[Witness spoke in Spanish, interpreted as follows:]
This state policy—the policy that has been promoted by the state—has led to a higher concentration of media ownership, lower pluralism and lower diversity. For example, the exit of RCTV meant that audiences had to turn to the two open-broadcast television options. One was a private channel—one of the private channels—and the others were all public channels. The majority of the viewership went to private channels, so people had now fewer options and fewer choices for watching television.
In terms of radio broadcast, Conatel, which is the regulator in charge of regulating telecommunications, also has responsibilities for its content. This means that it's now more difficult for certain topics to be addressed on radio and TV. For example, the President of the National Assembly of Venezuela has not been interviewed by any radio broadcaster in Venezuela. No television station or radio station is able to interview this person. The public has not heard his arguments. They haven't been able to compare them with the very abundant official information that, in addition to state media, also uses other platforms.
In addition, in the case of Venezuela, there used to be a number of provisions that regulated the frequency bands that could be held by a private owner. For instance, no individual could own more than 10% of the radio spectrum in AM or FM, or more than 25% of the radio spectrum for regional broadcasters. Now what has happened is that after the closing of so many radio stations, the majority of radio stations, in order to survive, need to establish partnerships with either political powers or private powers that are closely linked to state powers—locally, regionally or nationally.
What we have is lower diversity, lower pluralism. We have gone from a situation where there was more pluralism and diversity to one where there is greater concentration of ownership and also fewer choices for people to be informed and to compare and contrast information they receive.