One-Sided Reporting on Latin America: Small Oversights and Big Lies

[Judi Lynn]

October 22, 2009
One-Sided Reporting on Latin America
Small Oversights and Big Lies
By ERIC TOUSSAINT

It may be useful to assess the dangers of the systematically hostile attitude of the overwhelming majority of major European and North American media companies in relation to the current events taking place in Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. This hostility is only matched by an embarrassed, complicit silence with regard to those involved in the putsch in Honduras or the repression enacted by the Peruvian army against the indigenous populations of the Amazon.

In order to demonstrate this statement, here are a few recent facts:

1) On 5 June 2009, the Peruvian army massacred over 50 Amazonian Indians who were protesting against the land concessions made by Alan Garcia’s government for foreign, mainly European transnational companies. The repression aroused no disapproval among the major global media groups. These groups gave almost exclusive priority to the protests occurring in Iran. Not only did the press fail to condemn the repression in Peru; it did not even bother to cover the story. And yet in Peru, so great was public discontent that the government had to announce the repeal of the presidential decree which the Amazonian Indians had fought against.

Once again, media coverage of the government’s backtracking was almost non-existent. We must ask ourselves the following question: if a Venezuelan or Ecuadorian army or police intervention had caused the deaths of dozens of Amazonian Indians, what kind of media coverage would such events have received?

2) When the constitutionally elected president Manuel Zelaya was ousted by the military on 28 June, the overwhelming majority of media groups declared, in total contradiction of the truth, that the soldiers were reacting to Zelaya’s attempt to modify the constitution, thus ensuring he could remain in power. Several other media groups added that he was following the example of Hugo Chavez, who is presented as an authoritarian populist leader. In fact, Manuel Zelaya was proposing to the Honduran citizens that they vote in favour of the organization of general elections for a Constituent Assembly, which would have represented real democratic progress being made in this country. This is well explained by Cécile Lamarque and Jérôme Duval on their return from a CADTM mission in Honduras: “The coup d’Etat was carried out on the same day Manuel Zelaya had organized a non-binding “consultation” asking the Hondurans whether or not they wanted to convene a National Constituent Assembly, after the elections which were due to take place on the 29 November 2009. The question went like this: “Do you agree that at the next general elections of 2009, a fourth ballot box be installed so as to allow for the people to express their point of view on the convocation of a national Constituent Assembly? YES or NO?” If this consultation had resulted in the majority voting “yes”, the president would have issued a decree of approval before Congress so that, on 29 November, the Hondurans would formally make known their decision on the convocation of a Constituent Assembly through this “fourth ballot box” (the first three ballot boxes would be for the election of a president, deputies and mayors, respectively).

In order to give an air of legality to the coup, Congress and the Supreme Court, associated with the putsch, deemed the ballot box to be illegal and asserted that president Zelaya had “violated the Constitution” by trying to modify it “so as to set his sights on serving a new mandate”, in the manner of an “apprentice Chavist dictator”. And yet, Manuel Zelaya, through this consultation with the people, was not seeking to renew his presidential mandate of four years which cannot be renewed. Zelaya would therefore be unable to be a candidate for his own succession.”

Whilst the popular movements opposing those involved in the Putsch increased, with protests and strikes in July, August and September, the big media names only dedicated a couple of lines to these events. On the rare occasions when the leading daily newspapers dedicated a feature article to the situation in Honduras, they adopted a policy of slander against the constitutionally elected president by presenting the military’s actions as a democratic military coup. This is the case with The Wall Street Journal, which in its editorial on 1 July 2009 wrote, “the military coup d’Etat which took place in Honduras on June 28th and which led to the exile of the president of this central American country, Manuel Zelaya, is strangely democratic.” The editorial adds, “the legislative and judicial authorities will remain intact” following military action.

More:
http://www.counterpunch.org/toussaint10222009.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. Boy, is this article NEEDED! What a breath of fresh air!

The corpo-fascist media campaign of lies, spin, disinformation and psyops against leftist presidents in Latin America--particularly Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras--are putrid beyond belief and so relentless that they resemble the lying "WMDs in Iraq" campaign of the Bushwhacks, which the media also actively colluded on, and they smell of war.

It is so disheartening to see these lies told over and over again, by every corpo-fascist media outlet--the Associated Pukes, Rotters, Agence France Piss, the Washington Past, the Wall Street Urinal, the New York Grimes, the Miami Hairball and the rancid Alphabet Soup on the public airwaves, that I've forgotten their real names.

[EFerrari]

2. They lied to us about our elections, about Iraq, about Bruce Ivins.

They lie consistently about LatAm. I think the verdict is in.

[Braulio]

3. Innocents Abroad

The media will focus on Iran as long as the Israel lobby wants the media to focus on Iran. It has nothing to do with Latin America, it has to do with the Israel lobby's power. The same applies to Russia, the press is reporting half truths and outright lies regarding Russia's foreign policy.