Thanks for this -- there was another media analysis done about the western press where Venezuela has garnered several times more media coverage (usually negative and anti-Chavez) than Brazil which is several times its size population and area wise.

It is pretty obvious by numbers alone that Chavez is seen as the most dangerous enemy of corporate elite rule, and treated as such. As a revolutionary leader, he is one of the rare voices that cannot be bought or bossed. His stand has allowed others to emerge.

A good link is this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144

It detail's Dubya's support of a failed coup to oust Chavez. It is called "THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED"

Hurray! you can get an extra dose of NYT's b.s. today w/another editorial against the evil, evil chavez here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/opinion/14sat2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

for further analysis:
http://www.counterpunch.com/maher02132009.html
the author here also discusses columbia but also points out another glaring example of NYT's hypocrisy: their support for repeal of term limits so wall st. fat cat mayor bloomberg can stay in office (and that not by voter referendum, but by diktat of the city council).

but not to worry. according to this author, the vote repealing term limits is likely to pass, so we'll have the NYT impotently gnashing their teeth about chavez for a long time to come.

You'd think Chavez was appointing himself president for life the way the press here reports on this. He's doing this in a national referendum---something we could use in this country; and he's leaving it up to the people to decide if he should be re-elected---not a term-limitation. I hope he wins on this one. Viva la revolucion!

On the other referendum story a poster mention the Znet coverage. heres a linkhttp://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/20275

the response posted is to the point - the question is a non-issue - many European nations have no term limits etc...

I'd just as soon see some of the propaganda on CD. I won't get it anywhere else. Keeps me aware of the latest spin and buzz words.

Chavez the "dictator."

Some dictator. How many fully free and vetted legitimate elections have there been in Venezuela since he became president? (About 9 or 10? Including a recall and one he lost.) How many CIA coups has he endured? (1 I believe.) What, in truth, has been the great crime he committed which raised him to the level of "dictator?"

Thumbing his nose at the US, that's what. And in Latin America leaders, rulers, genuine dictators, fascist thugs, murders and the like are all fine, so long as they know who's boss. The good old USA, that's who.

But let one Latin leader stray off the range, and Wham, Bamb, whadayaknow? He becomes a Commie' dictator. Especially if he snorts at his own homegrown oligarchs and attempts to make life better for the poor at their, and the US’s, expense.

Before there is truth, there must be a lie

“[The Santander Group] wanted to sell the bank to a Venezuelan businessperson who asked for permission, like the law requires. But now I say no... We are going to recuperate the Bank of Venezuela for all the people, since this is a country that is recuperating its wealth in order to put it at the service of the people,” Chávez announced.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3687

We progressives support extension of Chavez' term limits until such a policy stops benefiting the people of Venezuela. Chavez may very well benefit the people with a lifetime of service. The progressive approach is to consider all people oriented ideas/proposals and reject all elite oriented ideas/proposals. This is about the people versus the elites. US progressives recognize great significance in Latin America's "Bolivarian Revolution". VIVA!

"Frankly, I am not planning on visiting CD much anymore"

If you really weren't gonna do it, you wouldn't be saying so. You'll be back.

the author writes:

"It would seem the role of U.S. reporting and opinion on Venezuela (and Colombia) is less about informing the public about real threats to democracy and human rights in Latin America than it is about serving as a propaganda arm of U.S. foreign policy."

no shit

any fool who is still reading that corporate bullshit deserves the twitching incongruity often realized when indulging in dangerous medications

cheers, b

Uribe, and family, got their start, and that's if they haven't continued, in being allied with a serious drug trafficker, that is, a 'narcotrafficker', and paramilitary ... mercenary group, the AUC, according to the following article.

"America's New Asian Quagmire
Graveyard of Empires

by Tom Burghardt

Global Research, February 7, 2009"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12194

Stephen Lendman describes Uribe as very 'repressive' and associated with "death squads and drug cartels".

"The New York Times v. Hugo Chavez

by Stephen Lendman

Global Research, April 1, 2008"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8505

He provides a perhaps more thorough description of Uribe in the following article, under the subheading of "Colombian-Directed Hostility Toward Chavez".

"Bush and Uribe v. Chavez and Correa

by Stephen Lendman

Global Research, March 9, 2008"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8287

The following website is one I've appreciated whenever I read there and the following piece is one on Uribe that is ... very informative, say.

http://www.narconews.com/narcocandidate1.html

The following doesn't refer to drug cartel relations, but certainly about much that's important for understanding who or what Pres. Uribe really is, the evil, and the battles with Colombia's Supreme Court. (In this case, third terms are too many, for one is already too many for thugs like Uribe.)

"The Road to Tyranny in Colombia: A Third Term in Office",
by James J. Brittain, Aug 19 2008

http://www.counterpunch.org/brittain08192008.html

And a fine or good reference to conclude this post with is the following.

"A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present",
by William Blum, Z Mag., Jun 1999

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/US_Interventions_WBlumZ.html

He concludes that page with the following:

"Yugoslavia, 1999:

The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim."

The same can be said with regards to the U.S. govt's purpose in its relationship with Pres. Uribe and all other despot, thug, ..., national leaders like him. As the above page of history that's important to know about depicts, the U.S. govt and its real ruling elites despise good national leaders, for they're deemed to be against profit for the gluttonous capitalists of the USA, and the U.S. "news" media plays its role in all of this evil.

Hence, they promote Uribe and demonise Chavez. Simple: The real truth is the opposite of what the Washington Estalishment pretends it is and therefore stupidly wants us to believe. We had strong illustration of that when Bush Sr said he and his administration would war on Iraq to 'free' Iraqis, to bring freedom, democracy, justice, ..., you know, to liberate Iraqis and without mentioning any intentions about oil (see Blum's above webpage about U.S. interest of intense kind about oil). All we had to do was to realise that the real truth was the very opposite of what he pretended that he and his administration intended to do; and then it was easy to know they would bring hell to Iraq and the only liberation Iraqis would receive would be from life, medical care, or what remained of it after the severe and criminal economic sanctions of 1991-2003, etcetera.

Simple: Whenever they're demonising anyone, then we can be very certain that the person or persons are innocent of the claims of the Wa. Establishment and that the Establishment is only lying again, and for profit. It's always for profit with them.

I'm all for term limits, specially for presidential terms.

Now there's a difference between Uribe and Chavez in this matter, which is that Uribe has not postulated himself for re-election while Chavez has made it very clear he would like to continue being president for more than one more decade!

Countries should be free to decide how to regulate or not term limits, but as a general rule, constitutions should make it clear that an incumbent shouldn't be able to benefit from such a change in rules in his or her current term.

Moot point... Chavez won the right to run for reelection...!

Simple comparison: most parliamentary systems have no term limits (including Canada, Britain, France, etc.). The US doesn't have term limits for its Congressmen and Senators either.

However, few countries have referendums and recall votes as frequent as Venezuela.