Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Media Bias and Recent Student Violence in Venezuela
Why is it that the U.S. media condemns Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez for limiting freedom of press while in the same breath self-censoring their Venezuelan news coverage to such an extent that it completely distorts the story? This has been the case ever since Chávez came to office, but last week, after the incidents at the Central Venezuelan University, the asymmetries once again were violently thrust to the surface.
Next month's controversial constitutional reform has again sent Venezuelans into the streets and into headlines around the world. President Hugo Chávez has likened the current political climate to the spring of 2002, which culminated in a short-lived coup d'état ousting Chávez for 2 days. Pro- and anti-government sides have each launched vicious attacks on one another. The polarized Venezuelan media coverage has created a confused and divided environment in which it is common to see stories written with substantial pieces left out. The international media is never far from the sidelines. Last week, in standard fashion, nearly every major US newspaper momentarily forgot their commitment to an independent press, and omitted crucial facts, martyring the Venezuelan opposition student movement, and acting as a de facto mouthpiece for the opposition.
Sean McCormick, spokesperson for the US state Department, had this to say on the morning of November 8th: "These people are just expressing themselves in a peaceful manner. They've had a view contrary to the views held by the government, but it was a peaceful protest, as far as I've been able to determine from the news reports."
An analysis of 10 major U.S. media outlets shows very consistent reporting of the story. Seven of the 10 reprinted the same AP story. Only the Washington Post, however briefly, brings to light that there are even two different sides. Most media outlets reported that following peaceful protests in downtown Caracas, masked Chavista-gunman attacked anti-government supporters on the campus of the Central University of Venezuela (UCV). Photos of the masked gunman have accompanied most of these articles lending themselves as powerful images of violence against peaceful protestors.
The Miami Herald reported photographers for The Associated Press saw at least four gunmen - their faces covered by ski masks or T-shirts - firing handguns at the anti- Chávez crowd at the UCV. Terrified students ran through the campus as ambulances arrived. The New York Times on Nov. 7th led with the following: "Masked gunmen shot into a group of students on Wednesday at this country as most prestigious university. The students were returning from a march here protesting changes to the Constitution proposed by President Hugo Chávez that could allow him to remain in power indefinitely." The following day, the Times printed a quote from one of the student leaders likening their tactics to those of Gandhi.
Unfortunately, these reports have left out an important chunk of the story. After last Wednesday's peaceful protest, many students headed back to UCV campus. Here is where things get complicated. According to Chávez supporters, eyewitnesses, and videotape recorded by the community TV station, Catia TV, opposition students, mainly from neighboring privates Universities, chased down a group of pro- Chávez students putting up signs in favor of the reform. The pro-Chávez group found refuge in the faculty of Social Work, which is known to be a Chávez friendly zone, and where it was also reported that another group of pro-Chávez students were meeting. The opposition students surrounded the faculty, armed with weapons, rocks, and gas masks shouting, "We will lynch you all." According to reports, opposition students fired weapons, threw rocks at the students inside the building, and lit fire to the entrance. Chávez supporters present that day affirm that the motorcyclists televised to the world as sinister gunmen, arrived on the scene as part of a rescue mission to help their companions trapped inside the building by the rabid opposition outside. They argue that this was necessary because the Venezuelan army or police force are, by law, not allowed to enter the grounds of the University. To this day, the entire truth is not known about the events at the UCV last Wednesday, but the inability of the international press to report an unbiased account calls into question their journalist integrity. The consequences of this could lead to further violence in Venezuela.
Media distortion is nothing new in Venezuela. The media played a critical role during the 2002 Coup d'état which removed Chávez from power temporarily. At the time major outlets ordered a blackout of pro- Chávez street protests. The movement in the street ultimately led to the return of the President, and has encouraged a new generation of community media around the country. It was those small community stations that spread the news that wasn't available on the major outlets. What the private and international mainstream media reported is that pro-government protesters had fired at opposition marchers, killing over a dozen. It was later revealed that video footage was manipulated, as were the reports, and that in fact the deaths were caused by snipers firing from the nearby buildings, and the pro-government protesters were defending themselves from the armored vehicles of the metropolitan police, advancing on the crowds from only a few blocks away. This past summer the Venezuelan government pointed to the role of Radio Caracas Television in the 2002 coup as the impetus for not renewing its broadcast license. This is a fact that was consistently left out of the story reported in the private and international media. The RCTV story read that Chávez was silencing the station due to their opposition to his policies. The same story continues to be perpetuated in the US media today. Unfortunately, this one-sided hypocrisy intentionally leaves out facts leading to one-sided coverage.
This type of journalism not only misrepresents the truth, but its impact can have dangerous and lasting effects on Venezuela. We should call on our media to take more care, to ensure that it reports everything that is to be reported, and not just the image it wants to portray.
JoJo Farrell directs Global Exchanges Venezuelan Reality Tour Program which aims to expose U.S. Citizens to the complex realities of Venezuela. He can be reached at jojo@globalexchange.org.
32 Comments so far
Show AllHugo wants to give the poor people of his country a chance to live with the liberty he confiscated from the soon to be poor people that owned the business interests. I have a feeling that the global investment in Hugo-land may take a little dip...just a guess.
"enjoy the personal freedoms here that are unavailable in the USA. "
Could you specify these please?
chameleon and bligh
Try to read my previous entry.
In it, you may get an understanding of the historical context that led to Mr. Chavez's continued popular support.
In addition, there are many forms of and elements that make a democracy: political, elite democracy (the most common), staged elections (very common), social democracy (uncommon -Chavez's form of democracy), direct democracy (uncommon -elements found in Bolivarian democracy), economic democracy (popular control of society's capital -found no place), workplace democracy (uncommon -elements found in Bolivarian democracy), referenda, recalls, etc.
So, when discussants use the term "democracy", they may attempt to define what type of democracy they mean.
In the US, we have a form of elite, or oligarchical democracy. The basic concerns of the political parties and candidates are plutocratic. Popular economic and social concerns are very secondary.
So, it is troubling when some elements living within the confines of elite democracy, can even use the term dictator when describing another nation's popularly elected leader.
Because Mr. Chavez tends to keep his promises relative to the majority, his poll ratings have never plummeted to the low levels usually observed after a few years of a plutocratic presidency.
Last, the US elite form of democracy tends to support dictatorships and, only, elite forms of democracy in the Third World.
The oligarchy never supports Third World social democrats, populist democrats, and democratic leaders promising economic independence.
Bligh
Just a short note. I am an American who has retired to this wonderful evolving country of Venezuela. I lived in the barrio for many years and enjoy the personal freedoms here that are unavailable in the USA. The truely open people who like me now receive free or low cost medical care (I am not 65 yet so no medicare). This is to inform that there was a two party system until the U.S. Government told them to boycott parlimentary elections. I voted with most of my neighbors. So until you live here I would keep quiet so as to not display your stupidity.
Anyone interested in serious debate knows the importance of avoiding Logical Fallacies. Anytime you make claims or accusations about *who* or *what* an arguer *is* while ignoring the argument presented you are guilty of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Forget about the arguer, stick to the argument.
ruthru - You wound me. Credibility on this blog is the only thing that makes my life worth living.....
As far as Mr. Chavez being democratic because he "allows" elections, it seems to me that Saddam "allowed" them too- and received a remarkable 99.8% of the vote.
But maybe you guys are right, I'm sure that in a few years Venezuela will have the healthy, vibrant opposition parties that Mr. Chavez's buddy Mr. Castro has allowed in Cuba.
Viva Chavez
..besides of which, where is this high-minded Jeffersonian outrage when it comes to Uribe? Or in light of Mexico's fraudulent elections that installed Calderon? (Not to mention both these countries' world-worst records of violence directed toward journalists?).
The frequently-made charge that Chavez is anti-democratic is ridiculous on its face. Anti-democratic, the man who has won repeated national elections? Who submitted himself to the recall referendum? Who had citizens vote to approve its Constitution? I see...
The "problem" of democracy in any nation with a majority poor population is that they might actually vote their interests. But we can't have that, can we? That's downright un-American.
Insofar as the elimination of term limits is concerned, submitting yourself to elections hardly makes one a dictator.
"Chavez is juat another little dictator like the ones that ruled eastern Europe for 40 years."
One cringes to think where you get your information.
I said it before, I'm gonna say it again. Chavez is juat another little dictator like the ones that ruled eastern Europe for 40 years. We all know how it ended there. All his words and speeches, sound really familiar. I was forced to listen to similar stuff as I grew up in Eastern Europe.
I guess people never learn.
'Reforms now. Democracy later'. Or never...
bligh,
We believe your "questioning" about as much as we believed the initial MSM reports on this incident. You have that much credibility on this blog.
Moonraven, It's nice to hear from you and other open minded people. I'm actually paid by the word by the folks in Miami, so I probably should be a lot more long winded.
Sorry if I upset you, I was just questioning the reasons for
Mr. Chavez trying to change the constitution to enable him to remain in power indefinitly. While we are at it, I also question the Enabling Acts passed that have allowed him to rule by decree.
Also, I understand criticizing the man can land you in the slammer, whether they choose to enforce this - I don't know.
All in all, seems like a tough row to hoe for the opposition.
I bet you more than anything that Bligh voted for Ralph Nader.
Folks, forget responding to bligh.
He or she comes on here any time there is a thread about Venezuela and says the same crap.
He or she also has refused to tell u how much he or she is paid per post by the Miami Mafia.
God forbid someone would post that hateful drivel gratis!
Speaking of the Corporate Media doing the CIA s dirty work for them it would do us well to remember David Atlee Phillips crucial role in past Latin American Ops.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKphillips.htm
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4681
Bligh
It amazes me that you equate eliminating term limits with an erosion of political democracy.
At the same, you don't include any knowledge or historical context for the present situation in Venezuela.
First, when an earlier Venezuelan president, Perez, rapidly applied an IMF DICTATED economic austerity program to Venezuela (during the late 1980s), the public (the majority whom were poor) response was immediate. They hit the streets.
In response, the "democratically" elected government of Perez (who promised to reverse the austerity program) had thousands shot down.
Of course, the MSM didn't examine or thoroughly cover the massacres; Perez was doing what US financiers told him to do.
Today, Perez lives in a stately mansion located near Miami, Florida. Miami: the retirement community for Latin America's dictators, presidents, killers, torturers and terrorists.
It was in response to these anti-austerity massacres that Hugo Chavez (and his many supporters) emerged.
Can you imagine the MSM outcry and condemnation if Chavez emulated Perez and massacred thousands of Venezuela's anti-progressive demonstrators?
I think what Chavez did was try to extend his tenure for one more year knowing that his immense popularity is the only thing that stands between a corporate oligarchy takeover and the poor he has helped more than any other president, there or here. As a tribute to his democracy, the corporate MSM flourishes in his country to his and his poor people's detriment.
"Venezuela is still able to have legitimate national elections, unlike the US."
The US *never* has had national elections, it's done by state.
Venezuela is still able to have legitimate national elections, unlike the US.
bligh,
Read heavyrunner's post. Your comment "He has already showed his stripes in attempting to change the constitution so that he can become "President for Life"" is a distortion that makes it sound like he is installing himself as a life-term dictator. All it means is that he is getting rid of term limits for the office of president, which is in line with most modern democracies. His presidency will end when a majority of voters want it to.
Making sure reactionaries can get in power are all term limits are about.
Term limits are an idea that came into being in the U.S. after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt showed that if a leader takes seriously his obligation to progressively work for the general well being of the people he is unbeatable in democratic elections, and will remain in office for as long as he chooses.
The Republicans and their corporate bosses recognized this and through manipulation, deceit, intimidation, corruption and trickery managed to get the U.S. Constitution amended to institute term limits so they would not have to worry about someone like Roosevelt becoming too popular again.
It would, however, have been possible to have defeated Roosevelt from the left, but never from the right, which is all Big Capital cares about.
Elections are the only term limits a real democracy needs, and the only term limits there should be.
Chavez, like Castro, show the only path to a civilized future. While our civilization collapses into barbarism and economic ruin, Latin America is building a sustainable humane alternative.
It's so hard to draw rational conclusions about Chavez, because the information we get is so distorted.
According to the MSM and the opinion leaders, until very recently, we were routinely fed this point of view:
Chavez--dangerous tyrant destroying democracy.
Musharev--closest Middle East ally, critical to our fight in the War on Terror.
As a result, Musharef, the miliary general, who came to power in a military coup, receives billions of dollars of US miliary aid, while the US works behind the scenes to help with the overthrow of the popularly elected Chavez.
I'm no Chavez supporter; I'm agnostic. I just disdain the hypocrisy in MSM coverage.
The USA (United States of Atrocities) always looks around the world trying to punish "the good example". Chavez and his government actually care about their people something which cannot be said of the psycopath Bush and his evil Marie-Antoinette-Neocon government.
We Americans need to SHUT OUR FUCKING TV UP ! That is the ONLY way we can SHUT DOWN THE MOTHERFUCKING RIGHTWING BIAS IN THE MEDIA !!
I carry no brief for Mr. Chavez who reminds me of every populist wanker Latin America has produced from Peron to Castro. But that's Venezuela's problem.
America's problem here is the corporate, for-profit media. "Seven of the 10 reprinted the same AP story." They did so because they don't have a foreign correspondent in Caracas, or anywhere else in the neighborhood. Putting people overseas to see for themselves and report back is expensive. Cut that out, run more stories about puppies who can skateboard in Indiana, and the news business is profitable. The the CEO of the company that owns the news network can get a $50 million bonus (which would probably put reporters all over the planet if spent differently). Dumbing the news down is profitable. And if Mr. Chavez isn't covered fairly, well, most Americans couldn't find his country on a map.
Perhaps, bligh, Chavez is merely trying to ensure that his reforms continue in the face of historical - and inevitably continued - attempts by the US to oust and/or eliminate him. It is truly dangerous for an oil-rich and left-leaning country to blatently (albeit a bit theatrically) resist the demands of US imperialism, and he would be fully justified, based on the US record of pathetic and murderous interference in South/Central American politics, in paranoia. We must seek the truth and not rely on MSM to provide it.
I feel sorry for any opposition to Chavez. He has already showed his stripes in attempting to change the constitution so that he can become "President for Life".
Many leftist governments in South America are springing up and challenging the IMF and the World Bank's dictatorial policies. Chavez ws the standard bearer, and while like any other human being, he is not perfect, he is immensely popular with the majority of the population of Venezuela.
Biased reporting has been going on for a good long time now here in our so called "liberal" MSM. What a sick joke that is, and should not come as a surprise to those paying close attention.
The US is losing it's bullying influence everywhere in the world and I celebrate our neighbors to the south throwing off the oppression and exploitation of our surrogates in their countries. The chickens are indeed coming home to roost!!!!
See Naomi Klein's piece on this site about how South America is coming out of the shock of our policies of "shock doctrine." It is excellent and did my heart good!
It is an inspiration to us all who value social justice.
Thank you, Mr. Farrell, for directing readers to accurate information about Venezuela.
May I also point out other news reports?
From VenezuelanAalysis of Nov. 15:
London Hosts Most Representative European Conference To Date On Venezuela
November 15th 2007, by Venezuela Information Centre, UK
Venezuelan Ambassador to the UK, Samuel Moncada addressed the conference. Over two hundred delegates from 12 European countries met at a conference in London on Saturday 10 November to support democracy and social progress in Venezuela. Delegates included members of the European Parliament, national parliaments, mayors, trade union leaders and representatives of social movements from Belgium, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
Delegates issued a statement backing the radical social reforms which have transformed the lives of millions of Venezuelans, noting the fact that Venezuela has held more democratic elections than virtually any other country in the world in the last eight years and calling upon European governments to respect the outcome of the forthcoming referendum on constitutional reform in December this year.
A strong delegation of Venezuelan MPs, the Venezuelan Ambassadors to the European Union, London and Paris, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry and representatives of social movements explained the most important developments in Venezuela today.
Why are we fed such lies by the corporate Press and more important - why do we believe them?
Viva Chavez! Only a vocal handful of Venezuela's UPPER CRUST oppose his sweeping social reforms. He is a bright beacon of hope on the Southern horizon. The United States should be lucky enough to have a president who actually supports the people instead of corporations. Who promotes fair trade and decries Milt Friedmanesque free trade. Who condemns nuclear prolifiration and resource-grabbing wars. Who believes that everyone deserves a roof and four walls, food on the table, education, medical care, and all the basic facets of human dignity. May his detractors and the American Corporate Media be damned! You are dinosaurs and your days are numbered.
Only the most gullible still believe the CANARD that the MSM is liberal. THE VAST MAJORITY of the American media is owned by the very, wealthy, elite and these people with very few exceptions; are conservatives. Anything that threatens their wealth, scares the hell out of them. Pat Robertson must have had some vested interest in Venezuela, since he called for Chavez to be murdered.