|
Remember the
Attempted Coup? Correcting the Facts on US/Venezuela
Relations
I was hoping to use this space to include content that will not fit in columns or op-eds that the mainstream press runs. Below is a column I wrote that ran during the past week in a number of US newspapers. It provides some background, missing from almost all press coverage, about why President Hugo Chavez might see George W. Bush as "the Devil:" namely, the Bush administration's involvement in the 2002 military coup that briefly overthrew Venezuela's democratic government, and the administration's continued intervention inside Venezuela, to this day. Why is this so important? To readers of CounterPunch it is
obvious that this should be the starting point and the number one piece of
background information in every news article about the sorry state of
U.S.-Venezuelan relations. It is hard to imagine any more important set of facts
that would explain this problem. Yet these basic facts are almost never
mentioned. The Economist's description in its September 30 issue is typical of
most reporting on this issue:
"Though Mr. Chavez blames the United States for a failed coup against him in 2002, the evidence suggests that the administration merely failed to condemn it." Below the column I have pasted a letter that was sent to The Economist explaining and documenting why this statement is wrong and misleading. One of the things that happens when there is a systematic distortion of this type in the media (as opposed to day-to-day errors) is that it becomes increasingly difficult over time to reverse it, as journalists feel they have to write what everyone else is writing. I have written the facts about this issue in dozens of U.S. newspapers, stated them on national TV (e.g. CNN) and radio, and I often have had to argue with editors who think that it can't be true since hardly anyone else is saying it (although the New York Times did have a good article about it, cited below; and sometimes good reporters try to write about it but are blocked by their editors). This dynamic holds true for many issues that I have written about (mostly economic issues) over the last decade. It is especially challenging with regard to economic issues, where reporters and editors often do not feel confident enough in their own knowledge of the subject matter to challenge systematic distortions, even where the data accepted by the economics profession is enough to clarify the issue. (For a daily and highly informative and educational review of these distortions, see my colleague Dean Baker's blog "Beat the Press".) Read More http://counterpunch.org/weisbrot10142006.html Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM
SPONSORED LINKS
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ |
