---------- Forwarded Message -----------
From: Medialens Media Alerts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Noah Garrett Wallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:14:02 UT
Subject: Ridiculing Chavez - The Media Hit Their Stride - Part 1
MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
May 16, 2006
MEDIA ALERT: RIDICULING CHAVEZ - THE MEDIA HIT THEIR STRIDE - PART 1
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 BBCs 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 Observers September 2002 account of what, at the time, had
been Londons 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 [Chavezs] 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 Wests 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 Blairs brand
of aggressive and in fact militant capitalism - this would be biased news
reporting, after all. Likewise, the suggestion that Bush and Blairs
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
Buxtons 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 cant stand that guy! But how many of us will really know why,
beyond feeling that there is something about him I dont 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
If you wish to unsubscribe please click on the link below:
http://www.medialens.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/medialens/mailproc/register.cgi?unsubscribe=YCQtgCzdVVfb
------- End of Forwarded Message -------
---
TCB'n,
Noah
"The foundation of all mental illness is the unwillingness to experience
legitimate suffering."
- Carl Jung
_______________________________________________
FRIENDS mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.sffreaks.org/mailman/listinfo/friends
