4 ms·

Can anyone fill me in a little political leanings/background of semana.com (the source of the story)? It's a Columbian magazine, but that's about all I know.

• forinti 17y ago
  In Latin America, the probability that a publication is left-leaning is slim. Except in Cuba, of course.
  • rglullis 17y ago
    Are you serious? In Venezuela, Chavez is nationalizing everything that shows a dissent voice. In Brazil, it's a widely known fact that the government is using public companies' advertising budget to exert control over media outlets. Newspapers and TV stations that are pro-government "happen" to get the larger piece of the pie. Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua - all populist, "left-leaning" governments. All of their leaders would like to follow Chavez steps. The only exceptions would be Chile and Colombia.
    • forinti 17y ago
      Yes, I am. There are populist and leftist governments in many countries, but the media is quite conservative. So Chavez is raving mad and closes everything he doesn't like is supposed to be proof that the media is lefist? The Brazilian dictatorship closed TV Excelsior which was owned by a billionaire; does that mean the military were lefists? I don't see your point. The Brazilian government is systematically criticized by the largest media companies; that is undeniable.
      • rglullis 17y ago
        > So Chavez is raving mad and closes everything he doesn't like is supposed to be proof that the media is leftist? Yes. Any sufficiently smart person would realize that the media outlets that remain on the air after Chavez' frenzy are the ones that are working aligned with the Government interests. > The Brazilian dictatorship (...) does that mean the military were lefists? No, it means that they were both authoritarian and anti-democratic, and that neither respect the press as an institution. Instead of letting the press do its job, i.e, report the facts to the general population, the want the press to work in their favor, brainwashing everyone and letting them run the country unquestioned. > The Brazilian government is systematically criticized by the largest media companies; that is undeniable. This is rather naive. Of course there will be "criticism". But that is independent of being left- or right-leaning governments. The important part to think about: is the criticism unwarranted? Is it incorrect? Do the news outlets actually go deep in questions that might show the government errors? Did any part of the media fabricated accusations? Do you think all the corruption scandals were invented by the big media conglomerates?
        • foldr 17y ago
          >Yes. Any sufficiently smart person would realize that the media outlets that remain on the air after Chavez' frenzy are the ones that are working aligned with the Government interests. This is just false. Much of the Venezuelan media is extremely hostile to Chavez. He has closed some of it down, and bullied the rest, but there are still many media organizations operating that are highly critical of him.
        • forinti 17y ago
          I would say that it is incorrect, yes, or at least incomplete. You never see any numbers when social programs are criticized. The NY Times or The Economist would give numbers, make comparisons and give some historic context.You just don't see that in most of the Brazilian media. Social spending is always portrayed as too expensive and patronizing. Now, if a state government has to come up with a billion dollars to woo in a new enterprise, that's alright and doesn't even require a second thought.
    • foldr 17y ago
      >In Venezuela, Chavez is nationalizing everything that shows a dissent voice. Although, one has to wonder how (say) CNN would be treated in the US if it openly supported a coup against Obama.
      • aristus 17y ago
        Politics is tricky, and different countries really are different. No one in this fight is clean. In 1992 Chavez led a failed coup against the government and was imprisoned. In the US he'd have been barred from public office, if not tried and executed for treason.
        • foldr 17y ago
          Sure, I'm no fan of Chavez, but I think you have to consider the context of the censorship. It's difficult to imagine any government failing to censor media so openly hostile to it. I am not in favor of censorship even in these cases, but it's a bit naive to lambast Chavez for this, as if the same thing wouldn't happen in the US or other countries under similar circumstances. (No doubt there are plenty of other things Chavez can legitimately be lambasted for.)
          • rglullis 17y ago
            Are you familiar with Fox News, here in the US?
            • foldr 17y ago
              Yes, I live in the US. I haven't seen Fox support any attempted coups against Obama yet.
      • DanielBMarkham 17y ago
        This sounds a little bit like equivocation to me. CNN would not be closed. We've already ran this experiment. It was called the civil war. For years before the start of conflict news agencies all over the country either called for succession, violent revolt, or the use of force to bring the South into submission. Freedom of the press is a pretty serious thing here. Even when the press says some outrageous things. This freedom is required in order for the democracy to learn from its mistakes. Chavez is a petty thug, using leftist principles in a thinly-veiled attempt to completely control his country. The people of Venezuela deserve better.
  • huherto 17y ago
    Chavez is not left leaning. He is just a dictator that justifies his actions in the name of the people.
    • MikeCapone 17y ago
      How is he not "left leaning"? Is this a case of no true scotsman?
      • huherto 17y ago
        IMHO many leftist have noble intentions to help the people. However many dictators specially in LA only use the left ideals to manipulate the people and gain power. But you can see in their actions that they don't care about the people at all. That is why you need to differentiate between a person with left ideals and a dictator dressed on left colors.
        • MikeCapone 17y ago
          If you define an ideological position as "something that can't have negative impacts", then I guess the Soviets weren't left-leaning either.
• forinti 17y ago
  They have a page with their history (http://www.semana.com/wf_InfoHistoria.aspx http://www.semana.com/wf_InfoHistoria.aspx) that says that they started in 1946 aiming to "create a new independent magazine with no political colours, in order to fill the analysis void left by the newspapers, which are too busy with the day-to-day news". They were closed in 1961 because they put Fidel Castro on the cover, and reopened in 1983. I'll stay neutral on this one and let you decide what they are...