Rod Stoneman

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised charts the seven month run-up to the dramatic attempt to overthrow Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, which was also the subject of a formal BBC inquiry. Executive Producer and writer of the accompanying book, The Revolution Will Not be Televised: A Case Study of Politics and Media, Rod Stoneman talks to LWLies about his book, politics, Chávez and Obama.

LWLies: What was it like in the initial stages of working at Channel Four Television?

Stoneman: In the beginning, when I was working at Channel Four, we were fully committed to extending the boundaries of television. We dedicated ourselves to providing an alternative to the existing channels, including providing programming for minority groups. [These days] Channel Four has become somewhat like MTV, which is just a bit of fizz and speed but completely without seriousness or substance or sustainability, but hopefully we stopped well short of that. Now I feel most dismayed about the quality and limited output of their programming.

LWLies: Why do you think that the directors of the original film, Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’ Briain, chose to take an interest in Chávez?

Stoneman: Initially the aim of the filmmakers was to offer and document a portrait of a new type of Latin American leader. Chávez is an extremely charismatic figure and this is the reason why the directors chose him. We were fortunate enough to capture something more.

LWLies: Why do you think that Chávez cuts a less iconic figure than, say, Che Guevara, considering he holds similar principles and theories?

Stoneman: The thing about Guevara was that he only became such an immense cultural icon after he died. During the overthrow of the Batista government, most media attention was focused entirely on Castro, and Guevara was seen as just an insignificant military figure. I remember when I was a boy, reading a tiny paragraph about his death in Bolivia, and this was the first I had ever heard about him. In relation to Chávez, I think that he is an extremely charismatic figure, and it is the Western media, operating within the interests of their government, that wants to show him in a different light. For example on several occasions he has held press conferences wearing sneakers. Western media paints this as slightly eccentric and wrong, whereas in Latin America and Venezuela it portrays him as an everyday man type of leader.

LWLies: Why do you think the film was so controversial, considering the BBC and Ofcom reports and the withdrawal of the film from Amnesty International’s film festival?

Stoneman: The BBC inquiry saw nothing wrong with our documentary, but an inquiry had to be made because they invested in the film and they had to protect their name. In the case of Amnesty International, I don’t entirely blame them for withdrawing the film because they came under increased intimidation, where threats were made to their staff in Caracas. However, I am a little disappointed that they did not have stronger nerves to fall at the first hurdle of the film’s reception.

LWLies: Do you think that relations between Chávez and the US will improve now that Obama and the Democrats are in power? Do you think Obama will adopt the same attitudes towards Chávez as the Bush administration?

Stoneman: The Bush administration saw Chávez as a threat. Even when Chávez visited London, Blair would not give him the time of day. I hope there will be more sensible relations between Chavez and the President elect. Potentially Chávez will be more open to discussions with the US if they are also willing to talk. On face value this seems very likely; Obama is the first elected black president of the US, he has lived in countries such as Indonesia, where he has experienced the shortfalls of US foreign policy, and he holds strong socialist views. However, he has made a few comments where I’ve thought, ‘Hold on a minute’. There is a lot of hope surrounding Obama’s presidency though I recall a quote from Gore Vidal where he said, ‘By the time a man gets to be presidential material, he’s been bought 10 times over’.

LWLies: The film has been accused of being a propaganda tool, but because it was documenting a coup in progress, do you think there was less room for objectivity?

Stoneman: Emilio De Antonio, who is sadly not with us anymore, said ‘Only God is objective and he does not make documentaries.’ Propaganda in truth presents information in order to influence its audience. We were documenting a coup in progress where Chávez’s forces emerged as the victors. Showing this immediately puts us on the side of Chávez because it is from his perspective, but does not in any way mean that we supported his régime or that we agree or follow blindly his administration or even in fact that we lied during the film.

LWLies: In Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman identified filters within the democratic media which restricted and controlled what news disseminated. Do you envisage any connection between this theory and the actions of the Venezuelan state television during the coup and the subsequent backlash against the film?

Stoneman: I have not read the book but I have commissioned many programmes on the teachings of Noam Chomsky. There is a direct relation to the constraints of what gets produced as news. Most conceptions of Chávez, especially in the West, are that he is this dictator in the Saddam Hussein vein. In fact he has been elected as leader a stunning 14 times, winning the regional elections last month. So you have to be careful where you get your news from.