June, 28 2010, 04:10pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460
New York Times Reporter Errs in Attack on Film, "South of the Border"
Director Oliver Stone and Writers Mark Weisbrot and Tariq Ali Respond
WASHINGTON
As is well-known to those who follow the work of the Center for
Economic and Policy Research, CEPR has the highest reputation for
accuracy and is extremely careful with details when it comes to numbers
and facts. So we were surprised when a prominently featured, 1665-word
article in the New York Times claimed that there were "questions
of accuracy" with regard the documentary film, "South of the Border." The Oliver Stone film was
written by CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot and Tariq Ali.
It turns out that all of the mistakes in
this article belong to the author, New York Times reporter Larry
Rohter -- and none to the film. This is shown in the following letter,
sent to the New York Times from Oliver Stone, Mark Weisbrot, and
Tariq Ali.
"South of the Border" began a nationwide
theatrical run on June 25 in New York City (Angelika Film
Center) earning the weekend's top per-screen average of $21,000 beating
out last week's per-screen champ, Fox Searchlight's "Cyrus," on opening
weekend. The film widens on July 2 in Los Angeles (Laemmle's
Monica 4-Plex and Laemmle's Sunset 5), Pasadena (Laemmle's
Playhouse 7), Santa Ana (Regency South Coast Village) and Washington,
D.C. (AMC Loews Shirlington 7), July 9 in Chicago (Showplace
ICON Roosevelt Collection), July 16 in San Francisco (Sundance
Kabuki Cinema), Berkeley (Rialto Cinemas Elmwood) and Palm
Springs (Cinemas Palm D'Or), July 23 in Phoenix (Harkins
Valley Art) Dallas (AMC Grand 24) and Houston (AMC Studio
30), July 30 in Minneapolis (Showplace ICON at The West End) and
Seattle (Regal Meridian 16) with more to be listed at https://southoftheborderdoc.com/in-theatres/.
Distributed by Cinema Libre Studio.
The following letter was sent to The
New York Times:
Larry Rohter attacks our film, "South of the
Border," for "mistakes, misstatements and missing details." But a
close examination of the details reveals that the mistakes,
misstatements, and missing details are his own, and that the film is
factually accurate. We will document this for each one of his attacks.
We then show that there is evidence of animus and conflict of interest,
in his attempt to discredit the film. Finally, we ask that you
consider the many factual errors in Rohter's attacks, outlined below,
and the pervasive evidence of animus and conflict of interest in his
attempt to discredit the film; and we ask that The New York Times
publish a full correction for these numerous mistakes.
1) Accusing the film of
"misinformation," Rohter writes that "A flight from Caracas to La Paz,
Bolivia, flies mostly over the Amazon, not the Andes. . ." But the
narration does not say that the flight is "mostly" over the Andes, just
that it flies over the Andes, which is true. (Source: Google Earth).
2) Also in the category of
"misinformation," Rohter writes "the United States does not 'import
more oil from Venezuela than any other OPEC nation,' a distinction that has belonged to
Saudi Arabia during the period 2004-10."
The quote cited by Rohter here was
spoken in the film by an oil industry analyst, Phil Flynn, who appears
for about 30 seconds in a clip from U.S. broadcast TV. It turns out
that Rohter is mistaken, and Flynn is correct. Flynn is speaking in
April 2002 (which is clear in the film), so it is wrong for Rohter to
cite data from 2004-2010. If we look at data from 1997-2001, which is
the relevant data for Flynn's comment, Flynn is correct. Venezuela
leads all OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia, for oil imports in
the U.S. over this period. (Source: US Energy Information Agency for
Venezuela https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUSVE2&f=A
and Saudi Arabia https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUSSA2&f=A
)
3) Rohter tries to discredit the
film's very brief description of the 1998 Venezuelan presidential race:
"As "South of the Border" portrays
it, Mr. Chavez's main opponent in his initial run for president in 1998
was "a 6-foot-1-inch blond former Miss Universe" named Irene Saez, and
thus "the contest becomes known as the Beauty and the Beast" election.
But Mr. Chavez's main opponent then
was not Ms. Saez, who finished third, with less than 3 percent of the
vote. It was Henrique Salas Romer, a bland former state governor who
won 40 percent of the vote."
Rohter's criticism is misleading. The
description of the presidential race in the film, cited by Rohter, is
from Bart Jones, who was covering Venezuela for the Associated Press
from Caracas at the time. The description is accurate, despite the
final results. For most of the race, which began in 1997, Irene Saez
was indeed Chavez's main opponent, and the contest was reported as
"Beauty and the Beast." In the six months before the election, she
began to fade and Salas Romer picked up support; his 40 percent showing
was largely the result of a late decision of both COPEI and AD (the
two biggest political parties in Venezuela at the time, who had ruled
the country for four decades) to throw their support behind him. (See,
for example, this 2008 article from BBC, which describes the race as in
the film, and does not even mention Salas Romer: https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7767417.stm
)
Rohter's description makes it seem
like Saez was a minor candidate, which is absurd.
4) Rohter tries to frame the film's
treatment of the 2002 coup in Venezuela as a "conspiracy theory." He
writes:
" Like Mr. Stone's take on the
Kennedy assassination, this section of "South of the Border" hinges on
the identity of a sniper or snipers who may or may not have been part
of a larger conspiracy."
This description of the film is
completely false. The film makes no statement on the identity of the
snipers nor does it present any theory of a "larger conspiracy" with
any snipers. Rather, the film makes two points about the coup: (1)
That the Venezuelan media (and this was repeated by U.S. and other
international media) manipulated film footage to make it look as if a
group of Chavez supporters with guns had shot the 19 people killed on
the day of the coup. This manipulation of the film footage is
demonstrated very clearly in the film, and therefore does not " [rely]
heavily on the account of Gregory Wilpert" as Rohter also falsely
alleges. The footage speaks for itself. (2) The United States
government was involved in the coup (see https://southoftheborderdoc.com/2002-venezuela-coup/
and below).
Ironically, it is Rohter that relies
on conspiracy theories, citing one dubious account in particular that he argues
we should have included in the film.
5) Rohter accuses us of "bend[ing]
facts and omit[ting] information" on Argentina, for allowing "Mr.
Kirchner and his successor - and wife - Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to claim that "we
began a different policy than before."
"In reality, Mr. Kirchner's
presidential predecessor, Eduardo Duhalde, and Mr. Duhalde's finance
minister, Roberto Lavagna, were the architects of that
policy shift and the subsequent economic recovery, which began while
Mr. Kirchner was still the obscure governor of a small province in
Patagonia."
This criticism is somewhat obscure
and perhaps ridiculous. The Kirchners were in the presidency for five
out of the six years of Argentina's remarkable economic recovery, in
which the economy grew by 63 percent. Some of the policies that allowed
for that recovery began in 2002, and others began in 2003, and even
later. What exactly are the "bent facts" and "omitted information"
here?
6) Rohter tries to make an issue out
of the fact that the logo of Human Rights Watch appears for a couple of
seconds on the screen, during a discussion of Washington's double
standards on human rights. The film doesn't say or imply anything about
HRW. Most importantly, in his interview with Rohter, HRW's Americas
director Jose Miguel Vivanco backs up exactly what the film does say,
that there is a double standard in the U.S. that focuses on allegations
of human rights abuses in Venezuela while ignoring or downplaying far
graver, far more numerous, and better substantiated allegations about
human rights abuses in Colombia: "It's true that many of Chavez's
fiercest critics in Washington have turned a blind eye to Colombia's
appalling human rights record," says Vivanco.
7) Rohter attacks co-writer Tariq Ali
for saying that "The government [of Bolivia] decided to sell the water
supply of Cochabamba to Bechtel, a U.S. corporation." Rohter writes: "In
reality, the government did not sell the water supply: it granted a
consortium that included Bechtel a 40-year management concession . . ."
Rohter is really reaching here.
"Selling the water supply" to private interests is a fair description
of what happened here, about as good for practical purposes as
"granting a 40-year management concession." The companies got control
over the city's water supply and the revenue that can be gained from
selling it.
Rohter's animus and conflict
of interest: We gave Rohter an enormous amount of factual
information to back up the main points of the film. He not only ignored
the main points of the film, but in the quotes he selected for the
article, he picked only quotes that were not fact related that could be
used to illustrate what he considered the director's and co-author's
bias. This is not ethical journalism; in fact it is questionable
whether it is journalism at all.
For example, Rohter was presented
with detailed and documentary evidence of the United States'
involvement in the 2002 coup. (see https://southoftheborderdoc.com/2002-venezuela-coup)
This was a major point in the film, and was backed up in the film by
testimony from then Washington Post foreign editor Scott
Wilson, who covered the coup from Caracas. In our conversations with
Rohter, he simply dismissed all of this evidence out of hand, and
nothing about it appears in the article.
Rohter should have disclosed his own
conflict of interest in this review. The film criticizes the New
York Times for its editorial board's endorsement of the military
coup of April 11, 2002 against the democratically elected government of
Venezuela, which was embarrassing to the Times. Moreover,
Rohter himself wrote an article on April 12 that went even further than
the Times' endorsement of the coup:
"Neither the overthrow of Mr. Chavez,
a former army colonel, nor of Mr. Mahuad two years ago can be
classified as a conventional Latin American military coup. The armed
forces did not actually take power on Thursday. It was the ousted
president's supporters who appear to have been responsible for deaths
that numbered barely 12 rather than hundreds or thousands, and
political rights and guarantees were restored rather than suspended." -
Larry Rohter, New York Times, April 12, 2002
These allegations that the coup was
not a coup - not only by Rohter - prompted a rebuttal by Rohter's
colleague at the New York Times, Tim Weiner, who wrote a Sunday
Week in Review piece two days later entitled "A Coup By Any Other
Name." (New York Times, April 14, 2002)
Unlike the NYT editorial
board, which issued a grudging retraction of their pro-coup stance a
few days later (included in our film), Rohter seems to have clung to
the right-wing fantasies about the coup. It is not surprising that
someone who supports the military overthrow of a democratically elected
government would not like a documentary like this one, which
celebrates the triumphs of electoral democracy in South America over
the last decade.
But he should have at least informed
his readers that the New York Times' was under fire in this
documentary, and also about his own reporting: in 1999 and 2000 he
covered Venezuela for the Times, writing numerous anti-Chavez news
reports. The media's biased and distorted reporting on Latin America is
a major theme of the documentary, one which Rohter also conveniently
ignores in is 1665-word attempt to discredit the film.
We spent hours with Rohter over the
course of two days and gave him all the information he asked for, even
though his hostility was clear from the outset. But he was determined
to present his narrative of intrepid reporter exposing sloppy
filmmaking. The result is a very dishonest attempt to discredit the
film by portraying it as factually inaccurate - using false and
misleading statements, out-of-context, selective quotations from
interviews with the director and writers, and ad hominem
attacks. The Times should apologize for having published it.
Sincerely,
Oliver Stone
Mark Weisbrot
Tariq Ali
Keep reading...Show less
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
Watchdog Denounces Trump AI Order Seen as Giveaway to Big Tech Billionaire Buddies Like David Sacks
"David Sacks and Big Tech want free rein to use our children as lab rats for AI experiments and President Trump keeps trying to give it to them."
Dec 08, 2025
President Donald Trump is drawing swift criticism after announcing he would be signing an executive order aimed at clamping down on state governments' powers to regulate the artificial intelligence industry.
In a Monday morning Truth Social post, Trump said that the order was needed to prevent a fragmented regulatory landscape for AI companies.
"We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS," the president wrote. "THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY! I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week. You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something."
Although specifics on the Trump AI executive order are not yet known, a draft order that has been circulating in recent weeks would instruct the US Department of Justice to file lawsuits against states that pass AI-related regulations with the ultimate goal of overturning them.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at watchdog Demand Progress, slammed Trump over the looming AI order, which she said was a giveaway to big tech industry billionaire backers such as David Sacks, a major Trump donor who currently serves as the administration's czar on AI and cryptocurrency.
"David Sacks and Big Tech want free rein to use our children as lab rats for AI experiments and President Trump keeps trying to give it to them," she said. "Right now, state laws are our best defense against AI chatbots that have sexual conversations with kids and even encourage them to harm themselves, deepfake revenge porn, and half-baked algorithms that make decisions about our employment and health care."
Peterson-Cassin went on to say that blocking state-level regulations of AI "only makes sense if the president’s goal is to please the Big Tech elites who helped pay for his campaign, his inauguration and his ballroom."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also accused Trump of selling out Americans to do the bidding of Silicon Valley oligarchs.
"This is a direct ask from Big Tech lobbyists (who also donated millions to Trump’s campaign and ballroom) who only care about their own profits, not our safety," Jayapal wrote in a social media post. "States must be able to regulate AI to protect Americans."
Some critics of the Trump AI order questioned whether it had any legal weight behind it. Travis Hall, the director for state engagement at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the New York Times that Trump's order should not hinder state governments from passing and enforcing AI industry regulations going forward.
“The president cannot pre-empt state laws through an executive order, full stop,” Hall argued. “Pre-emption is a question for Congress, which they have considered and rejected, and should continue to reject.”
Matthew Stoller, an antitrust advocate and researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, also expressed doubt that Trump's order would be effective at blocking state AI regulations.
"Trump can issue an executive order mandating it rain today, it doesn't really matter though," said Stoller.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) predicted the Trump order would be repeatedly struck down in courts.
"Trump’s one rule executive order on AI will fail," Lieu posted on social media. "Executive orders cannot create law. Only Congress can do so. That’s why Trump tried twice (and failed) to put AI preemption into law. Courts will rule against the EO because it will largely be based on a bill that failed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wyden Says Trump's $12 Billion Farmer Bailout Exposes Folly of 'Destructive Tariff Spree'
"Donald Trump’s trade war is taxing families, killing markets for our farm goods, and driving farmers into bankruptcy," said Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.
Dec 08, 2025
Democratic US Sen. Ron Wyden was among those who emphasized Monday that President Donald Trump's erratic tariff policies have helped create the very conditions the White House is now citing to justify its new $12 billion relief plan for American farmers.
“Instead of proposing government handouts, Donald Trump should end his destructive tariff spree so American farmers can compete and win on a level playing field," said Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. "Donald Trump’s trade war is taxing families, killing markets for our farm goods, and driving farmers into bankruptcy."
"Trump’s plan to bail out farmers won’t even get agriculture communities back to even," the senator added. "They’re still paying more for fertilizer, equipment, and seeds, while grown-in-the-USA farm goods are facing more obstacles than ever in foreign markets. Don’t forget that all of this trade destruction and taxing was to raise money for Trump’s massive handouts to billionaires and the ultra-wealthy.”
Trump formally unveiled the relief plan Monday afternoon at a White House roundtable with top officials, lawmakers, and farmers of corn, soybeans, and other crops. Reuters reported that up to $11 billion of the funds are "meant for a newly designed Farmer Bridge Assistance program for row crop farmers hurt by trade disputes and higher costs." The other $1 billion is earmarked for commodities not covered by the program.
"Quite an admission that his policies have hurt Americans," economist Justin Wolfers wrote in response to the plan.
Farm Action, a farmer-led agricultural watchdog group, welcomed the relief package but said it's not enough to end suffering caused by "tariffs, soaring input costs, and years of volatile markets."
"The current problems facing our agriculture system have been decades in the making due to failed policy that prioritizes commodity crops for export, which only benefits global grain traders and meatpackers," said Joe Maxwell, Farm Action’s co-founder and chief strategy officer. "Without addressing the root causes of this issue, farmers will be left to continue relying on government assistance into the future. That is why Congress must take action and fix our failed subsidy system in the next farm bill."
Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst at Food & Water Watch, said that "bailouts are a denigrating Band-Aid to farmers whom decades of misguided domestic policy have left vulnerable to trade wars."
"Trump’s tariff tantrum and belittling bailouts will deepen agricultural sector consolidation, funneling money to a powerful few corporations, while running farmers further into the ground," said Wolf. "If Trump is serious about helping farmers, lowering sector consolidation and dropping food prices, he needs to look in the mirror. Chaotic tariff tantrums are no way to run farm policy. US farmers need fair prices, regional food markets, and policies that reward sustainable, humane production models—not trade wars.”
The $12 billion relief program comes after months of Trump tariffs and retaliatory actions by key nations—particularly China—that have amplified challenges facing US farmers, a key political constituency for the president.
Farmers and organizations representing them have been vocal in their criticism of Trump's tariffs and his proposed policy responses to the problems that the duties have intensified. As the Washington Post summarized:
Earlier this spring, Trump’s tariffs on China prompted the country to halt purchases of US soybeans. Then, the president offered a $20 billion bailout to Argentina, whose soybean crop sales to China have replaced those from US farmers. Later, Trump announced that the United States would buy beef from Argentina to bring down prices for US consumers, opening a new rift between Trump and cattle ranchers.
The new assistance package is particularly aimed at helping soybean farmers, who have seen a precipitous drop in sales this year, leaving them with extra supply, as the price of soybeans fell.
In October, Illinois soybean producer John Bartman said in a message to the Trump administration that "we don't want a bailout, we want a market."
"Bailouts don't work. Bailouts are band-aids," Bartman added. "What Trump is doing is destroying our markets, and when those markets disappear, we're not gonna get them back."
Ryan Mulholland and Mark Haggerty of the Center for American Progress echoed that sentiment in an analysis last month, noting that "writing a check to farmers helps in the short term, but even in the most optimistic scenario, input costs are likely to remain high, demand volatile, the climate ever-changing, and corporate consolidation and investor ownership of land firmly entrenched."
"Planning for next year’s planting season will be extremely difficult, but without a comprehensive plan to make farming a more sustainable, more prosperous enterprise, planning in subsequent years likely will not be any easier," they added. "President Trump’s 'solution' is to simply pay off farmers. Farmers want trade, not aid. And they want government policy that supports farmers and the communities where they live over the long term."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EU Ministers Ripped for 'Legitimizing Offshore Prisons, Racial Profiling, and Child Detention'
"Ministers' position on the return regulation reveals the EU's dogged and misguided insistence on ramping up deportations, raids, surveillance, and detention at any cost," said an Amnesty International campaigner.
Dec 08, 2025
Advocacy organizations on Monday renewed sharp criticism of European Union policymakers' plans for new rules targeting undocumented immigrants after the Council of the EU finalized its "return regulation" proposal at a meeting in Brussels.
Building on the EU's Pact on Migration and Asylum—set to take effect next June despite being denounced as a "bow to right-wing extremists and fascists"—the European Commission this past March proposed common rules for expelling migrants. The council's deal on Monday established its position on the proposal for negotiations with the European Parliament on the final text.
Despite serious pressure from civil society, including joint statements in September and last week, the Council of the EU—made up of national ministers from the bloc's 27 member states—agreed to support "strict obligations on returnees," such as limiting certain benefits, refusing or withdrawing work permits, and imposing criminal sanctions, including imprisonment.
The council also backed the creation of "return hubs" outside of the European Union, putting in place "special measures for people who pose a security risk," mutual recognition of bloc members' deportation decisions, and a form that will be filled out and added to the EU's information-sharing system for security and border management.
The EU Council’s recent Returns Regulation deal goes against key demands from about 70 civil society organisations.🔊The main demand: A rights-based approach focused on voluntary, dignified return, strict detention limits, and full compliance with EU and international law.
— ECRE (@theecre.bsky.social) December 8, 2025 at 8:44 AM
"EU ministers' position on the return regulation reveals the EU's dogged and misguided insistence on ramping up deportations, raids, surveillance, and detention at any cost," declared Olivia Sundberg Diez, Amnesty International's EU advocate on migration and asylum, in a statement. "These punitive measures amount to an unprecedented stripping of rights based on migration status and will leave more people in precarious situations and legal limbo."
"In addition, EU member states continue to push for cruel and unworkable 'return hubs,' or offshore deportation centers outside of the EU—forcibly transferring people to countries where they have no connection and may be detained for long periods, violating protections in international law," she continued. "This approach mirrors the harrowing, dehumanizing, and unlawful mass arrests, detention, and deportations in the US, which are tearing families apart and devastating communities."
US President Donald Trump returned to office in January, having campaigned on a promise of mass deportations despite facing global condemnation for his first-term immigration policies, particularly family separation. His second term has featured masked federal agents prowling the streets; engaging violently with undocumented immigrants, US citizens of color, and protesters, including Democratic politicians; and detaining migrants—most of whom lack criminal convictions—in inhumane conditions.
The Trump administration aims to boost a far-right movement already on the rise in Europe, claiming in a "national security strategy" document released last Thursday that the continent faces the "stark prospect of civilizational erasure" due to mass migration and the United States must take steps to help "correct its current trajectory."
As Agence France-Presse reported:
A decline in irregular entries to Europe—down by around 20% so far in 2025 compared to last year—has not eased the pressure to act on the hot-button issue.
"We have to speed up," said EU migration commissioner Magnus Brunner, "to give the people the feeling that we have control over what is happening."
...Under the impetus of Denmark, which holds the EU's rotating presidency and has long advocated for stricter migration rules, member states are moving forward at a rapid pace.
On Monday, as Sundberg Diez put it, the Council of the EU took "an already deeply flawed and restrictive commission proposal and opted to introduce new punitive measures, dismantling safeguards and weakening rights further, rather than advancing policies that promote dignity, safety, and health for all."
"They will inflict deep harm on migrants and the communities that welcome them," the campaigner added. "Amnesty International urges the European Parliament, which is yet to adopt its final position on the proposal, to reverse this approach and place human rights firmly at the center of upcoming negotiations."
The Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)—which, like Amnesty, was among over 250 groups that signed the September statement—also urged the European Parliament to reject the council's policies, taking aim at plans for home raids; expansion of detention, including of children; deportation hubs outside the EU; 20-year entry bans; and more.
"This so-called 'return regulation' ushers in a deportation regime that entrenches punishment, violence, and discrimination," said PICUM advocacy officer Silvia Carta. "Instead of investing in safety, protection, and inclusion, the EU is choosing policies that will push more people into danger and legal limbo. The council's position goes against basic humanity and EU values. Now it is up to the European Parliament to reject this approach. Migration governance must be rooted in dignity and rights—not fear, racism, or exclusion."
Sarah Chander, director at the Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice, was similarly critical, arguing that with the proposal, "the EU is legitimizing offshore prisons, racial profiling, and child detention in ways we have never seen. Instead of finding ways to ensure safety and protection for everybody, the EU is pushing a punishment regime for migrants, which will help no one."
Alkistis Agrafioti Chatzigianni, an advocacy officer and lawyer at the Greek Council for Refugees, noted that "Greece has become one of the EU's starkest experiments in detaining asylum applicants—marked by prison-like conditions, a lack of effective monitoring mechanisms, and repeated findings of rights violations."
The return regulation, the expert warned, "threatens to replicate and entrench this model across Europe. Instead of learning from the profound failures of detention-based approaches, the EU is choosing to scale them up, turning border zones into sites of coercion and trauma for people seeking protection. This is a dangerous step backwards. A humane migration system must be built on dignity, transparency, and the right to seek safety."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular