Venezuela: The Spin vs. The Truth

[Judi Lynn]

Venezuela: The Spin vs. The Truth

Spin: Hugo Chávez is a dictator.

Truth: The government of Venezuela has held, and Chávez and his party have won, repeated elections throughout his time in office. These elections have been considered free and fair by the Organization of American States (OAS), the European Union (EU) and the Carter Center — three major electoral observation bodies. Some criticize the Chávez government because his political party has near total control over the National Assembly; however this is a direct result of the opposition’s actions. Just days before the 2005 legislative elections most of the opposition decided to stage a boycott of the vote. This came only a few days after their representatives had told the OAS and other electoral observers that conditions had been met for their participation. The move handed almost complete control in the National Assembly to Chávez’s allies while failing to delegitimize the legislature internationally. Prior to these elections, the opposition held significant power in the National Assembly, which allowed them to block many of the Chávez administration’s policies.

Real attacks on democracy have come from sectors of the Venezuelan opposition. In April 2002, a broad group of opposition forces directly supported and participated in a short-lived coup d’etat against the elected government. In late 2002 and early 2003, opposition groups paralyzed the oil industry and provoked a deep recession, in a second attempt to force President Chávez from power. In 2005, the country’s main opposition parties tried to provoke a destabilizing political crisis by boycotting the legislative elections. All of these undemocratic actions only succeeded in further discrediting an opposition movement that many Venezuelans identify with the failed policies of the unpopular governments of the past.

The Chávez government continues to enjoy an overwhelming majority support of voters in most national elections. In the 2006 presidential election, in which a record number of voters participated, Chávez won with 63 percent of the vote, and in the 2008 regional elections his party won in 17 of 22 states. The next legislative elections are in September, and the opposition is expected to significantly increase its presence in the National Assembly. However the opposition remains divided and trails far behind the government in terms of popular support.

Democratic participation has increased greatly under Chávez as well. For example, while turnout was around 54 percent in the 1998 elections in which Chávez was first elected, in the 2006 presidential election, voter participation jumped to 75 percent. For perspective, in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, voter participation was around 60 percent, and this was one of the highest totals in some 40 years. The Chávez administration has made it a priority to promote electoral participation within poor communities that traditionally had a low voter turnout; this has included large voter registration drives and the creation of voting centers in poor areas.

Despite media reports to the contrary Venezuelans are satisfied with their democracy. The Chilean Latinbarómetro, one of the most exhaustive and well respected polling companies in the region, consistently shows that Venezuela ranks near the top of countries in the hemisphere in terms of the level of satisfaction with democracy.

Spin: Chávez is clamping down on freedom of the press.

The Truth: Venezuela continues to have strong opposition broadcast and print media, as any casual visitor to Venezuela can plainly see. The supposed deterioration of freedom of the press under the Chávez government is a favorite theme of U.S. media coverage of Venezuela, and it is regarding this topic that the gap between reality and media claims is usually at its widest. Anyone who travels to Venezuela will easily find numerous front-page criticisms and broadcast denunciations of the Chávez government that go well beyond the sort of attacks on Obama that appear in the U.S. press. Yet that Chávez is attempting to “eliminate independent media”<1> by “muzzling the press”<2> are favorite themes for U.S. editorial pages, with news articles chiming in that “Chavez’s administration is moving to tighten its grip over Venezuela’s media industry.”<3> U.S. media coverage has often also distorted the facts regarding the Venezuelan government’s conflicts with opposition media outlets, some of which have openly supported undemocratic and extra-constitutional means to undermine or even overthrow the government.

Claims that Chávez is an enemy of press freedom reached a peak in 2007 when the Venezuelan government chose not to renew the broadcast license of opposition TV station RCTV. U.S. media and commentators claimed that RCTV was being “censored”<4> and “shut down”<5>, but in reality, RCTV continued to broadcast via cable and Internet with large audience numbers, and maintaining its anti-Chávez line. While opponents of the government criticized the decision to allow RCTV’s license to expire, it is important to note that a TV station that had done even some of the things that RCTV had done would never obtain a broadcast license in the United States or any European democracy. Most importantly – as was admitted in news articles on the controversy,<6> RCTV openly supported the 2002 coup against Chávez by encouraging people to participate in opposition protests, by reporting the false information that Chávez had resigned,<7> and then, when Chávez returned to power, by airing Disney cartoons rather than report this news.<8> RCTV head Marcel Granier met with coup president Pedro Carmona during the coup, as Carmona enlisted the media’s help in attempting to ensure the coup’s success.<9> RCTV also actively promoted the oil strike (2002-2003) that attempted to topple the government, and other, legal political and electoral campaigns.

Even some observers who harshly criticized the government’s decision on RCTV admitted that the issue was much more complicated, and that RCTV was not automatically entitled to its license. “Broadcasting companies in any country in the world, especially in democratic countries, are not entitled to renewal of their licenses,” José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch explained. “The lack of renewal of the contract, per se, is not a free speech issue. Just per se.”<10>

In the years since the RCTV decision, instead of correcting its hyperbolic claims of Venezuelan censorship, U.S. media outlets have continued the theme. The new focus is on broadcaster Globovisión, routinely described as “Venezuela’s only remaining opposition TV television station on the open airwaves.”<11> This characterization is simply false, as numerous local TV stations in Venezuela have an opposition political line (and national broadcasters such as Televen continue to run programs with a strong opposition slant). The great majority of Venezuelan media continues to be privately owned, and the opposition dominates the newspaper industry as well. As Human Rights Watch – a frequent critic of freedom of the press in Venezuela – noted in a 2008 report, “the balance of forces in the print media has not changed significantly”, with the majority of Venezuelan newspapers continuing to be privately-owned and two of the three top newspapers maintaining an opposition political line (the third is neutral).<12>

U.S. press reports also frequently describe a shift among some opposition media, such as TV station Venevisión, towards being less critical of the government.<13> While U.S. media often suggests that this could be out of fear of “censorship,” Venezuela-analyst Greg Wilpert offers another theory: “I think some of the TV stations have slightly moderated not because of intimidation, but because they were losing audience share. Over half of the population is supportive of Chávez. They’ve reduced the number of anti-Chávez programs that they used to have. But those that continue to exist are just as anti-Chávez as they were before.”<14>

More:
http://southoftheborderdoc.com/spin-vs-the-truth/

[Wilms]

1. Something else is spinning.

Protocol RV under his tombstone. :rofl:

[Judi Lynn]

4. Gone far, far away......

http://paulbuckley14059.files.wordpress.com.nyud.net:8090/2008/10/circling-the-drain.jpeg http://mail.colonial.net.nyud.net:8090/~hkaiter/astronomyimages09/Spiral%20Galaxy.jpg http://www.craphound.com.nyud.net:8090/images/motohearse.jpg

http://www.zefrank.com.nyud.net:8090/web/32.jpg

[ChangoLoa]

2. THE SPIN VS. THE SPIN

I feel like trying to explain why this text is spinning facts while discussing them with other's spinning arguments... so I'm waiting until the feeling passes.

Excepted for the oil boom primary school type argumentation which was a great laugh. If someone here thinks to have understood that point as it is expressed here (oil boom / growth in the non oil sector proof salami), I would suggest him/her to do some basic reading in order to grasp some ideas behind GDP growth, prices and volumes.

[Judi Lynn]

3. We'll struggle along in our own pathetic, detriorated, second rate way, thank you.

There's a certain satisfaction in learning as we go, in ways we respect.

Appreciate your attempt to assist, to genially spread the 'truth' as you prefer others who don't know all of it yet will see it. Will probably be just fine, thanx. Don't really respond well to a buttload of attempted withering condemnation and pot shots.

Maybe your efforts would be better appreciated by people of your own political persuasion.

[ChangoLoa]

5. Did I interrupt your e-struggle?

Sorry but my comment wasn't particularly addressed to you.

[Braulio]

8. I hear Venezuela has record inflation AND recession

I read in The Economist that Venezuela is a fairly unique basket case, it has inflation AND recession at the same time. I guess 21st century socialism isn't working.

[ChangoLoa]

9. The oil shock was making Venezuela grow. Now it's over and we're decreasing really hard

We must be the only Latin American country in recession this year.

Now you will see Chavez start diffusing the idea that the recession is because the "oligarchy ©" is sabotaging the Nation and that we must abandon the bourgeois and corrupted GDP indicator. The same one he'd been constantly using while the country was growing thanks to the oil shock.

[Braulio]

12. They sure seem to be ruining the economy

I can't understand why anybody would be so obtuse with economic policy. Who is in charge of the economics ministry there, a 10 year old?

[spanza]

13. Yes, LOL. Which one's the spin, which one's the truth???

"I have read all critical positions concerning Chavez's government and found NONE OF THEM are true.... they are all lies and the worst thing Chavez has done is to be a strong leader"

The oil shock blah blah was a good one indeed. I hope they'll decide to start teaching economics in high schools some day!

[Peace Patriot]

6. Following our corpo-fascist 'news' monopoly coverage of Chavez has been a real eye-opener for me.

In fact, my description of our controlled press as "corpo-fascist," and my new names for them--the New York Slimes, the Associated Pukes, the Miami Hairball, etc.--is mostly the result of their awesomely terrible lies about Chavez and his government. My contempt for them--and astonishment at the level of their corruption, so bad that I think they are irredeemable--began with the Iraq War and the Slimes' Judith Miller, and the daily, front-page lies about WMDs in Iraq. Then, during the Bush Junta, as I was looking around the world for evidence of democracy, hope, justice, fair play, honest elections and good government--somewhere, anywhere!--I began following the news out of Latin America and, of course, seeking out alternative sources on what I soon realized was an awesome leftist democracy movement that was sweeping the region, with leftist governments elected in Venezuela (and Venezuelans turning back a U.S.-supported, rightwing coup), Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, and an almost in Mexico. Amazing! And where were our corpo-fascist 'news' monopoly stories about this amazing, mostly grass roots driven movement, this clear demonstration of HONEST elections in Latin America, this surge of democracy, this empowerment of the poor majority?

Nowhere! NOWHERE!

They had failed us on TWO major fronts: On Bush Junta war (not to mention its stolen elections). And on this--an astonishing democratic renaissance in our own hemisphere. Is there any subject on which they can trusted, given these colossal journalistic failures?

I did extensive investigation of the crap they were pushing about Chavez and satisfied myself that virtually every goddamn thing they said was a lie. It taught me quite a lot about HOW they lie. One of the first things I noticed was their oft-used description of Chavez as "the leftist president of Venezuela" (did they ever call George Bush the "rightwing president of the U.S."?), and "Chavez, friend of Fidel Castro" (did they ever describe George Bush as "friend of Prince Bandar"?). Chavez has A LOT OF FRIENDS among Latin America's leaders--Lulu da Silva, in Brazil (they meet every month to discuss issues and projects), Evo Morales, in Bolivia, Rafael Correa, in Ecuador, Fernando Lugo, in Paraguay, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and others. Lulu da Silva has said, of Chavez, "They can invent all sorts of things to criticize Chavez but not on democracy"! So, why don't they describe Chavez by his friendship with Lulu da Silva?

Another early item that struck me: The corpo-fascist 'news' articles about Chavez routinely included allegations such as this: "His critics say that he is increasingly authoritarian." No attribution. No quotation. So I searched the internet far and wide for somebody who had actually said this--and I came up with only one source, the most rightwing nutball Catholic cardinal in Venezuela, who had spent his career in the Vatican finance office (and was the only prelate that the Vatican ever fired--in the fascist banking scandals of the 1980s). The Associated Pukes were getting their info from Opus Dei!

When that ridiculous CIA caper out of Miami occurred--a suitcase full of money carried by a Miamian named "Guido" into Argentina, caught by customs, with some Bushwhack/Rove DOJ operative in Miami then trying to pin a corruption tag on Chavez--I began to realize that the Associated Pukes, et al, were basically copying/pasting CIA-written PSY-OPS!

I am utterly disgusted with the corporate-run media in this country. I think they have no redeeming features. None. They are a propaganda machine for the super-rich and the war profiteers. They are no. 2 on my list of TERRIBLE PROBLEMS that beset our democracy. (No. 1 is the corporate-controlled, 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines.) They need to be completely dismantled, their corporate monopolies busted up, and our public airwaves reclaimed for the public good. They are NOT manifestations of "free speech." "Free speech" couldn't be further from their intentions. They are manipulative, lying, dirtbag BRAINWASHERS.

I welcome this article specifying just how they have lied about Chavez and his government. I would also say that their focus on Chavez, personally, is part of the lie. They utterly ignore the social movements that put him in office, and the voters who have overwhelmingly supported him, in an election system that is far, far, FAR more transparent than our own. Chavez is a colorful personality and deserves some attention, as a personality. But not obsessive attention. The long hard struggle for fair and transparent elections, which has involved many people, and the Venezuelans' success at electing their own "FDR" and a "New Deal" for themselves and their country should be the primary focus. We not only do not see this proper focus, in corpo-fascist 'news' articles, we see lying, dirtbag slanders against Chavez--that he is a "dictator," that he is anti-semitic, that he is corrupt, that he is incompetent. (The lies are sometimes wildly incoherent.) They set up a "straw man" (a dictator, a clown, an incompetent, a racist*) then they knock him down.

Indeed, these psyops are so intense that they are one evidence of a U.S. war plan against Venezuela. They could be inspired merely by our corporate rulers' hatred of free medical care and college educations for the poor, of oil profits being used to benefit the poor and other "New Deal"-like policies, or by the Chavez government's strong negotiations with the oil multinationals (Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP), on Venezuela's behalf. Any signs of good government would be reviled by them. But, taken together with other evidence (such as the Pentagon placing war assets all around Venezuela's oil coast and northern oil provinces), the intense psyops in the media could well be part of a war plan, as we saw with Iraq--that is, planting the notion that it wouldn't be a bad thing for Chavez to be toppled.

--------------------


*(The attempt to tag Chavez as a racist--anti-semitic--is one of the most ridiculous and viciously false psyops efforts that I've seen. Not only did every major Jewish group in Venezuela publicly contradict this, the Chavez government has strongly championed the rights of women, gays, African-Venezuelans, Indigenous tribes and others who have been traditionally excluded from power in Venezuela and in Latin America generally. When anti-Jewish incidents have occurred, the Chavez government has jumped in immediately to investigate and prosecute and to insure the safety of Jewish citizens. But the "hit" against Chavez is all that the corpo-fascist press wants. They don't want facts. They don't want truth. They are trying to paint a picture, leave an unconscious impression in peoples' minds, that Chavez is bad, undemocratic, a Stalin, a Hitler, a Saddam Hussein--and these corporate 'news' organizations are without conscience in doing so. They will say ANYTHING. They will promulgate ANY lie that serves their purpose.)

[Judi Lynn]

10. The shocking charges always are remembered, even if the retractions are published.

Never fails! The charges are the ones which stick, having the advantage of surprise, bypassing conscious thought, reflection altogether in many cases.

Of course the liars knew this long ago. How about all those retractions printed on the back pages? What a racket.

I distinctly remember the Venezuelan Jewish groups' response in supporting Hugo Chavez, repudiating the bogus claims by opportunists hoping to parlay events into a permanent setback for the President.

[Braulio]

14. Did you see the BBC interview?

I saw a very interesting BBC interview with Chavez. Did you see it?

[Peace Patriot]

7. Whoa! Get this! Bush called Uribe to stop Chavez hostage release negotiations!

I thought it was Rumsfeld pulling Uribe's strings, and maybe it was--Rumsfeld telling Bush what to do (--cuz of an op-ed that Rumsfeld published about this situation in the Washington Pest, the week that it was happening). Anyway, here it is--our suspicions confirmed...

---

"The allegation that received the most press coverage was that Chávez had offered some $300 million in support to the FARC. This turned out, however, to be based on a far-reaching interpretation of sections of the files, and it is also possible that various alleged communications between the FARC and Venezuelan government actually related to Venezuela’s role in the months just prior to the raid in negotiating the release of high-profile hostages from the FARC. After a phone call from President George W. Bush, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe abruptly ended Chávez’s official mediation role. The released hostage Pablo Moncoyo, after being freed following over a decade in captivity, thanked Chávez but not Uribe for his release.

Although the U.S. and Colombia have both cited the laptops as evidence of Venezuelan support for the FARC, most other countries and international bodies have not, and in April 2008 OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza testified before the House Subcommittee on Western Hemispheric Affairs that there was no evidence of Venezuelan support for the FARC."

---

Remember all this? Uribe ASKED Chavez to negotiate with the FARC for hostage releases. Chavez began to do so, successfully. The Colombian military shot at the first hostages that Chavez got released, on their route out of the jungle. Then, a) Uribe suddenly pulled the rug out from under him, with the weird reason that Chavez had broken some obscure ground rule by contacting someone in the Colombian military (--jeez, wouldn't YOU, if the Colombian military was shooting at hostages that you had made vulnerable?), and 2) Chavez, who got six hostages released, all in all, had to stop his efforts, as too dangerous for the hostages, and the effort to get Ingrid Betancourt released was shifted to Ecuador. That effort was bombed into oblivion, when the U.S./Colombia dropped ten 500 lb "smart bombs" on the FARC hostage negotiator's camp just inside Ecuador's border, and then raided over the border, shooting survivors in the back and allegedly seizing Raul Reyes' laptop (later, laptopS).

Then, soon afterward, we started getting the newscrap that Chavez, and Ecuador's Correa, were "terrorist-lovers"--were helping the FARC to obtain a "dirty bomb," were giving money to the FARC, were getting money from the FARC, etc., etc. Wild, incoherent accusations, supposedly based on Reyes' emails in his laptop (laptopS), which turned out not to contain any emails (among other things).

On the weekend of Chavez's first hostage releases, Rumsfeld published an op-ed in the Washington Psst, stating, in the first paragraph, that Chavez's efforts to free hostages "are not welcome in Colombia," though they had been welcome just days before. So here was the phone call--Rumsfeld, to Bush, to Uribe: STOP THE HOSTAGE RELEASES. (This article doesn't document the Bush phone call, and maybe they are just guessing, but I don't think they would assert such a thing so firmly without a source. Based on my own research and close following of these events, the article seems otherwise well-supported, so I think that someone in a position to know must have told them that Bush called Uribe.)

I have yet to figure out for sure whether Uribe was participating in a Rumsfeld/OSP "sting" against Chavez (by Uribe's request to Chavez for help with hostage releases), or was being jerked around by Rumsfeld & brethren, with this possible scenario: Uribe, in a four hour meeting with Chavez about a year before these events, in which he apologized for a Colombian military plot to assassinate Chavez, Uribe suggested that Chavez help with hostage negotiations--possibly a Uribe moment of weakness as to peace in the region--and then Rumsfeld took OPPORTUNISTIC control of the situation, placing Uribe in a very awkward position, publicly. What could he use as an excuse to stop the hostage releases? (He just made something up--a ridiculous excuse.) He acted just like a puppet on a string. Chavez getting hostages released was not pleasing his masters, so he hopped to, and put a stop to it. Uribe, for all his 'Murder, Inc.' connections, seems somewhat conflicted about Latin American sovereignty issues, the U.S. military occupation of his country and dictation from Washington. And this may be why the CIA has dumped Uribe in favor of former Defense Minister Minister Santos, who has no such conflicts, and is lusting to invade Venezuela, kill all the leftists (the assassination plot against Chavez was hatched during his tenure as Defense Minister) and hand the oil (biggest reserves on earth) over to Exxon Mobil and the Pentagon.

[Judi Lynn]

11. Should have known! That explains so much.

Sure do remember Uribe's sudden announcement Hugo Chavez had committed an unpardonable act by speaking directly with the head of his military operations who was going to be involved in the hostage release. I thought at the time Hugo Chavez probably wanted to reassure himself he wasn't going to be set up and killed himself, and the entire plan scuttled. Of course that was only my uninformed guess, a shot in the dark.

The sudden vicious switch in character by Uribe, and the onslaught of accusations against Chavez as not observing the rules of the negotiations seemed alarming! It looked like a dirty, dirty trick. Didn't see any way at all Chavez should have ever been able to trust him after that. My god that was wierd.

So glad you have shared this new information. I'll have my ears perked to pick up any signals I can find on this issue. We need to get the full story sometime.

Maybe someone could take Rumsfeld for a little private waterboard session.

That man surely loved his job.

http://thirdcoastactivist.org.nyud.net:8090/TortureFather.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk.nyud.net:8090/olmedia/1555000/images/_1555349_donald_rumsfeld_300afp.jpg