This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Private Venezuelan media officials stated that the majority of the media supported Chávez and the change he promised when originally elected in 1998, but after they reported the "negative realities" occurring in Venezuela, the Venezuelan government began to portray the media as an enemy. The relationship between Chávez's government and the media was then in dispute over press freedom, with the Venezuelan government threatening to revoke licenses of media organizations. Media owners, managers, and commentators working for the five major private mainstream television networks and largest mainstream newspapers then stated their opposition to Chávez's policies. These media outlets accused the Chávez administration of intimidating their journalists using specially dispatched gangs. Chávez in turn alleged that the owners of these networks had primary allegiance not to Venezuela but to the United States, and that they sought the advancement of neoliberalism via corporate propaganda.
The private media was accused of assisting the 2002 coup against Hugo Chávez due to actions performed before and during the events that unfolded. On 11 April, the anti-government march, the message "remove Chávez", and the call to redirect the march to the presidential palace in Milaflores, were "widely announced, promoted, and covered by private television channels, whose explicit support for the opposition became evident." The media ran ads encouraging viewers to protest and news coverage was biased and even manipulated, with a Foreign Policy blog citing Chávez supporters stating that "[s]uch tactics were crucial to the coup's strength."[better source needed] On the first morning after the 2002 coup, many of the new Carmona government's highest-ranking members appeared on-air to offer their appreciation to the private media for their support. Once the counter-coup was launched by Chavistas and loyalist elements of the Palace Guard, stations censored any reporting on the events and chose to broadcast classic films and sitcom reruns. Media officials instead attributed this to safety concerns and further denied taking part in the coup: while admitting that they made mistakes, they stated that factual coverage was impeded by the confusion surrounding the coup attempt.
In 2006, President Chávez announced that the terrestrial broadcast license for RCTV—Venezuela's second largest TV channel—would not be renewed. The channel's terrestrial broadcasts ended on 28 May 2007 and were replaced with a state network. RCTV was accused of supporting the coup against Chávez in April 2002, and the oil strike in 2002-2003. It was also accused by the government of violating the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television. The director of the station, Marcel Granier, denied taking part in the coup. This action was condemned by a multitude of international organizations. Greg Grandin, professor of Latin American history at New York University stated that "[The Venezuelan] media is chronically obsessed with Chávez, and critical in a way that would be completely alien for most US observers." After the media-backed 2002 coup attempt, Venezuela passed 'social responsibility' legislation regulating the media.[better source needed] Leftist media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) also questioned whether, in the event a television station openly supported and collaborated with coup leaders, the station in question would not be subject to even more serious consequences in the United States or any other Western nation.
In a poll conducted by Datanalisis, almost 70 percent of Venezuelans polled opposed the shut-down, but most cited the loss of their favorite soap operas rather than concerns about limits on freedom of expression. After RCTV lost its terrestrial broadcast licence in 2007, private television media remained opposed to the Chavez government, but in most cases moderated that opposition by presenting more government spokesmen. By 2008, Reporters Without Borders reported that following "years of 'media war,' Hugo Chavez and his government took control of almost the entire broadcast sector".
Globovision then became perhaps the most vocally and stridently anti-Chavez television station. The Venezuelan Government proceeded to file a complaint against Globovision with the Attorney General Office on this matter. In 2009, Venezuela's telecommunications regulator launched an investigation into Globovisión after the Venezuelan government stated that the network used an earthquake as an opportunity to attack the government. The government said Globovision was illegally inciting fear and violated the public's right to access critical information in a time of crisis, in particular by claiming that Venezuelan institutions were unaware of the quake and that the only information was available from the US (although in fact the US data had come from Venezuela’s National Seismological Institute). The Director of Globovision, who intervened personally on air, claiming to have been unable to reach Venezuelan authorities.[better source needed][better source needed] Chávez demanded sanctions against Globovisión, calling station director Alberto Federico Ravell "a crazy man with a cannon". This action was criticized by two officials who monitor freedom of speech, Frank La Rue of the United Nations and Catalina Botero of the OAS. Globovision was fined $4.1m in 2009, for illegal broadcasting on unauthorized microwaves and unpaid taxes from the years 2002-2003 on political advertising airtime donated by Globovision. 
The private media in Venezuela was eventually pressured by the Venezuelan government into self-censorship. Reporters Without Borders said that the media in Venezuela is "almost entirely dominated by the government and its obligatory announcements, called cadenas while Freedom House stated that "many previously opposition-aligned outlets have altered their editorial stances to avoid drawing the government’s ire" with censorship increasing significantly during the final years of Chávez's presidency. Since Chávez's death, private media organizations such as El Universal, Globovisión and Ultimas Noticias were bought by individuals linked to the Venezuelan government.
In 2001, Chavez turned Aló Presidente from a radio show to a full-fledged live, unscripted, television show on public-owned media that ran during all hours of the day promoting the Bolivarian Revolution. The show aired every Sunday, depicting Chávez (wearing red, the color of the revolution) as the charismatic leader, passionate about the well being of his country. Many Venezuelans tuned in because Chávez was known for unveiling new financial assistance packages every weekend. Chávez spent an average of 40 hours a week on television. The show was considered the principal link between the Venezuelan government and its citizens, and was a source of information for both official and opposition media and at international level. The show featured Chávez addressing topics of the day, taking phone calls from the audience, and touring locations where government social welfare programs were active.
On 11 June 2009, Chavez inaugurated a "theoretical" edition of his show, in which he wanted to promote "the study, reading and deepening of the revolutionary ideals" in order to strengthen socialism. This program aired on Thursday afternoons.
Hugo Chávez used propaganda that took advantage of emotional arguments to gain attention, exploit the fears (either real or imagined) of the population, created external enemies for scapegoat purposes, and produced nationalism within the population, causing feelings of betrayal for support of the opposition. In 2007, The World Politics Review stated that "As Chávez pushes on with transforming Venezuela into a socialist state, government propaganda plays an important role in maintaining and mobilizing government supporters". A 2011 New York Times article said that Venezuela had an "expanding state propaganda complex" while The Boston Globe described Chávez as "a media savvy, forward-thinking propagandist [who] has the oil wealth to influence public opinion".
Chávez used television both domestically through cadenas and international through outlets like TeleSUR for propaganda purposes while websites like Aporrea.org, Radio Nacional de Venezuela, Venezuelanalysis.com, were allegedly used by the Venezuelan government for propaganda purposes. Chávez was also promoted through educational systems introduced by his government in Venezuela which focused on achievements made under his policies. A cult of personality was then created around Chávez in Venezuela among his supporters.
On 13 March 2007 the Ontario Press Council upheld a complaint that a series of articles published in the Toronto Star in May 2006 lacked balance due to the absence of comment from Venezuelan government representatives and did not attribute figures about murder rate, poverty and unemployment to opposition sources.
Media outlets in the United States, and in other parts of the world, have consistently suggested that Hugo Chávez is a "dictator" or is "headed in that direction" in spite of the fact that he and his party have won numerous national elections certified by international observers, and confirmed by independent international polling companies. The leftist media watchdog FAIR frequently criticized media coverage of the Chávez government. The Venezuelan government also attempted to improve the image of Hugo Chávez through the Venezuela Information Office.
<ref>tag; name "CJR" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
pressure from the central government on private media ... fosters systematic self-censorship
These clips bolster critics who claim the network is and will be a propaganda tool for Chávez.
None of the audio/visual content is hosted on this site. All media is embedded from other sites such as GoogleVideo, Wikipedia, YouTube etc. Therefore, this site has no control over the copyright issues of the streaming media.
All issues concerning copyright violations should be aimed at the sites hosting the material. This site does not host any of the streaming media and the owner has not uploaded any of the material to the video hosting servers. Anyone can find the same content on Google Video or YouTube by themselves.
The owner of this site cannot know which documentaries are in public domain, which has been uploaded to e.g. YouTube by the owner and which has been uploaded without permission. The copyright owner must contact the source if he wants his material off the Internet completely.