[News] The Media on Venezuela: Double Standards and First Impressions
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Tue Sep 5 12:00:57 EDT 2017
https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13344
The Media on Venezuela: Double Standards and First Impressions
By Ricardo Vaz – September 4th 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lead-up to the Constituent Assembly elections
<http://www.investigaction.net/en/venezuela-elections-resurgent-chavismo-and-unrecognised-democracy/> was
full of threats and refusals to recognise the results from the US and
its subordinates near and far. After the vote took place, with over 8M
voters participating, the mainstream media started behaving like the
audience of “The Price is Right” (1). Any claim of a different turnout,
invariably without any evidence, was thrown at the readers.
But the ideal weapon came when Smartmatic
<https://www.smartmatic.com/news/article/smartmatic-statement-on-the-recent-constituent-assembly-election-in-venezuela/>,
the company responsible for the voting machines and software, claimed
that “without any doubt” the voting total had been inflated by,
according to their “estimations”, at least 1M votes. The Venezuelan
electoral authorities (CNE) promptly reacted by saying that the company,
while responsible for the system, had no access
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13279> to electoral data, and as such
whatever estimates they produced were baseless. Given that the electoral
results were published a few days later, the logical reasoning would put
the burden on Smartmatic to release evidence to back their claims. In
the press conference, Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica said that the
company had not shared the evidence with the CNE because they would not
be “sympathetic
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/02/venezuela-poll-turnout-figures-manipulated-by-at-least-1m-votes>”
to it. But why not share it with the western media, which is more than
sympathetic to it?
As it turns out, there was no need to present evidence, because the
standards are different when it comes to Venezuela. Smartmatic’s press
conference was more than enough for the media, who now parrot that it
was “revealed
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/08/venezuela-hugo-chavez-ruben-avila-interview-political-chaos>”
that the voting figures were inflated. So any allegation that conforms
to the mainstream narrative and goes against the Venezuelan government
does not need to be proven, and is used henceforth either as a fact or
to provide instant denial. By contrast, the Venezuelan opposition enjoys
a free ride when it comes to fact-checking of their statements. We can
thank the BBC for a blatant demonstration of these double standards
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40983115>:
“Venezuela’s electoral authorities said more than eight million
people, or 41.5% of the electorate, had voted, a figure the company
that provided the voting system said was inflated.
The opposition boycotted the poll and also held an unofficial
referendum in which they said more than seven million Venezuelans
voted against the constituent assembly.”
The official vote, whose results have been audited
<http://www.leyresorte.gob.ve/2017/08/comando-zamora-solicita-al-cne-completar-el-100-de-auditorias/>,
vouched for
<http://www.conelmazodando.com.ve/expertos-electorales-resultados-de-la-anc-en-venezuela-son-veridicos-y-confiables-ceela/>,
and published <http://constituyente2017.cne.gob.ve/>, has to be
immediately countered, even though Smartmatic provided nothing to back
their claims. In comparison, the opposition’s claimed turnout from their
“consultation
<http://www.investigaction.net/en/venezuelan-opposition-consultation-playing-alone-and-losing/>”,
of which all records were burned, is free from anyone contradicting it,
even though there are strong reasons to doubt it.
The New York Times
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/americas/venezuela-election-turnout.html> went
one step further, echoing an opposition leader’s claim that people had
voted multiple times. This was in fact proven to be impossible by a
journalist
<http://albaciudad.org/2017/08/video-un-periodista-intento-votar-varias-veces-en-las-elecciones-del-domingo-vea-lo-que-le-paso/>.
And we can only wonder where these fears of multiple voting were when
this actually did happen during the opposition’s consultation
<https://twitter.com/marxistJorge/status/886755416495067136>, an event
that the New York Times considered as a supreme democratic event with
“staggering
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/world/americas/venezuelans-vote-on-measures-devised-to-weaken-maduro.html?mcubz=0>”
results.
But when it comes to double standards, the Guardian
<http://www.investigaction.net/en/the-guardians-propaganda-on-venezuela-all-you-need-to-know/> was
determined not to be outdone. Here is what appeared on a recent piece
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/11/donald-trump-venezuela-crisis-military-intervention> about
Trump’s “military option” threat:
“[Venezuela’s] economy has collapsed in recent years as the country
led first by the late Hugo Chávez and then by his successor, Maduro,
has resorted to increasingly authoritarian measures to consolidate
power.
Trump’s remarks come in the shadow of a 2002 coup attempt against
Chávez that he blamed on the US.”
So Maduro’s resort to “authoritarian measures” is not “according to his
opponents”, or to fancy “international observers” that always come in
handy on these occasions, it is supposed to be an absolute fact. On the
other hand, US involvement in the 2002 coup, which has been amply
documented <https://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/chavez-code-golinger.htm>,
is just Chávez’s opinion!
And in what is not a case of double standards but rather one of /no
standards/, we have to mention this article
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/19/venezuela-crisis-deepens-maduro-strips-opposition-held-parliament-power> by
the Guardian. What happened was the following: the Constituent Assembly
invited
<http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Por-que-y-para-que-la-ANC-convoco-a-la-AN-en-Venezuela-20170817-0086.html> the
leaders of the opposition-controlled National Assembly to participate in
a session to work out their legal status (2) and how both bodies will
co-exist. The opposition leaders refused, and the Constituent Assembly
assumed power <https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13322> to legislate on
some matters, namely national security. The Guardian, clearly preparing
for their future as a tabloid (3), titled their article “President
Maduro strips Venezuela’s parliament of power
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/19/venezuela-crisis-deepens-maduro-strips-opposition-held-parliament-power>”,
along with a picture of Maduro swinging maracas. It does not get more
disingenuous than that.
*Shoot first, do not ask questions later*
A distinctive reporting technique involves sticking to first
impressions, however biased they may be. Let us illustrate with an
example: on April 11, Brayan Principal, a teenage resident from a public
housing project in Lara state, was shot dead. Rather than gather the
facts, the media simply let an opposition lawmaker
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-39585293> state that he
thought armed pro-government groups were responsible. And that was that.
The testimony
<http://albaciudad.org/2017/04/madre-bryan-principal-venian-a-quemarlo-todo/> of
the victim’s mother, as well as other residents from the project, showed
this was another example of an opposition attack against the public
housing mission, one of chavismo’s flagship projects. But the media were
happy with the initial opinion and not interested in reporting further.
However, no case is more symptomatic than that of Oscar Pérez
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-actor-idUSKBN19J2EZ>.
A police officer, he hijacked a helicopter and then proceeded to shoot
at and throw grenades at government buildings with people inside. It was
more of a stunt than an armed uprising, but still the media were charmed
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amid-venezuelas-chaos-protesters-ask-was-helicopter-attack-rebellion-or-ruse/2017/06/28/82d27e44-5c02-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html?utm_term=.9f46f336542f> by
a character that would be instantly, and rightly, called a terrorist had
he done this anywhere else. And if that was not enough, they started
floating this idiotic idea that he might be a “government plant
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/28/venezuela-helicopter-attack-oscar-perez-rumors>”.
/“This colourful B-movie actor attacked public buildings with grenades.
Could it be that he is a government plant?”/ No, no he is not. He
appeared in an opposition rally
<http://albaciudad.org/2017/07/reaparecio-el-terrorista-oscar-perez-en-marcha-de-la-mud-coincide-con-requesens-y-llama-a-hora-cero/> a
few days later, but none of the outlets that pushed the “government
plant” theory bothered to report on it.
A more recent case involved Colombian channels RCN and Caracol being
taken off the air in Venezuela. While these channels are well-known for
giving a platform to right-wing people like Álvaro Uribe
<http://www.noticiasrcn.com/nacional-pais/las-farc-son-socias-dictadura-venezuela-uribe>,
and for being part of large corporate empires
<http://radiomacondo.fm/2016/02/02/en-dos-meses-los-titulares-apocalipticos-de-rcn-sobre-bogota-desaparecieron-y-ahora-todo-es-felicidad/>,
the BBC
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-41041585> pinpointed this
closure to the channels’ close coverage of the events surrounding Luisa
Ortega. It appears they were only guilty of doing journalism, just like
the BBC pretends to do. The fact that former Mexican president and loyal
US servant Vicente Fox had just appeared on these channels telling
Maduro to “resign or die” <https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13328> was
not worth mentioning.
One wonders if a channel where people came on the air telling Emmanuel
Macron, or the Queen of England, to “resign or die” would stay on the
air in France or the UK. And where was all this concern about
“censorship” when Argentinian president Mauricio Macri ordered teleSUR
<http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Macri-Govt-to-Take-teleSUR-off-Argentine-TV-Service-in-15-Days-20160608-0034.html> taken
off the air? (Needless to say, TeleSur never ran anything remotely
comparable to these threats).
*Silence is golden*
Another common technique of biased reporting involves reporting only
stories that fit into the mainstream narrative and shying away from
anything that might cast doubt on it. For example, OAS chief Luis
Almagro always has the floor for his regime-change efforts against
Venezuela, which come coated in the language of defending “democracy”.
But if the media pointed out his lack of interest in the parliamentary
coup in Brazil, or reported on his praise
<http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.806221> of Israel’s democracy,
then his standing as a “pro-democracy” actor would be very questionable.
Similarly, ridiculous statements such as Almagro claiming that Cuba has
an “occupying army
<https://panampost.com/orlando-avendano/2017/07/20/cuba-has-occupying-army-in-venezuela/>”
in Venezuela are nowhere to be found in the mainstream outlets.
Luisa Ortega Díaz (4), former prosecutor turned anti-chavista hero, also
benefits from this kind of selective reporting. Now portrayed as a
defender of the rule of law, it would be useful to recall that not so
long ago she was vilified
<https://twitter.com/dam1an/status/900286595919687684> by the opposition
for the prosecution and conviction of Leopoldo López for his role in the
previous edition of the violent guarimbas in 2014. Ortega’s outlandish
comparisons of the Venezuelan government to “Stalin and Hitler
<https://www.efe.com/efe/america/politica/luisa-ortega-diaz-denuncia-practicas-de-hitler-y-stalin-del-gobierno-venezolano/20000035-3351901>”,
were they to be reported, would also make it harder for her to be taken
seriously.
Presented by the media as a fierce defender of the Constitution, the
idea is to imply that she is a genuine Chavista and Maduro and co. have
gone off the rails. But her presence in a forum
<http://www.analitica.com/actualidad/actualidad-nacional/capriles-llama-a-formar-un-frente-comun-en-defensa-de-la-constitucion/> “in
defence of the Constitution” tells a different story. There she was
surrounded by who’s who of the opposition leadership, people who would
do away with the Constitution in a heartbeat, and actually did during
the 2002 coup.
Ortega and her husband have been accused of running an extortion
<https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13323>operation out of the Public
Prosecutor’s office, getting money in exchange for not prosecuting
companies accused of misuse of subsidised dollars. Ortega’s replacement,
Tarek Saab, presented documents of alleged bank accounts opened by
members of this circle in UBS bank in the Bahamas. But this evidence, or
Ortega’s baffling response that UBS does not exist
<http://globovision.com/article/ortega-diaz-me-destituyeron-por-denunciar-la-corrupcion-en-venezuela> in
the Bahamas (!), are not mentioned by western journalists, who could
actually /investigate/ the claims if they wanted to.
*Sanctions and solidarity*
The most recent US-imposed sanctions were a significant escalation that
could do serious damage to the average Venezuelan, as opposed to
freezing Maduro’s non-existent US assets. With the strategy of street
violence clearly exhausted, having been unable to spread unrest to the
barrios or to cause a split in the armed forces, there is now a switch
towards economic asphyxiation of the country. The US is even resorting
to blocking
<http://www.telesurtv.net/news/Denuncian-que-EE.UU.-bloquea-llegada-de-alimentos-a-Venezuela-20170712-0039.html> food
shipments destined to Venezuela, so it is clear that the plan is to be
rid of the Bolivarian Revolution by imposing as much pain as possible on
the Venezuelan people.
For all the media propaganda, Chavismo has actually struck a very
conciliatory tone in recent years, both in domestic and international
<http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Venezuelas-Maduro-Opens-Door-to-Possible-Talks-with-Trump-20170622-0006.html> terms.
But it should be clear that no dialogue is possible with those who
incessantly dig our graves, be they opposition leaders who call for
sanctions
<http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Venezuela-Slams-Oppositions-Statement-Supporting-Sanctions-20170828-0007.html> and
even military intervention <https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/13316>, or
US officials who would never accept a threat like this in their
backyard. Nevertheless, Chavismo has political room to manoeuvre with
the Constituent Assembly in place, and now might be a good time suspend
debt payments and prioritise elsewhere. Ultimately, if the Bolivarian
Revolution is to defend itself against imperial aggression, the only way
is to increase the power and influence of its greatest resource: a
conscientious and mobilised working class.
As for the mainstream media, we should not have illusions about holding
the mainstream media to any kind of journalism standards. Anyone on the
left should be able to analyse the corporate nature and track record of
the major media outlets and figure out which interests they ultimately
serve. Rather than lazily echo media propaganda and preach a “plague on
both your houses <https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/13245>”
analysis, those who stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan poor and
working class have the task of finding and spreading truthful
information as a first step in opposing imperialism in Venezuela and
Latin America.
*Notes*
(1) Television game-show in which contestants have to guess prices of
merchandise, and the audience shouts suggestions.
(2) The National Assembly has been in contempt of court
<http://www.investigaction.net/en/the-need-to-radicalise-the-bolivarian-revolution-interview-with-jorge-martin-part-2/> ever
since three lawmakers from Amazonas state were sworn-in despite being
under investigation for electoral fraud.
(3) The Guardian recently announced it will come in tabloid format
<https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/13/guardian-and-observer-to-relaunch-in-tabloid-format>(smaller
pages) starting in 2018 to save money. UK tabloids are known for their
sensationalism and poor standards.
(4) Luisa Ortega has been touring the Americas announcing that she has
evidence of corruption involving chavista leaders and Odebrecht. But in
line with what we discussed, claims against chavismo never need to be
substantiated. Quite frankly, if there was any evidence of something as
egregious as Maduro receiving a multi-million dollar bribe from
Odebrecht, it would have been out there already, especially when the
opposition was closer to taking power by force. The media headlines
would have written themselves.
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20170905/b58cc154/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list