[R-G] The Price of Dumbing Down Venezuela

[Anthony Fenton]

The Price of Dumbing Down Venezuela

February 15, 2008 By Olivia Burlingame Goumbri


https://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/oliviagoumbri

All is fair in love and war.  No statement ever rang truer in  
describing the American media.  From politicians to celebrities, and  
even on down to your average Joe; when the political pundits make  
their mind up about you, all bets are off.  And as Venezuelan  
President Hugo Chávez can attest, the American media can be cruel and  
downright vindictive.


Today, our national popular imagination is shaped by media outlets  
that are largely owned by a tiny group of corporations with annual  
revenues ranging between 10 and 40 billion dollars.  In one of the  
most highly regarded scholarly works on media ownership, The New  
Media Monopoly, Ben Bagdikian documents that almost 99% of the media  
industry is controlled by just five corporations: Time Warner,  
Disney, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany,  
and Viacom (formerly CBS).  When Bagdikian first started keeping  
track in 1983, the list was ten times longer.  With such a rapid  
acceleration of media consolidation over the last few decades, the  
pressures to serve the profit motive have increased at an ever- 
expanding pace, while diverse political perspectives have dwindled.  
Former New York Times Chief of Staff John Swinton candidly admitted  
this when he said, "We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind  
the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes. The business of the  
Journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify."


Venezuela serves as an excellent case in point.  Though  
democratically elected, Venezuela's larger than life head of state  
continues to be portrayed in the US media as a "left-wing dictator"  
and "autocratic strongman."  Over the last two months, I have watched  
with sad amazement as the largest circulating and most revered  
newspapers in America artfully evade accurate reporting on arguably  
the two most newsworthy events in recent Venezuelan history, all in  
the hopes of safeguarding Chavez's "bad boy" image.  This does an  
enormous disservice to us all.  And despite our own President's  
notions to the contrary, it is still possible to learn from other  
nations.


As last year came to a close Venezuelan voters rejected a series of  
constitutional reforms proposed by Chávez.  This marked the first  
electoral loss for the South American leader since he was elected by  
an overwhelming majority in 1998.  In the run-up to the referendum,  
however, most American newspapers were cynical that a democratic  
election could be carried out.  Empty rumors spread by Chávez's  
political opponents were repeated, alleging that the National  
Electoral Council was corrupt and biased.  Influential newspapers  
issued articles characterizing the democratically elected leader as a  
"strongman" hoping to consolidate power through the passage of some  
69 constitutional updates.  Polls were cited, opposition leaders were  
quoted, and the general tone was set: the reforms were inherently  
undemocratic and would serve only to centralize state power.


Soon after, most of those same news dailies issued editorials  
expanding upon their already existing bias.  Editorials appearing in  
the Houston Chronicle and Chicago Tribune wrongly stated that  
Venezuelans would lack due process during states of national  
emergency, a provision not included in the reforms.  The Washington  
Post claimed that the reforms would curtail freedom in Venezuela.   
The Washington Times inaccurately stated that Chávez "controls most  
major Venezuelan media," an allegation debunked by any quick review  
of Venezuela's print and TV media.  This particularly uninformed  
editorial followed an opinion piece earlier in the month penned by  
none other than notorious Cold War hawk Oliver North, who argued that  
Chávez had already "pulled a coup" on the Venezuelan people.


Similarly egregious opinion pieces were disseminated in the national  
press.  A Los Angeles Times op-ed - written by an opposition  
journalist who elsewhere compared President Chávez to Bin Laden -  
made the unsupported and very emotional claim that constitutional  
reforms would cause a global recession due to higher oil prices.  The  
Miami Herald predicted an end to freedom of expression.  What these  
exaggerated accounts ignored was the fact that voters would  
ultimately decide for themselves at the polls.


As Venezuelan citizens eagerly awaited the election results in the  
early morning hours of December 3rd, opposition leaders led a series  
of public tirades on the steps of the National Electoral Council.  
Accusations of fraud were lodged and the public was told to be weary  
of the outcome of the election.  When the official results were  
announced shortly thereafter, the constitutional reforms had lost:  
51% to 49%.


In a move that logically should have shocked the press and elicited  
story after story, President Chávez gracefully accepted defeat;  
affirming on live television that the people of Venezuela had sent a  
message and that their will would be respected.  He asked Venezuelans  
to celebrate peacefully, and congratulated the opposition for their  
victory.


Over the following days, no newspapers focused on the president's  
extraordinary response. Given his status as "dictator" and "autocrat"  
his gracious acceptance of defeat certainly merited a word or two.   
In fact, an entire expose could have been crafted on the leader's  
sudden change of heart!  After all, how many dictators concede  
defeat?  Alas, the democratic overture was largely overlooked and  
instead the American print media regurgitated previous dismissals of  
Venezuela’s democracy.


Even more disturbing, though, was the fact that the top ten largest  
circulating newspapers in the nation gave no attention to the story  
that followed.


In a provocative move unforeseen by opposition and government  
supporters alike, President Chávez rang in the New Year by pardoning  
more than 30 persons involved in the unsuccessful coup d'etat that  
briefly deposed him in 2002.


Chávez appeared live on state television to hold out an olive branch  
to the opposition, remarking that the time was ripe to begin "turning  
the page."  The new law would further safeguard civilians' rights to  
engage in acts of civil disobedience and allow for the immediate  
release of accused and convicted criminals imprisoned during the  
attempted coup, so long as they had previously submitted to  
authorities.  Those who fled or those who were being held for crimes  
against humanity would not be pardoned, he said.


Again, the largest circulating US newspapers remained astonishingly  
silent.  Among them, only two - the Chicago Tribune and Washington  
Post - even mentioned the historic event, and they did so by merely  
publishing one reprint each from the newswires.  The New York Times,  
Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and the  
Dallas Morning News all neglected the story and in the days following  
the amnesty decree, chose to run feature stories criticizing Chávez.


Madeline Albright wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the coming  
foreign policy battle would be one between democratic and autocratic  
tendencies, and used President Chávez as an example of the latter.  
The next day, the Times published an opinion piece on free trade that  
categorically rejected Venezuela's alternative model of trade and  
development.  The Wall Street Journal followed suite with "Liberty  
Theology," which bashed the religious movement of liberation theology  
for its links to socialist leaders.


Others ran headlines on the "failure" of President Chávez's efforts  
to secure the release of Colombian hostages being held by FARC  
guerrillas.  Headlines such as "Chávez's Promised Hostage Release  
Fizzles" (New York Times) and "Chavez Led Alliance Fails to Get  
Hostages" (Washington Post) made it apparent that only negative  
stories would surface.  Despite these dismissals, in a most  
unexpected twist to the saga, the Colombian hostages were indeed  
liberated just days later, on January 10th.


Conclusion


In addition to forward thinking about political compromise and  
reconciliation, inspiring models of citizen participation are  
increasingly occurring in South America but are often lost on us  
because we have no alternative reference point to compare them to.   
In Venezuela alone, 18 million people have received new or updated ID  
cards, enabling them to register to vote - 5.5 million of them - for  
the first time in their lives.  Even more astounding are the results  
of Venezuela's last presidential election which saw the highest voter  
turnout in Venezuelan history - with nearly 75% participation- rates  
that have not been matched in the U.S. since 1820.


  As Americans await the results of national primaries, and  
gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns approach in Venezuela, an  
exciting series of newsworthy events are due to unfold.  With the  
Venezuelan opposition energized from a win at the polls, and with  
President Chavez calling on his supporters to reflect and re- 
energize, heated battles for local public office are just around the  
corner. American presidential contenders will not be the only  
candidates calling for change this year.  They will however, be the  
only ones wondering how to get the majority to the ballot box.


  How newsmakers cover the developments of this Caribbean nation  
remains to be seen, but if past coverage is any indicator I am afraid  
we are headed down a dangerous road where "objective" reporting is  
sacrificed for the official line of Washington.  In light of that  
unfortunate trend, a more balanced depiction of current affairs in  
Venezuela is in order and it would behoove all of us to advocate for it.



Olivia Burlingame Goumbri is the editor of The Venezuela Reader: The  
Building of a People's Democracy and has appeared on various national  
radio programs as a Venezuela expert including NPR?s To The Point and  
BBC World News.  She is currently the Executive Director of The  
Venezuela Information Office in Washington DC.