ANTIDOTE TO ANDERSON'S Article on Chavez - Interview with author of "Speaking with Hugo!"

[magbana]

After Jon Lee Anderson's petty, innuendo-filled article of disinformation, this interview with Bart Jones is most welcome.
magbana

Speaking with Hugo! author Bart Jones
June 17th 2008, by Daniel Denvir - UpsideDownWorld.org


Bart Jones is the author of Hugo! The Hugo Chavez Story from Mud Hut to Perpetual Revolution (Steerforth, New Hampshire 2007). Jones lived in Venezuela from 1992 to 2000, working initially as a Maryknoll lay missioner and then as a foreign correspondent for The Associated Press. He now lives in Long Island, New York with his wife and two children. The book has also just been released in the UK and will soon be published in Brazil in Portuguese.

You were an AP correspondent for six years. What's your take on Venezuela coverage in the U.S. media?

I think the media has done a less than stellar job. They've done a terrific job describing the opposition to Chavez, but less well explaining why he also has significant support and has won so many elections, which by the way are generally free and fair. They've also helped manage to create a simplistic cartoon caricature of Chavez as an evil monster and brutal dictator – for many one of the most hated people on the planet today, as if he was some kind of Hitler. Yet in his own country he is adored by millions of poor people. There is a real dichotomy between how Chavez is viewed overseas and how he is viewed by the majority in his own country. This internationalization demonization is partly the doing of the media.

The media has also demonstrated something of a double standard when it comes to Chavez. For instance, in neighboring Colombia there is clear evidence of ties between the government of President Alvaro Uribe and right-wing paramilitary death squads. Uribe's foreign minister, his campaign manager, a cousin who is a close political ally, and dozens of congressional allies have resigned or been arrested for alleged ties to these paramilitary death squads. Uribe himself was a friend of cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar, according to declassified U.S. documents. Yet none of this is an issue in the U.S. for the general public, even though Uribe is a major U.S. ally who is getting billions in U.S. aid. Imagine if Chavez was in bed with paramilitary death squads. It would be a huge story drilled into the public's mind.

Laptops obtained by Colombia's government indicate Chavez has ties to the FARC guerrillas, yet this has not been proven beyond doubt – despite heavy media coverage. The allegations, though, have served well in the campaign to demonize Chavez.

Chavez can and should be criticized for his government's shortcomings. But it should also be put into context. The reality in Venezuela is that Chavez is not massacring people or lining opponents up against walls before firing squads. Thousands of people freely take to the streets to protest against him. People even go on television and call him a dictator or call for a coup. I don't think those things happen in Cuba or North Korea. I think it is time for a little less hysteria about Chavez and a more balanced and rational debate about what is happening in Venezuela.

Did you see the story a few weeks back in the New York Times about the power going out for a few hours in Caracas? I couldn't believe that merited international coverage.

Blackouts happened all the time under past administrations, but under Chavez every misstep is reported. This is not to argue for giving him a free ride, but at least for more fair and balanced coverage. That's what Americans aren't getting from the media, a nuanced portrait.

Not to ask you to speak ill of colleagues, but what is your take on New York Times coverage of Venezuela?

As you know I lived in Venezuela for eight years, most of time as a foreign correspondent for The Associated Press. I was in the belly of beast when it came to studying the coverage of Chavez. It is fair to say that the media has done a pretty poor job. I think many correspondents despise Chavez and make it clear in their writing. I know one who even had an anti-Chavez button hanging by her desk that said, "Saquemos al loco" – "Let's get rid of the crazy one."

Something that I found really interesting was the part you wrote about what neighborhoods U.S. journalists live in, who they grab drinks with, where they send their kids to school...

Yes, they often live in upscale neighborhoods, eat at posh restaurants. They often hang out with the people who live in country club-like neighborhoods, and send their kids to college in the U.S. and speak perfect English. But it is also their job as journalists to roll up their sleeves and go to these poor neighborhoods were Chavez is wildly popular. Some who don't live in the country "parachute in" for a few days, stay at five star hotels and spend their few days in the country mainly speaking to wealthy opposition members and opposition-friendly political analysts. They need to also make sure they get the other side of the story. Too often they don't.

CONTINUE ARTICLE:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/3565

[Judi Lynn]

1. The author makes a lot of important points.He mentions his first look at Venezuela was as a priest,

when he lived in the slums, and is intimately acquainted with the life of the poor there.

His other look at Venezuela was from the perspective of an AP writer, when he associated ONLY with upper middle class Venezuelans.

He's got a good fix on what's happening, doesn't he?

His reference to RCTV was exceptional, fitting in with what other informed sources have already indicated:

What's your take on the U.S. media's coverage of the revocation of RCTV's (a Venezuelan TV station) broadcast license?

I think the US media coverage of that issue was similar to most coverage related to Chavez. You heard one side of the story and rarely got the other. Again, the other side is that this TV station actively conspired in a coup against a democratically elected president. If CBS, NBC or ABC did that in the U.S. against Bush they would be pulled off the air in five minutes and the owners would go to jail. In Venezuela, this station was allowed to operate for five years more and then, when the reauthorization came up for the privilege of using public airwaves, the government declined to approve it. They weren't even completely shut down, they were allowed to continue on cable. It's always alarming when a media outlet is closed, but the circumstances were a little more complex than the mass media generally reported.

Really decent to see something from a journalist who DOES know what he's talking about, isn't it?

Thanks a LOT, magbana. I'm saving this for future reference.

[subsuelo]

2. It's a pretty good interview.

The question for me is - what was so damn hard for the New Yorker to have written a piece like this? It doesn't make any sense :shrug:

[magbana]

3. The New Yorker got its money's worth with Anderson article

Since Anderson considers himself a “storyteller,”(see below) it is no wonder that he embellishes his stories and fixates on people’s physical characteristics (he described Chavez’ daughter as having “a wide face and a toothy smile.” I’ve always figured that Anderson is CIA. Anderson has been very adept at getting from one hotspot to another and BEFORE the action starts – like Baghdad before the US bombed the hell out of it. Why would the New Yorker print this story rather than commission a story that reflects more truth? Anderson has a particular cachet with the liberal and mainstream media who find him irrestible and I think he is good at selling himself. Finally,the New Yorker knows that Anderson is a provacateur and I am sure it is quite satisfied with his pissy article on Chavez.


“JON LEE ANDERSON
The New Yorker magazine calls Jon Lee Anderson a staff writer. Jon Lee calls himself a storyteller. For more than twenty years he's been traveling to, and writing about, conflict zones around the world. From El Salvador to Uganda, Ireland to Israel.

Not surprisingly, his latest narratives come from Baghdad. Anderson checked into the Al Rashid Hotel weeks before the bombs started falling on the Iraqi capital. And he stayed in the city as the tanks rolled in and the looting began. What makes his work so distinctive from the daily wash of news is the people he writes about. The barber. The doctor. The violinist. The painter. The Ba'ath party official. Snapshots of those who live deep beneath the headlines. And would have otherwise stayed there, if not for his reporter's eye.”
http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2003/05/20030506_b_main.asp