Correa: Ecuador to take over radio, TV stations

[Bacchus39]

Source: AP



QUITO, Ecuador – Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa says "many" radio and TV frequencies will revert to state control due to what he's calling irregularities.

The president has been at war with Ecuador's news media since taking office in January 2007. He has called TV stations and newspapers corrupt and mediocre, and twice fined an opposition broadcaster.

Correa did not specify Monday what sort of abuses or irregularities broadcasters have committed. Nor did he name any alleged offenders.

The announcement coincides with regulators revoking or refusing the renew the licenses of 34 radio stations in Venezuela.




Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090804/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_ecuador_broadcasters

---

see how democracy is spreading.

[Mudoria]

1. I'm sure they will broadcast "right thinking" now..

[IndianaGreen]

3. No more of the Ecuadorian Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters, and Faux News

We could use something like in USA and restore Fairness Doctrine and break up media concentration.

[vadawg]

49. lol you cant really be serious, or are you

i sure as hell dont want the government to decide what i can see, whether its on tv or the internet, or deciding what i can hear on the radio... whether its lefty or righty censorship aint righty....

[bemildred]

2. Well, there's always the internet.

Or print.

[tiny elvis]

4. the airwaves are not open to free speech

unless something representing the democracy controls them. Who would you rather have in control of the airwaves?
Subjecting your state's powers to capitalism makes spending money equivalent to speech, as the SCOTUS has said.
The problems with volumes of money = volumes of speech should be obvious by now.
I wish Ecuador the best of luck in subjecting capitalism to their democracy.

[twitomy]

7. Yes, we should only have

"government approved" speech.

Very progressive...:sarcasm:

[harmonicon]

10. Are you familiar with the FCC?

Do you know what requirements a broadcaster is supposed to meet to be able to get a license in the US? I wish we would enforce our own laws instead of criticizing other countries for enforcing theirs.

[twitomy]

18. Yes I am...

And as far as I know, the FCC doesnt shut down radio stations becasue they dont like the political
viewpoints expressed.

[bemildred]

19. Google "FCC shuts down"

One example:

Federal agents armed with a search warrant shut down Free Radio 96.9 FM, the self-proclaimed oldest-running and most notorious unlicensed radio broadcaster in San Diego, in a midmorning raid yesterday.

About a dozen armed agents – some wearing shirts with the initials FCC, for Federal Communications Commission – served the warrant in South Park about 10 a.m. They seized amplifiers, computers, a transmitter and other equipment that effectively knocked the station off the air, witnesses said.

---

"This is a fight over free speech," said Reardon, who vowed that staff and loyal listeners will hold fundraisers and buy new equipment to get the station back on the air at an undisclosed location.

The U.S. Attorney's Office declined comment yesterday; no one from the FCC returned phone calls seeking comment.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050722-9999-7m22piracy.html

[twitomy]

21. As Harmicon stated

FCC does regulate the airwaves. This station was shut down because it was unlicensed, not because of
what they were brodcasting...

I wonder if Harmicon is happy with this station being shut down...

[bemildred]

24. And it is unlicensed because the government says it is unlicensed.

The government, in fact, owns the airwaves, not the broadcast companies, and it can do whatever it likes with them so long as it follows its own laws and its own Constitution, and all of that has diddle to do with "free speech". Everyone has a right to free speech, but nobody has a right to broadcast spectrum unless the government says so. That is what "pirate" means, unlicensed. All those stations in Venezuela and Ecuador are about to become "pirate" stations, or they will have to use non-public-owned ways to get their message out, like print, or the internet. They are not pissed off because they are losing free speech, they are pissed off because they are losing long-held special privileges. If they were not so feckless it would have occurred to them that this might occur if they don't deal with social and political changes more gracefully.

[twitomy]

27. They are LOSING their license for politcal reasons;

as Dear Leader doesnt like their speech. It has nothing to do with violations of licensing terms. If that isnt a form of supressing free speech than I dont know what is...

[bemildred]

31. Tough shit.

Does everyone with a political point of view deserve their own broadcast network? No, they do not. Do people deserve their own broadcast network just because they oppose the current administration? No they do not. Broadcast spectrum is a property of the public which the state administers. If they want to keep their broadcast spectrum, they need to not piss off the government. If they don't like that, then they can convince the voting public to elect someone that thinks better of them.

[twitomy]

32. Amazing, lets just trample of the Bill of Rights

Lest we piss off the goverment. So when a right wing govt gets elected here (it will sooner or later) and shuts down Randi Rhodes becasue she "piss(s) off the government", are you going to be ok with that?

[bemildred]

34. The bill of rights does not say a damn thing about broadcast spectrum.

There was no such thing when it was written. Randi Rhodes is not a broadcast network, I would defend her right to say what she likes just like I would defend the right of the weasels that run these stations in Ecuador or Venezuela or whatever to say what they like, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is their right to use public spectrum, they have no right to use public spectrum. The legally elected government is the arbiter of that, and rightly so, and the government is accountable to the voting public for what it does, and that is how things work. They are fucked. They need to get over it so they don't get themselves in worse trouble.

[twitomy]

38. Yes, but WHY are they "fucked"?

Its becasue they dare speak what the all-powerful government doesnt want to hear. Thats what I have
a problem with.

So if Bush revoked CBS's license to broadcast becasue they didnt like Rathers National Guard story would that be ok with you?

BTW you can take off your "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" bumper sticker. Apparently it is conditional to you.

[bemildred]

39. Elections have consequences.

Very real ones. It's not my fault.

Bush, or Obama, can pull the plug on the entire broadcast media in the USA and start over and it won't bother me at all. I think the entire for-profit broadcast business is a bucket of slime.

[SeriousEbony]

5. South America should be paradise soon

When will these wannabe dictators start living the life of the peasants instead of preaching
and ruling from their golden enclaves?

[bemildred]

6. Well, quieter, anyway. nt

[mitchtv]

9. It sure is wonderful now

what you mean dictators?

[AlphaCentauri]

13. When the US citizens setup the example, I guess.

This free speech moment has been brought to you by a 20 billions corporation.

[bitchkitty]

23. Post some pictures of these golden enclaves.

Post some evidence that Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales or Rafael Correa are living high off the hog while their citizens starve.

You won't find any, so why not just refrain from chiming in with moronic "dictator" statements?

[Zorro]

8. Unspecified "irregularities"

Correa can't seem to identify even one "irregularity" that would cause him to threaten such drastic action.

Perhaps it's because these stations broadcast reports of FARC financially supporting Correa's election campaign.

[rabs]

11. Oh, the irregularities are there, just wait a week or so

The AP reporter neglected to mention:

-- A technical report will be ready in eight days in which "very grave irregularities" are listed and which are liable to sanctions.

-- The government received a report from the Auditing Commission several months ago that detected numerous errors in the concession of licenses to radio and television stations.

-- Correa: "We want to avoid errors. We are going to analyze (the report) deeply ... and (if needed) strongly sanction and correct the abuses."

Version in Spanish
http://www.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC.asp?id_noticia=295151&id_seccion=3

[Zorro]

12. The article states a report was issued "several months ago"

Seems to me that that's more than enough time to have published the "irregularities" under investigation.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Wait a second.

Per the OP, he's already decided to shut down some stations. If such a decision has been taken, then the decision ought to be backed up by factual information relating to the "irregularities." Why would one assert that the stations would be shut down if the irregularities had not already been properly documented? Surely if the irregularities have not already been properly documented, then there should be no talk of shutting down the stations. Either the information exists and they are withholding it, or the information doesn't exist, and they're asserting their intention to close the stations before they have "deeply analyzed" the results of the investigation.

[rabs]

17. No, the shutdown of some stations not decided thus far

The government is awaiting a technical report on the irregularities; the report is expected in eight days. A government commission has been investigating the matter for several months, according to Correa. When the report is issued, the government will analyze it to see if sanctions are warranted.

More on this from the Latin America forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x20562#20577

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

25. From his own lips...

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa says "many" radio and TV frequencies will revert to state control due to what he's calling irregularities.

Again, if they have not finished investigating, how can he make that assertion?

[rabs]

26. Firstly, the AP mis-translated Correa's remark

Correa did not say "many" stations would be closed.

He used the word "algunas" which means "some."

Secondly, Correa said a final government report will be forthcoming in the next few days. The final decisions will be made then.

Here is the story as reported by the Guayaquil, Ecuador, newspaper El Universal. Assume that if you are interested in Ecuador, you read Spanish. :hi:

http://www.eluniverso.com/2009/08/04/1/1355/590EE7C5F94649A0815379DA75196CC9.html

[twitomy]

22. Irregularities=Speaking aginst "Dear Leader" Chavez

If this was some right wing dictator shutting these stations down, Im sure those who are defending this here would be singing a different tune...
The double standards in political discourse never ceases to amaze.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

29. When did Chavez become president of Ecuador? nt

[Vidar]

14. When the broadcasters are mererly mouthpieces for corrupt plutocrats,

the government is justified in shutting them down. Viva Correa!

[nolabels]

15. Really not much difference between the dictators of the north and the south

It won't be long before us northerners find the need to explore our nationalistic (tribal) tendencies. It seems almost like a simple math even :shrug:

[twitomy]

28. Down with the bourgeois!

Land, Peace, Bread!

Sometimes I swear this place is the COMMUNIST underground

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

30. And I swear

you're an imbecile who doesn't know that Venezuela and Ecuador are 2 separate countries.

[twitomy]

33. Your right, I got them mixed up.

But it doesnt matter..any government that stifles freedom of speech is on my shitlist

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

35. Oookay.... it happens but silly ass broad brush comments about an online

community with a wide range of opinions (as one should clearly see on this very thread) will put you on a lot of posters' shit list as well.

[twitomy]

41. Well the opinions are what they are,

and I did say "sometimes" it seems like a commie hang-out and I have no problem calling a spade a spade. I mean there are people here who adulate Che for Christs sake! Right winger Pinochet was a murderer, so was Lefty Che.

One usually thinks of the "political Spectrum" as a linear thing. I think it is more of a circle.
Two points on the circumfrence(sp) going in two different directions. One goes so far to the right that they are considered facsists, the other so far left they are considered Communists. Guess what?
They end up meeting on the other side of the circle, virtually identical, more in common than not. Two sides of the same evil coin.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

44. Che!!!!! Oh noes!!!! Oh the humanity!

Puhleze,if we're going to talk about murderers then many of the presidents and founders of this nation participated in mass murder etc etc. Some people admire the passion and idealism that Guevara displayed while not agreeing with some of his methods while others might think he was just fine, then others that he was a murderer. So if some Che avatars shock you and scare you so much I don't know I suggest you get out more. I've seen lots of socialists here and a few even further to the left. So what? Even communists are allowed to hang out I guess. I'm thinking your comment was supposed to be some kind of insult or something. So if we're calling a spade a spade. Then I will emphasize once again how stupid the comment was and how "freeperish" it comes across. Again the people you refer to are a minority but even the capitalist centrist majority here don't partake in red baiting McCarthyite comments like yours. But hey I guess that 50 years later the commies are still sooooo scary.

[twitomy]

46. I am not going to put Che, Chavez or any other of today's little tyrants

on the level of George Washington. Rather, I will put them as a wannabes on the level of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Hitler. That bunch had their own "idealism" that many found appealing as well. When I hear of people calling for the suppression of speech, or other such totolitarian crap I am not going to remain silent, regardless of weather you find it "scary" or not. Too many have suffered died, and continue to do so. I have not forgotten. Maybe next time I will use the word "fascist" instead of "communist". Its all the same, and it seems to be a more favored name these days..

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

48. And you keep displaying your "knowledge" every time you type.

First the scary part was a reference to YOU being scared of "the commies". Get it? Reading comprehension helps. Second I'm not the dude who showed up here not even knowing what country or president was being talked about. Which tells me that you just wanted to say some shit about Hugo Chavez no matter what even if the headline clearly indicated this is about someone else. Third what is being talked about is the president of that country (not Chavez) saying that some radio stations have apparently violated some rules. Now if that's true or not, who knows. When this report comes out people can make up their minds.

That idiocy about Hugo Chavez being in the same category as some of the biggest mass murderers in the 20th century, well that one would be funny if wasn't so incredibly ignorant and asinine. I suggest that you actually read what is being said before shooting your mouth off, or not. It's up to you. It just makes your posts all the more hilarious.

[David__77]

20. Good.

Clean them out. The old fascist powers-that-be need to be challenged and overthrown.

[Odin2005]

36. Ugh, I expected better of Correa. Fuck.

[twitomy]

37. Well you and me seem to be in the minority

Others here dont have any problem with a government abusing their right to pull licenses to stifle dissent.

[Alamuti Lotus]

40. You expected him to meekly roll over and die?

Do you think that our enemies fight with white gloves? That being far from the case, I assure you, why do you expect us to do so?

[Odin2005]

42. So authoritarianism is OK as long as we do it? OK, gotcha.

:eyes:

[Alamuti Lotus]

45. Yes, exactly what I said -- thanks for illuminating my hidden thoughts

In case there was suspicion, that was, indeed, sarcasm.

What I am actually saying is that you don't seem to notice much when we get smashed like bugs under the rule of people that Correa is going after. Under the guise of various regimes they have ruled with an iron fist for decades and deserve nothing less than what is going on now (I speak not only of Ecuador, obviously). That they consistantly have earned your hypocritical sympathy is possibly more interesting.

[Odin2005]

47. I have no sympathy for authoritarians period, Right OR Left.

[Alamuti Lotus]

50. And yet you keep defending them...

Wotan, we're not blind.

[UTUSN]

43. How did I miss the 24hr limit to Rec the UnReKKK-ing? & it can't be he's doing this because

his cadre here believes he is too good looking!1