« Reining in Right-Wing Talk Radio | Main | Kulongoski v. Smith »

June 22, 2007

Media Bias Against Hugo Chavez

Having already voiced my concerns over lies being told about one enemy dictator this morning, I might just as well take on the lies being told about another – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Bear in mind I don't like either man, but I also don't like being lied to by other bad men in an effort to rally my support behind their efforts to control the world's wealth at the expense of what is good for the people.

Scott Liebertz posted an editorial yesterday on Counterpunch in which he analyzed how Fox News has "deliberately misinformed its viewers" on the situation in Venezuela. He doesn't support Chavez's actions against RCTV, which is seen by Venezuelan protestors as an assault on free speech. Rather, Liebertz focuses on the "extreme" level of fact "manipulation" that Fox News exhibited while covering the protests.

For example:

- Fox's correspondent in Caracas repeatedly told viewers that Chavez's takeover of RCTV left the country without any "opposition" media. Viewers were specifically told that Chavez was "taking over just about every [media outlet] in Venezuela" and "shut down the media all across the country," and that RCTV was only "the latest" to be taken over. However, RCTV is the only outlet to have been taken over, and several other privately owned stations with very large national audiences continue to broadcast opposition voices. Most of the major daily print media also carries opposition information.

- When a guest attempted to debunk the story, they were called a "son of a bitch" and dismissed, then the next day derided on "Fox and Friends" as "a bit of a Wacko" and "a guy who frequently does not understand what he's talking about" and told he should "shut up."

- "Hannity and Colmes" discussed the matter four times in a week with three guest "experts" (Maria Conchita Alonso, an actress who admits she doesn't follow politics, but was still brought on for two episodes; Otto Reich; and Roger Noriega). Reich claimed Chavez would order the military to kill the protesters as he had in the past (though in the past he never issued any such order, but did declare martial law). Noriega said Chavez was not even allowing Venezuelans to see images of the protests, which was not true. Alonso stated Chavez now owns 65% of the media and Hannity replied, "Now he owns it all," which of course is false.

Liebertz is probably more of a Chavez sympathizer than I am. After all, he has a real problem with calling Chavez a "dictator" – and even more of a problem with Hannity's habit of referring to him as a "brutal dictator" – because he was democratically elected by 63% in an election certified by international observers that included the European Union. I think we're all beginning to recognize that having the form of a democracy doesn't mean that you are a democracy in substance.

On Wednesday, Stephen Lendman also wrote about media distortion of the events in Venezuela, in his case focusing on the "yellow journalism" of the New York Times, which he says has as its "primary mission" "to be the lead instrument of state propaganda." Like Liebertz, Lendman thinks Chavez is getting a bum rap and views him as "the leading model democratic leader on the planet even though he's not perfect." So you know where he's coming from. Still, he makes some very valid points.

He takes aim at an editorial in the Times by former Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo, who "was in tow with Washington's agenda of privatizations, deregulation, IMF/World Bank diktats, debt service, and overall contempt for the essential social needs of his people. He was also tainted with corruption, and during his tenure violence was used against protest demonstrators, criminal suspects in prisons were beaten and tortured, and dozens of journalists were threatened or attacked for criticizing local politicians or him." Toledo wrote that Chavez's silencing of the media was a move that could spread to other nations in that part of the world, called him a destabilizing figure throughout the hemisphere, and called on other Latin American leaders to confront Chavez. But Toledo was silent as to his own successor, Alan Garcia, who silenced two Peruvian TV stations and three radio stations for supporting a lawful strike he opposed.

In addition to downplaying Toledo's abuses while in office and then giving him a platform to attack Chavez, the Times has done some Chavez-bashing of its own, according to Lendman. For instance, when Chavez opposed Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA), the Times never explained why he took that stand. The paper also accused Chavez of buying influence when he used petrodollars to offer aid to his neighbors, though Chavez's intent was purportedly to promote solidarity, cooperation and respect for other nations' sovereignty. When Chavez raised royalties and taxes on foreign investors, the Times did not explain that the move was to end longtime preferential treatment. When Chavez moved to ensure the Venezuelan people benefited from the country's oil resources, he was condemned for his "revolutionary flourish" and ambition. Lendman goes on and on in a lengthy litany of mischaracterizations of Chavez's actions on the part of the Times. In reading it, you'd begin to wonder if Chavez really is the "leading model democratic leader on the planet."

I don't think he is. But I do think he's driving Washington and the powerful elite crazy. He won't do what they tell him to do. He won't help them screw the people out of the country's oil.

I believe it is only a matter of time before Chavez is assassinated and replaced by a more acceptable dictator who can be bought. The war for the hearts and minds of the American public is going on now; when we're sufficiently stupefied to accept an assassination or overthrow of the government as necessary for the good of the Venezuelan people, he'll be taken down. The uncooperative ones always are.

Posted by Becky at June 22, 2007 12:52 PM