Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Judi Lynn

(160,515 posts)
Mon Sep 4, 2017, 04:47 PM Sep 2017

The Media on Venezuela: Double Standards and First Impressions

by Ricardo Vaz / September 3rd, 2The Media on Venezuela: Double Standards and First Impressions

While street violence in Venezuela virtually evaporated after chavismo’s strong showing on July 30 and the Constituent Assembly being sworn in, the war against Venezuela is far from over. After months of threats and targeted sanctions, the US, cheered on by the Venezuelan opposition, imposed financial sanctions targeting the Venezuelan government and the state oil company PDVSA. Another war front that has remained hyperactive has been the media. It is impossible to go after the (fake) news and distortions one by one, so in this piece we will try to pinpoint some of the techniques used by the mainstream media in recent times when reporting about Venezuela.

*****

Who shoulders the burden of proof?

The lead-up to the Constituent Assembly elections was full of threats and refusals to recognise the results from the US and its subordinates near and far. After the vote took place, with over 8M voters participating, the mainstream media started behaving like the audience of “The Price is Right”.1 Any claim of a different turnout, invariably without any evidence, was thrown at the readers.

But the ideal weapon came when Smartmatic, the company responsible for the voting machines and software, claimed that “without any doubt” the voting total had been inflated by, according to their “estimations”, at least 1M votes. The Venezuelan electoral authorities (CNE) promptly reacted by saying that the company, while responsible for the system, had no access to electoral data, and as such whatever estimates they produced were baseless. Given that the electoral results were published a few days later, the logical reasoning would put the burden on Smartmatic to release evidence to back their claims. In the press conference, Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica said that the company had not shared the evidence with the CNE because they would not be “sympathetic” to it. But why not share it with the western media, which is more than sympathetic to it?

As it turns out, there was no need to present evidence, because the standards are different when it comes to Venezuela. Smartmatic’s press conference was more than enough for the media, who now parrot that it was “revealed” that the voting figures were inflated. So any allegation that conforms to the mainstream narrative and goes against the Venezuelan government does not need to be proven, and is used henceforth either as a fact or to provide instant denial. By contrast, the Venezuelan opposition enjoys a free ride when it comes to fact-checking of their statements. We can thank the BBC for a blatant demonstration of these double standards:

Venezuela’s electoral authorities said more than eight million people, or 41.5% of the electorate, had voted, a figure the company that provided the voting system said was inflated.

The opposition boycotted the poll and also held an unofficial referendum in which they said more than seven million Venezuelans voted against the constituent assembly.

More:
https://dissidentvoice.org/2017/09/the-media-on-venezuela-double-standards-and-first-impressions/
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Media on Venezuela: Double Standards and First Impressions (Original Post) Judi Lynn Sep 2017 OP
Doesn't really matter what the results were Marksman_91 Sep 2017 #1
the burden of proof? GatoGordo Sep 2017 #2
This Chavismo opinion piece GatoGordo Sep 2017 #3
 

Marksman_91

(2,035 posts)
1. Doesn't really matter what the results were
Tue Sep 5, 2017, 06:38 AM
Sep 2017

The "elections" were still illegal because the Venezuelan constitution calls for a referendum for a constitutional assembly before electing those who represent it. If the military in Venezuela had any balls and weren't corrupt sacks of shit that do the PSUV's bidding, they would have (rightly) ousted Maduro and called for a new election for a new government.

But that sure as hell won't be mentioned by this writer or ever admitted by you and the other Chavista apologists, of course.

 

GatoGordo

(2,412 posts)
2. the burden of proof?
Tue Sep 5, 2017, 08:20 AM
Sep 2017

Last edited Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

"Who shoulders the burden of proof?"

If I suggest that I am the God's personal envoy from Jupiter, who does it fall upon to prove that spurious statement? You, or me?

Conversely, the acolytes for Chavismo suggest that it is upon the unbelievers to prove them wrong. Much the same way that truthers/birthers insist that the skeptics prove THEM wrong.

Chavistas = Truthers/Birthers.
 

GatoGordo

(2,412 posts)
3. This Chavismo opinion piece
Tue Sep 5, 2017, 09:56 AM
Sep 2017

has been plastered over every Maoist/Stalinist website on the web. I first read it on Venezuela Analysis (Chavismo) with a link to INVESTIG'ACTION... the far Left French website run by Michel Collon, devoted to "alternative information".

"Alternative information". Is there another term for that?

Latest Discussions»Region Forums»Latin America»The Media on Venezuela: D...