Your comment would make sense if we were discussing a small group that owned 5% and Chavez reduced it to 1% or 0%, but that's not the case. We're discussing a small group owning 95% of a public resource, and Chavez pushed it back to 70% or 50%. Or the anti-Chavez crew here might say he pushed it back to 30% but there's still *tonnes* of anti-Chavez/Maduro stuff on TV and in the newspapers, including the minorities.
> The free press necessarily includes minority groups whose opinions you disagree with.
In Venezuela, the airwaves were under the almost exclusive control of a small group. This was anti-democratic and the only body with the power to fix it was the government. The government took some of the airwaves away from that small group and the US media (and much of the European media) reported it as Chavez taking over TV.
> The problem here is the state monopoly itselfâ"nationalization of the airwaves.
There's only one set of airwaves so whoever regulates it will have a monopoly.
The government is the only body that has a duty to look after the interests of the population. There's no other body that could do this job.
That's how pretty much every country operates. Nothing to do with Chavez/Maduro.
> [you shouldn't block stuff] based on the content
Nonsense. The airwaves are a limited resource and they're supposed to serve the public. If they're serving just a small group (by only broadcasting their content) then that's a problem for democracy and has to be fixed.