s presidential elections, despite his overwhelming popularity across all demographic groups, doesn’t have a chance against the government candidate, thanks to the Chavez vote-rigging machine. I also suggest what he can do to turn his election defeat into a political victory, not just for the opposition, but for democratic principles. It’s titled Discurso vs Realidad.
Eric Ekvall | Mar 19, 2013 | Reply
This was my thinking when Adam mention Chavez getting reelected over and over. We all know that governments steal elections even the most modern ones, so it seems only obvious that Chavez, a freedom killer, would have to steal an election to regain office. I am glad you pointed this out as many people like Adam live in the world of denial....
Darlena | Mar 27, 2013 | Reply