Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this
message.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From Media Lens, a British Media Watchdog Organization...
Ridiculing Chavez - The Media Hit Their Stride, Part 1
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Controlling what we think is not solely about controlling what we know -
it is also about controlling who we respect and who we find ridiculous.
Thus we find that Western leaders are typically reported without
adjectives preceding their names. George Bush is simply "US president
George Bush". Condoleeza Rice is "the American secretary of state
Condoleeza Rice". Tony Blair is just "the British prime minister".
The leader of Venezuela, by contrast, is "controversial left-wing
president Hugo Chavez" for the main BBC TV news. (12:00, May 14, 2006). He
is as an "extreme left-winger," while Bolivian president Evo Morales is "a
radical socialist", according to Jonathan Charles on BBC Radio 4. (6
O'Clock News, May 12, 2006)
Imagine the BBC introducing the US leader as "controversial right-wing
president George Bush", or as an "extreme right-winger". Is Bush - the man
who illegally invaded Iraq on utterly fraudulent pretexts - +less+
controversial than Chavez? Is Bush less far to the right of the political
spectrum than Chavez is to the left?
For the Independent on Sunday, Chavez is "Venezuela's outspoken
President". (Stephen Castle and Raymond Whitaker, 'Heralding the end of US
imperialism,' May 14, 2006) For the Mirror, he is a "controversial leader"
called "'the Crackers from Caracas' by his own supporters". (Rosa Prince,
'He calls Bush "Hitler" and Blair "the pawn",' May 16, 2006) He is an
"aggressively populist left-wing leader", the Times writes. (Richard Owen,
'Pope tells Chavez to mend his ways,' May 12, 2006) He is a "left-wing
firebrand," the Independent reports. (Guy Adams, 'Pandora: 'Chavez stirs
up a degree of controversy at Oxford,' May 15, 2006) He is a "Left wing
firebrand" according to the Evening Standard. (Pippa Crerar, 'Chavez to
meet the Mayor,' May 12, 2006) He is an "international revolutionary
firebrand", according to the Observer. (Peter Beaumont, 'The new kid in
the barrio,' May 7, 2006)
A Guardian news report describes Chavez as nothing less than "the scourge
of the United States". (Duncan Campbell and Jonathan Steele,' The
Guardian, May 15, 2006) Although this was a news report, not a comment
piece, the title featured the required tone of mockery: "Revolution in the
Camden air as Chavez - with amigo Ken - gets a hero's welcome".
An Independent report declared of Chavez:
"He has been described as a fearless champion of the oppressed poor
against the corrupt rich and their American sponsors. But also as a
dangerous demagogue subsidising totalitarian regimes with his country's
oil wells." (Kim Sengupta, 'Britain's left-wing "aristocracy" greet their
hero Chavez,' The Independent, May 15, 2006)
Imagine an Independent news report providing a similarly 'balanced'
description of Bush or Blair using language of the kind employed in the
second sentence. Again, mockery was a central theme: "And yesterday in the
People's Republic of Camden the villains remained very much President
George W Bush, his acolyte Tony Blair, big business and the forces of
reaction."
Younger readers may have missed the BBC's prime time TV series Citizen
Smith (1977-80), which lampooned a fictional organisation called The
Tooting Popular Front, consisting of six die-hard Marxist losers, and its
deluded dreams of achieving radical change. This is a favourite media
theme - pouring scorn on popular movements is an absolute must for
mainstream journalism. Thus Richard Beeston reported in The Times this
week:
"Hugo Chavez's Latin American bandwagon descended on London yesterday,
briefly enlivening a dull Sunday in Camden with the sound of drums, the
cries of revolution and the waving of banners.
"At the start of his controversial two-day visit to London, the Venezuelan
President succeeded in attracting an eclectic group of supporters ranging
from elderly CND activists to young anti-globalisation campaigners,
members of the Socialist Workers' Party and even the odd Palestinian
protester." (Beeston, 'Chavez fails to paint the town red in Camden,' The
Times, May 15, 2006)
This recalled the Observer's September 2002 account of what, at the time,
had been London's greatest anti-war march in a generation. Euan Ferguson
wrote:
"It was back to the old days, too, in terms of types. All the oldies and
goodies were there. The Socialist Workers' Party, leafleting outside
Temple Tube station by 11 am. ('In this edition: Noam Chomsky in Socialist
Worker!'). CND, and ex-Services CND. The Scottish Socialist Party.
'Scarborough Against War and Globalisation', which has a lovely ring of
optimism to it, recalling the famous Irish provincial leader column in
1939: 'Let Herr Hitler be warned, the eyes of the Skibereen Eagle are upon
him.' Many, many Muslim groups, and most containing women and children,
although some uneasy thoughts pass through your mind when you see a line
of pretty six-year-old black-clad Muslim toddlers walking ahead of the
megaphone chanting 'George Bush, we know you/Daddy was a killer too,' and
singing about Sharon and Hitler." (Ferguson, 'A big day out in Leftistan,'
The Observer, September 29, 2002)
The emphasis, again, was on the absurdity of a ragtag army of Citizen
Smith-style oddballs who imagined they could somehow make a difference to
a real world run by 'serious' people. The idea is that the public should
roll their eyes and shake their heads in embarrassment at such delusions -
and turn away.
Hidden far out of sight are the life and death issues motivating such
protests - in 2002 the marchers were, after all, attempting to prevent a
war that has since killed and mutilated hundreds of thousands of Iraqi
civilians. It is not inconceivable that if British and American
journalists like Ferguson had emphasised the desperate importance and
urgency of the anti-war protests, rather than sneering at them, those
civilians might still be alive today.
Similarly, the press has barely hinted at the unimaginable horror and
desperate hopes buried beneath the mocking of Chavez - namely, the
suffering of Latin American people under very real Western economic and
military violence. The Independent on Sunday managed this vague mention:
"Mr Morales was, the Venezuelan President said, a direct descendant of an
indigenous Latin American people, adding: 'These are oppressed people who
are rising. They are rising with peace, not weapons. Europe should listen
to that.'" (Stephen Castle and Raymond Whitaker, 'Chavez on tour,'
Independent on Sunday, May 14, 2006)
The tragedy out of which these people are arising, and how their hopes of
a better life have been systematically crushed by Western force in the
past, was of course not explored. The Guardian also managed a tiny
reference to the reality:
"His [Chavez's] unabashed opposition to US foreign policy, and the
pressure it has produced from Washington, tap into the deep vein of
suspicion and resentment that two centuries of US invasions, coups, and
economic domination have aroused in Latin America and the Caribbean."
(Jonathan Steele and Duncan Campbell, 'The world according to Chavez,' The
Guardian, May 16, 2006)
But that was it. As the Guardian writers know full well, these comments
appear in a context of almost complete public ignorance of just what the
United States has done to Latin America - a subject to which we will
return in Part 2.
In 2004, the American media watch site, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
(FAIR) reported that a search of major US newspapers turned up the phrase
"death squad" just five times in connection with former US president
Ronald Reagan in the days following his death in June 2004 - twice in
commentaries and twice in letters to the editor. Remarkably, only one news
article mentioned death squads as part of Reagan's legacy. (Media
Advisory: 'Reagan: Media Myth and Reality,' June 9, 2004, www.fair.org) As
we have discussed elsewhere, US-backed death squads brought hell to Latin
America under Reagan. (see our Media Alerts: 'Reagan - Visions Of The
Damned': http://www.medialens.org/alerts/04/040610_Reagan_Visions_1.HTM
and http://www.medialens.org/alerts/04/040615_Reagan_Visions_2.HTM.)
Quite simply the British and American press do not cover the West's mass
killing of Latin Americans.
Radical, Maverick, Firebrands - The Subliminal Smears
A Daily Telegraph comment piece continued the pan-media smearing of Chavez:
"Now the anticipation is over, and today, flush with six trillion dollars
worth of oil reserves, Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, flies in to
fill the despot-of-the-month slot at London mayor Ken Livingstone's lunch
table." (William Langley, 'Welcome to the El Presidente show,' The Daily
Telegraph, May 14, 2006)
The Independent on Sunday (IoS) wrote:
"An icon of the anti-globalisation movement, Mr Chavez's brand of
aggressive socialism is taken seriously because of his country's vast oil
resources." (Stephen Castle and Raymond Whitaker, 'Chavez on tour,'
Independent on Sunday, May 14, 2006)
We wait in vain for an IoS news report referring to Bush and Blair's
"brand" of "aggressive" and in fact "militant" capitalism - this would be
biased news reporting, after all. Likewise, the suggestion that Bush and
Blair's aggressive support for "democracy" is taken seriously only because
of their economic and military power.
The Observer noted that Chavez has a "growing regional profile", which is
"built on a mix of populist rhetoric and his country's oil wealth". The
report added that Chavez "has been publicly feuding with Bush, whom he has
likened to Adolf Hitler - with Tony Blair dismissed as 'the main ally of
Hitler.'" ('Chavez offers oil to Europe's poor,' The Observer, May 14,
2006)
In responding to similar comments in the Times, Julia Buxton of the
University of Bradford has been all but alone in providing some
background:
"To place this statement in context, Chavez was compared to Adolf Hitler
by the US Secretary of State for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, during a visit
to Paraguay. President Chavez rejected the comparison and countered that
if any individual were comparable to Hitler, it would be President Bush."
(See Buxton's excellent analysis here:
http://www.vicuk.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=85&Itemid=29
)
The Times' 'Pandora' diary column wrote:
"Ken Livingstone has invited the Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, to
lunch at City Hall. Even by the London Mayor's standards, it's a
provocative gesture - Chavez has a controversial record on human rights -
and several guests have refused to attend." (
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2171200,00.html)
Channel 4 News asked of Chavez: "Is he a hero of the left or a villain in
disguise?"
For the media, of course, a "hero of the left" +is+ a "villian in
disguise", so viewers were in effect being asked if Chavez was a villain
or a villain. Like many other media, Channel 4 patronised the Venezuelan
president as "a global poster boy for the left". The same programme later
asked if he was "a hero of the left or a scoundrel of all democrats?"
In similar vein, Daniel Howden observed in the Independent:
"Not surprisingly for a man who divides the world, Hugo Chavez is greeted
as a saviour or a saboteur wherever he goes. The Venezuelan President
seems immune to nuance and perfectly able to reduce the world to Chavistas
or to Descualdos, the 'squalid ones' as his supporters dismiss those who
try to depose him." (Dowden, 'Hugo Chavez: Venezualean [sic] leader
divides world opinion. But who is he, and what is he up to in Britain?'
The Independent, May 13, 2006)
The reference to a lack of "nuance" is a coded smear with which regular
readers will be familiar. Chavez is in good company. Steve Crawshaw wrote
in the Independent: "Chomsky knows so much... but seems impervious to any
idea of nuance." (Crawshaw, 'Furious ideas with no room for nuance,' The
Independent, February 21, 2001)
The BBC's former director of news, Richard Sambrook, told the Hutton
inquiry that BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan had failed to appreciate the
"nuances and subtleties" of broadcast journalism. (Matt Wells, Richard
Norton-Taylor and Vikram Dodd, 'Gilligan left out in cold by BBC,' The
Guardian, September 18, 2003)
Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow wrote in the Guardian of John Pilger:
"Some argue the ends justify [Pilger's] means, others that the world is a
more subtle place than he allows." (Snow, 'Still angry after all these
years,' The Guardian, February 25, 2001)
In 2002, Bill Hayton, a BBC World Service editor, advised us at Media
Lens: "If your language was more nuanced it would get a better reception."
(Email to Editors, November 16, 2002)
The Channel 4 programme cited above went on to describe the Iraqi cleric
Moqtadr al Sadr by his official media title: "the radical cleric Moqtadr
al Sadr". Likewise, the media invariably refer to "the militant group
Hamas". The media would of course never dream of referring to "radical
prime minister Tony Blair" or to "the militant Israeli Defence Force".
The reason was unconsciously expressed by Channel 4 news presenter Alex
Thomson in response to a Media Lens reader who had suggested, reasonably,
that "a terrorist is one who brings terror to another person". Thomson
responded:
"Your definition of a terrorist as one bringing terror is nonsensical as
it would encompass all military outfits from al Qaeda to the Royal
Fusilliers." (Forwarded to Media Lens, February 25, 2005)
It is inconceivable to the mainstream media that Western armies could be
responsible for terrorism, no matter how much terror they actually create.
Likewise, it is inconceivable that Western leaders could be described as
"militant" or "fundamentalist". This indicates that these adjectives are
smear words - they mean, approximately, 'bad'. More specifically, they
mean 'a threat to Western interests,' which is why, by definition, they
cannot be used to refer +to+ the West.
The use and non-use of these words shepherd viewers and readers towards
the idea that leaders like Bush and Blair are reasonable, rational,
respectable figures who must be described with colourless, neutral
language.
The deeper implication - all the more powerful because it is unstated,
almost subliminal - is that figures like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales do
not merit balanced 'professional' media treatment - the rules do not apply
to them because they are beyond the pale.
Because almost all journalists repeat this bias - and because the public
imagine journalists are simply well-informed, independent observers who
just happen to reach the same conclusions on who is worthy of respect -
the impression given is that the media consensus is the only sane view in
town.
Before we know it, we find ourselves accepting the corporate media view as
our own. If we see enough journalists smearing "maverick",
"controversial", "left-wing", "Gorgeous George" Galloway, we will likely
find ourselves responding: 'I can't stand that guy!' But how many of us
will really know why, beyond feeling that there is 'something about him I
don't like'? And how many of us will have reflected that, of all MPs,
Galloway has at least been uniquely honest in his opposition to the Iraq
war?
As for that other "maverick Chavez" (Sunday Times, February 19, 2006), the
Financial Times noted that he was invited to London by Ken Livingstone:
"London's maverick mayor." (David Lehmann, 'Why we should bother about
Chavez and his politics,' May 15, 2006)
In Part 2 we will examine the realities of Western political, economic and
military violence in Latin America - realities that are consistently
ignored by the corporate media.
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect
for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to
maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Write to Jonathan Charles at the BBC
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Write to Stephen Castle at the Independent on Sunday
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Write to Jonathan Steele at the Guardian
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Write to Kim Sengupta at the Independent
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Write to Daniel Howden at the Independent
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Write to Richard Beeston at the Times
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Write to Jim Gray, editor of Channel 4 News
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Write to Helen Boaden, director of BBC news
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please send copies of all emails to Media Lens:
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The first Media Lens book was published in January 2006: 'Guardians of
Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media' by David Edwards and David Cromwell
(Pluto Books, London). For further details, including reviews, interviews
and extracts, please click here:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php
This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Please
consider donating to Media Lens: www.medialens.org/donate
Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org
_____________________________
Note: This message comes from the peace-justice-news e-mail mailing list of
articles and commentaries about peace and social justice issues, activism, etc.
If you do not regularly receive mailings from this list or have received this
message as a forward from someone else and would like to be added to the list,
send a blank e-mail with the subject "subscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or you
can visit:
http://lists.enabled.com/mailman/listinfo/peace-justice-news Go to that same
web address to view the list's archives or to unsubscribe.
E-mail accounts that become full, inactive or out of order for more than a few
days will become disabled or deleted from this list.
FAIR USE NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
information in this e-mail is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational
purposes. I am making such material available in an effort to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair
use' of copyrighted material as provided for in the US Copyright Law.
