Left-wing Ecuadorean president Rafael Correa was poised to win re-election on Sunday. Given that fact, the New York Times went with a peculiar headline for their February 16 piece:
That’s right: “Ecuadoreans Are Apprehensive Over Likely Re-election of President Correa.”
Someone at the paper must have seen the irony here and decided to change it; most readers saw instead “Ecuador’s President Shows Confidence About Re-election, Too Much for Some.”
But the first headline more accurately summarized the article–and the worldview of outlets like the New York Times, which take a far more critical approach towards political leaders on the left.
The piece, by William Neuman and Maggy Ayala, started by quoting one Ecuadorean who would vote against Correa (who has, unlike other politicians around the world, a “rampant ego”). Next the Times tells us:
At the top of Mr. Correa’s agenda is a long-stalled law regulating the news media that critics say would crimp press freedom. Opponents fear a legislative majority would feed what they see as Mr. Correa’s authoritarian tendencies.
The piece next quotes a newspaper editor who says Correa “will try to flatten everyone who is in his way.” The Times responds by arguing that Correa has “expanded presidential power and vigorously pursued opponents.” Readers finally hear from one Correa supporter, a lawmaker in his Alianza País party. But then it’s back to the story; Correa “has run a crusade against the press,” the Times warns.
It’s not until the end that readers learn the rest of the story. Correa “has governed during a period of relative prosperity,” the Times tells us–making it sound as if he got lucky. (CEPR’s Dan Beeton noted the passive voice the Times was using here).
But the paper finally gets down to telling readers:
Mr. Correa has taken advantage of high oil prices to put money into social programs, earning him immense popularity, especially among the country’s poor. In a country of 14.6 million people, about 28 percent lived in poverty in 2011, down from 37 percent in 2006, the year before Mr. Correa took office, according to World Bank data.
For anyone who might be wondering what life in Ecuador is like under Correa, this would be the kind of thing that likely has more impact on their lives than his record on press freedom. It is revealing, then, that the Times, on the eve of his re-election, would spend so much more time talking about what’s not to like about Correa.
Others, like economist Mark Weisbrot (Guardian, 2/15/13), have noted that developments under his term deserve consideration. He writes that Correa has taken serious steps to improve the country, including “what is possibly the most comprehensive financial reform of any country in the 21st century,” along with a massive fiscal stimulus in 2008. Weisbrot also notes that the much of the private media were under the control of the country’s banks, and Correa has tried to break up that power.
So the polls–not to mention the actual voting results, which had Correa winning with 56 percent, vs. 23 percent for his closest opponent–show us that Ecuadoreans weren’t “apprehensive” about giving Correa another term. So why was the New York Times? Probably because his policies are the kind that institutions like the Times tell us aren’t supposed to work.
Thank you so much FAIR. Wish more people in the USA would read your blogs. The NYT and all of the USA press is biased against Correa and Chavez, presidents who are effective in reducing poverty in their countries.
Maybe this has something to do with it?
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/10/to_get_the_gold_they_will_have_to_kill_every_one_of_us/
hardindr: I’m pretty sure that Correa government’s policy of raping the indigenous peoples’ lands for resources is not the deep-down concern of the NYT editorial board or its writers. It only emboldens their case, I suppose, but that is not really what they are after. (And I agree with you on this point about the “new Leftist” leaders in S.A.)
people still read NYT?
I’m surprised that press freedom is ancillary when it comes to leftist authoritarians. I just can’t think we can dismiss Correa just because we agree their populist agenda. So let me get this straight, FAIR is a progressive media watchdog but it won’t call out a leader that has a terrible record when it comes to the freedom of the press? Real progressives, IMO, fight for press freedom, not for cult of personality leaders that engages in populist rhetoric. It goes well beyond “feeding the poor.” Press freedom should be a benchmark for FAIR. I think FAIR is not being consistent in what it preaches.
It is quite clear, reading any newspaper and most media sources based in the States will include criticisms of all South American countries. Those to the south of us just won’t cooperate with our corporate way of human and environmental exploitation. Shame on them.
CTA, according to economist Mark Weisbrot in the Guardian, “much of the private media were under the control of the country’s banks, and Correa has tried to break up that power.”
That sounds reasonable to me.
Jeff, Mark Weisbrot is a columnist. He’s not a journalist on the ground gathering facts. Second of all he makes a leap about the banks owning newspapers and those in power at the banks calling the shots on what gets printed. Where on earth does he have the evidence of the banks calling the shots and saying “you put in print what we want” or “you only write things that are anti-Correa?” I wish him luck in showing me that.
More importantly, whether the banks run the press or not is not the story. The story is freedom of the press is lacking and abuse of journalists are documented by the Committee to Protect Journalists. I will take the CPJ any day over a columnist who writes things that hollow progressives, IMO, want to hear. Just because Correa is a benevolent authoritarian doesn’t make him a saint, nor should he be treated as one. Press freedom is not ancillary to his economic policies and it’s beyond me that FAIR thinks this way. Real progressive media watchdogs fight for press freedom, even if those committing the infractions are from the Left. I don’t support cult of personality figures, even when they’re on the Left. Neither should FAIR.
Perhaps the NYTs biased reporting is best explained by its editorial celebrating the (eventually failed) miliytart coup against Chavez. Remember?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/opinion/hugo-chavez-departs.html
Can’t we let other nations choose their own leaders?
CTA, I get that you have some agenda, but FAIR is about more than one issue.
They are countering a claim, and your on another topic altogether.
The lives of the people are more important than free press when discussing an election. When a large portion can sustain themselves on more than rice, they will worry about free press
FAIR did note though that they didnt have free press before anyway, at least not any that the banks didnt want us to see. From my reading, the press is alot like in Venezuela, the ones who supported the coup etc…
This is about whether Ecuadoreans are happy or not and FAIRs focus was on that, not a single issue, so your creating a false scenario to fight against.
But unlike many, I actually did research on how he has handled the media.
He made a state owned tv and newspaper :O What a horrible man.
He sued some reporters for telling lies and won, then pardoned them and waived damages, oh the humanity!!!
He expropriated 2 private stations for violating license, licenses we have here and should enforce for the actual freedom of press to flourish, and now they will be auctioned off back to the private sector.
Dang socialist, selling things to the private sector :(
I find that when press freedom is discussed by western press, it usually means not allowing slander and liabel, something we used to not accept either, but somehow press freedom has been some catch-all to not threaten the ability of the private western press to also lie.
Like the taking of license from that venezualan media company, even though what he did was legal, legitimate, and necessary. It did violate a license agreement in a horrendous way and stopped acting as a media outlet and mostly as a political machine, aka, like fox.
Then he decided to raise the minimum wage for journalists and possibly offer subsidies for those media companies that cant afford the raise.
Well, you cant be raising the living standards of anybody because they might become biased. sigh.
He cant win.
cpj . org/blog/2013/02/battle-between-correa-ecuadoran-press-to-wage-on.php
This is anti-Correa but still does a fair job of taking both sides and links to research on the media law bing proposed.
Honestly the law has its problems, but the other problem is that media over there are circling the wagon like media here do, and anything said against the president, no matter what, is sacred, but if he defends himself against slander or libel, he is just making press restrictive.
Ironically while he is supposedly one of the most restrictive regimes in SA, somehow the journalists are still able to keep criticising him freely, will you look at that, conflicting, maybe I should support both sides where good points are made.
But then black and white is so much better isnt it, you know, cant think both sides have good ideas, its only one side for you…
Great post, Peter.
The corporate and financial elites are just bitter because they hate that countries like Ecuador and Venezuela have succeeded in NOT adopting their neoliberal policies, thus being shining (glaring?) examples to the rest of the world that austerity isn’t necessary.
@CTA – So, because it goes against your neoliberal worldview, you automatically dismiss Weisbrot’s criticism of Ecuador’s private media being under bank control; wanting him (or FAIR) to provide you with “proof.” Can you say intellectually lazy?
It’s no secret that the corporate/finance-run media (all over the world) never misses an opportunity to vilify leaders when they support progressive policies. When that media tries to vilify you (and/or remove you from power) because you refuse to adopt neoliberal policies (with great success!), like they did with Chavez, you might be less willing to give such a media certain “freedoms,” too.
What the times and fox want is a Bloomberg and/or Romney so they can create vast populations of homeless, jobless, and pennyless throughout our nation.
I hear ya’ CTA. Truth to power, huh? Some people just can’t handle it when their beliefs and views are challenged. Don’t get discouraged.
The NYT’s: Hardly a shill for banks or favoring views on the right. Very much a PC news rag favoring faux progressive left talking points (Much like 80% of US News Organizations), with lots of foreign shareholders wanting their views pushed disregarding the views of people at home. But that seems to be problem most anywhere. Besides, there is too much Obfuscation, especially the useless op-eds, and very little reports of substantial worth.
As for Chavez and Correa, their rule sucks for their countries long term health. In their minds, democracy only works when it favors them and their party(s). When it doesn’t then it’s because some other nefarious international power is too blame and people fall for it by rallying, even when there is very little shred of proof to back the claim. Besides, if they are going to remain in power, then they’re going to need the banks much more than the banks need them. Plus, there is the bait and switch approach to their rule. They give the targeted people the goodies and they get the necessary votes and then can amend the constitution however they like when as it favors them, and how many of their constituents are going to really care? Only the ones that really care about the long term health of their own country. Then again, those unfortunate people are easily dismissed by all and sundry as CIA tools and selfish right wing landowners and corporatist. Them as progressives? Pssshaw! Their authoritarians by any popular name that sounds catchy at the moment. Sort of like the People Democratic Republic of North Korea. Uh-huh! Yeah right. Anything but.
Same thing is happening here in this US. When something goes wrong we automatically are looking for someone else to blame. Always someone else, never ourselves. Be it hippies, bankers, or whoever is unfortunate enough to be POTUS. A god like figure whose thankfully more helpless then his supporters let on currently, but for how long?
And FAIR? Don’t make me laugh. I don’t trust any news outfit proclaiming to restore fairness and balance in reporting. We’re social creatures. Of course we are going to be biased to views that agree with our own while mocking those that are different. (No doubt i’m bound to be mocked. But i simply do not care anymore!)
What i would appreciate from journalists and editors, is the courtesy of treating some of us who care like adults we believe we are, by honestly admitting their bias, and a lot less subtle mockery for differing views in the alleged “pieces of work” that passes for new reports. Especially from both bought and paid for journo’s and their editors who are politically manipulating and also being manipulated by both sides, which is driving this entire sorry spectacle that passes for US culture and entertainment.
Thank you,
An American Moderate
I guess NYT was thrilled about the coup in Honduras where now the Whole Foods CEO and Canada’s porn king are setting up some gross organic food/sex free trade venture.