If you listen to NPR's coverage of Venezuela you'd have a pretty skewed idea of what's happening there. Today Julie McCarthy tells of of the "self-styled" revolutionary Chavez as opposed to the opposition candidate Manuel Rosales who has "offered a moderate course, that would limit the government’s grip on the economy and pull Venezuela out from any orbit of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, a close ally of Chavez…"
It's telling that a candidate who -- as the BBC states, "rose through the ranks of Accion Democratica (Democratic Action), one of the two parties that dominated Venezuelan politics" and were seen as corrupt and squandering the oil revenues of Venezuela -- is described as "moderate." What makes him "moderate?" Is is that he favors closer ties with the US the country that immediately jumped on board with the coup leaders against Chavez in 2002 and had detailed plans of the coup ahead of time? Is it that he wants to subject Venezuelans to the predations of multinational corporations under the rubric of "free trade?"
I long for the day when I get to hear NPR talk about the Pentagon's "grip" on our economy and how the US government is in the orbit of multinational corporations. Or when people like Bush are described as religious extremists and the Ralph Naders and Bernie Sanders of the world are called moderates!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Oh, oh, Chavez is "buying votes" by properly caring for the people's welfare. Oh, oh!
Yep, another NPR Latin America story straight from the files. According to the NPR commentator's rulebook any foreign country or leader that opposes the US is "radical" (e.g. Moqtada al-Sadr is ALWAYS called the "radical cleric") or "revolutionary" (viz Chavez). And any foreign politician who advocates cooperating with the US is "moderate". If you thought these descriptions had any objective meaning, independent of US doctrine, you are a fool! In this way, NPR is very post-modern.
Post a Comment