Across Latin America, freedom of the press has been a historically controversial and violent issue. New governments promising to initiate change attempt to suppress criticism from journalists – often in underhanded ways. Perhaps the most flagrant example of government bullying comes from Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez. Chavez won support by promising to aid the lower classes of Venezuela.

According to Alvis Dunn, assistant professor of history, Chavez “most certainly has delivered goods and services to a segment of a very polarized society.” However, he has done so at the expense of elites.

When Globovision, Venezuela’s leading news station, vocalized its criticism, pro-Chavez militants responded with teargas.

Chavez himself has initiated his own media station, TeleSUR. More dramatically, he has recently revoked the licenses of 34 major radio stations. He plans to revoke even more.

These actions, said Dunn, have “resulted in his losing the support of many in the young intellectual class, college students and professionals that had risen from humble beginnings … this is unfortunate and will likely be telling eventually.”

Argentina’s lower house of Congress passed a bill on Sept. 17 that would break up Clarin, the country’s largest news network, and establish a “media review board.” Clarin began criticizing President Christina Kirchner after the Argentinean government argued with farmers last year.

According to The New York Times, a federal judge in Brazil issued an injunction to stop the press from reporting corruption charges last July.

Latin American governments rationalize their actions by claiming that the news media has an unfair monopoly on public opinion.

“Across the region the press is owned and controlled mainly by elites … in the majority of cases that press has been very pro status-quo . essentially against change,” said Dunn.

“We’re never again going to accept the media dictatorship,” said Blanca Eekhout, a Venezuelan official, as reported by the Associated Press.

In response, ex-President Carlos Mesa of Bolivia said, “Everything that restricts free speech is unacceptable,” according to the Associated Press.

Mesa joined other former Latin American leaders and editors on Sept. 18 in condemning Chavez’s actions against the press.

In recent years, Latin American judicial systems have attempted to lend a measure of security to journalists by ruling against suing politicians. According to The New York Times, Brazil’s Supreme Court recently struck down a law that imposed harsh fines for slander and libel. In 2002, Mexico enacted “right-to-know” legislation, declaring all government actions public information. Other countries soon followed suit.

Despite these steps, many governments continue to repress journalism. The continued efforts of journalists stem from a hope that, as Dunn says, “Alternate media will . manage to help bring truth to the people.” Passion for the truth is something American and Latin American journalists share.

“There’s a point where everyone says, ‘No, I’m not going to speak to you,'” said News and Record Raleigh correspondent Mike Binker. “And I say, ‘That’s fine, I’m still going to call you.'”

The U.S. government has quarreled with the press in notable cases such as the Pentagon papers and the Watergate scandal. “Watergate,” said Gonzalez, “is what we all want to write.”

But in the U.S., a free press is essential to democracy. As Binker said, “If you expect any group of citizens to place an intelligent and informed vote at the poll . free press is critical.”

“But,” he continued, “I’m not so naive as to think it always works.”

Americans watch the news armed with skepticism. Despite this, Americans can still trust the media as a matter of principle.

If Latin American leaders, such as Chavez and Kirchner have their way, trust is a luxury Latin Americans will have to live without. If America curtailed its press in a similar fashion, Binker said, “I don’t think I’d be doing this.