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
Trump Tariffs Bound for Supreme Court After Another Legal Loss
If the president's policies are struck down, the administration may have to repay billions of dollars in duties, which customs and trade experts warn "would be a logistical nightmare."
Aug 29, 2025
As working-class Americans endure the pain from US President Donald Trump's tariff war, the Republican signaled that he plans to keep fighting for the levies after a loss at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Trump is the first president to impose tariffs by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. In a 7-4 ruling, the appellate court's majority found that most of his tariffs are illegal.
The court said that "tariffs are a core congressional power" and "we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the reciprocal tariffs and trafficking tariffs."
The decision affirms a May ruling from the US Court of International Trade, which also found that Trump exceeded his authority.
Friday's ruling is paused until October 14, to give the White House time to appeal to the nation's highest court. Trump suggested he would do so in a post on his Truth Social platform, writing:
ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else. If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Politico noted that the Friday decision opens the door "for the administration to potentially have to repay billions worth of duties," and pointed to recent warnings from customs and trade experts "that repayments would be a logistical nightmare, and would likely trigger a wave of legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement."
Trump's latest legal loss on the tariff front follows various analyses and polling that show the harm his policies are causing. One Accountable.US report from this month highlights comments from grocery executives about passing costs on to consumers, and a recent survey found that 90% of Americans consider the price of groceries a source of stress.
Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee also released a related report earlier this month. As JEC Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said at the time, "While President Trump promised that he would expand our manufacturing sector, this report shows that, instead, the chaos and uncertainty created by his tariffs has placed a burden on American manufacturers that could weigh our country down for years to come."
Another mid-August analysis from the Century Foundation and Groundwork Collaborative details the surging cost of school supplies as American families prepared for the 2025-26 academic year. TCF senior fellow Rachel West said that "from his reckless tariffs to his budget law slashing food assistance and federal student loans, Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US 'Denying and Revoking' Visas of Palestinian Officials Ahead of UN General Assembly
The Palestinian presidency said the decision—which comes as more and more nations formally recognize Palestine's statehood—"stands in clear contradiction to international law and the UN Headquarters Agreement."
Aug 29, 2025
The Trump administration said Friday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio "is denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority" ahead of next month's United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The US State Department said Friday that "the Trump administration has been clear: It is in our national security interests to hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace."
"Before the PLO and PA can be considered partners for peace, they must consistently repudiate terrorism—including the October 7 massacre—and end incitement to terrorism in education, as required by US law and as promised by the PLO," the statement continues.
No US administration in modern times has ever demanded that Israel repudiate its generations-long illegal occupation and settler colonization of Palestine, its ongoing genocide in Gaza, or any other violation of international law or human rights.
"The PA must also end its attempts to bypass negotiations through international lawfare campaigns, including appeals to the [International Criminal Court] and [International Court of Justice], and efforts to secure the unilateral recognition of a conjectural Palestinian state," the State Department added. "Both steps materially contributed to Hamas' refusal to release its hostages, and to the breakdown of the Gaza ceasefire talks."
The ICC last year issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and the forced starvation of Palestinians that is driving a famine that has killed at least hundreds of Palestinians and is starving hundreds of thousands more. The ICJ is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa—not the PA.
As for ceasefire talks, Matthew Miller, who served as a State Department spokesperson during the Biden administration, recently admitted that Israel habitually torpedoed ceasefire agreements each time they were nearing a conclusion in what he called a sustained effort to "try and sabotage" a deal. Miller repeatedly stood at his podium and told reporters that Hamas was to blame for thwarting a truce.
Miller added that Netanyahu openly admitted to US officials that he wanted to continue the Gaza war for "decades."
It is not clear which Palestinian officials will have their visas denied or revoked. The office of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement responding to the US announcement that "this decision stands in clear contradiction to international law and the UN Headquarters Agreement—which effectively shields UN member-state officials from US immigration policies—particularly since the state of Palestine is an observer member of the United Nations."
This isn't the first time the US has blocked Palestinian officials from attending a General Assembly. In 1998, the Regan administration denied then-PLO Chair Yasser Arafat a visa and the General Assembly was convened in Geneva instead of New York. There have already been numerous calls to relocate this year's General Assembly to the Swiss city following the US move.
The US announcement comes as more and more countries formally recognize Palestinian statehood or move to do so amid Israel's genocidal assault, siege, and famine in Gaza, which, combined, have left more than 230,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and the strip in ruins.
Approximately 150 of the UN's 193 member states have officially recognized Palestine. Since October 2023, countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Spain have either recognized Palestine or announced their intent to do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Abbott Signs Texas Map Rigged for Trump, Missouri GOP Aims to Follow Suit
One critic said Texas Republicans' "reckless, partisan power grab will harm our democracy for years to come."
Aug 29, 2025
Democracy defenders on Friday blasted elected Texas Republicans, including Gov. Greg Abbott, after he signed a new congressional map gerrymandered for the GOP at the request of US President Donald Trump—and Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe, for launching a copycat effort.
"Gov. Abbott would rather do Trump's dirty work than help the people of Texas," said Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, in a statement.
"For months, he has ignored the real issues affecting Texans, including flood relief, and instead pandered to Trump's demand that he redraw Texas' political maps to rig the 2026 elections and silence communities of color," he continued. "Texas Republicans have started a nationwide redistricting arms race with no end in sight. Their reckless, partisan power grab will harm our democracy for years to come."
Abbott and state lawmakers have been open about aiming to help the GOP retain control of Congress during next year's midterm elections by passing their so-called "One Big Beautiful Map." The governor—who called two special legislative sessions to force through the bill—posted a video of himself signing it on social media and declared that "Texas will be more RED in Congress."
During the first legislative session, dozens of Democrats in the Texas House fled to blue states in a bid to block the map, but they ultimately returned to Austin. After GOP legislators passed the bill, the NAACP and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit over the map.
After the governor signed the bill on Friday, Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder said in a statement that "with a stroke of the pen, Greg Abbott and the Republicans have effectively surrendered Texas to Washington, DC."
"They love to boast about how 'Texas Tough' they are, but when Donald Trump made one call, they bent over backwards to prioritize his politics over Texans. Honestly, it's pathetic," he said. "I am proud of the Texas Democrats in the House and Senate who chose to fight, whether by a constitutionally protected quorum break, questioning these mapmakers, trying to pass amendments, or even attempting to filibuster."
"This isn't over—we'll see these clowns in court," he pledged. "We aren't done fighting against these racially discriminatory maps, and fully expect the letter of the law to prevail over these sycophantic Republican politicians who think the rules don't apply to them."
The contested map makes five Texas districts for the US House of Representatives that are currently held by Democrats more favorable to Republicans.
While elected Democrats in states such as California have threatened to fight fire with fire and draw Republican congressional districts out of existence, GOP governors—under pressure from the president—have also moved to follow Texas' lead. For example, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe on Friday announced a special legislative session to pass his proposed "Missouri First Map."
Responding in a statement, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said that "another Republican governor just caved to the demands of Donald Trump at the expense of Missouri families and American democracy. Time and time again, Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe has undermined the voice of Missouri voters."
"Now he is attempting to dilute their power altogether by removing the ability of Missourians to stand up against this power grab," Martin continued. "Make no mistake: This all started because Trump and Republicans passed a historically unpopular budget bill that wrecks the working class to reward billionaires. Now, instead of facing the consequences of their votes, Republicans think they can just choose their voters—that's not how this works."
"As California has shown, Democrats are rising up to protect voters' sacred rights, and we're not pulling our punches," he added. "The DNC will stand with Democrats protecting the rights of all Americans as Donald Trump and spineless Republicans try to rig the game against the will of the people."
John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said that "over the past month, Missourians of all stripes, from proud union members to business leaders, have expressed their opposition to a mid-decade gerrymander, yet Missouri Republicans are choosing to take orders from Washington instead of their constituents."
"Republicans enacted the current congressional map in response to public pressure from Missouri voters," he said. "Their sudden reversal shows that their pursuit of a mid-decade gerrymander is nothing more than a power grab at the expense of the people. Heading into this special session, Missouri Republicans have a choice: They can listen to Missourians, who oppose a mid-decade gerrymander, or they can fold to Donald Trump's demands and face the same level of fierce resistance displayed in Texas."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular