On February 21, a report in the New York Times by William Neuman about a supposed clampdown on dissent in Venezuela started out with this bold claim:
The only television station that regularly broadcast voices critical of the government was sold last year and the new owners have softened its news coverage.
This struck some observers, like Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic & Policy Research (2/24/14), as totally overblown, since opposition figures do in fact appear routinely on Venezuelan television. As he pointed out, the Carter Center studied media coverage during the country’s presidential election last year, and found that opposition candidate Henrique Capriles received much more coverage than President Nicolás Maduro, whose campaign enjoyed an overwhelming advantage in state-owned media. Overall, Weisbrot wrote, it might be reasonable to conclude that Maduro had a slight edge in TV time when public and private TV channels are considered together.
As for protest coverage, Weisbrot shows that opposition leaders appeared on television as the protests were underway, in particular on Venevision, a widely watched outlet.
So it’s not clear why the Times would suggest that there was only one channel that featured opposition voices, and that it seemed less likely to do so now.
Writer and activist Robert Naiman wondered too, so he wrote to the Times (2/25/14) to ask whether they would print a correction.
They would not. Louis Lucero II, the paper’s assistant to the senior editor for standards, who wrote this:
We remain confident in the factual accuracy of the central assertion of our sentence (that the only television station that regularly broadcast voices critical of the government was sold last year), but you seems to take issue with the less clearly disprovable claim that the new owners have adopted a less critical tack when covering the government. Accordingly, I’m afraid a contrary assessment from the CEPR doesn’t quite rise to the level of the empirical counter-evidence we require to correct a claim made in our articles.
This is an odd response, seeming to misunderstand the complaint. The paper was suggesting that there was only one TV station regularly featuring anti-government views in Venezuela last year, and that it would be less likely to do so now. That is, at best, totally misleading.
Naiman’s group started a petition to get the Times to correct the story. Lo and behold, the Times corrected the story:
Correction: February 26, 2014
An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to Globovision. Before its sale last year, it broadcast more voices critical of the Venezuelan government than any other TV station, but it was not the only one to regularly feature government critics.
As is often the case, the correction obscures the central problem with the piece: that it reported erroneously that Venezuelan TV is a place where voices critical of the government do not appear.
Interestingly, Neuman wrote another piece (2/25/14) about protests in San Cristobal, an opposition stronghold in the western part of the country. It included this observation:
Nearby, a neighbor, Teresa Contreras, 53, flipped through the channels on her television, showing that there was no coverage of the violence, a sign, she said, of the government control over the news media.
Is the idea that any protest anywhere that isn’t being covered in real time by television is evidence of state control of the media? That would be an interesting standard to apply to the US press.
Meanwhile, the Times ran an op-ed by Francisco Toro (2/24/14), a Venezuelan expatriate whose blog post accusing international media of ignoring a “tropical pogrom” against demonstrators in Venezuela was hugely popular on social media—despite the fact that he later described it as an “overstatement in the heat of the moment” (Twitter, 2/24/14).
Venevisión covers the speech that wasn’t covered.
Toro’s op-ed declared that “to the Venezuelan government, all dissent is treason”—citing as an example a speech by opposition leader Henrique Capriles: “Few outside the rally heard him, however, because government pressure ensured that no broadcast media carried coverage of the event.”
According to NACLA (Manufacturing Contempt, 2/26/14), though, Capriles’ speech was covered by both Globovisión and Venevisión.
Asked about the discrepancy, Toro (Twitter, 2/26/14) responded: “There was no live coverage.” Can you imagine living in a state so repressive that speeches by government opponents aren’t covered live?
UPDATE:
The Times‘ print edition ran a more comprehensive correction (2/28/14)
An article last Friday about concerns by opponents of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela that they have fewer and fewer locations in which to demonstrate and express their discontent referred incorrectly to Globovision, a Venezuela TV station. Before its sale last year, it broadcast more voices critical of the Venezuelan government than other television stations, but it was not the only one to regularly feature government critics.
The Times regularly runs corrections on the Op-Ed page. They should print one for that misstatement by Toro.
“Accordingly, I’m afraid a contrary assessment from the CEPR doesn’t quite rise to the level of the empirical counter-evidence we require to correct a claim made in our articles.”
Blow your nose, Lucero.
The snot’s soaking your shirt.
Enjoy your little water-muddying Jihad. Nobody inside Venezuela buys it.
Part of your blog post should be corrected Peter. The Carter Center report (as Weisbrot stated in the piece you linked to) actually found that Capriles had the edge in PRIVATE media coverage. Overall, Maduro has a 54% to 44% edge when you consider total minutes of coverage on both private and state media AND account for audience share as Mark did. However, another important point is that a large percentage of private media was not accounted for in the Carter Center’s analysis.
Toro’s vague comment seems to dismiss at least half the Venezuelan electorate as “nobody” but maybe that was just another “heat of the moment” remark.
mamaguevos!
Test
How fair is from “FAIR”, when comments are blocked for no apparent reason…
Why FAIR is blocking comments with links? That doesn’t seem fair to me…
Oh, one thing to notice is that not everybody in the Left is buying the “oh poor me, is a coup again” argument from the chavistas. Certainly not Rafael Uzcátegui, HR activist from many years:
http://periodicoellibertario.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-happens-in-venezuela-february-2014.html
http://periodicoellibertario.blogspot.com/2014/02/express-update-of-venezuelan-situation.html
The position of students in Chile is also very telling, some supporting Maduro and some clearly not:
http://metiendoruido.com/2014/02/nuestra-posicion-frente-al-apoyo-de-los-dirigentes-del-mov-estudiantil-chileno-a-la-revolucion-bolivariana/
And the Peruvian Left, divided as well:
http://arellanojuan.com/la-izquierda-peruana-y-las-protestas-en-venezuela/
Also, this guy from G+:
https://plus.google.com/+PatGunn/posts/CKrUqaFWSih
It’s a shame Fair.org decided to follow the knee-jerk uncritical support of Maduro, without saying NOTHING about the abuses and repression that are taking place. Is one thing they decided to go like pitbulls after Mr. Toro unwise use of the word “pogrom”. Quite another to just ignore any claim of repression, and take EVERYTHING Maduro and his acolytes are saying face value. Good luck on your whitewash campaign. How interesting is to find that, for some people, the existence of repression depends on whether a regime/government is Right, or Left. And how shameful.
Oh, one thing to notice is that not everybody in the Left is buying the “oh poor me, is a coup again” argument from the chavistas. Certainly not Rafael Uzcátegui (@fanzinero), HR activist from many years:
periodicoellibertario(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2014/02/what-happens-in-venezuela-february-2014(dot)html
periodicoellibertario(dot)blogspot.com/2014/02/express-update-of-venezuelan-situation(dot)html
The position of students in Chile is also very telling, some supporting Maduro and some clearly not:
metiendoruido(dot)com/2014/02/nuestra-posicion-frente-al-apoyo-de-los-dirigentes-del-mov-estudiantil-chileno-a-la-revolucion-bolivariana/
And the Peruvian Left, divided as well:
arellanojuan(do)com/la-izquierda-peruana-y-las-protestas-en-venezuela/
Also, this guy from G+:
plus(dot)google(dot)com/+PatGunn/posts/CKrUqaFWSih
It’s a shame Fair.org decided to follow the knee-jerk uncritical support of Maduro, without saying NOTHING about the abuses and repression that are taking place. Is one thing they decided to go like pitbulls after Mr. Toro unwise use of the word “pogrom”. Quite another to just ignore any claim of repression, and take EVERYTHING Maduro and his acolytes are saying face value. Good luck on your whitewash campaign. How interesting is to find that, for some people, the existence of repression depends on whether a regime/government is Right, or Left. And how shameful.
Francisco, I’m afraid you don’t have a very good track record of predicting what the majority of Venezuelans will believe.
Jim, again I invite you to confirm you posture after spending a few weeks in Venezuela and interacting with people from different backgrounds. If you do visit please don’t pull a Oliver Stone tour sponsored by the government.
Associated Press reporter Frank Bakak made no comment when challenged on twitter over his story that, obviously, was syndicated http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/246474701.html ; in it he claims
“The socialist government cemented its near-monopoly on broadcast media during Chavez’s 14-year rule, and social media have been crucial for young opposition activists as they organize and exchange information on deaths, injuries and arrests.”
Could we get Fair to challenge them on this blatant lie?
Mr. Naureckas, I’m afraid that with your track record regarding Venezuela (and this goes also for Mr. Hart), one will do oneself a favor reading directly the press notes from the Venezuelan government or the notes of VenezuelAnalysis, because is basically the same biased content. Amazing to see you here interacting with the commoners commenting. Or it was just the presence of Mr. Toro that prompted you in?
Paul Reynold’s
AP’s Venezuela “articles” have typically been nothing more than highly partisan op-eds that regularly include this howlers like “The socialist government cemented its near-monopoly on broadcast media” that should not even make it past an opinion page editor..
Reuter’s Venezuela reports have been exemplary by comparison, still marred by corporate media constraints (typically reflected in omissions they make), but not brazenly dishonest like AP . Mind you I am referring to reports you can get direct from Reuter’s website, not the ones other outlets may edit.
So, what part are you challenging Mr. Reynolds, the part where Venezuelans are turning into the social media as the media coverage of the crisis is clearly tamed in insufficient, or the part that talks about the outage of Internet in San Cristobal? Or the blocking of Zello, of other pages on the part of the Venezuelan government’s controlled ISP CANTV? Are you reporting from Venezuela to counter these reports, I assume? Funny how people that surely condemned SOPA and CISPA are here defending a government doing the same, or worse.
Johnny Gaterol Guevara,
i was agreeing with Paul Reynold’s and I added an observation about much better Reuters Venezuela reports have been. Anybody, anywhere in the world with a functioning internet connection can see how incredibly dishonest it is to say “The socialist government cemented its near-monopoly on broadcast media”.
If you don’t want people outside Venezuela to draw conclusions about the country then you should be campaigning to have ALL COVERAGE – form any side – banned from the foreign media. Is that what you’ve been doing – or just objecting to coverage that contradicts your views?
Mr. Joe Emersberger:
I actually favor the coverage of ALL OF THE NEWS, not just the part that either favor one side or the other. Unfortunately, that’s not what I’ve seen here. What I am seeing here is the uncritical knee-jerk defense of Maduro and the savagery of his repression, ironically on the day we Venezuelans commemorate of the bleakest events in our recent history, 27-F.
As vehemently as Fair condemns the unwise coverage of Mr. Toro (a coverage I don’t agree with, since he pretty much handed you people on this extreme, a piece of news you will be talking about for months on end, dismissing the real tragedy that is happening here) Fair should condemn the abuses and repression of Maduro, But this is not happening. Why? Because apparently, for some of the Left, repression is only worth of being denounced and mentioned when is happening to Right wing regimes/governments. When repression happens on the other side of the political spectrum, apparently (for some) the knee-jerk defense mechanism is activated, and repression simply doesn’t exist. Because, you know, talking about repression in the Left would be “playing along with corporate media interests”.
By the way, if you are suggesting that you only need “a functioning internet connection” to see “what’s happening in Venezuela”, then what’s the difference between you, or a CNN guy based in Miami, Atlanta, or Bogota, for that matter? Neither of you are here. And both of you have only part of the story, the part that results interesting to both of you.
The only piece of news I’ve found worth of consideration, actually, have been this:
periodicoellibertario(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2014/02/what-happens-in-venezuela-february-2014.html
Or this:
rafaeluzcategui(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2014/02/26/express-update-of-the-venezuelan-situation-25-02-14/
Both from Rafael Uzcátegui (@fanzinero in Twitter, you can contact him if you want, you speak Spanish, don’t you?) HR activist from many years, and anarchist. He is certainly no pro-any side, as he does not favor either chavismo or oposición. Also, he is not friendly with traditional media coverage.
So again, that’s the coverage I favor. If you are asking, I am decidedly against Maduro and his new brand of authoritarianism. But I’m not going to oppose him, just to give another the privilege of shutting down my mouth, and say whatever I think about him, or his government. If that were the case, I could stay with Maduro then, since he is already requiring that condition from us so nicely.
rafaeluzcategui(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2014/02/23/venezuela-deshumanizacion-y-represion/
BTW, just FYI, disinformation and lack of information is running so high in Venezuela as a consequence of the pressures exerted by the Venezuelan government in the private media, that people in Mérida or San Cristobal (where the worst of the protests and the subsequent repression happened) or Caracas doesn’t even know the full extent of either the protests or the barricades, or the GNB display and location in their own cities. Even social media doesn’t have the full story. So how the hell do you expect, from the distance, be better informed than them? From Google maps?
Yeah, sure, the blackout is “a lie”… Right…
Another two reporters from AP repeating the lie of ‘near monopoly’ of Venezuelan media by the state. This would make it seem like Associated Press policy, no? http://news.yahoo.com/venezuela-opposition-struggles-expand-appeal-182822037.html
Indeed Paul.
It’s the most cherished lie of the Venezuela oppostion and AP peddles it faithfully. I’m sure nobody forces AP to do this. It is a non-profit owned by various corporate media outlets (who are in turn owned by other corporations and whose most important customers are corporate advertisers ). All part of the “free press”.
The “free press” ain’t so free, but then, one would have to ask one self is the counterpart (the Venezuelan government and its media) is doing a better job. After all, they have their own interests and agenda to attend. Private media is not the only one spreading lies:
periodicoellibertario(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2014/02/mientras-chavismo-y-parte-de-la.html
And by the way, another question that nobody in the Left abroad is asking: Why this supposed socialist government is being supported by a tycoon such as Gustavo Cisneros:
correodelorinoco(dot)gob(dot)ve/politica/empresario-gustavo-cisneros-manifesto-su-apoyo-al-presidente-maduro-y-paz-venezuela/
What’s the catch for Cisneros?
Jonhnny,
The article you cite is clear that, according to Maduro, Cisneros has supported Maduro’s peace and dialog plan. Opposition people are divided – as much within themsleves as well as among themsleves – about the wisdom of supporting another coup.
A common tactic for FAIR’s detractors is to come on here and post long rants about how FAIR doesn’t cover or report the issues they way the detractors think they should. FAIR is not a news reporting organization, but a media criticism organization, which points out when corporate media reports the news inaccurately. Mr. Guevara trick is to post long rants that in no way address the issues covered by the blog entry.
Though it has nothing to do with the above blog posting, Guevara and Toro want to divert the issue to the question of repression- an important question no doubt. But I wonder how much they know about the history of American foreign policy and its posture towards the third world, especially Latin America.
Joe Emersberger:
Cisneros is not supporting Maduro, or the “peace” initiative “just because”. Being the business man he is, I’m sure he is looking for an angle for him.
Of course, this is speculation. But begs the question of why a tycoon like Gustavo Cisneros is supporting Maduro like he is.
And by the way: How in a country such as Venezuela, is possible a coup without the military? The idea of keep pushing this parallel, that somehow this is a re-edition of 2002 is absurd. Anyone with a minimum knowledge of Venezuelan history will know that there is no such thing as a coup without the military. And the military is in the hands of chavismo.
And a coup for what? To put Diosdado Cabello in Miraflores? Only a fool would advocate for that. You suppose that is the bet of the radical opposition? They’re idiots, but not that idiots…
Mr. Kevin Bradshaw:
My first comment was in reply to Mr. Naureckas, in answer to his reply to Mr. Toro. Mr. Naureckas saw fitting to attack Mr. Toro’s credibility (badly damaged after the “Pogrom” episode) and I saw fit to challenge his, as a man who, at least when reporting about Venezuela, satisfies himself (and his readers) with what is a regurgitated version of Venezuelan’s government official line.
Mr. Toro screw it beyond belief, and exaggerated a piece of news (very real news, just not in the way Mr. Toro exposed it). Mr. Naureckas limits himself to reproduce everything the Venezuelan governments produce, taking it face value. What an splendid way of criticism.
Now, speaking about the subject of the article of Mr. Hart, I can’t help but find funny that his main source is Mr. Weisbrot, a man “so objective” in all things related to Venezuela and its government, that, as one person commenting in The Guardian expressed it, “if the Venezuelan government were burning dogs and cats in the streets, I’m sure Mr. Weisbrot would find the way to justify it as bold way to fight rabies”. That Weisbrot tries this prestidigitation act of trying to extrapolate the conclusions of a 2013 report to the Venezuelan 2014 media context (a different one) is testimony of the lengths he is willing to go to support (as feverishly as he can) the Venezuelan State that chavistas now represent.
My comment and reply about Mr. Hart’s article is in one of my replies to Mr. Emersberger:
“…BTW, just FYI, disinformation and lack of information is running so high in Venezuela as a consequence of the pressures exerted by the Venezuelan government in the private media, that people in Mérida or San Cristobal (where the worst of the protests and the subsequent repression happened) or Caracas doesn’t even know the full extent of either the protests or the barricades, or the GNB display and location in their own cities. Even social media doesn’t have the full story. So how the hell do you expect, from the distance, be better informed than them? From Google maps?
Yeah, sure, the blackout is ‘a lie’… Right…”
For us back in Venezuela, is kind of amusing to watch you over there, discussing from the comfort of your offices about what is supposedly is not happening, but that is happening.
And whatever is happening, certainly, is NOT happening in the way traditional media, or Fair is trying to depict it (or not depict it).
All during Chavez’s time in office American Media painted him as censoring his critics. The fact was then and still now is that more papers printed _against_ Chavez than for him – but the people were not misled. Except the American People, who have never been told a truth inconvenient for America’s Neoconservative/Neofascist goverment. Venezuela’s Press is FREER than ours! So tell the NYT to go [epithet] itself. The NYT knows this, but since pretending the Emperor is wearing clothes fools most of the people most of the time, they could care less about the level of their moral turpitude and proto-Fascist leanings. They only listen for applause from members of the Council for Foreign Relations. I wish their readership was confined to that group as well.
Now seeing the rancor here … with two volumes of Bolivar’s writings in my bookshelf over my desk – I say this to Johnny Guevara: if you were in favor of Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution”, then your criticism of the Venzuelan Government is (IMO) valid only if you are calling it to account for its failure to pursue Chavez’s ideals. I hate Authoritarian-leaning and Repressive Governments of all kinds, left and right; but if your criticism of V’s leadership now echoes your criticism of V’s leadership under Chavez, then I think you should be ignored. (The) America(n leadership) hates anything smacking of Socialism and does what it can, using its lackeys in the press, to keep the American People as much in the dark as possible about the positive values pursued by Chavez. I think the (educated) common person in Latin America realizes that Chavez was one of the greatest popular leaders in Latin America’s history. My fear after his death is that the usual suspects (US CIA, etc.) will aid and empower the Right to reverse all of Chavez’s gains for the Venezuelan people and for all the people of that region. I have not paid attention to news from the region since Chavez’s death; if Maduro is some uber-bad-guy despite being a leftist then that is sad. Without knowing the details, though, I’ll say that “repression” is too often in the eye of the beholder. When Chavez went ahead with his policies it was called “dictatorship” and “repression” and I suspect it is the same story now. Tell me that all the anti-government press has been shut down by Maduro (as was NOT done by Chavez) and _then_ I’ll be concerned.
Arthur Nonymous (whoever you are):
First things first: I’ve been called many things in my life, and in forums, but there is always a first time for everything, as this is the first time I’ve been referred as a “rancor”.
(P.S.: Loved the SW reference.)
Second: Why do you refer Venezuela as “V” or “V’z”? Is it too much effort to write the full name, Venezuela?
Now, properly on the subject:
So my criticism is valid “only if you are calling it to account for its failure to pursue Chavez’s ideals”… Hummm… Although I didn’t vote for Chávez (I was an abstentionist in 1998), I did vote for his constitution proposal in 99, and several of his initiatives after that. I became disappointed with the man right after he decided he was “irreplaceable” and presented his candidacy again. For me, that was a moment akin to the moment Beethoven faced when he heard of Napoleon, one of his heroes, had crowned himself Emperor. So, this one is only interested in stay in office, and nothing more. That’s what I thought after that, and also when he proposed and amendment to the Constitution to be able of running for president, for life. That’s when I knew his concerns have nothing to do with our concerns.
Now, I’ve always dismissed those who regarded Chávez as “a dictator” and his government as ” a dictatorship”. That talk was really foolish, and those that engaged in it obviously didn’t know what really took place in a real dictatorship, like the ones of Videla, Pinochet and Castro. What I did consider, in later years, was that Chávez government entered in a gray area where his administration was nor a dictatorship, neither a democracy. Perhaps an autocratic government with some democratic forms. Or what Marx described in his 18 Brumaire, pure Bonapartism. Whatever it was, it was a new category.
(By the way, and before you talk me about the countless elections he faced and won: I believe democracy is a bit more than elections. Elections are part of democracy, not democracy itself. Otherwise Cuba, the Soviet Union, and every two bit regime that holds elections would be regarded as one)
As a Venezuelan, I don’t think of Chavez as a great leader. I think of him as someone who could have passed as one of the greatests presidents in Venezuela. Instead of it, he will surely pass as the great divisive figure. Also, as the creator of a movement that will die with him, at least over here: Chavez did not encouraged leadership within his party, quite the contrary: He emmasculated it, and did not accept any challenge to his “lineas”. And the result is a party that barely win over Venezuelan opposition by less than 2% in the 2013 presidential elections.
Now, Maduro is something else: Not having the same charisma, or command that Chávez had (certainly, not the same panache) is leaning more and more to authoritarian methods to impose his feeble “leadership” in his party, in the government, and the rest of the Venezuelan population. With Maduro, I’m afraid, we can talk of the early stages of a dictatorship.
(and as I said above: If you want a rundown of what has happened in Venezuela, from a Left wing perspective, check this: periodicoellibertario(dot)blogspot(dot)com/2014/02/what-happens-in-venezuela-february-2014(dot)html and periodicoellibertario(dot)blogspot.com/2014/02/express-update-of-venezuelan-situation(dot)html )
I have appreciated NYT coverage since 1952 or so. That said, I don’t expect them to be perfect. They allowed Judith Miller and Michael Gordon to propagandize for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, for instance, and Gordon still works there. The essentially demoted Ray Bonner when he outed the El Salvadorean military for El Mozote.
I stayed with a friend in London, 32 years ago. His young kids watched BBC with him, but every once in a while, he said, “I don’t think that’s true,” We need to think about what we’re hearing, reading or watching and ask the same question.
I’m sick of all of these retractions by the NYT, WaPo, and others. We should shut them down by boycotting their websites, and push readers to other, (hopefully) more accurate websites. These outlets have a bad record, and no amount of protesting them will make them change.
Que tal amigo a mi me agradaria conocer donde podria suscribirme a tu pagina me ha encantado un saludo
Hola amigo me gustaria saber en que lugar podria suscribirme a tu blog me ha encantado muchas gracias