Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and the Media: An Analysis through Cultural Studies Theory

Abstract

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has established his government throughout the years as an enemy of the private media by threatening them, calling them messengers of imperialism, and funding increasing numbers of powerful state-owned media channels used as an ideological tool. The Venezuelan private media have fought back with many of the same techniques used by Chavez, such as biased reporting and constant political commentary by journalists, pairing them closer to an opposition party than an objective observer. This research analyses the current power war taking place in the arena of the media in Venezuela through the cultural studies media theory of Stuart Hall. This neo-Marxist perspective, which presents the media as an arena for the power struggle that takes place in society, is ideal to understand the current Venezuelan situation. This media war is resulting in the destruction of objective journalism, of freedom of expression, and, ultimately, of democracy in Venezuela. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

Abstract

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has established his government throughout the years as an enemy of the private media by threatening them, calling them messengers of imperialism, and funding increasing numbers of powerful state-owned media channels used as an ideological tool. The Venezuelan private media have fought back with many of the same techniques used by Chavez, such as biased reporting and constant political commentary by journalists, pairing them closer to an opposition party than an objective observer. This research analyses the current power war taking place in the arena of the media in Venezuela through the cultural studies media theory of Stuart Hall. This neo-Marxist perspective, which presents the media as an arena for the power struggle that takes place in society, is ideal to understand the current Venezuelan situation. This media war is resulting in the destruction of objective journalism, of freedom of expression, and, ultimately, of democracy in Venezuela.

Keywords

Venezuelan media, Chavez, media war, Venezuelan private media, Venezuelan state media

Introduction

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the private media have been engaged in a political and communicational war for power that is destroying free and objective journalism, and ultimately affecting freedom of expression and democracy. This conflictive relationship can be best understood through Cultural Studies media theory, a Marxist perspective that presents how medium and message are used in the power struggle between a dominant group in a society and the masses (Stanley, 2006).

Stuart Hall, the father of Cultural Studies, will provide the tools for analyzing the current situation in Venezuela. Hall's neo-Marxist ideas, in which a power struggle takes place in the arena of media, are ideal for understanding the state of the media in Venezuela where there is presently a power struggle between the opposition and the government taking place in mass media. Hall believes mass media provides many of the guiding values that shape our perception of the world and serve as important instruments of social control (Davis, 2004). In Venezuela, both the private media and Chavez utilize the media as an ideological tool, aiming also to shape the public's perspective and, in the case of Chavez, directly serve as an instrument of social control.

It is important to mention that Hall called his research cultural studies, rather than media studies, because he believes it to be a mistake to treat media institutions as a separate academic discipline from culture. He pushed for the idea of understanding mass communication within its specific context. The historical, political, social, and cultural contexts in Venezuela are all as well crucial parts for understanding this media study.

Hall's cultural studies are rooted in other movements and theories that are also quite applicable to the Venezuelan situation. Beginning with the Frankfurt School, which was the first to take on the question of why Marx's predictions had failed and capitalism remained a persistent reality. Why have the have-nots, the working class, not revolted against the haves7. They argued the revolt had not occurred because the prevalent corporate-owned media were effective in sending a message that supported capitalism (Griffin, 2006). This idea echoes Chavez's arguments against the private media in Venezuela. He accuses the Venezuelan and the international private media of "imperialists" and even has called them terrorists with a capitalist message. It is true, however, that prior to Chavez, privately-owned media was the only type of media in the country with the exception of one poorly funded state channel. After Chavez's socialist revolution of the have-nots, the number of community and state media channels has increased, but some private ones have also closed down. Prior to Chavez, as the Frankfurt School put it, corporate-media sent a message that supported capitalism, but now the state media sends a message of socialism.

Currently, the private media have been concerned with sending a message of opposition to Chavez, and the state media has focused on sending a message that supports Chavismo. Both entities manipulate the information they provide to the Venezuelan authence using the news media as an ideological tool and fulfilling Hall's neo-Marxist theories of power struggle that takes place in the arena of the media. However, in this case, the state is the most powerful entity, and Chavez has made used of his legislative power to impose censorship, tighten public information laws, and close down private media channels. This situation is rather worrying for the future of Venezuelan journalism, freedom of expression, and even democracy. A media environment based on pushing political ideologies is destroying objective and responsible journalism. Chavez's abuse of power also has hindered freedom of expression in the private sector through many cases of censorship and threats to journalists. This situation creates a poor environment for a free democracy. A self-governing society, by definition, makes its own decisions and without accurate information and open exchange of ideas; society cannot decide. "Abraham Lincoln articulated this concept most succinctly when he said: 'Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe'" (Krimsky, 1997, para. 3).

Chavez's Use of the Media as an Ideological Tool

Hall believes mass media helps maintain the power of those already in a position of power while exploiting the poor and powerless. Additionally, as a critical theorist, he wants to not only philosophize about this problem but also make a change. The change Hall and most critical theorists want to accomplish is to empower the people on the margins of society (Griffin, 2006). Chavez would agree. He has created an avalanche of government-owned media justified by the idea of giving a voice to those who have been oppressed by the privately owned media: The havenots, the poor in Venezuela, the masses. Hall's ideas, critical of the oppression of the status-quo and its power over the media, are in line with Chavez's proposed objectives. Like Hall, Chavez also says he wants to help give a voice to the voiceless proletariate.

However, Hall maintains he does not want to be a "ventriloquist" for the masses but desires to "win some space" where their voices can be heard (Griffin, 2006), as opposed to Chavez, who also wants to win media space, but mainly for his own voice to be heard through dozens of government-sponsored media and long hours of pro-government programming. This is where Chavez's actions diverge from Hall's theory: While Hall wants to articulate in the sense of protesting against oppression and linking that suppression to the media, because that is where meaning is shaped, Chavez has overtaken the media space to create and communicate his ideology as well as oppressing the private and corporate media. Surely, Hall would articulate this as oppression through the message and medium, even though Chavez is supposed to represent the have-nots.

Nevertheless, the ideas shared by Chavez and Hall about the domination of a status-quo corporate media and the limited space masses are given to express ideas are not completely unfounded. Before Chavez's socialist government, Venezuela lived a 40-year-long period of democracy during which elected presidents promoted a capitalist ideology. Venezuela had only one state-owned television station and zero community media channels; most of the broadcast programming came from the few media corporations. During times of high oil revenue, government officials supported all types of private industries, and media was not an exception. This created suspiciously close relationships between media owners and elected officials who pushed a capitalist ideology.

As Rafael Poleo, journalist and Acción Democrática party official, puts it in an essay "Many of the most important media channels cheated themselves into believing that they could manipulate Chavez just how they had done until then with other politicians of popular origin" (Poleo, 2002, p. 42). The owners of television stations, newspapers, and radio stations, Poleo (2002) argues, at the beginning of Chavez's term, were believing in their own fantasy, fed by a mix of fear, ambition, and greed. Chavez used their trust and waited for the moment to confront them based on the real fact that determines his relationship with the media: "That real fact is that Hugo Chavez's political project cannot be consumed with freedom of expression" (Poleo, 2002, p. 42).

However, Chavez's argument is that through government media expansion, popularizing the airwaves and engaging in an open fight with the private media, he is creating a more pluralistic media arena. Andres Izarra (2007), former Venezuelan Minister of Communication and Information, and current President of TeIeSUR, a 24-hour news channel meant by Venezuelan government officials to be an alternative to CNN and Fox, argues Chavez's expansion of state-owned media has created a more pluralistic society:

For years, we had 'controlled' news networks. Not controlled by Venezuelans or our government but by the countries that dominate international news like the United States and the United Kingdom, or by large media companies with international ownership of local Venezuelan channels. (Izarra, 2007, p. 15)

Izarra (2007) argues that TeIeSUR, which was launched in 2005 with Venezuela owning 51% of the channel and the leftist governments of Argentina, Cuba, Uruguay, and Bolivia owning the rest, and other state-owned media have increased the pluralism of Venezuelan television from what it used to be in pre-Chávez times.

Until recently, Venezuelan television news often became victim of media conglomerates with one-sided views. There are currently more than twenty major television broadcast organizations operating in Venezuela, including private, state-run, and public channels. This pluralism is in contrast to the widely held view that the media in Venezuela is stifled or lacks freedom and diversity, often purported by politicians and the media outlets that report on them. (Izarra, 2007, p. 16)

However, in the same article, Izarra points out that TeIeSUR shares a common ideology with Chavez. To understand TeIeSUR and the recent changes in Venezuelan media, he says, they must be seen in the context of the political changes towards socialism and popularization occurring in the region. According to Izarra, "We have expressed this desire for political integration through regional economic and social cooperation agreements; financial, technical and energy assistance programs; and now, through the mass media. If integration is the end, TeIeSUR is the means" (2007, p. 15). Chavez begins his fight against the media using Hall's argument of popularization of the media and battling the dominant corporate media that presents us with only one perspective. But, in reality, he becomes the hated dominant ideology in media, and the arena ends up being a less pluralistic one - of ideas silenced through legislative power.

Chavez has restricted the rights of the private media through the creation of laws, cancellation of the broadcasting licenses of radio and television stations, and verbal threats that have gone as far as asking Venezuelans to rise and defend themselves from opposition journalists. This has paved the way to various physical attacks against Venezuelan journalists from the private media. Chavez also attempts to control the media through the creation of multiple stateowned media outlets, often used exclusively for the promotion of his own political ideologies. The number of state-owned and community media outlets, television stations, radio programs, newspapers, and Internet pages has increased substantially and surpassed the number of privately owned outlets (Colmenares, 2010).

The Rrivate Media's Use of the Media as an Ideological Tool

There is an open acknowledgement by the Venezuelan government that the state media is being used as a tool to promote Chavez's ideology. At the same time, the privately-owned media, which represents the other end of the spectrum in most cases - the haves, the opposition - has fought back to retain its power and promote its own anti-Chávez ideology. The private media often have persecuted Chavez and his ideas through some of the same tactics used by the state media to promote its own agenda: biased reporting, omission of news, and constant political commentary.

The actions taken by privately-owned stations during the infamous attempt of a coup d'état against President Chavez in April of 2002 is an important example of how the Venezuelan private news media, which is supposed to be independent and fair, violated their obligation as members of the press to report truthfully, regardless of the event's political implication. All of the privately-owned television stations failed to report breaking news regarding the attempted coup d'etat to allegedly help the coup succeed.

Pro-Chávez representatives voiced their concern. Francisco Solorzano, a photojournalist who was part of the MVR, the Fifth Republic Movement or Movimiento (V) Quinta República, a political party founded by Chavez in 1997, but dissolved in 2007, stated the following: "On April 1 1 our media's credibility was proven. They (the private news media) tried to hide the truth and everything was known through the international media, and that is really something to be worried about" (Perozo, 2004, para. 19).

The private media's credibility was indeed questioned for their decision to have an information blackout during the events that took place April 11-13, when a coup d'état attempt took place. Their actions were living proof of their stance against Chavez and Hall's predictions of the corporate media to utilize their power to promote an anti-leftists ideology. This information blackout was understood as the culmination of taking a position against the president, an open attack on the government. Even if the stations did not work as a team, they were all acting with the same purpose of helping the coup as they could and openly showed a triumphant attitude in various shows during the two days that Chavez was out of power. This was an open battle in the war for political power in the arena of the media.

Private television stations such as RCTV, Venevision, and Globovision broadcast nonstop marches of the opposition that brought about the coup against Chavez, but when millions of Châvistas marched the streets demanding Chavez's return, nothing was shown. It was as if nothing was happening according to the private stations. And, when Chavez returned to power and sent out a message to be shown on all television stations saying to remain calm because he was still president, the private stations ignored these breakthroughs and showed cartoons and other entertainment programming. The private television stations and newspapers, which decided not to print the day after Chavez's return to power, compromised their credibility by linking themselves to the coup. The decision to stand against Chavez then and now was more important to them than maintaining their responsibility as members of the press and keeping their credibility because, with the Chavez project, there is no real independent press anyway.

RCTV, Venezuela's oldest private television station, was forced off the air at midnight on May 27, 2007. Chavez's decision not to renew the station's television license was said to be based on the network's indecent content deemed inappropriate for children. Nevertheless, the general understanding is its involvement in the coup and its openly anti-Chávez programming is what truly prompted the closure. This was the beginning of many legislative actions against the media. Eleazar Diaz Rangel, Director of Ultimas Noticias (Latest News), one of the only fairly neutral news organizations, agrees:

Before the coup of April 2002, their [RCTV] information and opinions were oriented towards creating the right conditions for that coup, and when the constitutional forces emerged to reinstitute Chavez in power, they did not provide any information about it even if it was crucially important. The only freedom that Chavez is taking away by closing RCTV is the freedom of the owners of the channel to say their opinion. (Noboa, 2007, para. 14)

Even the independent media have acknowledged that, just like the state media, they use their communication channels to promote a political ideology. Alberto Federico Ravell, former General Director of Globovision (the only privately-owned channel that still openly opposes the president), agrees there was a blackout of information by privately-owned media stations during the coup, but that, nevertheless, the Venezuelan media act differently than the media in other countries because Venezuela is a country undergoing very special circumstances under the socialist regime of Chavez, which has aimed at eliminating all opposition. Ravell explained in an interview with The Miami Herald (2009) when he was still working in Globovision.

In Venezuela, a country where there is no separation of powers, media becomes a power. [Media are] the only power that denounces injustices and corruption and we end up playing a role that the media wouldn't otherwise play under normal conditions.

But, we don't live in a country under normal circumstances, where journalists can ask any question they want, where the national assembly has more than one political party. We will be happy the day the people would go to denounce an act of corruption to the government instead of coming to us. But, that is not the way things are. (Miami Herald, 2009, http://www.miamiherald.com/video/?genre_id=4275#)

These special circumstances created by Chavez, which threatened freedom of expression, have given the media no other choice but to fight back in this communications war, as Ravell explains. Currently, Venezuela is a country in which pluralism of information is at risk because of the dominant ideology of Chavez, which has worked hard to try to eliminate as many oppositional voices as possible.

Pluralism vs. Neo-Marxism

Under Chavez's regime, Venezuela lives in a very particular and weak democracy; therefore, a pluralistic theory, which refers to the media as a promoter of freedom of speech and is used commonly to describe the media in a democratic society, such as the U.S., cannot be applied easily to the weak Venezuelan democracy. According to Gurevitch, Bennett, Curran, and Woollacott (1982), "Pluralists see society as a complex of competing groups and interests, none of them predominant all of the time. Media organizations are seen as bounded organizational systems, enjoying an important degree of autonomy from the state, political parties and institutionalized pressure groups" (p. 256).

The difference between pluralistic theory and Venezuela's society is (refer to Appendix I) that the Venezuelan public and private media organizations do not enjoy "an important degree of autonomy from the state, political parties and institutionalized pressure groups" (Gurevitch et al, 1982, p. 256). The Venezuelan state has infiltrated not just the airwaves, but also the regulatory avenues that media have to go through in order to transmit. Hence, Gurevitch's idea (1982) that a free press encourages an environment where media professionals can express their views without censure from management does not apply.

Media pluralista also assume a basic equality between the media and the authence. They argue that authences are involved in allowing information to penetrate them, while being capable of manipulating the media as well. "A basic symmetry is seen to exist between media institutions and their authences . . . authences are seen as capable of manipulating the media in an infinite variety of ways according to their prior needs and dispositions... enabling them to 'conform, accommodate, challenge or reject, what the media offers" (Gurevitch et al, 1982, p. 256). Pluralista believe in the Limited Effect theory. This theory, widely used in America since proposed by sociologists and researcher Paul Lazarsfeld in the 1950s, states that people have various ways of resisting media influence, and that their perceptions are formed by numerous factors such as friends and family. Contrary to Hall's ideas, it views media as a reinforcement of existing social trends and not as a powerful ideological tool.

To Hall, as well as Chavez and the Venezuelan private media, media is a powerful ideological tool.

As far as mainstream mass communication research in the United States [Limited Effect Theory] Hall believes that it serves the myth of democratic pluralism - the pretense that society is held together by common norms, including equal opportunity, respect for diversity, one person-one vote, individual rights and the rule of law. (Griffin, 2006, p. 371)

The finding that media messages have little effect, explains Griffin on Hall's theory, celebrates the political claim that democracy works.

Venezuelan's democracy is currently questionable under laws that censor speech, lack of opposition parties and the continuing lengthening of Chavez's presidency through legislative action. This is why Hall's theory is so fitting and a pluralistic view is not. President Chavez cares little of the capacity of authences to be critical of the media, he, like Hall, believes that the media is a powerful ideological tool and not a medium with little effect in the authences. He exercises control over what he deems to be a manipulative, powerful, imperialistic media because he understands it as a powerful tool. His Bolivarian Revolution recently revoked the broadcast licenses of 32 private radio stations and two television stations and passed a new law outlawing media material that "produces terror in children" or "goes against the values of the Venezuelan people" (Padgett, 2009, para. 2).

The private media also belittles the authence's ability to accommodate, challenge, or reject Chavez's message. Instead of providing allegedly balanced coverage, unbiased information, and letting the authence accommodate or challenge the information; the private media promotes their own ideology and act more as a political entity that makes use of its power as communicator rather than remain an objective observer. They do this, because, as Hall would put it, a Limited Effect perspective, would only work in a "perfect democracy," a definition far from Venezuela's reality.

The Marxist definition is more appropriate than the pluralist to understand the particular context of Venezuelan politics and media. For Hall, media enables dominant social elites to create and maintain power. Media provides the elite with a subtle yet effective means of advancing ideas favorable to their own interests. Mass media can be then viewed as a public arena in which cultural battles are fought to promote and forge a dominant or hegemonic culture power (Dennis & Stanley, 2006).

The theory is quite fitting to explain the situation in Venezuela and can be applied to both sides of the political divide. The media is used to maintain power, to advance ideas and as a public arena where ideological battles are fought (Appendix I). One of the exceptions in Venezuela, however, is the presence of two powerful ideologies being promoted in the media at the same time, instead of a single dominant one. Both entities, the government and the privatelyowned media, have abused the media as a powerful ideological tool, not just one of them. The power struggle in the media is even more noticeable in Venezuela where both entities fight openly, and especially intriguing when compared to Hall's theories where only one is dominant and the other side of the struggle is completely voiceless. Thus in Venezuela, the media that once represented the have's now represents the have-nots in the sense that this group does not have a sufficiently representative voice in government nor in the now predominant government media.

The government not only has dominance in the number of media outlets but also in the power it exercises through legal avenues to control the private media. This is another example of how the Venezuelan situation differs from common cultural theory analyses. In Hall's Cultural Studies, the status-quo promoted in the media is presented as an elite, capitalist empire and not the revolutionary, leftist government of Chavez, which claims to represent the masses, the havenots.

Hall does not suggest that the promotion of the status-quo is a conscious plot by the media. He believes that media professionals enjoy the illusion of autonomy while promoting the dominant trend. This is another way in which the definition of neo-Marxism differs from the situation in Venezuela. Public and private media professionals do not enjoy the illusion of autonomy; they understand and act on their role as powerful persuaders of an ideology. Privately owned media is aware of the punishment and hostility from the government whenever they are being critical of it. They have learned from the RCTV case and laws created by Chavez that increase their censorship and therefore have self-censored their network's journalists and content. On the other hand, others such as Globovision, a 24-hour news television station, are open about their dislike of Chavez and clearly set programming agendas that promote those ideals setting the stage for a media that appears biased and unreliable. "The news media that assumed critical positions created their own failing path by openly siding with civil and political organizations against the Chavez project" (Medina, 2007, p. 50).

Reporters from state-owned media are also aware that they are serving the government's interest; they belong to socialist political organizations and openly express their discontent with the opposition. In a September 20, 2009, article on Aporrea.org, a popular socialist news website, Gonzalo Gómez, a reporter from Aporrea.org, editor of the newspaper Socialist Tide, Marea Socialista), and member of the Communication Commission of the PSUV (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, United Socialist Party of Venezuela), proposes a series of changes towards the socialization of the media in Venezuela. Among its goals, he includes the following: "To continue with the measures of democratization of the public airwaves by transferring control to the Popular Power: This is vital for defending the Bolivarian Revolution from media offenses of the oligarchy and imperialism" (Aporrea.org, 2009). Gomez presented this proposal for the socialist transition of the media in the Bolivarian Revolution (Propuestas de Transición para la Socialización de los Medios en la Revolución Bolivarana) at the Meeting of Counterinformation and Popular Communication in September 2009. This summit of pro-socialist journalists was organized in response to a visit to Venezuela on September 2009 of representatives of the SIP (Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa) or as Aporrea.com, refers to them, SIP Servidores Imperialistas de Prensa (Imperialist Servants of the Press).

The Justification of Chavez and the Private Media

Pro- and anti-Chávez media representatives do not hide their political positions and feel that they are serving their country best by counteracting each other's manipulation of the media. In a way they are both like Hall: resisting. Hall wants to liberate people from an unknowing acquiescence to the dominant ideology of the culture - although not through message manipulation and censorship as it is happening in Venezuela, in fact that is what he criticizes in mainstream media. The private media and Chavez, just like Hall, want to create a resistance to the other ideology. Their justification in this power war is creating a resistance to the opposite "dominant" ideology.

Ignoring professional standards of objective and unbiased news reporting is justified by exercising resistance toward the counter side. The mission of the cultural studies approach is after all raising consciousness on the media's role in promoting an ideology, which is exactly the justification of both sides of the power struggle in Venezuela. Hall wants to liberate people from an unknowing acceptance of the dominant ideology (Griffin, 2006, p. 371). Similarly, Chavez wants to liberate the people from the "powerful, imperialistic, private media." And, the private media takes up the job of liberating the people from the information that the government provides, even if that means filtering or altering information as both the private and government media do.

In the proposal for the socialist transition of the media for the Bolivarian Revolution, summarized in the Aporrea.org article (2009) the same Frankfurt School's argument that the private media is pushing a (harmful) capitalist ideology becomes clear. Point five of the proposal solicits the following:

The non-renovation of the broadcasting licenses of large private radio and television stations. As well as the cancelation of the broadcasting licenses of the media connected with activities involved in the counterrevolutionary coup conspiracy, or state assassins, so that the menace of psycho- terrorism of the media can be ended, and give a forward step in the socialization of the capitalist media under social control. (Aporrea.org, 2009)

Cultural Studies' Roots and Their Similarities to the Venezuelan Situation

The Frankfurt School theorists also address "the means of production of culture" in which media owners have an undue influence over ideology and political power. Although Hall is less heavy-handed on that idea, he agrees that the corporate control of public communication creates a culture around maintaining the power of the status-quo by restraining free expression. Hall uses the term hegemony when he speaks of the cultural role of media. Hegemony, which is defined as the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group, has also been used by the Chavez government to describe what they would like to do with the Venezuelan media; even though that is exactly the same thing they have criticized the privately-owned media of doing. In a January 8, 2007 interview with El Nacional, a Caracas Daily, Izarra stated that the administration of President Chavez is building "information hegemony." He qualified this statement by indicating that this hegemony did not mean the end of opposition, and that the media that criticize the government would continue to operate. Many analysts agree that it is important for Chavez to keep some private media channels operating only because he needs a "capitalist" enemy he can fight, to preserve his ideology alive, and also as part of maintaining a front for Venezuela and the world of his government being democratic and not a totalitarian dictatorship.

Another influence of cultural studies that is relevant to this case is that of French literary critic and semiologist Roland Barthes, who would systematically deconstruct symbols to reveal their reinforcement of society's dominant values. Similarly to Hall's argument about the media reinforcing the powerful, Barthes says that symbols too reinforce the dominant values of culture. Just like Hall wants to give the oppressed the power to resist the media ideology, Barthes too wants to give people the capacity and knowledge to be able to see beyond cultural symbols.

Signs are powerful. People tend to accept symbols without questioning them and without deconstructing them because they are already linked to a meaning and need no explanation. Griffin argues that "Symbols go without saying. They don't explain, they don't defend, and they certainly don't raise questions" (Griffin, 2006, p. 364).

Chavez knows the power of symbols too. Since his first presidential campaign, Chavez took on mythic signs that were already important to Venezuelans. He seized for himself Simon Bolivar, Venezuela's most important independence hero. Every time Chavez talks about his ideas, goals and dreams, he refers to them as Bolivar's dreams. He has renamed parks, squares and institutions after Bolivar and the very name of his revolution, the Bolivarian Revolution, is further proof of his desire to be completely connected to Simon Bolivar. Chavez has also adopted for himself the Venezuelan flag, the Venezuelan shield and many other Venezuelan heroes. Who would question those symbols? They were already unquestionably connected to "good" ideas such as patriotism and heroism in the Venezuelan collective consciousness.

Chavez repeats these symbols constantly. He is obviously aware of the power of unquestionable signs as well as propaganda theories that describe the efficiency of the repetition of messages and symbols (Dennis, 2006, p. 80). Both communist and fascist propagandists, for example, have used the continuous repetition of symbols that were supposed to stimulate largescale mass attention and eventually become reflexive through the repetition process.

The last influence of cultural studies that is relevant to this context is that of French theorist Michel Foucault. His concept of discourse, which provides a bridge between social power and communications, and between the symbols and the message, helped Hall create the concept of making meaning. The process of learning the meaning of a symbol requires for someone to explain that meaning. It is important to recognize the source of that explanation. Not everyone in society has an equal voice or power in creating meaning and defining symbols. Although with the internet more people have the power of making meaning, it is inevitable that those who can reach more people have more discursive power: power to create meaning. Undoubtedly, Chavez has more discursive power than the average Venezuelan resident. Therefore, he has more power to frame meaning and to create meaning. The privately-owned Venezuelan media with its broad outreach also has a great discursive power, which is the reason why Chavez attacks it directly and wants to significantly curb its influence. The power of making meaning is a tool in the ideological war in the media.

The Problem of the Audience

The ultimate issue for cultural studies is not what information is presented but whose information it is. The source of the information is perhaps the most important issue in today's Venezuelan media. Government-sponsored media and privately owned stations in Venezuela, on many occasions, have become active propagandists. Venezuelans are very aware of this and therefore the ultimate question for them is who owns the media channel from where the information is coming. In Venezuela, it is quite obvious which media are with the government and which are with the opposition.

This situation has decreased the trust Venezuelans have for the media. In September 2008, 79.6% of Venezuelans reported to be suspicious of the Venezuelan media both private and state-owned according to a survey conducted and published by the Venezuelan Institute of Data Analysis (IVAD) (cited in Aporrea.org, 2008). Yet, Chavez and the private Venezuelan media, just like Hall's theory, are more concerned with resisting each other's messages than with the authence's actual interpretation of those messages.

Many analysts agree it is quite obvious to see the biases in the Venezuelan media as well as to detect which media are sided with the government and which are not: "Watching television or reading the newspaper, it was obvious that various media were conducting intentionally a campaign to discredit the government," said Ignacio Ramonet, director of Le Monde Diplomatique and director of Media Watch Global, On May 15, 2002, in an interview with BBCMundo.com about the role of the private media during the 2002 coup attempt.

The Irony of the Enemy of the Dominant Ideology

Even though 80% of Venezuelans distrust their media and analysts constantly call on the noticeable media biases, Chavez ignores the authence's capacity to be critical of the media, because he focuses instead in the power of the media as an ideological tool. He has created various laws that reduce the power of the private media such as The Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. He constantly fines private stations and newspapers for various questionable reasons, and labels them "media terrorists." He censors media by not buying advertising space causing significant loss of revenue given that increasingly more private businesses are being nationalized. Chavez rarely speaks about the authence's role in understanding the information given by the media. He is predominantly concerned with taking away the private media's space for expression and gaining more space for his revolution or, as he would say, space for the masses.

The apparent irony is that by trying to suppress the dominant oppressive ideology of the private media, Chavez and his ideas became the dominant oppressive ideology. The same irony has also been noted about Hall's theory. As Samuel Becker, chairman of the communication studies department at the University of Iowa, notes in an essay, Hall knocks the dominant ideology of communication studies, yet he "may himself be the most dominant of influential figures in communication studies today" (Becker, 1994, p. 126).

A Never-ending Cycle

It is no surprise that the private media fights back in this war for ideological domination. The struggle for power will continue in a never-ending cycle (Appendix II): As Chavez oppresses the private media by canceling their broadcasting license, fining them and with his own biased channels, the private media will continue to fight back with biased information and constant criticism, the only weapon they have. Furthermore, as the private media continuously criticizes the Chavez government and takes the role of a political party, Chavez will continue to treat them like a political opponent in the ongoing war for political power.

Each of these entities justifies their media abuse with the charge that they are resisting the opposite ideology and helping authences resist the opponent. But, it is exactly the authences the ones who are being affected the most by this war. The power war taking place in the arena of Venezuelan media is a living example of Hall's cultural studies. However, unlike Hall's theory this is an open war. The media acts knowingly as an ideological tool that works toward promoting its own ideas while discrediting the ideas of the opposite side of the political spectrum. This open power struggle is in the end, detrimental for the millions of Venezuelans who do not have access to a free and objective media and can only count with politicized journalists that continue to lose their credibility. This media war is ultimately affecting freedom of expression as well, which is being repressed through legislation, and without true information and freedom of expression, by definition, democracy cannot exist either. This power war that exists in Venezuela in the arena of the media is ultimately destroying objective journalism, freedom of expression and ultimately democracy.

References

References

Apporea.com (2008, septiembre 30). Mayoría de venezolanos desconfía de medios de comunicación social. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.aporrea.org/medios/ nl21557.html

Aporrea.com. (2009, September 20). Reunión de Comunicadores Populares contrapuesta a la cumbre de los "Servidores Imperialistas de la Prensa" (SIP) Propuestas de transición para la socialización de los medios, expuso Gonzalo Gómez (de Aporrea.org) en el Encuentro de Contrainformación. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www.aporrea.org/medios/ nl42539.html

BBCMundo.com. (2002, May 15). Los Medios Sustituyeron a los partidos de oposición. Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanishAatin_america/newsid_1989000/ 1989658.stm

Beasley-Murray, J. (2002). Venezuela: The revolution will not be televised; Pro-Chávez multitudes challenge media blackout. NACLA Report on the Americas, 36(1), 16-21.

Becker, S. (1994). Communication studies: Visions of the future. Rethinking communication theory, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ, and Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

MarthaColmenares.com (2007, November 27). A los 17 años del golpe. Retrieved December 18, 2010, from http://www.marthacolmenares.eom/2007/l l/27/a-17-anos-del-golpe-del271 192-videos-y-resena/

Davis, H. (2004). Understanding Stuart Hall. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dennis, D. K., & Stanley, B. (2006). Mass communication theory. Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth.

Griffin, E. (2006). Communication communication communication: A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Gurevitch, M., Bennett, T., Curran, J., & Woollacott, J. (1982). Culture, society and the media, Part 1, 'Class, Ideology and the Media.' London: Methuen.

Hall, S. (1989). Ideology and Communication Theory. In B. Dervin, L. Grosberg, B. O'Keefe, &. E. Wartella (eds.), Rethinking communication theory, Vol. 1, Paradigm Issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Izarra, A. (2007). Chavez promotes robust, uncensored news media in Venezuela. Television Quarterly, 38(1), 15-16.

John, D. (2009). Soul search: In Venezuela, the press struggles to regain its bearings after serving as a tool of the anti-Chavez movement. Columbia Journalism Review, 44(2), 52-59.

Larrain, J. (1996). Stuart Hall and the Marxist Concept of Ideology. In D. Morley & K. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical dialogues in cultural studies. New York: Routledge.

Medina, O. (2007). Gato Pardo N. 79. Teoría de La Rana que No Reacciona. Bogota, Colombia.

Miami Herald. (2009). Venezuelan TV chief talks to Herald editors. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.miamiherald.com/video/?genre_id=4275#

Noboa, Rafael (2007, May 28). Chávez cierra RCTV: ¿Quienes seguirán? (Chavez closes RCTV. Who will follow?). El Nuevo Diario. Retrieved March 29, 2010, from http://impreso.elnuevodiario.com.ni/2007/05/28/nacionales/49854

Padgett, T. (2009, September 22). Chavez and the Latin Left: Muzzling the media? Time. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ 0,8599,1925 129,00.html

Perozo, M. (2004, June 27). Periodistas en el ojo del debate ético. Panorama [Caracas, Venezuela] .