U.S. public opinion is being groomed again to accept or ignore the overthrow of another democratically elected leader. Hugo Chavez Is Crazy! By Greg Palast, AlterNet June 25, 2003 Editors note: As a globetrotting investigative reporter who has worked for major news outlets on both sides of the Atlantic, Greg Palast has had ample opportunity to see how media coverage can strongly skew how events are seen by the public. Last June, on Page One of the San Francisco Chronicle, an Associated Press photo of a mass of demonstrators carried the following caption: "TENS OF THOUSANDS OF VENEZUELANS OPPOSED TO PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ..." The caption let us know this South American potentate was a killer, an autocrat, and the people of his nation wanted him out. The caption continued: "[Venezuelans] marched Saturday to demand his resignation and punishment for those responsible for 17 deaths during a coup in April. 'Chavez leave now!' read a huge banner." There was no actual story in the Chronicle – South America simply isn't worth wasting words on – just the photo and caption. But the Chronicle knew no story was needed. Venezuelans hated their terrible president, and all you needed was this photo to prove it. And I could confirm the large protests. I'd recently returned from Caracas and watched 100,000 march against President Chavez. I'd filmed them for BBC Television London. But I also filmed this: a larger march, easily over 200,000 Venezuelans marching in support of their president, Chavez. That picture, of the larger pro-Chavez march, did not appear in a single U.S. newspaper. The pro-Chavez marchers weren't worth a mention. By the next month, when the New York Times printed a photo of anti-Chavez marchers, they had metastasized. The Times reported that 600,000 had protested against Chavez. Once again, the larger pro-Chavez demonstrations were, as they say in Latin America, "disappeared." I guess they didn't fit the print. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Look at the Chronicle/AP photo of the anti-Chavez marchers in Venezuela. Note their color. White. And not just any white. A creamy rich white. I interviewed them and recorded in this order: a banker in high heels and push-up bra; an oil industry executive (same outfit); and a plantation owner who rode to Caracas in a silver Jaguar. And the color of the pro-Chavez marchers? Dark brown. Brown and round as cola nuts – just like their hero, their President Chavez. They wore an unvarying uniform of jeans and T-shirts. Let me explain. For five centuries, Venezuela has been run by a minority of very white people, pure-blood descendants of the Spanish conquistadors. To most of the 80 percent of Venezuelans who are brown, Hugo Chavez is their Nelson Mandela, the man who will smash the economic and social apartheid that has kept the dark-skinned millions stacked in cardboard houses in the hills above Caracas while the whites live in high-rise splendor in the city center. Chavez, as one white Caracas reporter told me with a sneer, gives them bricks and milk, and so they vote for him. Why am I explaining the basics of Venezuela to you? If you watched BBC TV, or Canadian Broadcasting, you'd know all this stuff. But if you read the New York Times, you'll only know that President Chavez is an "autocrat," a "ruinous demagogue," and a "would-be dictator," who resigned when he recognized his unpopularity. Odd phrasings – "dictator" and "autocrat" – to describe Chavez, who was elected by a landslide majority (56 percent) of the voters. Unlike our President. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On April 12, 2002, Chavez resigned his presidency It said so, right there in the paper – every major newspaper in the USA, every single one. Apparently, to quote the New York Times, Chavez recognized that he was unpopular, his time was up: "With yesterday's resignation of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." Problem was, the "resignation" story was a fabulous fib, a phantasmagoric fabrication. In fact, the President of Venezuela had been kidnapped at gunpoint and bundled off by helicopter from the presidential palace. He had not resigned; he never resigned; and one of his captors (who secretly supported Chavez) gave him a cell-phone from which he called and confirmed to friends and family that he remained alive – and still president. Working for the Guardian and the BBC, I was able within hours of the kidnapping to reach key government people in Venezuela to confirm that this "resignation" factoid was just hoodoo nonsense. But it was valuable nonsense to the U.S. State Department. The faux resignation gave the new U.S.-government-endorsed Venezuelan leaders the pretense of legitimacy – Chavez had resigned; this was a legal change of government, not a coup d'etat. (The Organization of American States bars recognition of governments who come to power through violence.) Had the coup leaders not bungled their operation – the coup collapsed within 48 hours – or if they had murdered Chavez, we would never have known the truth. The U.S. papers got it dead wrong – but how? Who was the source of this "resignation" lie? I asked a U.S. reporter why American news media had reported this nonsense as stone fact without checking. The reply was that it came from a reliable source: "We got it from the State Department." Oh. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "He's crazy," shouts a protester about President Chavez on one broadcast. And if you watched the 60 Minutes interview with Chavez, you saw a snippet of a lengthy conversation – a few selective seconds, actually – which, out of context, did made Chavez look loony. In the old Soviet Union, dissidents were packed off to insane asylums to silence and discredit them. In our democracy we have a more subtle – and more effective – means of silencing and discrediting dissidents. Television, radio, and print press obligingly sequester enemies of the state in the media's madhouse. In this way, Bush critic Rep. Cynthia McKinney became "loony" (see "The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney"); Chavez a mad "autocrat." It's the electronic loony bin. You no longer hear what they have to say because you've been told by images, by repetition, and you've already dismissed their words ... if by some chance their words break through the television Berlin Wall. Try it: Do a Google or Lexis search on the words Chavez and autocrat. For who is the autocrat? Today, there are hundreds of people held in detention without charges in George Bush's United States. In Venezuela, there are none. This is not about Venezuela but about the Virtual Venezuela, created for you by America's news wardens. The escape routes are guarded. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- January 5, 2003, New York City. Picked up bagels and the Sunday Times on Delancey Street. Looks like that s.o.b. Chavez is at it again: Here was a big picture of a half-dozen people lying on the ground. The Times story read: "Protesters shielded themselves from tear gas during an anti- government rally on Friday in Caracas, Venezuela. In the 33rd day of a national strike, several protesters were shot." That was it – the entire story of Venezuela for the Paper of Record. Maybe size doesn't matter. But this does: Even this itty-bitty story is a steaming hot bag of mendacity. Yes, two people were shot dead – those in the pro-Chavez march. I'd be wrong to say that every U.S. paper repeated the Times sloppy approach. Elsewhere, you could see a photo of the big pro-Chavez march and a photo of the "Chavista" widow placed within an explanatory newswire story. Interestingly, the fuller and correct story ran in an outlet that's none too friendly to Chavez: El Diario, New York City's oldest Spanish-language newspaper. Lesson: If you want to get accurate news in the United States, you might want to learn a language other than English. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Friday, January 3, 2003. The New York Times ran a long "News Analysis: Venezuela Outlook." Four experts were quoted. For balance, two of them don't like Chavez, while the other two despise him. The Times reporter wrote that "the president says he will stay in power." "In power?" What a strange phrase for an elected official. Having myself spoken with Chavez, it did not sound like him. He indicated he would stay "in office" – quite a different inference than "in power." But then, the Times' phrasing isn't in quotes. That's because Chavez never said it. This article was based on a contribution to the compendium, "Abuse Your Illusions," released this month by Disinformation Press. Oliver Shykles, Fredda Weinberg, Ina Howard, and Phil Tanfield contributed research for this report. Palast, an investigative reporter for BBC television, is author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" (Penguin/Plume 2003).
I agree totally. Glynch, why are you so negative about your country? I don't want to pin the label of "non-patriot" upon you, but what is your deal? In your warped and perverse worldview, America is a force for wrong in the world. If we're not overthrowing govts, we are killing innocent civilians. Well, if we wanted to conquer the world under our heel, we could. But we haven't and will not. AS for our need to ensure our oil supply for the good of our economy, I'm all for getting rid of that pro-Castro nut. Who cares if the CIA whacks him. I don't have a problem with it. In fact, I'd like to be in on that hit. His reforms are totally bogus and will actually hamstring the Venezuelan economy. As for that dumbass article about how Conservatives call people "nuts" to discredit them and use Cynthia McKinney, a moron who could not tell the difference between her ass and a hole in the wall, as an example, read some McKinney quotes. Tell me if they don't sound like all the baseless pap parroted some folks, especially Glynch: In fact, Glynch, you sound a lot like Cynthia McKinney!!!! God, maybe you are Cynthia McKinney, Glynch! All you do is throw these left-wing conspiracy theories around as if they were gospel truth. I know you hate Bush and you hate people who agree with me. Fine. We've already seen that in every one of your posts. So boil yourself in your virulent, conservative-hating, Bush-hating rage. It's liberals like you that make me not like liberals.
I would not even dispute that the USA have not always interfered in a beneficial way in Latin America. However, Chavez means doom for Venezuela and he would be the last "authority" I would quote on politics. I met a girl whose whole family left the country because they lost everything due to Chavez.
I don't like either of those guys, but let's take a look at how they came to power. It was through Democracy. I'm not blaming democracy, but as in the case of the U.S. in 2000 sometimes you get a bad guy in there. The question is that you seem to only support democracy sometimes. In Iraq you seem to want it, but in these other countries you are against it.
I'm supporting a recall election to throw him out. It looks like he'll squash that, if he can. I'm not for a coup. Not by us.
That sounds like a great idea. I think pressure should be put on Venezuela as well as the promise of international aid should they move for a recall election.
The leaders with whom the liberals identify with and root for these days is a virtual who's who list of good citizens. Aristide, Chavez, Hussein, where does it end? btw -- got a big kick out of John Forbes Kerry demanding that we take unilateral action in Haiti, all the while he is complaining about what he calls 'unilateral' action taken in Iraq (tell that to all the countries that have had troops die in battle over there). This coming from the self-described 'internationalist' who wants US forces to be entirely under the command of the UN. Then he says we acted too slow in Haiti, all the while he's been saying we acted too fast in Iraq. Now he doesn't know what side of the War on Terror God is on? WOW. What a flip-flopping hypocrite.
hardly. at a certain point, a democratically elected leader can lose his legitimacy. see nixon. to call aristide a democratically elected leader is a perversion of the terms democracy and elected. only 10% of the electorate even participated in his last election. how can you say he has legitimacy when 90% of the elcetorate stayed home? in chavez's case, he's brutalized his people and his country. it's time for him to go. supporting him does nothing to support the cause of democracy in venezuela.
You know if you would drop 2 cents in the tip jar for every 2 cents you drop on the forum you would be able to edit that post... I'm just sayin'....
First of all no liberals have been identifying with Aristide, Chavez, or Hussein, so your post makes no sense. Secondly Kerry said that as a last resort, and talked about what he would have done to avoid that even becoming an issue. Kerry is correct in saying we acted too slow in Haiti. The President was indecisive.
I certainly don't like either Chavez or Aristide. Aristide's first election was definitely legit. The most recent one had low turnout. But there is often low turnout for elections in the U.S. that doesn't mean that the officials who won can be removed prior to another election. Yes it was time for Nixon to go, and the congress set about the procedure to make that happen. Nixon saw the writing on the wall and resigned. Never-the-less it was still democracy. Chavez is guilty of ruining people and his country. But he was still elected. And to forcibly remove him does indeed undermine democracy. Saying democracy is good only if we like who ends up getting the most votes isn't democracy at all.
Chavez is a pretty big a$$hole himself. His average has never even broken .300. The A's are going to overpay for him this off-season.
I agree totally. Glynch, why are you so negative about your country? I don't want to pin the label of "non-patriot" upon you Bama, yes you do. YOu know your chief virtue on the board is to give us an honest unvarnished look the old stereotype Bull Connr type from Dixie. Don't blow it now. For Chiles and the rest. No doubt by the time Chiles spent a couple of days as a tourist in Venezuela many and not just the rich were pissed off. Here is how it works. A liberal wins. The IMF, the wealthy right wing in both the Latin country and in Washington do everything they can to destabilize the country. Eventually the economy collapses and everyone is mad. See my article from Landau in the Haiti thread for how it worked in Jamaica for instance. On a certain level you ever wholeheartedly support this scenario which is repeated over and over or you don't. That being said it is good in away that Aristide or Chavez go before the US and buds foment a full scale civil war which can kill thousands and thousands. They will do it again if necessary to accomlish their goals as they did in Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Chile. I know ancient history but Bush II has employed many of the same culprits that ran the Contras in Nicargua.
Look, how much time I spent there is hardly relevant. I have also been following politics in Venezuela quite a bit while not being there. Also, calling Chavez a liberal is really an insult to all liberals. Chavez is a populist and a very bad man for Venezuela.
"The leaders with whom the liberals identify with...." Which bathroom wall did you read this one on, Assclown? The only leader with whom the "liberals" identify with is John Forbes Kerry, the next President of the United States. Any questions, dipsh*t?
