Chávez Bashing

[Judi Lynn]

Chávez Bashing
July 22, 2009 By Anthony DiMaggio

Chávez bashing has long been a moral fixture of deliberation among U.S. elites. The most recent examples appear in the July 21st editions of the New York Times and Washington Post, which document allegations that Chávez is responsible for the rise in crime in Venezuela and the destablilization of Colombia. Of major concern for the Washington Post is a recently released report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) that outlines supposed "corruption at high levels of President Hugo Chávez's government and state aid to Colombia's drug-trafficking guerillas have made Venezuela a major launching pad for cocaine bound for the United States and Europe." Attention is directed to Colombia's Marxist FARC guerillas, estimated by the Post to control 60 percent of the Colombian cocaine trade. Republican Senator Richard Lugar is afforded space in the Post to demonize Venezuela for "becoming a narco-state, heavily dependent on and beholden to the international trade in illegal drugs."

Not to be outdone, the Times' July 21st story implicates Chávez in the growing abduction of citizens living in the city of Barinas, located in western Venezuela. Barinas suffers from abduction rates over 3.5 times higher than the rest of the country, and the city is currently governed by Chávez's brother Adán Chávez. The Times cites no evidence of the Chávez family's complicity in Barinas kidnappings, but this hasn't stopped the paper from constructing generic links between "armed gangs thrive off the disarray while Mr. Chávez's family tightens its grip on the state." Readers won't find even the pretense of objectivity in such incendiary rhetoric.

Searching for actual evidence of a connection between Chávez and the kidnappings is not a part of the Times' game plan. They'd rather muddy public discourse with vague polemics directed at the Chávez regime. In fact the Times concedes that Chávez's main involvement in Barinas centers not on harming the poor (who have increasingly suffered under the kidnappings), but on efforts to improve the lot of the masses via the implementation of land reform and the use of oil funds for welfare programs.

Attacks on Chávez also accompanied Venezuela's 2009 referendum, which repealed the country's 12-year presidential term limit. The Times editorialized in the run-up to the referendum that Chávez was a "standard issue autocrat - hoarding power, stifling dissent, and spending the nation's oil wealth on political support." Such attacks, ironically, are followed by admissions that Chávez's support derives from the social welfare programs he implements, which benefit the overwhelming majority of poor Venezuelans. His support for the masses is written off without discussion as inconsequential, however, as the Times paternalistically and calls on Venezuelans who "believe in their democracy" to "vote no" on ending term limits.

A number of points are worth reflecting upon when assessing the attacks on Chávez. Regarding the Colombia issue, literally no context is provided in Times and Post reporting on the instrumental role the U.S. has played in creating the drug crisis. No attention is directed to the fact that U.S. leaders have spent billions of dollars training and supplying right-wing, anti-FARC paramilitary groups in Colombia (which are allied with the Colombian government), and are heavily involved in the cocaine trade themselves. Additionally, there is no discussion of the ambiguity surrounding Chávez's supposed incitement of the Colombian-Venezuelan conflict. Much ambiguity does exist, nonetheless, on this question. Human Rights Watch, although it has been extremely critical of Chávez (perhaps justifiably so), is unable to uncover any convincing evidence that Chávez is supporting FARC guerillas. We should also remember that it was Chávez himself who publicly railed against the FARC, stating that the age of "guerilla warfare is history." He has supported a return to peace negotiations between the FARC and Colombian government, and pushed the FARC to end their terrorist practice of abducting civilians and government officials as hostages.

More:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22091

[Peace Patriot]

1. I am so glad that someone had taken on our corpo/fascist media's demonization of Chavez

and does so well in exposing it in this article. The writer hits all the main of points of disinformation and outright lying by our media. It is well worth quoting the rest of this article. It is must reading for anyone who wants to understand Latin America and US policy in Latin America. I want to discuss a related matter that I find extremely worrisome, and that is: WHY this INCREASE in the demonization of Chavez NOW? You would think that, with the demise of the Bushwhacks, they would at least shut up about Chavez, if not stop lying about him. But no, this disinformation campaign is intensifying. Why? The writer of this article--Anthony DiMaggi--doesn't get into the question of why, except in a general sense. (The WaPo and the NYT serve corpo/fascist interests, and feeding, clothing and educating the poor, and giving them a chance in life, is antithetical to those interests.) I think there is more to it. But, first, DiMaggi's conclusion:

----------------------------------------------


On the issue of Chávez's "dictatorial" politics, the U.S. media's coverage resembles more propaganda than reality. U.S. papers have an awfully difficult time explaining how a dictator can be democratically elected four times in the last ten years - in 1998, 2000, 2004, and 2006, particularly in contests certified as transparent and legitimate by international elections monitors. The Times is also at a loss to explain the results of the 2009 referendum, which in repealing presidential term limits, was certified as fair and democratic by international observers.

The most obvious explanation for the Times' attacks on Chávez is that the paper is contemptuous of Venezuelan democracy. Chávez has long enjoyed strong democratic support from the majority of Venezuelans, while provoking the outrage of American politicians who see Venezuela as fertile, but unutilized ground for corporate investment. Let's consider the evidence: 1. Chávez has been repeatedly re-elected by margins that George W. Bush could have never dreamed of attaining. 2. A Gallup International poll from 2007 reaffirms the democratic legitimacy of Venezuelan politics in a number of ways. 53 percent of Venezuelans generally feel that their country is "governed by the will of the people" under Chávez. Additionally, 67 percent feel that elections in Venezuela are conducted in a "fair" as opposed to "unfair" manner. Furthermore, as my analysis of the 2007 Gallup poll shows, poor and unemployed Venezuelans (the poor making up the majority of the public) are statistically more likely to believe that the country is governed by majority will and that the country's elections are free, democratic, and fair. This stands in great contrast to Venezuela's wealthy and employed who are more likely to reject these claims.

One would not get the impression from U.S. media coverage that it is U.S., rather than Venezuelan officials who are viewed with suspicion in Venezuela. A 2007 poll by the BBC revealed that most Latin Americans who were surveyed viewed the U.S. unfavorably and opposed the former Bush administration's foreign policy activities. Majorities in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico felt that the U.S. influence in the world was "mainly negative," while between 65-92 percent opposed the U.S. handling of the war in Iraq. Assessments of individual political leaders found that Chávez enjoyed high levels of support from Venezuelans, while former President Bush enjoyed low levels of support throughout not only Venezuela, but the entire region.

Chávez's popularity, as American journalists begrudgingly admit, is based upon his willingness to put the needs of Venezuela's poor masses ahead of those of business elites. This does not mean that he's a saint or that political repression should not be a serious concern for those living throughout the hemisphere. No political leader deserves a blank check to consolidate political power. But what seems to escape U.S. leaders is that Venezuelan democracy assigns the task of holding leaders accountable to the people of Venezuela, rather than to "enlightened" U.S. elites.

Chávez's "Bolivarian Revolution" is indeed wildly popular in amongst Venezuelans. He is succeeding in promoting a plethora of social welfare programs paid for by the country's oil export revenues. Chávez is spearheading efforts to promote gender equality, government sponsored health care, universal higher education, increased state pension funding, land redistribution, and an expansion of public housing, amongst other programs. Chávez's welfare revolution is significantly improving the lives of the citizenry. A 50 percent increase in social welfare spending from 1999-2005 (in the first 6 years of Chávez's presidency) was accompanied by decreases in infant mortality, an increase in school enrollment an increase in individual disposable income, and a decrease in poverty. From 1997-2005, the national poverty rate fell from 56 to 38 percent of the population. By 2005, an estimated 50 percent of the Venezuelan people enjoyed government health care, while the same number also enjoyed government food subsidies. The Bolivarian Revolution, one should remember, also took place under fairly stable economic growth, ranging from 6-18 percent of GDP a year from 2004-2008. This trend stands on its head the assumptions of U.S. reporters that socialist policies are a major obstacle to economic stability and prosperity.

No one in the U.S. should be surprised that the Venezuelan people support Chávez because of his welfare policies. This basic fact, however, is concealed in Times editorials that frame Chávez as a "Latin American strongman" who "exercise near-total political and military control of his country" through the perversion of elections and the nationalization of natural resources. Media distortions of Latin American politics are of course nothing new. The Times and Post have always looked at Latin America through neoliberal, capitalist eyes, and coverage of Venezuela deviates little from this pattern.

Anthony DiMaggio teaches Global and American Politics at Illinois State University. He is the author of Mass Media, Mass Propaganda: Examining American News in the "War on Terror (2008) and When Media Goes to War (forthcoming February 2010). He can be reached at: [e-mail]

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/22091

------------------------------------------------

What are intense levels of disinformation, psyops, propaganda, brainwashing and the 'Big Lie' most often used for? What are they the preliminary for? And in what circumstance did we see them put to this use, recently? Iraq. The 'Big Lie' about the WMDs in Iraq. Our corporate rulers' hijacking of the US military--and all our money, unto the 7th Generation--for their theft of Iraq's oil.

Venezuela has one of the biggest pots of oil in the western hemisphere--the profits from which are currently being used, by the Chavez government, to benefit the poor. And it's just sitting there, essentially undefended, on Venezuela's Caribbean coast, an area where the Bushwhacks reconstituted the US 4th Fleet, last summer, and not far from where a rightwing military coup just occurred in Honduras--which has a long history of being a US "lily pad" country for US aggression and war in Latin America. The demonization of Chavez has been building up for a long time, but has never been so intense as it is now. I fear that this is why--a Bushwhack plan for Oil War II-South America. I have no doubt at all that the Bushwhacks devised a war plan for South America. But it is hard to tell, as yet, whether Obama and Clinton are on board for this war. I have to say that the signs are not good. They at the very least seem to be laying ground work for it--for instance, in their plan for five US military bases in Colombia--a country with one of the worst human rights records on earth--adjacent to Venezuela. They have been accused by many of playing a double-game in Honduras. The fact that John ("death squad") Negroponte is advising Clinton on Honduras does not bode well. And, whatever Obama's and Clinton's objectives really are, I think we may have a real problem as to Obama's actual power as president, and/or deals he had to make to become President (i.e., to get Diebold & brethren to back off).

This WaPo/NYT "axis of evil" fake journalism on Chavez (Newsweek also chimed in, recently, with a whole bunch of lies about the "brain drain" in Venezuela) gives me the willies. Propaganda campaigns like this are hugely expensive in money and energy. They are not undertaken for no reason. It is a unified chorus in our corpo/fascist press--a rising chorus--exactly like that for Iraq WMDs, and somebody has been manufacturing cause-for-war "evidence" (Chavez as narco trafficker, Chavez as FARC guerilla supporter) which is just now crescendoing. And who is infamous for doing that? a) the NYT, and b) Donald Rumsfeld (whom I have reason to believe devised the plan for Oil War II, and is still involved) and his "Office of Special Plans."