In This Article
30-Second Summary
Headline Links: Chavez in the press
Background: Charges of media bias from the 2002 coup onward
Historical Context: The rise of Chavez
Opinion & Analysis: Newspapers respond to Chavez’s referendum
Reference Material: Venezuela at a glance
Related Links: Human rights abuses in Venezuela
Subscribe to Politics Updates
Chavez Defeat Prompts Media Scuffle
by
findingDulcinea Staff
The narrow defeat of Chavez’s referendum to change Venezuela's constitution is applauded by much of the press; but at least one journalist detects a North American media bias.
30-Second Summary
On Dec. 2, 2007, the citizens of Venezuela handed Hugo Chavez his first defeat at the polls since he was elected president nine years ago. The constitutional revisions put forward in the referendum would have eliminated presidential term limits, broadened social security benefits and increased state control over the economy.
While Chavez’s critics in Venezuela and abroad cheered the results, author and BBC journalist Greg Palast lambasted the U.S. media for presenting what he depicted as a skewed representation of the issues involved.
“We were not told this weekend’s referendum was a vote on term limits, rather, we were told … that the referendum was to make Chavez ‘President for Life’ … But ending term limits does not mean winning the term,” Palast wrote.
Certainly, it is true that The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times used that turn of phrase (though it was qualified by the words "de facto" and "in effect" in two publications). Also, Palast’s allegations are framed by similar claims made at the time of the attempted Venezuelan coup in 2002.
On April 11 that year, a short-lived insurrection managed to unseat the democratically elected Chavez for 48 hours. The failed ouster triggered a press battle in the United States in which media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting denounced several major newspapers for their “enthusiastic” response to the news.
However, FAIR itself came under fire from Salon writer Ben Fritz. He argued that the organization had revealed more about its own political prejudices than it did about the U.S. press.
Whatever the accuracy of Palast’s piece, it opens a window on the pervasiveness of political spin and the difficulty of identifying accurate coverage, even in the reports of a media watchdog.
While Chavez’s critics in Venezuela and abroad cheered the results, author and BBC journalist Greg Palast lambasted the U.S. media for presenting what he depicted as a skewed representation of the issues involved.
“We were not told this weekend’s referendum was a vote on term limits, rather, we were told … that the referendum was to make Chavez ‘President for Life’ … But ending term limits does not mean winning the term,” Palast wrote.
Certainly, it is true that The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times used that turn of phrase (though it was qualified by the words "de facto" and "in effect" in two publications). Also, Palast’s allegations are framed by similar claims made at the time of the attempted Venezuelan coup in 2002.
On April 11 that year, a short-lived insurrection managed to unseat the democratically elected Chavez for 48 hours. The failed ouster triggered a press battle in the United States in which media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting denounced several major newspapers for their “enthusiastic” response to the news.
However, FAIR itself came under fire from Salon writer Ben Fritz. He argued that the organization had revealed more about its own political prejudices than it did about the U.S. press.
Whatever the accuracy of Palast’s piece, it opens a window on the pervasiveness of political spin and the difficulty of identifying accurate coverage, even in the reports of a media watchdog.
Headline Links: Chavez in the press
Voters rejected Hugo Chavez’s 69 constitutional amendments by a slim margin of 51 to 49 percent. Describing the results as a “photo finish,” Chavez conceded defeat almost immediately after the results were broadcast on state television. “I congratulate my adversaries for this victory,” Chavez said. “For now, we could not do it.” The New York Times described the outcome as “a stunning development in a country where Mr. Chávez and his supporters control nearly all of the levers of power.”
Source: The New York Times
The U.S. press reports
During the days surrounding the Venezuelan vote, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all published articles characterizing the referendum as a way for Chavez to become “president for life.”
During the days surrounding the Venezuelan vote, The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all published articles characterizing the referendum as a way for Chavez to become “president for life.”
In an editorial titled “Saying No to Chavez,” The New York Times wrote, “Since he took office eight years ago, Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez, has grabbed more and more power, exploiting his nation’s oil wealth to buy up popular support. Now there are hopeful signs that his plan to become president for life may be too blatant for the electorate to swallow.
Source: The New York Times
Two days after the Venezuelan vote, The Washington Post published an article in which it wrote, “The defeat of Hugo Chavez's proposed rewrite of the Venezuelan constitution Sunday was a landmark victory for freedom in a country that stood at the brink of autocracy. Mr. Chavez had proposed to make himself a de facto president for life, with power to supplant locally elected governors with his own appointees, dispose of the reserves of the central bank and suspend due process and freedom of information in an indefinite state of emergency. Venezuela was formally to become a 'socialist' state modeled on Cuba. Remarkably, this revolution was rejected by millions of Mr. Chavez's former supporters.”
Source: The Washington Post
In a Nov. 24 column published in the Los Angeles Times, research fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University William Ratliff, wrote that “one of the most disturbing ballot items would allow Chavez to run for president as often as he wishes and make it more difficult for voters to recall a president. He could become, in effect, president for life. Other ballot items would give Chavez greatly expanded control over the country's state and regional governments, its central bank and its international monetary reserves."
Source: Los Angeles Times
Background: Charges of media bias from the 2002 coup onward
The 2002 coup
On April 11, 2002, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was temporarily removed from office during a coup. Chavez’s ouster lasted only 48 hours, but had long-lasting implications for U.S.-Venezuelan relations. It was followed by allegations of U.S. involvement, increasing the mistrust between Washington and Caracas.
On April 11, 2002, the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, was temporarily removed from office during a coup. Chavez’s ouster lasted only 48 hours, but had long-lasting implications for U.S.-Venezuelan relations. It was followed by allegations of U.S. involvement, increasing the mistrust between Washington and Caracas.
The failed coup also touched off a press battle in the United States, after media watchdog group FAIR denounced several major newspapers for their “enthusiastic” response to the news. Examining editorials from major papers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune, the article argues that the media’s prevailing reaction to Chavez’s forced dismissal was that of relief. Analyzing a Times editorial, FAIR writes that the paper “declared that Chavez's ‘resignation’ meant that ‘Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator.’ Conspicuously avoiding the word ‘coup’ … the paper's one nod to the fact that military takeovers are not generally regarded as democratic was to note hopefully that with ‘continued civic participation,’ perhaps ‘further military involvement’ in Venezuelan politics could be kept 'to a minimum.'"
Source: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
FAIR itself was subsequently criticized in a Salon article titled “Foul Cry.” In the piece, Ben Fritz argues that FAIR’s post-coup criticisms revealed more about the organization’s own political biases than it does the media’s. “The one newspaper that actually apologized to its readers for not condemning the coup was still criticized by FAIR. The New York Times admitted that its first editorial on the coup ‘overlooked the undemocratic manner in which [Chavez] was removed’ and slapped itself hard on the wrist: ‘Forcibly unseating a democratically elected leader, no matter how badly he has performed, is never something to cheer.’ Yet this was characterized as ‘half-apologizing’ by FAIR.”
Source: Salon.com
In March 2004, British newspaper The Independent claimed that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that the United States had channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars to Chavez’s political opponents, including those responsible for the 2002 coup. The Independent reported that the National Endowment for Democracy, which distributes congressional grants, paid more than a million dollars to anti-Chavez political groups, in what the U.S. government stated was an effort to build democracy and “strengthen political parties.” Jeremy Bigwood, a freelance American writer, told U.K. paper, “This repeats a pattern started in Nicaragua in the election of 1990 when [the U.S.] spent $20 per voter to get rid of Ortega."
Source: The Independent
The National Endowment for Democracy was created by Congress in 2003 to distribute grants "to support prodemocracy groups" around the world. The NED describes itself as "independent of the U.S. government and fully accountable to the U.S. Congress." On a page devoted to its work in Venezuela, the endowment states that it "does not, in Venezuela or elsewhere, fund groups based upon their support for or opposition to the government … All NED-funded projects have made extensive efforts to include representatives and elected officials from President Chavez's party."
Source: The National Endowment for Democracy
In 2003, four opposition activists who had participated in protests against Chavez's government in the lead-up to the previous year's coup were found dead. They had been bound and shot. The executive director of the Americas Division of Human Rights Watch said, "The circumstances strongly suggest that there were political killings." The report concludes, "At least seven people have been killed and scores injured in street protests since December 2002, but there have been no confirmed reports of extrajudicial executions of opposition or government supporters."
Source: Human Rights Watch: "Investigate Killings of Opposition Supporters in Venezuela"
‘The Revolution Will Not Be Televised’
A group of Irish filmmakers were lucky enough to witness the Venezuelan coup from inside the Presidential Palace. Capturing the 48-hour ordeal on film, the crew used the footage to create a documentary titled “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” The BBC calls the work “a brilliant piece of journalism but it is also an astonishing portrait of the balance of forces in Venezuela. On one side stand the Versace wearing classes, rich from many decades of oil revenues, and on the other the poor in their barrios and those within the armed forces who support Chavez. The media, who ought to be merely reporting the conflict splitting the country down the middle, are in fact adjuncts of the coup-makers.”
Source: The BBC’s Storyville
The Web site of the documentary, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised,” provides highlights from the film.
Source: The Web site of the documentary, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
FAIR again charges NYT with bias
In March 2007, FAIR pilloried a New York Times report titled “Venezuela Spending on Arms Soars to World’s Top Ranks.” Condemning the article for using “selective information and an alarmist tone to suggest that Venezuela's military spending was a potential threat to regional stability,” FAIR alleges that the Times piece disingenuously avoids mentioning its one and only source, the Defense Intelligence Agency, until the 15th paragraph. “The Pentagon has a well-earned credibility problem when it comes to making intelligence claims about the threats posed by official enemies," wrote FAIR, "and the fact that it was the source of the article's assertions should have been mentioned in the lead.” FAIR also stated that the Times’ use of the phrase “Venezuela arms spending” was misleading because it didn’t reflect the country’s total military spending, but rather what it spent on arms from other countries.
Source: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The original, Feb. 25, 2007, article begins as follows: “Venezuela’s arms spending has climbed to more than $4 billion in the past two years, transforming the nation into Latin America’s largest weapons buyer and placing it ahead of other major purchasers in international arms markets like Pakistan and Iran. Venezuelan military and government officials here say the arms acquisitions, which include dozens of fighter jets and attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, are needed to circumvent a ban by the United States on sales of American weapons to the country … Venezuela’s escalation of its defense budget, up 12.5 percent in 2006, has brought harsh criticism from the Bush administration, which says the buildup is a potentially destabilizing problem in South America and is far more than what would be needed for domestic defense alone.”
Source: The New York Times
Historical Context: The rise of Chavez
There were a number of factors that contributed to Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela. Heavily influenced by the 19th-century revolutionary Simon Bolivar, Chavez rose through the ranks of the Venezuelan military until an unsuccessful military coup in 1992. A lieutenant colonel in the paratroop regiment at the time of the coup, Chavez spent the following two years in prison. There he continued to develop his ideas by working on a master’s thesis with University of Sussex developmental economist Jorge Giordani. In prison he also met democratic left-wing activist Luis Miquilena, who advised Chavez to pursue his ambitions through the electoral process.
Source: The Council on Foreign Relations
Opinion & Analysis: Newspapers respond to Chavez’s referendum
Writing for OpEdNews.com, Greg Palast attacks the press’s response to the defeat of Chavez’s constitutional referendum. Citing editorials from the San Francisco Chronicle and The Washington Post in which Chavez is described as a “dictator,” Palast argues that since “Chavez’ referendum was defeated at the ballot box, we know that, as a dictator, Chavez is a flop … Let’s get clear exactly what this vote was about. Firstly, it was a referendum to change the nation’s constitution to end term limits for President … We were not told this weekend’s referendum was a vote on term limits, rather, we were told by virtually every US news outlet that the referendum was to make Chavez, ‘President for Life’ … But ending term limits does not mean winning the term. As Chavez himself told me, ‘It’s up to the people’ whether he gets reelected.”
Source: OpEdNews.com
The San Francisco Chronicle article Palast criticizes is titled “With Chavez’s Hand on the Oil Spigot,” and focuses on the idea that Chavez could plunge the American economy into recession if he even temporarily halted the 1 million barrels of oil Caracas sells daily to the United States. The context of the quote taken by Palast reads, “Venezuelans are to vote today on a referendum ginned up by their president, Hugo Chavez, which could make him a constitutional dictator for life. Polls suggest the referendum may fail, and let's hope they are correct.” The Chronicle continues its description of the referendum five paragraphs below Palast’s quote: “[Chavez’s] constitutional revisions, if approved, would exempt him from term limits. He would gain greater control of the nation's economy and take full control of Venezuela's central bank.”
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
The second article cited by Palast appeared in The Washington Post on Dec. 2. Penned by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the article is titled “The Smart Way to Beat Tyrants like Chavez.” According to Palast, the article states that “by voting, Venezuela was ‘receding into dictatorship.’” The context of Palast’s quote is as follows: “With diplomatic, economic and communications institutions designed for a different era, the free world has too few tools to help prevent Venezuela's once vibrant democracy from receding into dictatorship. But such a tragedy is not preordained. In fact, we face a moment when swift decisions by the United States and like-thinking nations could dramatically help, supporting friends and allies with the courage to oppose an aspiring dictator with regional ambitions.”
Source: The Washington Post
Reference Material: Venezuela at a glance
When Christoper Columbus arrived in Venezuela in 1498–99, it was inhabited by the Carib, Arawak and Chibcha peoples. The BBC’s timeline highlights the country’s most important events from that year to the present day.
Source: The BBC
Venezuela has coasts on the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean and borders on Colombia, Brazil, and Guyana.
Source: WorldAtlas.com
Related Links: Human rights abuses in Venezuela
Human rights advocacy group Human Rights Watch judged that the proposed amendments to the constitution "would jeopardize the protection of fundamental rights at times when they are most needed." Among other concerns, HRW sought to draw attention to the attempt to eliminate time limitations on the suspension of due process. It wrote that "these provisions could lead to suspension of fundamental rights in violation of international law."
Source: Human Rights Watch: "Proposed Amendments Threaten Basic Human Rights"
In its 2007 report on Venezuela, Reporters Without Borders notes the following: "The easy reelection of President Hugo Chávez on 3 December 2006 raised fears of new tensions between his government and the privately-owned media, often accused of taking part in a failed attempt to overthrow Chávez in April 2002. Tension is still high nearly five years later but the record was better than expected in 2006, despite the death of one journalist and a score of physical attacks on others."
Source: Reporters Without Borders
Most Recent Beyond The Headlines
© 2012 Dulcinea Media, Inc.
