Washington Post Uses Biased Experts to Promote Propaganda on Venezuela

Horhey · Mar 18, 2014

[video=youtube_share;leaSAd_Vg_8]http://youtu.be/leaSAd_Vg_8[/video]

This is a problem for US media coverage of all foreign affairs. To know the media is broken, all you have to do is look at their "experts" and "analysts". An excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's, "The Intercept":

The Intercept: The Washington Post Uses Biased Experts to Promote Propaganda on Venezuela

The Washington Posts Feb. 19 article about the recent spate of unrest in Venezuela took a breathlessly laudatory stance towards the opposition against President Nicolás Maduro. The opening paragraphs offer a good indication of its tenor:

Leopoldo López, the defiant Venezuelan opposition leader taken into custody Tuesday in front of thousands of anti-government protesters, spent last night in a prison on a military base.

But even there, the government couldnt shut him up.

It was the kind of passionate, personal appeal and call to action that showed exactly why the Harvard-educated López has been at the center of the most serious challenge yet to the struggling Maduro, successor to the late Hugo Chávez.
Click to expand...

The piece continues in a similarly effusive manner throughout; but whats most interesting about it are the sources which the authors choose to cite as impartial experts. Not only do they appear hostile to the Venezuelan government and supportive of the opposition, they also appear to have serious, unstated conflicts of interest that cast doubt on the integrity of the Washington Posts entire reportage on this issue.

At one point, the article quotes Michael Shifter president of Inter-American Dialogue, a think-tank in Washington, as giving the following analysis of the situation: López is saying, this is intolerable, lets not be resigned to it. He felt this was his moment to act, to take to the streets. Going further, the piece also quotes Moisés Naím omitting to mention that he too is a member of the Inter-American Dialogue excoriating the previous opposition leader for not going far enough in challenging Maduro when he had the opportunity.

What the authors failed to explain is that the Inter-American Dialogue is a think-tank whose members happen to include several officials from Venezuelas previous government the same one electorally deposed by Hugo Chavezs Bolivarian Revolution. Even more distressingly, the Dialogue counts among its funders organizations such as Exxon Mobil, Chevron, the U.S. government through USAID, and the embassies of Canada, Mexico and Guatemala among others.

That these groups have distinct political and financial interests in Venezuela casts some doubt on the impartiality of the viewpoints their funded analysts produce. Indeed, a 2006 diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks uncovered the fact that U.S. officials were planning to implement a 5-point strategy to undermine the Chavez government, specifically using USAID as a means to accomplish this. That USAID also happens to be a prime funder of the Inter-American Dialogue raises some serious questions about its unstated mission in the country.

For his part, Shifter has become a high-profile public critic of the Maduro administration in the mainstream press, where his organization is still depicted as a benign, nonpartisan policy group.

That the sources of this supposedly expert analysis are funded by corporations and governments openly hostile to the Venezuelan government, and which have even attempted its overthrow in the past, would appear to be a fairly glaring omission.

A Washington Post reader emailed the co-author of the story, Post staff writer Nick Miroff, asking why he didnt explain the Inter-American Dialogues ties to Venezuelas opposition and to business interests. In an email that made its way to The Intercept, Miroff wrote back that he didnt think it necessary. (Contacted by The Intercept, Miroff confirmed the email was his, but said we did not have his permission to publish it. We dont need his permission.)

Miroff wrote that he quoted Michael Shifter for the simple reason that hes a terrific Latin America analyst, and often has smart, thoughtful observations to share. He pointed out that he stated in the story that Shifter had known Lopez for many years, signaling to readers that he has a personal relationship with him. He continued:

As for his organization receiving money from oil companies, or USAID, I think its relevant, but not necessarily worth spending ink on. A LOT of DC think tanks and universities and NGOs receive money from oil companies and other interests. Do we need to disclose all of those affiliations, every time? Chevron is one of the biggest foreign oil companies working in Venezuela and paying royalty $ to the government.
Click to expand...

Miroff praised what he called a good question, but concluded that I think in many cases its up to the reader to look up the organization and decide whether or not they think the comments are colored by donor interests. In Shifters case, I dont believe they are.

So there you have it: Because the infiltration of oil companies and other vested interests in policymaking has become so entrenched, theres no point even mentioning it anymore. That Michael Shifter runs an organization funded by many of the same corporations and governments which have open conflicts with the Venezuelan government is apparently immaterial to him also providing expert analysis on political developments in Venezuela.

Even more incredibly, his colleague at the Inter-American Dialogue Moisés Naím was formerly Venezuelas Minister of Trade and Industry during the tenure of President Carlos Andrés Pérez a leader who was electorally deposed by Chavez and who presided over the massacre of hundreds of unarmed protestors in the country. Nonetheless, his commentary has been included without even the slightest acknowledgment of what appears to be a deeply prejudicial history.

None of this is written necessarily as a defence of the Venezuelan government or a commentary on events in that country, but rather to demonstrate the fundamental incapacity of the mainstream media to cover this story in a way that is not corrupted by corporate and political interests.

The corrosive influence of corporations and government in the news media has long been documented. The establishment press has demonstrated time and again its reflex to serve as a tool of powerful vested interests, and to act essentially as the communications arm of U.S. foreign policy. The Washington Posts coverage is just the most glaring and recent example of such behavior.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Washington Post Uses Biased Experts to Promote Propaganda on Venezuela

Horhey Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Washington Post Uses Biased Experts to Promote Propaganda on Venezuela

Horhey Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches