Aló Presidente

Presumably aiming to keep his presentation symmetrical with his governance, recent changes have been made to Alo Presidente, the weekly, ninety-minute program of Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. Fans of the show, however, needn’t worry the change in format will kill the quality: the website assures us it will retain “novel, pedagogic elements and, above all, his [Hugo's] immense love for the people that embrace us [The Bolivarian Revolution], and let us know that we are moving forward, opening spaces of communication never before permitted.”

To most, explicitly the US media, this beneficent rhetoric will no doubt ring hollow. Instead of “opening spaces of communication” they report he is putting the clamps on the press, on his government and acting in the mold of tyrant. With selected bits of news from Venezuela they support their case, and at times the presentation is a convincing one. Their representation, however, is problematic. While it may not be explicitly false, it manipulates the information to present an image that is not a faithful reproduction of the reality. By dissecting one particular issue we can understand how the media manages the task.

Recent calls from Chávez for the consolidation of over a dozen smaller political parties, including Podemos, Fatherland For All, and the Communist Party, drew intense criticism for the Venezuelan leader from an already unfriendly US press. One example is Time magazine, which poses the ominous, albeit misguided question “Is Chavez becoming Castro?” Taking the senationalism a bit further, an article by Mario Loyola of The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an organization which claims objectivity but accepts heavy funding from the State Department, warns Venezuela is now “staring into the abyss of fascism.”

This is heavy speech, and if only a selected portion of the facts are presented it appears warranted. For example, when the three parties offered resistance to the move, Chavez declared “If you want to go, leave. In reality you are not indispensable,” adding “I don’t want allies like that.” When the whole story is presented, however, the biased nature of such statements becomes immediately clear.

The operative word there is “allies,” and that little word makes the story’s treatment (one of fascist consolidation) misleading, and willfully irresponsible. Mr. Chavez is not repressing opposition; there are still sizeable anti-Chavez parties within Venezuela, such as Accion Democratica, who are left untouched by Chavez’ call for consolidation. He is instead urging his pro-Chavez constituency to come together, thereby strengthening through unification his Bolivarian Revolution. This is a move any objective political commentator would classify as tactical intelligence.

In fact, the Venezuelan opposition has countered by mirroring the move, banding together to form their own centralized coalition. The result, so denounced by the US media, is the transformation of a hearty pluralism into one that very much resembles our own democracy; two powerful, competing parties, a la Republicans / Democrats.

Moreover, the three parties in question do not oppose the consolidation measure because they are adverse to the idea wholesale. They are unreservedly pro-Chavez, and take issue only with the stucture the new party would take. Once ideological details are hammered out, their hesitancy to jump on board will disappear.

But these facts do nothing for commentators such as Mr. Loyola. He wants Chavez gone, even faulting the United States for not more forcefully ensuring the success of the 2002 coup. He says “America was slow to recognize that democracy in Venezuela could no longer be restored by elections. It was through elections that democracy has been destroyed.” Apparently the best manner of ensuring democracy is by subverting a leader elected with landslide support.

Such twisted logic (that democracy cannot be restored by elections, only by foreign intervention and armed forces) is not atypical from men in Mr. Loyola’s position; as a former consultant for the Department of Defense, and a contributor to the 2005 National Defense Strategy, he is a man with relative influence over governmental policy and public opinion. That he should be engaged in the campaign of disinformation against Mr. Chavez should also come as no surprise. It is, however, disheartening if people will continue to listen to this clan. Inform yourselves regarding the situation in Venezuela, come to your own conclusions for better or worse, but don’t buy what’s currently being peddled. That portrayal is so paper thin, it takes nothing more than the rest of the story to tear it down.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::  Email This Post   ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: