Sneering, NPR Style

Reader Porter Melmoth commented below about Robert Smith's Friday ATC takedown on Oliver Stone's film about Hugo Chavez. Porter notes,

"I just heard Robert Smith's assessment of Oliver Stone's Hugo Chavez film. You think WE'RE snotty at this blog? Smith couldn't help but mock and snipe and complain. 'Stone didn't even ask Chavez one challenging question!' he moans."

Listen Smith, Stone's not doing public broadcasting. He's doing an independent film. That means he can make a film of Chavez' cufflink collection if he wants to. At NPR, the home of consistently challenging questions, I guess the serious reporters there just don't remember stuff like that."

It is a point well-taken. I heard the review, and was taken aback by Smith's snide and superior attitude. Here's a sample of Smith at his NPR best:

• [on Chavez' attire] "chic tomato colored turtleneck"
• "he [Oliver Stone] does dabble in documentaries"
• "it might be difficult to call this movie a documentary"
• "the most outlandish things that the US media has said about Hugo Chavez....Oliver Stone takes the film to the opposite extreme....show an angel sent to save South America."
• "Stone, the man famous for his conspiracy theories and questioning of the official story, never asks a single challenging question."
• "he doesn't talk about the Amnesty International report criticizing the country for human rights abuses. Stone never interviews a single average citizen of Venezuela instead he jets around the region to talk to Chavez's allies and hang out with them."
• "the point as always in an Oliver Stone film is that Oliver Stone keeps complete control. That's a trick that even Hugo Chavez might admire."

Well, how about those assertions? Since when is a turtle-neck chic? Dabbles in documentaries...does Smith fancy that NPR ever does more than dabble in journalism? The opposite extreme - as if praising Chavez is the same as claiming he's as bad as Bin Laden or as undemocratic as Castro. Doesn't ask a "challenging question" - not like NPR's history of challenging questions. Doesn't talk about the Amnesty report? Since when does NPR give a rats ass about Amnesty Reports (Colombia, Honduras, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.)? Chavez's allies - I think Smith means virtually all the leaders of South America except for Uribe of Colombia. And what film director doesn't exercise complete control? Oh, but that little swipe helps him slur Chavez.

It is worth considering this piece of unoriginal, lazy and utterly predicable Chavez-bashing in light of Glenn Greenwald's latest piece on how the US corporate and corporate-loyal media treats "good guys" and "bad guys" around the world (even NPR gets a mention!)

Forerovision - NPR Keeps the Focus on Venezuela

I'm not going to defend every action of the Chavez government in Venezuela - reports of harassment of journalists and the narrowing of press freedoms in Venezuela deserve some attention. But one has to wonder who sets the agenda at NPR and Juan Forero's obsessive focus on Venezuela - a focus that mirrors US government perspectives on Venezuela [similar problems exist with human rights reporting on Venezuela].

If one considers the critiques of Venezuela by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), they appear serious and deserving of some news coverage. However, a glance at the CPJ's page parallel page on Colombia is eye-opening to say the least - many cases of government persecution of journalists, and a ranking of 5th worst in the world for unpunished killings of journalists. If you look at Forero's NPR coverage of journalism in Venezuela you'll see a focus on government restrictions, whereas his coverage of the same topic in Colombia has nothing about the problem - and in fact features one one story touting the amazing Colombian military and one alleging ties between Chavez and the FARC!

This morning Forero - regular Chavez critic and past apologist for Colombian death squads - was at it again, focusing on the Chavez government's campaign against the right-wing TV channel, Globovison. The report is unstintingly critical of Chavez; Inskeep introduces it, claiming that

"the president is threatening to close it down, which has press freedom groups raising questions about the future of democracy in the highly polarized country."

Forero explains that

"since taking power over a decade ago, President Hugo Chavez has had a thing about Globovision"

noting (as he does in his mirror piece in the WaPo) that Globovision's reporters have been "refused access to official functions." Forero's report features critics of Chavez; Carlos Lauria of CPJ states that "this is an attack against freedom of expression," while Globovision's news director, Ravel, claims that one can still say what one wants, but "you risk your life, your concession." Finally, Forero closes out his report by noting that Ravel "says that covering the news in Venezeula these days can carry serious consequences."

Forero does give the slightest nod to the fact that there is a context to this "thing about Globovision" that Chavez has: "Globovision did black-out coverage of a counter-coup that put Chavez back in power - the station also gave favorable coverage to Chavez foes, but investigations of Globovision's alleged role went nowhere and no one at the station was charged in the overthrow." Forero's brief aside minimizes the role of private media such as Globovision in supporting the coup, a role that - as McChesney and Weisbrot point out in an article on RCTV - would not be tolerated by any government.

Finally, Forero's report is noticeable for the lack of any real critics of Globovision's activities or it's role in helping to make Venezuela the "highly polarized" country that Inskeep refers to.

Get Chavez

FAIR has an illuminating study recently published showing the huge disparity in US Newspaper coverage of human rights in Venezuela and Colombia over the past 10 years. Their findings show that in spite of Colombia having an "appalling" human rights record - horrific compared to Venezuela's shortcomings - the US press coverage focuses almost exclusively on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. Like the US Newspapers, NPR has a thing about focusing on Venezuela and Chavez and their main man for such assignments is Juan Forero.

Forero - always happy to push the State Department or CIA narrative on Latin America - is on this morning to portray the Chavez government as dangerously antisemitic.

Forero notes that despite Chavez' denunciation of the recent synagogue vandalism "questions are being raised over whether the government's recent language against Israel is creating a climate of hate. In January Chavez broke relations with Israel over that country's military strikes against Gaza. He called Israel's actions genocidal and expelled Israeli diplomats." Of course Forero doesn't note that Israel's violent actions against Palestinians fit the legal definition of genocide: "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."

Forero purports that Chavez's remarks have had "an aggressive tone" "that borders on antisemitic." Forero sneers that in the past Chavez claimed the 2002 coup against him was "hatched by the CIA and Israel's secret service Mossad" and "claimed the gunmen that day were Jewish." Now what kind of nutbar would claim Israel's involvement in genocidal and rightwing Latin American governments. He also fails to mention that a prominent Venezuelan rabbi was present with the coup leaders in the immediate aftermath of the coup.

Forero closes his piece with this chestnut: Andreas (a Holocaust survivor) "knew exactly what the ramifications were. He's a Romanian Jew who survived the Holocaust and then came to Venezuela..." Ah yes, the Chavez denunciations of Israel's slaughter of Palestinians caused the antisemitic attack on the synagogue and it's like Kristalnacht all over again!

He's Like a Supercharged Castro!

Michelle Norris opens the smear-commentary on Venezuela by Ana Flaster, whose family left Cuba in the 1960s. Norris says:

"Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez is known for picking fights with other world leaders like...his criticism of President Bush....
She [Flaster] says her relatives are obsessed with Chavez. He reminds them of Cuba's Fidel Castro, but she says there's one big difference: Venezuela's oil wealth makes the Chavez rhetoric more powerful."

Flaster and NPR need a serious reality check here. There is, in fact, one huge, overwhelming difference between the two leaders: Chavez has been elected repeatedly in open, free and fair elections.

Of course NPR doesn't like to look much into elections: they might discover that some countries get an incompetent, mean-spirited, authoritarian, relgious wacko for President with the help of Brother Jeb, Supreme Court interference, mob action, vote fixing, disenfranchisement, etc.

Wouldn't it be great to hear a commentary on NPR that examined the social justice accomplishments of Chavez in Venezuela. Or if they want to obsess on Castro, I'd love to hear one comparing the dreaded Fidel to some of the lovely Latin American leaders that the US has backed in during his time as the head of Cuba. NPR could compare numbers: opponents jailed and killed, literacy improvements, nutrition, health care, human rights, elections, political prisoners etc. True, Fidel would come out as a dictator with many flaws, but his crimes would barely register on the old tote board. US "friends" and allies in the region would outstrip him in every category - except for the ones involving improved standards of living.

That's a commentary I could listen to.