EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Misreporting Venezuela's Economy
If you want a perfect illustration of media toeing the official line, look no further than the forecasts of Venezuela's economic doom
The bulk of the media often gets pulled along for the ride when the United States government has a serious political and public relations campaign around foreign policy. But almost nowhere is it so monolithic as with Venezuela. Even in the runup to the Iraq war, there were a significant number of reporters and editorial writers who didn't buy the official story. But on Venezuel, the media is more like a jury that has 12 people but only one brain.
Since the Venezuelan opposition decided to campaign for the September elections on the issue of Venezuela's high homicide rate, the international press has been flooded with stories on this theme – some of them highly exaggerated. This is actually quite an amazing public relations achievement for the Venezuelan opposition. Although most of the Venezuelan media, as measured by audience, is still owned by the political opposition there, the international press is not. Normally, it takes some kind of news hook, even if only a milestone such as the 10,000th murder, or a political statement from the White House, for a media campaign of this magnitude to take off. But in this case, all it took was a decision by the Venezuelan political opposition that homicide would be its main campaign issue, and the international press was all over it.
The "all bad news, all the time" theme was overwhelmingly dominant even during Venezuela's record economic expansion, from 2003 to 2008. The economy grew as never before, poverty was cut by more than half, and there were large gains in employment. Real social spending per person more than tripled, and free healthcare was expanded to millions of people. You will have to search very hard to find these basic facts presented in a mainstream media article, although the numbers are hardly in dispute among economists in international organisations that deal with statistics.
For example, in May, the UN Commission on Latin America (ECLAC) found that Venezuela had reduced inequality by more than any other country in Latin America from 2002 to 2008, ending up with the most equal income distribution in the region. This has yet to be mentioned by the major international press.
Venezuela went into recession in 2009, and you can imagine how much more press attention has since been paid to GDP growth there than when Venezuela was growing faster than any economy in the hemisphere. Then, in January, the government devalued its currency, and the press was forecasting a big upsurge in inflation, to as much as 60 percent for this year. "stagflation" – recession plus rising inflation – became the new buzzword.
The "out-of-control" inflation didn't happen – in fact, inflation over the last three months, which is 21% at annualised rate, is considerably lower than before the devaluation. This is yet another indicator that the economists relied upon by major media as sources have limited understanding of the actual functioning of Venezuela's economy.
Now, it looks as though Venezuela may have emerged from its recession in the second quarter of this year. On a seasonally adjusted annualised basis, the economy grew by 5.2% in the second quarter. In June, Morgan Stanley projected that the economy would shrink by 6.2% this year and by 1.2% next year. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is projecting long-term gloom and doom for Venezuela: negative per capita GDP growth over the next five years. It is worth noting that the IMF gave the authors of "Dow 36,000" some competition for creative forecasting, with their repeated, wildly off-the-mark underestimates of the Venezuelan economy during the expansion.
All this may seem like par for the course if we compare it with coverage of the world's largest economy, the United States, where the vast majority of the media somehow missed the two biggest asset bubbles in world history – the stockmarket and then the housing bubble. But there were important exceptions here (for example,. the New York Times in 2006). With Venezuela – well, you get the picture.
Of course, Venezuela's continued growth is not assured; it will depend on the government making a commitment to maintaining high levels of aggregate demand, and keeping it. In that sense, its immediate situation is similar to that of the United States, the Eurozone and many other more developed economies, whose economic recovery is sluggish and uncertain right now.
Venezuela has adequate foreign exchange reserves, is running a trade and current account surplus, has low levels of foreign public debt and quite a bit of foreign borrowing capacity, if needed. This was demonstrated most recently in April with a $20bn (about 6% of Venezuela's GDP) credit from China. As such, it is extremely unlikely to run up against a foreign exchange shortage. It can therefore use public spending and investment as much as necessary to make sure that the economy grows sufficiently to increase employment and living standards, as it did before the 2009 recession. (Our government in the United States could do the same, even more easily – but that does not appear to be in the cards right now.) This can go on for many years.
Whatever happens, we can expect complete coverage of one side of the story from the media. So keep it in mind: even when you are reading the New York Times or listening to NPR on Venezuela, you are getting Fox News. If you want something more balanced, you will have to look for it on the web.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


82 Comments so far
Show AllWhen you control the 'information' available to a population, you control the population. Americans 'know' only that information available to them on corporate media. Kill your television.
So true and so sad. Isn't that one of the ways Hilter took control?
F**ck you and your hateful racist babble.
Nothing racist about it at all, the poster was just pointing out the truth, the fact that Americans refuse to learn other cultures and languages, unless there's money involved of course.
You are aware that the word "gringo" is racist, no?
"Gringo" means "American". How can that be racist?
It's meant to be used in a disparaging way. RBT could have just used "American" in place of "gringo" and saved some trouble.
Actually "gringo" is a mispronunciation of Green Coats, which is what the Puerto Ricans called the American soldiers in 1898 when they arrived on that island.
The stories of the origin of "gringo" are numerous. The most common was used to be that General Pershing's troops would sing some song called "Green Grow the Rushes" while chasing Pancho Villa into Mexico. But this clearly is not correct, since the word well predated this.
In fact "gringo" was used in Spain to refer to a foreigner speaking an strange language even before the settlement of the Americas by Europeans. It is believe it was derived from "Griego (Greek)" and referred to the the non understandable language and the expression, used in Spain as is was in England "It was Greek to me".
Sabocat, thanks. I wouldn't be able to tell what with the way RBT uses the word.
Again others have made the same analogy but Imagine Germans Insisting they were Europeans and that no one else in Europe a European and that every other nation in Europe must refer to people from Germany as European.
Do you not think that peoples in those countries will use OTHER words to describe Germans so as to distinguish them from all those other Europeans?
And if using the term "Gringo" is disparaging to citizens of the United States of America , then what is being suggested to the hundreds of millions of peoples living in "The Americas" when only Citizens of the "United States of America" are "American"?
The only reasons we're called Americans is because of the name of the country, the United States of America. Had this country been given a different name, we would have been called something other than Americans. Even USAns doesn't make any sense. That's the difference I see between the US and Germany. But I will concede that the name "United States of America" should not be the name of this country. There's more divisions and this country is a lost soul going to the pits ! Oh hell, just rename this country, actually empire, to Lost Soul. It's already crumbling and becoming more lost than ever. I dunno.
Usans are what we have been called for a number of years now on a few English-speaking foreign websites I visit. Many peoples of the world speak many languages, but it's a rarity here in the US to find an "American" who can even speak a simple language like Spanish. Look at the imbeciles on teevee and you'll know why.
Disagree, United States is the perfect generic name for a country with no soul or personality like the US. The name America was stolen, like the land itself, and should not be associated with people born in the US only, but everyone born in the 3 Americas.
I thought that there were only 2 Americas, North and South. Central America was only part of North America.
I worked in Venezuela for a few years. "Gringo" was never used in a disparaging way. If they wanted to be disparaging, they would have used "Gringito", but i never heard the word. Indeed the use of ethnic slurs in a hateful manner is largely a uniquely USAn (and to a lesser degree, British) thing.
As far as "American (Américano)" many Latin Americans take offense when a USAn calls himself that. "América" refers to two large continents, which by land area are mostly Spansh and Portuguese speaking, and Latino/Native American in their culture.
We are either "Norteaméricano" or Estadounidese, or translated and abbreviated, USAn.
Quite correct since American is not a race, although it is racist. Gringo applies to all Americans not white, blacks, Asian, just Americans. A Mexican enlightened me telling me that gringo is derived by green go, as the American soldiers wore green. Doesn't make much sense since verde is spanish for green.
Quite correct since American is not a race, although it is racist. Gringo applies to all Americans not white, blacks, Asian, just Americans. A Mexican enlightened me telling me that gringo is derived by green go, as the American soldiers wore green. Doesn't make much sense since verde is spanish for green.
bligh4
More self-important bloviating by a self proclaimed intellectual. Glad you moved on.
bligh4
Bigot? How? Because I dared disagree with you? Get over your GOD complex. And no thanks, peso's don't buy as much as they used to.
I have a book of geography from the 70s which is apparently written by European marxist authors, particularly focused on the world-wide decolonisation process. In the section about the American continent there's a chapter about the word "American" turned to misnomer as a term of reference for the narrower entity of the US citizenry. Pointing out that the usage is largely spread by custom the conclusion by the authors is kind of ”Who frigging cares? These are just words. Let’s keep to the commonly shared usage and see to have hold on reality indeed”. I did espouse this line of thought.
Also, when we non-Americans (non-USans) use to say “gringo”, we don’t mean to be disparaging on the Americans as a whole. Rather, we are mainly going for a mindset deeply ingrained in the American culture of the elites, without losing sight that American culture is obviously much more diverse and interestingly dynamic than the arrogant narrow-mindedness conveyed by the word “gringo”, and that Howard Zinn wasn’t less American than sheriff Arpajo
Good article. It would be nice to also read this from a US M$M source, rather than the Guardian/UK but that is the point of the article.
Any government or leader like Chavez, that is a threat to the wealthy elite is demonized as bad, no matter how good, and any government or leader that is a quisling to American hegemony and the wealthy elite, is always lionized as good, no matter how bad. If they are not our thugs; they are bad, if they are our thugs; they are good.
Hugo Chavez is a highly effective leader dedicated to doing good things for his people so they can have better lives.
Of course, that makes him a bad man since the elite rich are not quite so elite or rich anymore.
That is why the U.S. has taken steps already to attack Venezuela ... just in case a "good" reason turns up one of these days.
"Cry ... [my once] beloved country."
/cm
On Venezuela, and the rest of Latin America, the so called new liberal media shows its true colors. Huffington Post regularly posts defamatory propaganda against the Latin American left and even hosts a highly dubious Cuban blogger who emits a steady stream of self-pitying hokum. While I think Mark's posts appear there as well, the editorial choices especially on the front page are particularly odious.
This shouldn't be surprising. The real Left is alive in South America, and liberals are just as much hostile to the Left as are conservatives. It shows them to be the phonies they really are.
Good points, ceti.
"Polls, Damned Polls and the Truth About Venezuela" By CLIFTON ROSS at CounterPunch.org issues the same strong indictment of HuffPo and MSM on Venezuela.
http://counterpunch.org/ross09092010.html
The US ruling elite, now headed by Barack Obaminable, has always been hell-bent on showing the world that socialism can't possibly work, even in watered-down versions like the one given to us by hero Chavez in Venezuela.
They'll stop at nothing, assassinations, coups, invasions, bombings, media blitz and campaigns like the one mentioned by this article. Controlling the media is key.
I was in Brazil back in July and William Bonner, that country's Peter Jennings, could barely hide the Brazilian corporate media's bias. So many were being fooled into believing Chavez was against freedom of the press! What freedom? The media in Venezuela, like in Brazil, is controlled by those countries' corporate mobs.
Venezuela, a miserable place for freedom to flourish, another miserable leader. More govt. more laws, less freedom.
Your masterful powers of supposition are amazing, lol
you can smell them from miles away, i know.
your definition of "freedom" sounds like socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor
i have the feeling that you and i do NOT have a common dream.
Freedoms definition to some is a place where Health Care costs an arm and a leg and where getting a roof over ones head or enough to eat on a daily basis means one must labor to the end of ones life for another.
In other word the "freedom of the few" to exploit the "labor of the many" .
bligh4
The proof will be in the Sept elections. Of course, Mr. Chavez is already doing a little pre-emptive groundwork in case the election does not go his way. Witness his threats of prosecution to the one member of the election board that is not of his party- the board member contended that Mr. Chavez is using government media to defame the opposition(which is apparently true).
Venezuela's economy will implode without a rise in oil prices, Chavez's policies will see to that.
bligh4
You really are pathetic. I doubt you have read much of anything "Read". As far as the V economy growing 6% this year I will make a bet with you. If, after December 31, the V economy has indeed grown by 6% for the year (disinterested party, not what the finance secretary says) I will sign off this site forever. If it does not, then YOU sign off. Deal? or do you not have the cajones to back up your big mouth?
Where are you getting your misinformation from? Chavez is benefiting from being a socialist instead of a crony capitalist unlike the US. Even if the oil prices go down, the US's forced dependence on oil will save his economy. You need to pay attention to reality and not the glitz and glatz from the wrong media sources.
bligh4
The proof will be in the numbers. If Venezuela, in spite of sitting on an ocean of oil, underperforms other Latin American countries- Then Chavez and his policies will be shown to be economically unsound. With sky high inflation, decaying infrastructure, flight of capital, and a increasingly heavy handed government control of the economy- I don't think it looks good. Could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
Fair enough. I'm with you that an economy based mainly on oil revenues is dangerous but Chavez does a better job with the oil revenue for the people compared to what the US and Saudi Arabia do with their oil revenues. On a good note, Chavez has pushed for turning to renewable energy projects and I hear Saudi Arabia is doing it too. Pity the US sneers at the idea. I have mixed thoughts about Chavez myself but he's a hell of a lot better than the crooked leadership in Washington.
In Venezuela, 70% of mainstream media and 95% of Internet media is owned by the opposition, which is the rich.
And so, why is it that 80% of those in Venezuela get all their news from government media? Maybe the good people of Venezuela know something that you don't know.
bligh4
Mr. Chavez has seemed to have a problem with opposition news sources as late. At the rate he is going, there will be no opposition news sources in 3-5 years. He has already done a number on TV stations that do not toe the party line. My money is him going after the printed media next- with internet following. Hope not, but think so.
"He has already done a number on TV stations that do not toe the party line."
Are you refering to the decision to not renew a station's license to broadcast on the PUBLIC airwaves because it ran false stories and editorials that supported a military take over of government and suspension of the Constitution, including incitements to violence?
If your characterization is NOT deliberate misinformation (or the repetition of same) then what could you possibly claim it was?
I doubt there is a Constitutional Republic in the world where aiding-and-abetting overt TREASON would result in no penalty at all.
I say they got off light.
But I agree that Venezuela would benefit from a break from Chavez after this term, and PSUV(?) power in general to recieve a little healthy competition.
bligh4
If I recall correctly, the head of the OTHER non government controlled station has had to flee Venezuela because of cooked up charges of "hoarding automobiles" whatever that is. Printed media will be next. How many "opposition" news sources are there in Cuba- Mr. Chavez's template of how a country should be run?
an even better example would be north korea. no one knows anything other than the official line but just about everyone agrees on the official line when it comes to north korea.
How about TRYING good manners & courtesy in your comments, Almost Everyone? YOU DO BECOME WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT (AND EXPRESS).
Chavez is perhaps a bit too egotistical and smart alecky to love, but as with his fellow Venezuelans, I like him a lot. I also am very proud of the fact that my nation, the good old USA, made only one half-hearted, fairly lackadaisical effort to overthrow Chavez. That seems fairly amazing and rather hopeful. This is another of many good articles by Mark Weisbrot. Thank you.
Weisbrot did a great job depicting the idiocy of our oppressors, the elites, and their institutions of oppression, i.e. the IMF and their idiotic propaganda.
But at the same time Weisbrot is himself trying to channel his own idiocy into our minds - that somehow ekonomic growath is the answer.
But that is a lie, and one that has served the elite agenda VERY well. The people are simply not very much better off today than we were a century ago, despite the most gargantuan plundering in the earth's history. Take a look and you will see for yourself. For example Keynes suggested 75 years ago that industrialization could reduce our work weeks to 15 hours. We notice that Weisbrot et al never mention what CAN be achieved WITHOUT ekonomic growath!
Why would Weisbrot want to parrot ekonomic growath in the present crisis environment? He's probably under heavy influence from the pro-government liberals who see government manipulation of "makro-ekonomics" as the necessary counter-force to private power concentration, never mind that the government is always the FIRST institution to be hijacked by the elites.
We don't need ekonomic growath. We need economic justice. BY the people. (of and for too) When will Weisbrot and his peers understand? Only after the brownshirts come out in full force?
right on point.
i don't think chavez has been trying to outdo the global capitalists in the global capitalist "grow-your-economy-forever" game.
i think he's trying to chart an alternative way to a cooperative global community, with china, brazil, and others.
that's the most serious threat to the global fascist overlords, of course.
It is good that there are other poliical economic models operating around the world, especially in S. America.
Since in the US we generally hear nothing but negatives about any of them that are not the US capitalist approach, you have to dig deeper to find out what is going on.
The Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexcio is another fascinating area with a very different approach. A good read about is "The Poetics of Resistance" by Jeff Conant.
It really is amazing how our U.S. MSM parrots the administration's line on Venezuela's Chavez. Would that we had a leader who would fight for the poorest and most marginalized members of society (as Jesus commanded), as Chavez does. Instead, we get "compromisers" who parrot the corporatocracy's talking points, and a reality-TV-fed populace that has no ability to think criticlally about any issues of true import.
One only need look at Georgetown University's appointment last week of Chavez's nemesis (former Colombian president Uribe) onto its faculty to realize the breathtaking absurdity and audacity of the corporate takeover in the U.S.A. A sickening turn of events that few people will ever hear or care about, yet will serve to strengthen the cause of the tycoons who control our nation. God help us.
good comments, must say though, not that amazing [about MSM]