Dear FRONTLINE,

Perhaps Chavez, has some flaws, is not the most polishedpolitician in the world, but Chavez heart is in the right place.

He stands along with his people, the poor, the working class.Chavez spread the wealth among all the people.In the barrios, where there was no electricity, under Chavezthere was light, where there was no professional medical attention,suddenly there were doctors sent by Castro, in the poorestparts of Venezuela.Education was not just for the wealthy, the rich anymore.The sons and daughers of the cooks, shoeshiners, street vendors,unemployed were learning to read and write and had a shotat a University education.I love the way the ordinarypeople in Venezuela surged out ontothe streets demanding "Queremos ver a Chavez".

If only we had a Hugo Chavez in the USA.

Everybody would be better off.

Doris Torres
NYC, NYS

Dear FRONTLINE,

You did a fabulous job of portraying the shadow side of President Chavez and the failures of the Bolivarian Process, of which there have been many.

Unfortunately, with three quarters of your interviewees being drawn from the opposition you barely touched the surface of the astounding victories: the educational Missions, Robinson, Rivas, Sucre and the Bolivarian Universities which have freed Venezuela from illiteracy; the government cafes and kitchens which have eliminated hunger (and you only mention Mercal government subsidized markets to criticize them); the Mission Barrio Adentro (Into the Neighborhood) which has brought health care to neglected communities; and so on.

Clifton Ross
Richmond, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have to congratulate you for producing and showing what is in my opinion the best documentary on Venezuelan politics, and recent history, I have watched since Chavez came to power in 1999. Folks who made the documentary clearly understand the reasons why Chavez was elected president, approve of the noble intentions but are clear eyed and unsentimental when contrasting wishful thinking and the reality in Venezuela after ten years. Besides a certain empowerment of the abandoned population no long term solutions have been brought to Venezuela while a few shadowy characters like Ruperti have done very well for themselves in the traditional Venezuelan way to make business: government contacts. The recent Miami trial gave us more than what we wanted to know on this subject.

You do realize of course that now you are the enemy of the regime and that you will be subjected to all sorts of pressures from groups coordinated from the Venezuelan embassy (and minister Izarra in Caracas). Fear not: the more mass mailings you get, the more effective your "Hugo Chavez show" will be proven successful at raising the right questions.

I already see in the comments what are they going to try on you. On top of it there will be a coming back to the legends of 2002 which seem to be the only arguments left for chavismo to justify all of its recent abuses. I think you treated that part accordingly to what it means today: an episode 6 years ago which has ceased to be that relevant considering all what has happened since. As a matter of fact, what Chavez wanted to do in 2007 was much worse than what Carmona attempted in 2002. That Chavez went through a vote does not change anything to the fact that his proposals were a retrograde move for a democracy.

Since I cannot only be about praise, something for which I am very stingy with in my blog, I did find one missed opportunity in your film. At two times we see many Direct TV antennas in Caracas shanties. These come at a price, of course. But they are also the silent witness of the people of these areas determination.

Even though they might be supporting strongly Chavez they also want their soaps AND the news that Chavez so often tries to hide form them through his continuous cadenas. It would have been nice if you had mentioned that abuse of authority, sometimes with potential grave consequences such as last Thursday rains in Caracas. By the way, mentioning cadenas would have made more dramatic and understandable the split screens you show were Chavez speaks to the nation while the streets are on fire.

Otherwise the remaining 98% of your film were flawless. I hope you get as much recognition as possible because as the interview of the producer Ofra Bikel says, doing such a documentary in Venezuela today is quite a challenge.

Daniel Duquenal
San Felipe, Yaracuy

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have many reservations about Chavez. I saw the Human Rights Watch report and I did agree with some parts of the program -- but clearly your documentary was not meant to be an objective assessment of his tenure. I hope you will at least admit that much.

There are repeated references to Chavez criticism of the US and poor relations with the US -- but I don't believe the neoliberal agenda of US foreign policy in Latin America was mentioned even a single time -- nor was the long history of US meddling in Latin American affairs. This is the substance of the criticism from Latin American leaders who are at odds with US policy in the region -- virtually nowhere to be found.

Quite tellingly, there was also no serious examination of the US role in the 2002 coup -- a critical issue for Venezuela US relations -- other than a comment about "rumors" to that effect. Lawyer Eva Golinger wrote two detailed books on the subject -- but never appears on the program even a single time. Instead, you spend more time on Chavez's exchange with a Guardian reporter on the Chavez tv show -- or play excerpts of Chavez singing songs.

Another problem is that we hear only about a few economic projects that failed (and of course, we should hear about that) -- and nothing about the improved economic prospects there with the increase in GDP and decrease in unemployment and poverty.

http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/venezuela_2007_07.pdf

Why didn't we hear about these figures -- did it not fit into your narrative? Finally, you ignored numerous experts like Richard Gott, Nikolas Kozloff, Gregory Wilpert (who provides a systematic overview of Chavez's policies and performance), Mark Weisbrot (another expert on the economy), and Bart Jones. And instead rely primarily on former opposition candidates, right wing publications like the the economist, and Jon Lee Anderson who's critique is in line with the almost exclusively negative US reporting -- at least you didn't consult Jackson Diehl from the Post. (And all the links to interviews on the PBS site are critics). Some of the supporters in the barrios are portrayed as 'uneducated' no-nothings and since you primarily rely on critics for expert analysis -- this also has to be questioned.

Of course, you are entitled to your point of view just like I am -- but I was hoping to see something different than the caricature of Chavez in much of the US media -- and was disappointed to a large degree. This documentary largely followed in that narrative.

Washington, DC

Dear FRONTLINE,

I very much enjoyed watching the Hugo Chavez Show. I very much question this man's commitment to democracy. I have a hard time seeing him voluntarily retiring.

Threatening to send in the tanks if you don't vote for his candidates, or threatening to place Manual Rosales, Mayorality candidate for maracaibo in jai without benefit of a fair trial are not the trademark of a commitment to democracy.

When my father who was a former resident of maracaibo asked me if he did the right thing and move to Canada, I said yes!

After watching your file on current Venezuela affairs, I am glad I am not living there.

David Dietlein
Nestleton, Ontario

Dear FRONTLINE,

Ofra Bikel said in her interview at this web site that Chavez is NOT a dictator.

I think she is terrible wrong.

In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator

The definition of Dictator written above is perfectly suitable to Chavez, and most Venezuelans citizens can endorse that.

I think that Ms Ofra Bikel did a interesting work so far, but she and her team are just scratching the surface about the real tyrant who is behind Chavez Show.

Juan Antonio Villalobos Rodriguez
Caracas, Miranda

Dear FRONTLINE,

I see that many here in this post don't seem to really know what theyre talking about. I would like them to come to Venezuela, and see by themselves the situation the country is in. I live in Venezuela, and I'm a Venezuelan who really loves his country.

Chavez more than a president is a movement, a movement that takes advantage of the many problems that the people have. Extreme Poverty and crime, lack of hospitals, schools, and defective public services such has water, sewage, and electricity. The president uses the enormous economic resources that have been entering the country thanks to the rising oil prices in the past 5 years, to illegally promote his social "revolution", using public funds that may have been used to improve hospitals and schools to support the huge constant propaganda of the regime.

In Venezuela you can't walk normally on the streets, you have to be aware that you could get robbed, or killed by someone who just liked your cellphone or even a single pair of shoes. Now the country is one of the most insecure in the continent. This may seem to you a lie, but it is true, Venezuela is now one of the most violent countries.

Apart from this, the goverment claims that Venezuela has one of the lowest unemployment rates in all its history, with official numbers around 6.7%. The fact is that more than 50% of workers in Venezuela are part of the "informal economy" or street vendors.

But to me, one of the most serious issues in the division that is present in the society at this moment. The hate that persist between those who support the goverment, and those whose not. Chavez is in part responsable for this, he has planted this hatred in the society from the goverment, he insults his oponents calling them all sort of things which I don't want to mention here, and he encourages his supporters to do so.

Freddy Teixeira
Caracas, Venezuela

Dear FRONTLINE,

A few inconsistencies here and there, for instance that of el pueblo bringing Chavez back or Wilmer Ruperti going from having one oil tanker to 19 (he didn't have any to begin with), Diaz Rangel as one of the most respected journos? Only Petkoff could have come up with that. Fortunately he gets it right towards the end when he says that Venezuela will have to thank Chavez for having brought the issue of poverty, and the need of addressing the terrible inequalities that our country has suffered and continues to endure.

A shame not have been exposed more of the official vision/version, in the voices of ministers or high officials, as the ones trying to defend Chavez's points are either PSFs or local corpses that the lieutenant has left along his destructive path. However one of the things with which I found myself in complete agreement with Chavez was the cynicism/racism of Europe/Europeans --represented, in his opinion, by the question posed by Rory Carroll (excellent one BTW)-- who still think that they know better than the local savages. But then, of course, he deviated into an intellectually dishonest rant about how much he cares for the people.

Very powerful arguments by folks like Porfirio Davila, whose family tragedy is just a daily occurrence, while authorities are too busy robbing the country blind and the very cynic Chavez says that money must be spent only in what's needed, such as Russian weapons and subsidies to the Cuban dictator.

Alek Boyd

Dear FRONTLINE,

I got an email this a.m. from the Venezuela Information Office, and in it there are statements about a Frontline program dealing with Venezuela, namely: 1. Frontline states that President Chavez resigned during the 2002, which is not true. The Venezuelan leader did not renounce his presidency, although he was held captive and threatened with a bombing of the presidential palace. 2. Frontline completely ignores the well known manipulation of the events of the 2002 coup by Venezuela's private media, as well as its role in staging the coup. 3. Frontline asserts that Chavez used the enabling law to pass 12 laws that did not pass in a referendum on constitutional reforms. However, the... laws decreed on the last day of the enabling law are fundamentally different from those that faced referendum last December. All of them are in accordance with the constitution. 4. Frontline irresponsibly closes the program with the following quote: "'Chavez barred hundreds of opposition candidates from running [in regional elections].' Again, PBS gets it wrong - this law was not written nor approved by Chavez. It was made in the National Assembly in 2001 by opposition and government supporters alike, including the former political party of opposition Mayor Leopoldo Lapez, Primero Justicia. The law enables administrative sanctions for a variety of corruption charges and allows politicians to finish their term in office. Could you give us your thoughts on the VIO statements?

tom arnall

FRONTLINE's editors respond:

1. With regard to the first point -- "Frontline states that President Chavez resigned during the 2002, which is not true..."

This report never states that that was what happened. We say that is what the Army said was what happened. PROGRAM NARRATION: "By Friday, the president was said to be isolated, detained and taken from the palace by members of the army who had turned against him. There were rumors that he had agreed to resign. The Inspector General of the armed forces announced it on television."(ANNOUNCEMENT): " The president has resigned. His resignation has been accepted."

2. With regard to the second allegation -- " Frontline completely ignores the well-known manipulation of the events of the 2002 coup by Venezuela's private media as well as its role in staging the coup."

FRONTLINE did mention this. Here is that sequence from the documentary: NARRATION: "The independent television stations who had once supported Chavez were now vehemently against him. When violence erupted, theygave voice to the opposition against the president, now holed up in the palace."CHAVEZ SPEECH: " I'm calling for reflection, a path of reconciliation."NARRATION: "Chavez's speech, which was meant to reassure the population, was promptly contrasted with a split screen showing the violence in the streets."

3. WIth reference to the charge -- " Frontline asserts Chavez used the enabling law to pass 12 laws that didn't pass in a referendum on constitutional reforms.However, the laws decreed on the last day of the enabling law are fundamentally different from those that faced referendum last December. All of them are in accordance with the constitution."

We stand by our reporting. There were 26 laws, 12 of which were identical to those rejected in the referendum.

4. With reference to the charge -- "Frontline irresponsibly closes the program with: 'Chavez barred hundreds of opposition candidates from running [in regional elections] ...this law was not written nor approved by Chavez. It was made in the National Assembly in 2001 by opposition and government supporters alike...."

FRONTLINE originally had a card that had the extra line: "The Chavez-dominated Supreme Court barred the candidates from running" But it was decided it was too long, so it was dropped. However, it is ludicrous to think that the Supreme Court, or the National Assembly, are independent of Chavez.

Dear FRONTLINE,

Hugo Chavez is one of the best things possible to happen to Venezuela. For instance, in 2003, poverty was upwards of 55% of the population. It has since been mitigated to 35%. Also, his democracy is of tremendous more success than, for instance, American democracy (a fuckin sham to anybody who knows the history - see Alex Carey's "taking the risk out of democracy" or Chomsky's "Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies")

How much of a dictator is Chavez when:

A new survey published on November 14, 2008 by the respected Chilean polling firm Latinobarmetro finds that Venezuela has the region's highest rate of support for democracy as the best system of government, and the second highest rate of satisfaction with the actual functioning of democracy. Citizen satisfaction with democracy has risen by 14 percentage points since 1998, when President Chavez was elected for the first time.

Compared to the USA where 80% believe the gov is looking out for the interests of big businesses/special interests, rather than the general population?

The posts here demonstrate the vulnerability of the American public to the mass media and its misconstrued version of "reality". Here is a must read for the likes:

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/19685

Mike Darlington
toronto, Ontario

Dear FRONTLINE,

I have a different take on Chavez. For the past few years, I have watched him systematically destroy the oil resource base of Venezuela by replacing highly competent technical staff in the national oil company of PDVSA with political hacks who's most important qualification is allegiance to Chavez. Their oil production is dropping precipitously and they have to import gasoline because their refineries have become so unreliable. PDVSA used to be a well-regarded national oil company, but they have become the laughing stock of the industry under Chavez. The people of Venezuela deserve better.

Houston, TX

Dear FRONTLINE,

I lived in Rubio, Venezuela, for a year and a half and was a friend of Porfirio Davilla who you interviewed, and whose father was kidnapped. I wish you would have shown more of this side of Venezuela...those who are saddened by what their country has become--where life holds little value on the streets and in the barrios. I am a witness of the insecurity, the inflation, and the difficult times the people of Venezuela are living.

I disagree with another poster who stated we do not know the direction Chavez is taking. One must simply observe the company with which he is holding, to gain clarity of his vision for Venezuela. It is troubling he has blocked hundreds of opposition candidates from running in tomorrow's governor/regional elections. Does that indicate any of his visionary leanings?

Mark Clubb
Broomfield, CO

Dear FRONTLINE,

It is outrageous that people from the First World still get to decide what is that Venezuelans deserve. I am saddened by those who state that Venezuelans deserve MORE than Chvez. Why don't we let Venezuelans decide what is that they deserve. Focusing on the image of President Chvez distorts that he is but the face of continental movement that was born out of a myriad of grassroots struggles. Furthermore, he is not the only one that Latin Americans have chosen to office in the hopes that they can recuperate the capacity of their natural resources and the fate of their economic and political systems.

It is particularly outrageous that a documentary that pledges to analyze Venezuela and Chvez presidency only makes tangential references to the Bolivarian Constitution approved in 1999 by the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans. In that document the guiding principles of a different political regime, participatory democracy, was to be established in order to democratize political decision making and assert the sovereignty of Latin American peoples from the decisions by abroad by transnational elites that have used the IMF and the World Bank to further subordinate them in the global(ized) hierarchy of nations and peoples.

President Chvez, as any one of us, has a myriad of flaws and has committed horrible mistakes yet he is the democratically elected leader of Venezuela and if we are to understand his historical significance we need to dig deeper to find the reasons why Venezuelans keep reasserting the necessity of struggling for what his administration has repressented in the polls and elsewhere.

Venezuelans continue to struggle to find an alternative for a global socio-economic system that is collapsing and threatening the daily livelihoods of millions. And lets try to learn something from those who still hope that something beyond extreme global(ized) inequality is the only way to relate to one another. That is why Venezuelans talk about imperialism, widespread inequality allows some to use their economic power to maintain the privileges of the few. Chavez has a lot to do with that consciousness that is rising around the world.

Ricardo Sanchez
Chicago, Illinois

Dear FRONTLINE,

Every time a leader starts speaking for the poor and disadvantaged, the American status quo elites want to get rid of him or her. This is the case of Hugo Chavez, and I find it disheartening that Frontline and PBS should join in such efforts by maligning him with false statements and reports.

Ted Tripp
Santa Cruz, CA

Dear FRONTLINE,

This is a welcome effort that will serve to balance the immense propaganda paid by the Hugo Chavez regime all over the world. The Venezuelan Information Office, financed by the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington DC is already mounting a campaign to weaken the impact of your work. They are asking thouands of U.S. citizens and residents to send you letters againt the videos and even suggest what they should tell you, which is typical of dictatorial regimes. Hugo Chavez's regime is doomed. It is collapsing finnacially and as aesult of increasing popular rejection. Chavez will not end his term in 2012.

Gustavo Coronel
McLean, Virginia