I suspect the Venezuelan local comments are real.  Besides, they come from both sides.  Although Chavez did win the most recent election, I think his anti-democratic "issues" have been well-documented.  See any of my earlier posts on the subject.  His 63% margin was fairly extensive, but since the poll in Venezuela was essentially Chavez or no-Chavez, the other 37% represents far more than the bogus 20% rich cited by Penn when he stated that 80% of the people live in poverty. 

But I don't want to rake Sean over the coals.  The focus of his interview really wasn't Venezuela, and he didn't really get into parsing details about Chavez.  There wasn't time for any nuance.  I likely would assign far less success than he to some of Chavez's programs, but even I'll admit that not all of them are bad.  Some sectors of Venezuela were in a really bad way, and some people might liken Chavez's policies to a sort of New Deal. I think its a lot more autocratic and dangerous than that . . .

Penn's comment about RCTV was flat out incorrect.  He's right in noting that if a US station advocated assassintion of the president, it would be an unlawful act.  But he's bought into Chavez's obfuscation of the facts on that issue.  First, Globovision was the channel that made stronger calls for Chavez's removal and direct calls for assassintion were not part of the programming.  RCTV was a channel that did (and does, on cable now) editorialize against the current regime.  Most media outlets correctly decried the non-renewal of RCTV's regular broadcast license as a decision made without proper due process or evidence. 

Those types of decisions are part and parcel of Chavez's "revolution" just as he discussed in the above article unilaterally ordering his military to arrest street venders selling alcohol.  Maybe it's a decent idea, but it is executed in a way that is outside the law, every bit as flagrant as things like Bush administration wiretaps.  That's why the canard about Chavez being a democratically elected leader therefore inherently democratic is so blatantly deceptive.

I wonder how much time Sean Penn got with the opposition during his visit and if he'll give their point of view any airing in his article.  I'd like to think so.