[Maas]

and I started getting a lot of flack asking me for "proof". So I started using a lot more links and cut and paste to keep you guys satisfied.

Well, that's up to you.

When I say, that the poverty under chavez decreased dramatically by something like 20%. Than I'm not about to go prove that to some chimp of a poster that refuses to look into things. It's just right there on wikipedia. So I stick to "do you own bloody googeling around on Wikipedia. I'm not your dog that is about to waist it's time with endless fetching of quotes from wikipedia".

People can say many things about you. But at least you don't (usually) demand to read on pofo what can be found with the a little effort on Wikipedia. You just give an argument why that happened. That is a debate you can agree or disagree with.

[Demosthenes]

I'm still waiting Social_Critic.

As for the the term Batista, what it means to you is less relevant. I hate being called a liberal myself simply because I am a far leftist, but it happens all the time. I live with it without whining except to say "I'm not a liberal"

In just about all senses you are a Batista. You want to roll back the revolution and bring back the excesses Capitalism brought to Latin America. Excesses like massive impoverishment, and a very very wealthy one tenth of one percent. But you use stats to say the vast wealth of that top one tenth of one percent has made the average rise so ain't Capitalism grand?

That's reactionary, and that's Batista.

Please tell me about Latifundios while you answer my long post please.

[Solastalgia]

You know, it really amazes me that Social_Critic dismisses the history of the US/CIA meddling in Latin America for decades, doing regime change and all sorts of subversive activities. Those that bring up this factual reality are only liars in your eyes, Social_Critic.

It's not a lie that the Venzuelan right-wing opposition is the minority in the country. It's not a lie that they're funded by US congress paid/quasi-CIA NGOs, like NED and USAID. It's not a lie that the opposition leaders of today (ie Leopoldo Lopez), were involved in the 2002 attempted coup, which was orchestrated by top US officials.

If you can't concede to these basic facts, then don't expect anyone to take you seriously about Venezuelan politics. Plain and simple. Nobody is buying this story from you that the right-wing opposition represents the will of the people. There were pro-Maduro demonstrations that outnumbered the opposition demonstrations anyways. Get a grip on reality, and stop presenting it so lop-sided with your own bias.

The same thing happened in 2002. Opposition protests and Chavista protests happened at the same time. But of course the US media was only talking about the opposition protests. Go figure.

[Maas]

[Rule 2 and rule 15 removed - Bulaba]

It's not arguable that Venezuela is in bad shape. It simply is. Crime is really high, inflation is high etc etc. And indeed you could say,.. there should be somebody who can do a better job. But you can not dismiss that Venezuela was a complete disaster. The attitude of demanding that it must be near perfection in 10 years, is simply demanding an impossability. The massive redistribution of wealth will take generations to show a change in social behavior. And them right wing American anti-democratic policies is something that really is not helping.

The only thing I dont understand is why the Americans are still allowed to have an embassy in that country. Currently they can only kick out the "dimplomates". Should be a heck of a deterrend that they can toss them in a jail for their terrorist like activities.

[Solastalgia]

I guess I'll be the one to stop this merry-go-round here. One of the top points in Demos' long post that Social Critic refuses to respond to was:

Did it sink in that poverty increased in Venezuela in 2013?

to which Demos answered:

And this fact alone does what exactly? Please answer this question to its fullest if you want to be taken seriously. What exactly does a raw stat prove? Does it prove how the government works? Does it show-- in coherent detail-- HOW the government of Madura and/or Chavez actually did this? Is is a slight trend in an overall economic recovery?

I'll add to this before Social Critic responds.

The poverty rate in Venezuela (according to the UN's ECLAC/CEPAL [*]) decreased from 49.4% (in 1999 at the start of Chavez presidency) to 23.9% (at the end of 2012 at the tail end of Chavez' presidency). 2013 was definitely a bad year for Venezuela as the poverty rate rose back to 27.3% according to the National Statistics Institute (I've yet to see any UN numbers). Social Critic and the right-wing opposition, present these statistics as proof that Maduro has failed and must be removed. There is plenty evidence, though, of economic warfare by the opposition allied private sector in Venezuela, through goods hoarding and black market sales (to avoid govt price controls), which have caused a lack of basic goods and in turn an inflation sky rocket. All of which came just in time for opposition protests under the same US funded lackeys like Leopoldo Lopez (who was part of the US orchestrated coup in 2002). This is yet another instance of economic warfare being waged against a Latin American country to ready it up for regime change (Chile being the best example, when Nixon "made the economy scream" before ousting Allende).

Anyways, here's the bottom line on Venezuelan poverty. Venezuela has been dealing with poverty for a very long time due to neo-colonialism. Before Chavez came to power, more than half of the nation was impoverished while the economic elite filled their coffers. Social Critic and the right-wing opposition represent the interests of the financial elite of Venezuela who wish to see the country return to a state that ignores it's poor people, so that the wealthiest get wealthier, and the upper-middle class can experience the "American way of life" (aka gross consumerism that destroys the planet).

[KlassWar]

Venezuela experienced a foreign-backed revolt of right-wing upper class students that resent the fact that they're no longer the elite, merely students in a socialist state that doesn't have to put up with any of their right-wing bullshit.

[Solastalgia]

Venezuela experienced a foreign-backed revolt of right-wing upper class students that resent the fact that they're no longer the elite, merely students in a socialist state that doesn't have to put up with any of their right-wing bullshit.

Indeed, it's amazing that the right-wing opposition holds up these poverty statistics while protesting againts Chavismo in San Cristobal and East Caracas (two of the wealthiest areas in all of Venezuela). Meanwhile in areas that actually have to deal with poverty, they protest for Chavismo, as they recieve their free healthcare and education.

[Demosthenes]

Anyways, here's the bottom line on Venezuelan poverty. Venezuela has been dealing with poverty for a very long time due to neo-colonialism. Before Chavez came to power, more than half of the nation was impoverished while the economic elite filled their coffers. Social Critic and the right-wing opposition represent the interests of the financial elite of Venezuela who wish to see the country return to a state that ignores it's poor people, so that the wealthiest get wealthier, and the upper-middle class can experience the "American way of life" (aka gross consumerism that destroys the planet).

Well articulated.

Venezuela experienced a foreign-backed revolt of right-wing upper class students that resent the fact that they're no longer the elite, merely students in a socialist state that doesn't have to put up with any of their right-wing bullshit.

Which is exactly what and who Social_Critic and his "friends who want out of Venezuela" are. Welcome to the Fray, btw.

[Solastalgia]

Thanks, Demos. I'd like to copy-n-paste a post of mine from another Venezuela thread just to clarify my position here a bit better...

It's not that we're all fans or necessarily even banner-wavers of Chavez and Maduro, but Chavez has done more for the poor and the working class of Venezuela than the US-funded and right-wing opposition would have ever done.

Exactly. I wan't to make this clear, that I have my own issues and gripes with the New Left of Latin America. While it's been great for the continent's urban poor, it has been at the expense of the rural and indigenous poor people. I think that the New Left in Latin America needs to seriously figure out how to develop and bring prosperity to all of their people, without sacrificing the rural and native peoples of their respective countries.

Edit: The oil based model of growth, needs to be replaced by renewable energy (sustainable) growth. Until then, the rural and native peoples of each country will continue to be oppressed by their leftist leaders looking for every last drop of oil (like their colonial masters used to). Also, while these leaders have done a decent job in kicking out the gringo controls, they should be wary of getting too close to the Chinese who are starting to create their own neo-colonial project in Latin America.

Could anyone seriously believe that the opposition would have housed 250,000 families within a single year?

Nope, not at all. What's ironic is that for all of Social Critic's whining about Venezuelan dictatorship, it was his right-wing opposition in 2002 that most closely represented dictatorship (as if right-wing dictatorships were anything new to Latin America, anyways). When they (a long with factions of the Venezuelan military) un-democratically ousted (kidnapped) Chavez, and put into power the un-elected business man (and friend of Colin Powell), Pedro Carmona, who proceeded to eviscerate any semblance of democracy for 36 hours by suspending the National Assembly, the National Electoral Board, and the supreme court.

[Demosthenes]

Thanks, Demos. I'd like to copy-n-paste a post of mine from another Venezuela thread just to clarify my position here a bit better...

Its a great addition and the clarification is welcome. I feel the same way in regard to the New Left in terms of supporting their steps to help the urban poor. I was not aware of the detractors who are bemoaning the lack of such help for the rural poor. I learned a lot about Latin America via the book Chavez recommended to Obama when he originally took power.

It was as eye opening as it was tragic. However, I have also noted many of the recent events in Latin America with growing satisfaction and have begun to feel that LA is actually the best place globally to look for a strong leftist sociopolitical culture that could begin to develop, and indeed, probably is developing as we speak. I have become a fan in that sense as I fear most of the developed West is far too spoiled and gullible (willing to fall for obvious fakery by sycophants and sore losers *looks around the room*) to really fight for true class interests.

Its refreshing to read honest criticism of the new left there in order to maintain the necessary perspective. If you have links or other information from sources discussing any of this either in Venezuela or elsewhere I'd encourage you to post them in another thread. (At the risk of the right trying to pick up on it and run with it, of course... )

[Social_Critic]

You're being challenged. That's it in a nutshell.

OK, then write down your top item. I think it´s realistic and straightforward to ask you to point out what you think is important because you sure write a lot of baloney. If YOU can´t figure out which item is the most critical then you do have a problem, don´t you?

Let me show you an example. Last night I read Bocaranda´s latest note, and he wrote the following quote from a talk he had with a high level Chavista:

"Comprende que antes teníamos un líder único quien ordenaba y todo se cumplía. Nadie se atrevía a discreparle una acción por errada que fuera. Hasta la hora legal se cambió y nadie le dijo que era un error. Hoy el liderazgo es compartido y hay demasiadas discrepancias, facciones y juegos de poder. Nos está venciendo el tiempo y algunos no se quieren dar cuenta"

Source: Nelson Bocaranda´s Runrunes

TRANSLATION

"Understand that before we had a single leader who gave orders and everything was carried out*. Nobody dared to disagree with any action he wanted even if it was erroneous. He even changed the time zone and nobody dared tell him it was a mistake. Today leadership is shared, and there are many disagreements, factions and power games. Time is defeating us and some don´t want to face it".

As far as I´m concerned this is the key issue they have which makes their behavior so erratic and makes them look like such idiots. Chavez took all the power, when he died Maduro couldn´t assume his role, and they lacked a mechanism to make joint decisions. We also know there´s a struggle between communist factions and what we could call the fascist factions which want a dictatorship to keep doing business as usual, including having a private sector kneeling to their wishes and peeling lots of cash for chavista wallets.

Meanwhile you are focusing on baloney. But I´ll give you this chance, go back over the stuff you wrote, and pick a subject you really want to discuss. Then we´ll see what happens after you get taught a lesson. Maybe you will learn, maybe you won´t.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

OK, then write down your top item. I think it´s realistic and straightforward to ask you to point out what you think is important because you sure write a lot of baloney. If YOU can´t figure out which item is the most critical then you do have a problem, don´t you?

Deliberately refusing to engage in a meaningful debate (for the last two or so pages of this thread you have been consistently trolling by "responding" to Demosthenes by refusing to respond to his post) is in violation of rule 2 of the Latin America subforum rules; if you don't want to respond to anything he said, stop demanding he repost what he already posted and which you refuse to respond to. Use of this forum assumes your cooperation in following these rules. If you continue to play that game, measures will be taken to enforce the rules.

As far as I´m concerned this is the key issue they have which makes their behavior so erratic and makes them look like such idiots. Chavez took all the power, when he died Maduro couldn´t assume his role, and they lacked a mechanism to make joint decisions. We also know there´s a struggle between communist factions and what we could call the fascist factions which want a dictatorship to keep doing business as usual, including having a private sector kneeling to their wishes and peeling lots of cash for chavista wallets.

How do you reconcile the massive cognitive dissonance of supporting anti-democratic forces in Venezuela bent on overthrowing an elected government who will then either install a pro-US dictator or establish a political monopoly in Venezuela and ban their opponents, in this case, the Chavismos? You continually claim that Chavez and Maduro were/are dictators and antidemocratic, and yet the Venezuelan opposition you support is the literal embodiment of antidemocracy, to the point of supporting the State Department's desire to overthrow, yet again, an elected government simply because the opposition are sore losers over not being able to win a democratic election?

[Social_Critic]

ow do you reconcile the massive cognitive dissonance of supporting anti-democratic forces in Venezuela bent on overthrowing an elected government who will then either install a pro-US dictator or establish a political monopoly in Venezuela and ban their opponents, in this case, the Chavismos?

First let´s make sure you learn the proper term. Chavismo was a political movement created around a dead man. Chavista is a follower of this dead man.

Now let´s move on to your point. Who told you the people who protest in Venezuela are anti-democratic? The government itself is anti democratic. I consider it a Cuban satrapy. Many call it a dictatorship. Under the Venezuelan constitution, the people have the right to protest, and they even have the right to initiate a revolt (ref Article 350 of the Venezuelan constitution). Furthermore, you haven´t got a lick of proof or evidence regarding your statements that the majority of the opposition engaged in protests and resistance to Maduro´s regime would install a "pro US dictator" or carry out any of the other dumb moves you mention.

Do you realize you create your own fiction and this is why you can´t really offer proof of anything? What do you think this is, your own bullshit novel in which you write imaginary characters and events?

[QatzelOk]

Who told you the people who protest in Venezuela are anti-democratic? The government itself is anti democratic.

Okay. So while the rich protestors were all democratically elected by a majority of Venezuelans, the government just appointed itself and started bossing people around and spreading lies? This is exactly the opposite impression I got, but I've been watching a lot of Chavista media lately, and my family has an economic interest in Bolivarism.

I consider it a Cuban satrapy. Many call it a dictatorship.

All the rich people have agreed to call it those awful names? Did you use facebook to set up this smear campaign?

Under the Venezuelan constitution, the people have the right to protest, and they even have the right to initiate a revolt (ref Article 350 of the Venezuelan constitution).

Does the government have the right to defend itself against the terrorism of rich vigilantes? I believe it does.

Furthermore, you haven´t got a lick of proof or evidence regarding your statements that the majority of the opposition engaged in protests and resistance to Maduro´s regime would install a "pro US dictator" or carry out any of the other dumb moves you mention.

Do you realize you create your own fiction and this is why you can´t really offer proof of anything? What do you think this is, your own bullshit novel in which you write imaginary characters and events?

Any knowledge of recent Latin American history demonstrates that the handful of rich entitled people in any country can be bribed into supporting pro-American dictators. Venezuela is no exception in this. Money is thicker than the truth.

[Social_Critic]

So while the rich protestors were all democratically elected by a majority of Venezuelans, the government just appointed itself and started bossing people around and spreading lies?

Given the fact that protesters aren´t all "rich protesters", and that being elected doesn´t give Maduro the right to disobey the law, the Venezuelan constitution and human rights conventions, then what can we do about your post?

Your primary premise is wrong, the protests are being carried out primarily by university students (this follows latinamerican tradition). There are other protesters involved, this ranges from housewives to old men to nuns, physicians and poor unemployed. However, government repression against the protests has been quite brutal (over 30 protesters dead and who knows how many killed). NGO´s have issued statements explaining the government is using torture and violating protesters´rights as per the Venezuelan constitution.

But right now, in May 2014, the key issue isn´t really the protests. It´s the full scale economic meltdown taking place, which is caused by government idiocy. Here´s an Al Jazeera video giving an overview of the economic crisis and the ensuing protests

Venezuela at a crossroads
"With a declining economy, protests, and a president under pressure, can Venezuela get its economic house in order?"
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/cou ... 12368.html

For those PoFo readers who wish to see the situation covered by a network other than Al Jazeera, here´s a piece on CNN, it´s five days old, but it goes over CNN´s perspective

CNN team denied right to cover Venezuela local elections
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/24/world ... -protests/

And here´s an interview on CCTV (Chinese Television) in English found in YouTube. This is dated just before the protests started.
Interview on Chinese Tv channel CCTV about Venezuela

A British video about the protests in San Cristobal, known as the "cradle of the protest movement"
Venezuelan troops tear through border city to crush student protest in cradle of uprising
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ising.html

I still say the key issue is the economic meltdown. Crime is a serious issue, and so is Maduro´s human rights abuses. But it´s the horrible economy and the increase in poverty which we need to focus on because this will indeed lead to a full scale exodus as well as possibly a civil war.

Although the protests are mostly a side show, I want the PoFo audience to realize the protests are caused by the government´s behavior. So I wish to close with the famous video showing National Guardsmen beating an older fella in a poor neighborhood in San Cristobal. Scenes like this is what enraged the people in that town and led them to start building barricades to stop the National Guard from entering their neighborhoods
GNB de Maduro Golpea a un Pobre Viejo En San Cristobal

[Demosthenes]

WB Qatz. Please stay awhile.

*cheerleads to the oldies*

[youtube]QVS3WNt7yRU[/youtube]

Given the fact that protesters aren´t all "rich protesters", and that being elected doesn´t give Maduro the right to disobey the law, the Venezuelan constitution and human rights conventions, then what can we do about your post?

It's been established that previous right wing protests have been funded by foreign (re: US) sources. How is anyone supposed to believe this is any different?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Given the fact that protesters aren´t all "rich protesters", and that being elected doesn´t give Maduro the right to disobey the law, the Venezuelan constitution and human rights conventions, then what can we do about your post?

Elaborate exactly on what laws Maduro has broken and what parts of Venezuela's constitution he has ignored. You have an opportunity to explain to us all how Maduro is a dictator and how he constantly breaks the law, as you claim. Please do so and elaborate; I honestly would like to know exactly what laws and portions of Venezuelan constitutional law you are referring to.

[Maas]

However, government repression against the protests has been quite brutal

Repression against violent rioters have been quiet brutal.
And there is nothing wrong with that.

[Solastalgia]

First, on the issue of riot cops beating protesters. Maduro actually fired many security forces that were using violence. That's a lot to say for him, considering that around the world (especially in the US) riot cops beat protesters without any consequences. Even worse, we see cases like Cecily McMillan, an Occupy protester that experienced police brutality, but was charged herself and sent to prison for assaulting an officer.

Given the fact that protesters aren´t all "rich protesters." Your primary premise is wrong, the protests are being carried out primarily by university students (this follows latinamerican tradition). There are other protesters involved, this ranges from housewives to old men to nuns, physicians and poor unemployed.

I didn't say they were all rich protesters. I said the majority are middle-upper class, and the majority of protests took place in well-off neighborhoods. Even pro-opposition media in the US like the New York Times, reported on this.

Here's a quote from an anti-Maduro Venezuelan journalist, Francisco Toro, in an article republished by The New Republic:

Outside the Andean states, protests remain largely confined to the better-off areas of the larger cities. Are there exceptions here and there? Certainly. But they’re just that: exceptions.

With its image increasingly defined by its least appealing members, it’s little surprise that the protest movement has failed to build meaningful alliances outside the opposition base. People in working class neighborhoods, whether urbanizaciones populares or barrios, see the protest movement as something alien, different, not about them, not by people like them and certainly not for people like them. (Yes, there are exceptions, but again, they’re only that: exceptions.)

However, government repression against the protests has been quite brutal (over 30 protesters dead and who knows how many killed).

You're obviously quoting that terrible propaganda op-ed by your beloved opposition figure head Leopoldo Lopez in the New York Times (in which he says 30 protesters were killed). Don't you remember that the times corrected him in an edit, saying that the number represents security forces and civilians, as well.

The current death tole (which is now closer to 40) is split pretty evenly between protesters, security forces, and civilians. I believe the majority of deaths were actually civilians killed by road blocks randomly, in which both sides (protestors/govt) blamed each other for it. Considering this isn't the first time that the opposition has killed civilians to legitimize it's cause, I wouldn't doubt that they did it again.

NGO´s have issued statements explaining the government is using torture and violating protesters´rights as per the Venezuelan constitution.

Yeah, you're talking about that terrible Human Rights Watch report, that says there wasn't any lethal force used by protesters against those who tried to take down road blocks. Yet another bias and ridiculous report from HRW.

But right now, in May 2014, the key issue isn´t really the protests. It´s the full scale economic meltdown taking place, which is caused by government idiocy.

Please explain how government idiocy caused the economic meltdown. For months now you've done nothing but blame Maduro for Venezuela's economic problems (like the rest of your right-wing opposition cohorts) without giving a detailed explanation. Conversely, I (as well as others) have explained how the economic elite of Venezuela caused the current economic crisis.

For those PoFo readers who wish to see the situation covered by a network other than Al Jazeera, here´s a piece on CNN, it´s five days old, but it goes over CNN´s perspective

CNN team denied right to cover Venezuela local elections

CNN should be banned from Venezuela.

CNN Venezuela was involved in the 2002 attempted coup when they worked with coup generals by taping them giving their statement about sniper attacks, before they even occurred. Here's a video of former CNN Venezuela correspondent, Otto Neustadtl, talking about how he was with the coup generals hours before the sniper attacks took place, to tape their statements about the sniper attacks.

[youtube]_CI511EVelA[/youtube]

[Demosthenes]

While you're on the subject of the completely corrupt US new media, let's talk about the part of the US coup where the media completely misrepresented who the pro-Chavez forces were shooting at. *looks up info again*

This is from a blog, so it is not professional, but the point is whether the facts are correct or not not whether we have to argue whether or not this person is paid by Maduro.

Yes, here it is: (I highly recommend anyone on the fence to read the entire article)

On April 11th, the anti-government rally marched past their stated destination towards a counter-protest staged by Chavez supporters outside the Presidential Palace, a move that Beasley-Murray argues was almost certainly designed to provoke a conflict,[xxxii] thereby creating an opportunity the coup leaders could use to move against Chavez. In an attempt to block what was slowly being understood as the initial stages in an organized coup, Chavez ordered the private television stations to go off the air, arguing that they were irresponsibly broadcasting inaccurate and misleading information in an attempt to bring down the government.[xxxiii] Upon reaching the Palace, unknown snipers opened fire on protesters from their positions on the rooftops of nearby buildings, killing at least 13 civilians, many of them Chavez supporters.[xxxiv] At this point, as O Briain and Bartley note, “some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction [of] the sniper fire”.[xxxv] Luis Alfonso Fernández of Venevisión captured footage of the Chavez supporters on an overpass, defending themselves from sniper fire.[xxxvi] While the unedited footage made it undeniably clear that the Chavistas were defending themselves from the rooftop snipers, and that the anti-Chavez marchers had been nowhere near the overpass, the footage was manipulated to make it appear that “the Chavistas were assassinating innocent marchers”, editing out the numerous and clear indications that the Chavistas were under heavy fire.The private media began broadcasting, en masse, the falsified footage “over and over and over again” while calling on the army to overthrow President Chavez for his orchestration of the “massacre”.[xxxviii] In stunning example of political choreography, the military high command promptly withdrew support for Chavez, citing the falsified footage as justification.[xxxix]
Shortly after this, a unit of the anti-Chavez Caracas police raided and shut down government owned Channel 8, the only Chavez-friendly television station.[xl] The military high command then took Chavez into custody at 1:30am, though he refused to resign.[xli] Pedro Carmona immediately assumed the presidency , forming a “transitional government” composed of ultra-conservatives and members of the business community[xlii], and the government proceeded to dissolve the national assembly and the supreme court, while dismissing the attorney general, head of the central bank, the ombudsman and the national electoral board.[xliii]
The next day, in an obvious attempt at sabotaging any public resistance to the coup, the same media outlets that had given “wall-to-wall” coverage of anti-Chavez protesters initiated what one of the local, pro-Chavez newspapers described as “a diabolical blackout that left most of Venezuela misinformed about what was happening to the country”.[xliv]The large media outlets pointedly ignored stories about firefights in the city center and military uprisings all over the country.[xlv] Though international networks were broadcasting easily accessible footage of police shooting into crowds of pro-Chavez protesters,[xlvi] and though the President’s supporters had begun protesting in the streets, the private TV stations responded by broadcasting “soap opera and cartoons”.[xlvii] By April 14th, word of mouth had slowly spread the news that Chavez had not resigned but was in fact being held captive by the army, and in response tens of thousands of his supporters gathered in front of the Presidential Palace demanding his release.[xlviii] Yet no news at all was broadcast on April 14 by the private media channels, and most newspapers simply did not publish.[xlix] Andres Izarra of RCTV noted that the media blackout was official policy, and that journalists “were told [by station management that] no pro-Chávez material was to be screened … even if we had it available, and even if we had information on unrest and protests in support of the president” (Izarra resigned in protest).[l]
However, Chavez’ supporters were able to organize a counter attack. The palace guard, emboldened by crowds of Chavez supporters, succeeded in retaking the palace[li] and one by one sections of the military, believing that Carmona had gone too far in abolishing the nation’s democratic institutions the previous day, began withdrawing support for Carmona’s government.[lii] Though the the private media still denied anything of import was happening in Caracas, Chavez’ cabinet returned to the newly retaken palace to dismiss the “transitional” government, and Chavez, soon released by the military, returned to the palace shortly after 2 am on April 14th.[liii] The coup was over.
However, the implications of the media behaviour during the coup are profound, and extending far beyond the coup itself. Through a shockingly unified policy of misinformation, active participation in the planning and execution of the coup, and self-imposed censorship, and the active cover up of mass murder (the sniper shootings), the private media was complicit in the murder of civilians and was actively working to overthrow democratic institutions. By any reasonable analyses, this should be understood as an infringement on the rights of the Venezuelan people.

http://wakievelli.blogspot.com/2006/11/right-to-be-informed-media-and-2002.html

I have seen the movie that talks about this in great detail. This is like propaganda 101 for any budding Himmler (Godwin +1). Is it any wonder Social_Critic does not want to discuss how 2002 is relevant to 2014?