Corporate MSM and the grab for Venezuela’s resources

The role of corporate media in promoting the conquest and submission of non-compliant nation-states has never been more evident. Indeed, they no longer see the need to feign adherence to any semblance of standards of journalism, especially in the case of a country rich in resources that considers its resources the patrimony of all its citizens.

The situation becomes more acute, more unacceptable, intolerable when the country’s leader focuses not only on improving the welfare of the country’s citizens, especially its most vulnerable, but also on promoting the philosophy to the country’s neighbours and providing any necessary assistance to achieve such objectives. Such a philosophy is the threat to the neoliberal order posed by the late President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez and, now, by his somewhat less charismatic and insightful successor, Nicolás Maduro. To thwart such a philosophy taking root, the role of the media, especially the US MSM, has been to poison that root, or promote its eradication: to discredit, undermine, and set the stage for change of an elected government and reversal of policy.

From teleSUR we have the video presentation,  Media Review – Venezuela, by Richard Seymour, a devastating indictment of corporate media, propagandists, really. The text is also available there, A Review of US Media Coverage on Venezuela Maduro’s failure to lose the 2013 Presidential elections would earn him increasing vitriol and provoke ever more vigorous and violent measures to overthrow his government. We learn,

The [Trump] administration, which many newspapers feared would be “isolationist” and neglect the American empire, has taken the baton from Obama with vigor on this front. The Trump administration’s stance is not only a more belligerent version of Obama’s, but it is not a million miles away from that of the U.S. press reporting on Venezuela.

From these newspapers, we have had headlines like, “Venezuela’s Maduro decried as a ‘dictator’ after Congress annulled,” and “Venezuela burns as dictator Maduro turns his back on the people,” while the New York Times editorializes about Maduro’s “drive to dictatorship.”

This follows almost three years of escalating demonization of the Venezuelan government in the international media.

(To be recalled is that one popular US politician, labelled ‘socialist’, would deem the late President of Venezuela to be ‘a dead communist dictator’. So much for definitions and convictions.)

And, yes, for the NYT, the late President was its bête noire, racist implication and all – his successor would be termed ‘former bus driver’. A brief digression, back in 2007, at the counterpunch blog Stephen Lendman had penned a post, a powerful indictment, a ‘j’accuse’, The New York Times vs. Hugo Chavez. One excerpt should suffice for the immediate purpose,

This article focuses on one example of Times duplicity among many other prominent ones equally sinister and disturbing – its venomous agitprop targeting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez this writer calls the leading model democratic leader on the planet even though he’s not perfect, nor is anyone else. That’s why after “Islamofascist terrorists” he’s practically “enemy number one” on the Times hit list and Washington’s. Besides Venezuela being oil rich, Chavez is the greatest of all threats the US faces – a good example that’s spreading. His governance shows how real social democracy works exposing the fake American kind.

Joe Emerberger would post at teleSUR, Nicholas Casey: Deceit on Venezuela at New York Times. Omissions and distortions would feature prominently,

He [Nicholas Casey] wrote, “In a contentious election on Sunday, Mr. (Nicolas) Maduro instructed Venezuelans to choose delegates from a list of allies in the governing party. Voters were not given the option of rejecting the plan.”

The opposition boycotted the vote! He never mentions it in the article. Amazing. The opposition was not barred from running.

‘Amazing’? No, not at all. Predictable. ‘Legacy’ media like the NYT have been strident leaders in their promotion of ‘the narrative’ of the ‘agenda’ of the ruling class. And neither accuracy nor objectivity counts, as the wanton slaughter and destruction and plunder in Iraq, Libya, Syria have shown. The deviations from journalistic standards would continue,

Casey quotes Maria Corina Machado uncritically. Machado signed the infamous Carmona Decree in April of 2002 that annulled the 1999 Constitution, dismissed the Supreme Court, and dismissed the National Assembly under the short-lived dictatorship of Pedro Carmona. About 60 Chavistas were killed while Carmona was in power.

Machado, Leopoldo Lopez and others avoided prison thanks to (in my opinion) an unwise amnesty that Chavez granted them in 2007. Henrique Capriles served only six months in jail for kidnapping a government official during the coup. Lopez also participated in that kidnapping.

Emersberger would refer to another article by the same Casey, published in the same NYT, an article that cynically attempts to rewrite the history of the overthrow of the democratically-elected of Honduras in 2009. That article by Janine Jackson appeared in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, fair.org. So appallingly unprofessional was that Casey article on Honduras that fair.org deemed it necessary to exhort its readers to protest the blatant lies to the NYT.

Thanks to the internet, independent online blogs and news and analysis sites, fewer and fewer are being deceived as in times past, in times of limited choice. The irony is that the US presidential candidate so cynically promoted by US MSM to ensure a devastating victory for their anointed candidate, instead, did win; and in the process breathed new life, however brief, into a continually discredited media. The handwriting is on the wall.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,