:
Yesterday, there was a remarkable example of biased BBC reporting relating to the Hugo Chavez referendum.
BBC World Service’s radio program on August 15th reported correctly that Chavez had likely won the referendum. They followed with commentary about how this result would undoubtedly not please Washington. To educate their audience about why Chavez might be unpopular with the Bush administration, did they turn to a member of the administration itself to articluate its view of Chavez? No. Did they turn to someone from outside the administration who might sympathize with Chavez’s opponents and be in a good position to provide a defense of Washington’s perspective? No. Did they reach out to a neutral third-party academic who could illuminate the tension between Chavez and the Bush administration in a vigorously neutral way ? No. Instead, they turned to the Centre for Economic and Policy Research, an economically leftist non-profit, to give its view of Washington’s view of Chavez. Mark Weisbrot, a consistant backer of Chavez in Op-Eds and radio programs, provided the following quote:
“They don’t like him because he’s a populist, because he’s also against some of the things they want for Latin America, like the Free Trade Area of the Americas, because of the oil price question, and because of his relationship with Cuba,” said Mr Weisbrot. “They add all these things up and feel they shouldn’t have to tolerate such a government even if he’s won seven elections in the last five years.” – link
In the first sentence, Weisbrot purports that Washington’s opposition is based purely on Chavez’s populism, free-trade reluctance, something vague about oil, and the fact that he has a “relationship” with Cuba. Since populism, protectionism, and normal relations with Cuba have been commonplace among Latin American governments for the last few decades, (including with U.S. allied regimes) this explanation for Chavaz’s status as a semi-rogue is unconvincing. Absent is anything about the Chavez’s authoritarian tendencies and the possibility of the end of Venezuelan democracy – such as feared in this Human Rights Watch Story.
Absent also is any mention of Chavez’s support for other dictatorships such as Fidel’s Cuba, Saddam’s Iraq, and the mullah’s Iran and his dream of organizing and rallying opponents of the United States and the ideological opponents of liberalism. Absent finally is anything about reports that Chavez has been actively aiding Al Qaeda financially.
In the second sentence, dripping with rancor, Weisbrot slanderously implies that the United States feels no obligation whatsover to tolerate popularly elected democracies if it has policy difference with that regime.
I found your lovely blog when I searched for “BBC” on the bastion of fair and accurate reporting that is Fox News (surely a coincidence?). I would also like to say that I didn’t hear the BBC World Service report you mention, but as resident of the UK I did watch the BBC News 24 report on the Chavez referendum. I won’t bother to try and discount all your points with counter-arguments as I may be hear all day but the following can be said to be true:
They interviewed a supporter of the opposition to Chavez who stated that he thought the result was ‘rigged’. Possible human rights infringements and general abuses of the democratic system were also mentioned.
“Absent also is any mention of Chavez’s support for other dictatorships such as Fidel’s Cuba, Saddam’s Iraq, and the mullah’s Iran and his dream of organizing and rallying opponents of the United States and the ideological opponents of liberalism. Absent finally is anything about reports that Chavez has been actively aiding Al Qaeda financially.” The fact that you don’t qualify this ludicrous statement with any evidence is probably why it was omitted, don’t you think?
Keep up the good work. The world needs to hear the truth!
That last commenter inserted the following e-mail address: ‘mailto:limpwristedred@gunsdontkillpeople.com’
Many issues there indeed. Chavez has been trying to make the US his straw man, and has very much built a reputation of vocal, misplaced hatred for the US for the ususl distracting purposes.
Blame the CIA for a revolution that your opposition engages – the same people Bush refused to talk to (BBC reported the opposite, by the way) – knowing full well that the U.S. buys their oil off of the open market, but otherwise doesn’t care about Chavez’ Venezuela.
I hear the report on the World Service. B-BBC is reporting it acurately. They did an even funnier thing, they played the same Jimmy Carter soundbite twice.
After that they ran a piece about – 9not really about, it was more just a babbling platform) on Gore Vidal busy hating his fellow citizens, speaking of Bush saying things like ‘we didn’t elect the man – I don’t know who elected the man.’
He had no point at all. Didn’t even pimp a new book. They just had him rambling for 2 minutes like a Harold Pinter after a night of steady drinking.
NMLA?
FoxNews is center-right. But in Europe that’s extreme right-wing. There was a recent study by 2 uni profs, 1 from either Northwestern or U of Chicago. Not exactly slacker unis.
Could you tell us what you know about American TV? Cable v. free basic, # of viewers, FN stats, etc.
Only then can you begin to understand the nuance of the American TV viewing habits.
I don’t hold any brief for Chavez; he strikes me as similar to Mugabe before the latter went stark staring mad, which could lead to things becoming rather nasty in Venezuela should his sanity not hold.
Nonetheless, I’m confused that you write a paragraph about the report describing his relationship with totalitarian Cuba, and then say that the report doesn’t mention that he supports totalitarian Cuba (or is your point that every media mention of Cuba ought to add ‘which is a horrible dictatorship’, in case we forget?)
And the reports that Chavez has been actively aiding Al Qaeda financially aren’t mentioned because they were made up by crazy people, just as respectable reports on Israel don’t mention the way that crazy people blame it for the WTC attacks.
And the ‘slanderously’ in the last paragraph is silly. Have you ever looked at Latin American history…?