[NYTr] Two Weks to Go to Venezuela's Reform Referendum
 
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 17:42:00 -0600 (CST)

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Venezuela Information Office (VIO)
http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com

excerpted from VIO Venezuela Daily News Roundup - Nov 19, 2007

[Just two weeks now ahead of a national referendum on constitutional
reforms in Venezuela, political campaigns for and against the changes
continue.  The New York Times reported Saturday that the reforms would
share wealth while centering power, quoting mainly from prominent
rivals of the President including an ex-defense minister, ex-wife, and
the presidential candidate who lost to Chavez in elections last
December.  Despite polarized public opinion on the reforms, polls show
that most citizens plan to vote in favor of them in next month's
referendum, just as they voted to enact the 1999 Constitution.

A Washington Post editorial today uses verbal sparring between
President Chavez and the King of Spain over a week ago to make a series
of outsized claims about Chavez.  Constitutional reform proposals that
will go to a referendum are wrongly said to be "abetted by intimidation
and overt violence," when in fact most of the marches for and against
the reforms have been peaceful, and all of them unrepressed.  One
student was wounded by gunfire last week in Caracas after an opposition
rally, but this was in confrontations between student factions; no
"government-backed paramilitaries" have been found to exist in
Venezuela.  The Post claims against -- all evidence -- that reforms
would curtail freedoms in Venezuela, though notes that human rights
groups have not indicated that this is true.  President Chavez will
continue to be a democratic leader held responsible by the people of
Venezuela through elections and referenda, and to the other branches of
government in accordance with the democratic system.

A member of Venezuela's National Assembly is outing opposition groups
that circulate pamphlets with false information about the
constitutional reforms.  Venezuelanalysis reports that the materials
spread lies, claiming that reforms would allow the state to take
citizens' possessions including air conditioners and "expropriate"
children from their parents.  Distortions are also present in US media
coverage of issues surrounding the reforms, according to an article in
Common Dreams, which takes issue with representations of recent student
violence in Venezuela.-VIO]

***********************

Venezuelanalysis.com - November 17, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/2845

Venezuelan Legislator: 

Opposition Distributes Lies about Constitutional Reform 

By Kiraz Janicke

Caracas - Venezuelan National Assembly Deputy Mario Isea accused that
an "ex-presidential candidate, together with other people from the
opposition" are reproducing and distributing bogus examples of the
proposed constitutional reforms, with falsified articles saying that
all private property will become the property of the state, as part of
a campaign of lies and manipulation in the lead up to the
constitutional referendum on December 2.

A pamphlet produced by Un Nuevo Tiempo, party of ex-presidential
candidate Manuel Rosales, makes similar claims, implying that the
government will confiscate people's houses, cars, "air-conditioners"
and other personal effects if the reforms are passed. The pamphlet also
insinuates that a government campaign to distribute 23 million energy
saver light bulbs to households in Venezuela earlier in the year was
really a sinister plot to carry out a secret census of people's
possessions.

Isea ridiculed the idea last Thursday, saying, "Article 115 is very
precise: it guarantees private property...no one is going to take your
shop, your car, or you house," he affirmed.

Vice-President Jorge Rodriguez pointed out, "The constitution
consecrates, not only personal and social property, but also the right
to a house, to health, to food sovereignty."

In addition to private property, the proposed changes to article 115
would also recognize other forms of property, including collective,
communal, and social property. Housing, a pressing issue in Venezuela,
is also addressed in a proposed change to article 82, which guarantees
the right to a "dignified house" to all Venezuelans, which cannot be
confiscated, even in the event of failure to pay a mortgage or
bankruptcy.

Rodriguez said the principal adversary to the reforms is the campaign
of lies by the opposition and that in order to counter this, millions
of copies of the reforms had been distributed so that people know the
truth. He stressed that it is very important for people to read the
content of the reforms.

Meanwhile, the National Electoral Council (CNE), which is funding 50%
of the referendum campaign for both the "Yes" bloc of organizations and
political parties in favor of the reforms and the "No" bloc of groups
and political parties against the reforms, announced it will carry out
a verification of all advertising material in the campaign, after
receiving complaints from both sides.

The CNE suspended an ad by the Yes bloc yesterday, which depicted a
cartoon of the devil to the music of opposition private TV channel,
Globovision, after Globovision protested that the use its music in the
ad incited "violence and hatred."

Blanca Eeckout, a spokesperson for the Yes bloc, said with irony that
she was glad that Globovision has recognized that their music promotes
violence and hatred. She recalled that Globovision used this music
during the coup of April 2002, in which opposition private media played
a key role and that the ad was a humorous reflection on the
destabilizing activities of the opposition during this period, as well
as the oil industry lockout in 2002-2003, which caused up to $10
billion in losses to the economy.

While Eeckout said she respected the decision of the CNE to suspend the
ad, she also hoped that the CNE would act with the same speed to remove
ads by the No bloc, which lie, incite violence, and promote fear.

In particular, the Yes bloc is demanding the withdrawal of an ad by the
No bloc, which depicts a government functionary walking into a shop and
telling the proprietor that his shop is now the property the state.

"This ad of the No bloc is a lie about property, that falsifies the
truth, that misinforms, that creates a climate of terror and violence,"
Eckout declared.

To lie about the reforms is against electoral regulations, Eckout
argued, and for this reason, the ad should be forbidden.

CNE President Tibisay Lucena affirmed that the CNE would act to ensure
both sides comply with the norms and regulations.

The National Assembly also announced yesterday that it would open an
investigation into allegations that a number of Catholic colleges
throughout the country were obliging school children to read and
discuss documents produced by the Venezuela Episcopal Conference
against the reforms.

Other false claims circulating about the reforms include the claim that
the state will "expropriate" children from their parents, eliminate
unions, and abolish university autonomy.

Despite this campaign of misinformation, Isea assured that the opinion
polls indicate that the majority of Venezuelans support the reforms and
he believes Venezuelan's will vote overwhelmingly in favor in the
referendum in December.

                                ***

Venezuelanalysis - November 17, 2007
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2850

Of Submarines and Loose Screws: A ChC!vez Ally Jumps the Divider

By George Chicariello-Maher

On November 5th, retired general RaC:l Baduel shocked many in Venezuela
and abroad by delivering a prepared statement condemning the proposed
constitutional reform and urging a "NO" vote on December 2nd. The shock
felt by many and the outrage by some is no doubt the result of such a
high-level defection: until July, Baduel had served as Venezuela's
defense minister. But this position in and of itself fails to express
the mythical status that RaC:l Baduel had garnered among Chavistas in
recent years. To grasp both the popular shock at Baduel's defection and
its inevitability, we need to look more closely into a history spanning
nearly three decades.

Operation Restore National Dignity 

Alongside ChC!vez, Baduel was a founding member of the Revolutionary
Bolivarian Movement (MBR-200), a clandestine grouping that formed in
the early 1980s within the Venezuelan Armed Forces. This group of
conspiratorial idealists was rooted in the parachute regiment at
Maracay, a stiflingly hot city of a million some two hours west of
Caracas, from where they began to chart an escape from the corruption
and repression of the late Fourth Republic. Together, they swore a
Bolivarian oath under the historic SamC!n de GC<ere, a massive tree under
which SimC3n BolC-var is said to have rested.

But when it came time to act, Baduel himself was notably absent. In an
interview, he told Marta Harnecker that he chose to sit out the 1992
coup attempts because he considered them premature. While Baduel has
been often criticized for this decision, he wasn't entirely wrong: the
coup itself, however necessary for what followed, was indeed premature
and poorly organized. But other aspects of Baduel's concerns prior to
the 1992 coup stand out. "What will happen to the military structure?"
Baduel recalls asking himself, "What are we going to do with those with
a higher rank than us? They can't be subordinated to us... because a
fundamental element of military life is verticalism." Baduel, in this
2002 interview, even prophetically jokes about having felt like Eden
Pastora, the Sandinista "Commander Zero"-turned-Contra who "was not
loved by either side, because some said he had betrayed them and others
that he had infiltrated them."

Sitting out the 1992 coups did not spell the end of Baduel's
relationship with the MBR-200. He would maintain contact with the
imprisoned leaders and support ChC!vez's eventual bid for political
power in the 1998 election, and in 1999, Baduel was named commander of
the 42nd Parachute Infantry Brigade, ChC!vez's own regiment in times
past. While his reticence to participate in the 1992 coup had cast a
long shadow over Baduel's revolutionary credentials, his mythical
status would be cemented a decade later, when he nearly single-handedly
spearheaded the military response to the April 2002 coup against ChC!vez.

Why did Baduel, for whom a respect for the military hierarchy had
prevented action in 1992, choose to break with that very hierarchy a
decade later when it had turned against ChC!vez? Because by then another
crucial element had intervened: the new 1999 Constitution. In 1992, the
conspirators were all clear that, in Baduel's own words, "the ruling
class wielded the existing Constitution, but applied it according to
their own interests." In 2002, on the other hand, the coup-plotters and
the military hierarchy (but crucially, not the middle ranks) had moved
against the new "Bolivarian" Constitution. Confronted with a conflict
between his two primary values, loyalty to military structure and
loyalty to the Constitution, Baduel finally decided to act. He declared
the 42nd Brigade in open rebellion against the illegitimate interim
government of Pedro Carmona Estanga and initiated "Operation Restore
National Dignity," thereby providing the spark that allowed the
majority of loyal officers to turn against the coup. This loyalty to
the Constitution was repaid: within two years, Baduel would be named
Army Commander, before becoming Defense Minister in 2006.

Two Visions of the Military                          

In the aftermath of the failed coup and ChC!vez's return to power,
Baduel would come to represent the quintessence of loyalty and
moderation in the popular imaginary. It was not until he passed into
retirement in July 2007 that the public was given any glimpse of
potential discord between this hero of "April 13th" and the direction
of the revolutionary process. Baduel took the opportunity of his
retirement speech to urge caution when it came to ChC!vez's proposed
project of "21st Century Socialism." He praised socialism as a concept,
but warned against its state capitalist manifestations: "Our socialism
must be profoundly democratic," he counseled, one focused on the
redistribution of wealth and the correction of inequalities. Further,
he distanced himself from the view that "the division of powers is
merely an instrument of bourgeois domination," arguing that such
division, generally associated with liberal constitutionalism, remains
essential.

But Baduel wasn't the only general to retire last July: he was joined
on the stage by Alberto MC<ller Rojas. But while Baduel waited until
retirement to court controversy, MC<ller was retired in an effort to
silence it. Earlier in the year, MC<ller, a member of the commission
responsible for founding the United Socialist Party of Venezuela
(PSUV), had spurned existing law by joining the PSUV while on active
military duty. Military neutrality, MC<ller argued, is a myth, and one
which stands alongside professionalism as twin pillars of reactionary
military organization. Advocating a recognition of the inherently
political role of the military alongside the development of a
broad-based and popular militia structure to offset military hierarchy,
MC<ller urged that the current process of constitutional reform be used
to clear the way for this new vision. 

MC<ller was promptly assailed by moderate Chavistas, who accused him of
giving in to opposition claims of military politicization. What
happened next offers a window into the shadowy corridors of Venezuelan
power: ChC!vez joined in the attack on MC<ller, insisting on the
apolitical and professional nature of the Venezuelan military, and the
impertinent general was duly ostracized from the president's inner
circle for daring to suggest the sort of militia structure that ChC!vez
and so many other Venezuelan officials had proposed in the past.
Clearly, a message was being sent to the military hierarchy. And that
message was to momentarily divert attention away from the question of
military politicization. This became clear when ChC!vez's constitutional
reform proposal was released, which conformed almost point-for-point
with MC<ller's arguments. If approved in the December referendum, the
reformed Article 328 will mean that the military will no longer be an
explicitly "apolitical" institution, but would instead be characterized
as "patriotic, popular, and anti-imperialist." Moreover, Article 329
would convert the existing reserve into a more institutionally powerful
force referred to as the "Bolivarian Popular Militias."

But the intrigue didn't end with the story of MC<ller's ironic
ostracism. Shortly after the reform proposal was released, ChC!vez
announced that, after consultations with the military high command, the
new militia force would be known as the "Bolivarian National Militias,"
rather than "Popular" ones. What is more interesting than this
seemingly-minor semantic change is the (presumably powerful) political
pressure that must have intervened to make such a change. 

Jumping the Divider

While MC<ller Rojas wasted no time in courting controversy, Baduel's day
in the spotlight wouldn't come until November 5th, less than a month
before the scheduled constitutional reform referendum. On November 4th,
ChC!vez had warned that someone might soon be "saltando la talanquera,"
or "jumping the divider" between Chavismo and the opposition. Such a
statement wouldn't be surprising to anyone who has observed the recent
controversies over the formation of the PSUV, which saw one of the
larger members of the Chavista coalition, the social democratic PODEMOS
party, essentially expelled to the no-man's land between Chavismo and
the opposition. But the fact that ChC!vez offered an explicit warning
may have indicated to some that something serious was afoot. 

The next day, Baduel appeared at a press conference from which
state-run Venezolana de TelevisiC3n was notably excluded. What he said
stunned millions, for whom he had come to represent the epitome of
loyalty. In his own words, Baduel (a self-professed Taoist) had "taken
some time to reflect and meditate" on the course of the country. His
conclusion: that the 1999 Constitution is sufficient. Far from being a
fetter to the revolutionary process, Baduel argues, the Constitution
has yet to enter fully into force. The document, he argues, "does not
in any way impede the exercise of a socialist government, with high
levels of inclusion and broad social content." But what socialism does
Baduel endorse? This he doesn't say. But when he suggests that the word
could be applied to anything from the Cambodian Khmer Rouge to Nordic
social democracy (which he revealingly deems "socialism"), it is clear
where his loyalties lie.

Echoing his retirement speech, Baduel reiterated his devotion to
liberal constitutionalism: "constitutions should limit and control
power... and a constitution that deregulates and removes limits from
power should be seen with suspicion." Constitutions, in short, have a
fundamentally negative role: they limit power rather than em-powering.
This liberal constitutionalism dovetails nicely with Baduel's liberal
socialism: having achieved a division of powers and mild redistribution
of wealth, no further action is necessary. Any efforts to radicalize
the process by undermining the division of powers becomes for Baduel a
"usurpation," and he claims that, if approved, the current
constitutional reform proposal "would consummate, in practice, a coup
d'C)tat, shamefully violating the text of the constitution." 

Notably, Baduel calls on the Armed Forces to "profoundly analyze the
proposed text," and implores the population as a whole to use "the only
legal and democratic weapon we have left," the "NO" vote on December
2nd. But for our purposes, what is most interesting is Baduel's
departure from his own script. When it came time for him to call on the
Armed Forces, Baduel entered into a long excursus on the nature of the
military, in which he read in full the current definition of the
military as an apolitical and professional institution. While the
military question was relatively absent from the rest of his speech,
this unscripted addendum leaves little doubt both as to Baduel's
motivations and his relationship to the MC<ller controversy. Not only
does the reform undermine liberal constitutionalism, but it also
threatens military professionalism. We would be justified in wondering
if it was Baduel himself who, for the sake of his vaunted
"verticalism," intervened previously to force out MC<ller and to
pressure ChC!vez to change the proposed name of the Bolivarian militias.

The Bends 

Perhaps unsurprisingly given Baduel's celebrated status, the response
by Chavistas to his declarations has been a deafening outpouring of
rage. ChC!vez has claimed that Baduel is "betraying himself" and
betraying their 1982 Bolivarian oath under the Saman de GC<ere. The
President, we should recall, is by this point no stranger to high-level
defections. "When a submarine gets deeper the pressure increases," he
reminds us, "a loose screw can pop out." This metaphor resonates with
the entire history of the process: as the Bolivarian submarine has
plumbed new depths, a variety of such screws have wiggled their way
out. Most notably, several longtime allies like 1992 coup veteran
Francisco Arias CC!rdenas and longtime ChC!vez political advisor Luis
Miquilena jumped ship for the opposition in 2000 and 2002, respectively
(Arias CC!rdenas, bizarrely, would return to the Chavista ranks after
running against ChC!vez in presidential elections). But according to
most, this has been good for the process, overcoming inertial
tendencies, strengthening Chavista identity, and allowing the
revolution to forge radical new paths. 

Many have echoed the claims of treason, and some, like Mario Silva of
La Hojilla, have pointed out that Baduel had openly endorsed even the
most controversial elements of the proposed constitutional reform until
only two weeks earlier. Even some more heterodox members of the
Chavista coalition like the Patria Para Todos (Homeland for All) party
have taken aim at the fallen hero. Some claim that Baduel is bitter
over his forced retirement, or at not being named head of the state oil
company PDVSA. Some cite rumors that Baduel will be seeking election as
head of his home state of Aragua.

While pillorying the retired general's treason, however, Vice President
Jorge RodrC-guez did give him credit for channeling his discontent
through democratic means by urging voters to participate in the reform
referendum. But MC<ller doesn't view things this way: a close
examination of Baduel's claims, he argues, shows a more sinister aim.
Baduel's accusation of usurpation, for MC<ller, is a very precise call
for rebellion against the government. That is, by accusing the
government of a coup, he is in fact justifying the same. Baduel's
position, then, becomes doubly ironic: if MC<ller is correct, this will
be the second time that Baduel will have encouraged but not himself
participated in an attempted coup. He will be the golpista menos
golpista in Venezuelan history. 

But the most intriguing and revealing part of this long saga wouldn't
be played out until MC<ller Rojas was invited on the VTV evening program
Contragolpe (which coincidentally could translate as Counterpunch).
MC<ller had been invited on to give his opinion on the Baduel affair,
and proceeded to explain that he had never considered Baduel was a
committed revolutionary. Indeed, in the past, MC<ller has criticized
Baduel's policies while serving as defense minister, policies which,
according to MC<ller, hindered the government's military-civilian
integration. The show then received a call from ChC!vez himself, who had
not spoken to MC<ller publicly since their acrimonious falling-out in
July. He publicly thanked the retired general for the sharp and
incisive advice he had always offered, and insisted that he would be in
touch in the near future. This was a public apology, and a recognition
that Baduel's more conservative opposition had come between the
president and MC<ller's proposed radicalization of the military.

Error or Treason? 

Some, however, have refused to accuse Baduel of treason: Luis TascC3n, a
National Assembly deputy from TC!chira state who tends toward the
radical wing of the government, recently claimed that Baduel isn't a
traitor. According to TascC3n, Baduel mustn't be attacked on moral
grounds, but only political ones. "I don't support Baduel," TascC3n
later clarified, "What I said was that Baduel is my friend, I respect
him, I appreciate what he did, but I think he is wrong, totally wrong."
TascC3n chose his words carefully, but evidently not carefully enough:
he was promptly expelled by the disciplinary committee of the nascent
PSUV for his declarations.[1]

RaC:l Baduel is two things: he is a loyal soldier and a rigid
constitutionalist. Nothing can take that away from him. But loyalty to
military hierarchy and the constitution doesn't necessarily (or even
frequently) make one a revolutionary. His support for the 1999
Constitution, the same support which spurred him to action in 2002, has
put him at odds with a new round of constitutional reforms. But this
opposition is fundamentally rooted in Baduel's own liberal
constitutionalism, military traditionalism, and social-democratic
temper: the Revolution, he is saying, has gone far enough, and it is
here that he comes into conflict with the very constituent power he
claims to be shielding from "usurpation." When he claims that the
executive and legislative branches the constituent power of the people,
we are left wondering where exactly that power resides. The only
answer, for Baduel, can be division: he cannot conceive the constituent
as an indivisible Rousseauean "General Will," but only as a system of
liberal checks and balances. This, however, has never been the
Bolivarian project. As one commentator on the webzine Aporrea.org puts
it: "Only one question, Baduel my friend: did you not realize what was
going on during the past eight years?" 

This isn't to say that there is no cause for concern in the current
constitutional reform proposal, or even that the division of powers is
to be so readily dispensed with. Despite the many positive elements of
the proposal, there are nevertheless disagreements to be had. But RaC:l
Baduel's departure from the revolutionary ranks is rooted in much
deeper divergences that made this moment, painful for many who had come
to respect his loyalty, more or less inevitable. His views on
"socialism," the military, and the Constitution, are not those of the
government, and nor does he seem to care if they reflect the desires of
the people. Even if the Venezuelans approve the reform come December,
as it seems they will, this will still be a "coup" against the
Constitution in Baduel's eyes. 

[George Ciccariello-Maher is a Ph.D. candidate in political theory at
U.C. Berkeley. He can be reached at gjcm(at)berkeley.edu. ]

                              ***

CommonDreams - November 17, 2007
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/15/5247/

US Media Bias and Recent Student Violence in Venezuela

By JoJo Farrell

Why is it that the U.S. media condemns Venezuelan President Hugo ChC!vez
for limiting freedom of press while in the same breath self-censoring
their Venezuelan news coverage to such an extent that it completely
distorts the story? This has been the case ever since ChC!vez came to
office, but last week, after the incidents at the Central Venezuelan
University, the asymmetries once again were violently thrust to the
surface.

Next month's controversial constitutional reform has again sent
Venezuelans into the streets and into headlines around the world.
President Hugo ChC!vez has likened the current political climate to the
spring of 2002, which culminated in a short-lived coup d'C)tat ousting
ChC!vez for 2 days. Pro- and anti-government sides have each launched
vicious attacks on one another. The polarized Venezuelan media coverage
has created a confused and divided environment in which it is common to
see stories written with substantial pieces left out. The international
media is never far from the sidelines. Last week, in standard fashion,
nearly every major US newspaper momentarily forgot their commitment to
an independent press, and omitted crucial facts, martyring the
Venezuelan opposition student movement, and acting as a de facto
mouthpiece for the opposition.

Sean McCormick, spokesperson for the US state Department, had this to
say on the morning of November 8th: "These people are just expressing
themselves in a peaceful manner. They've had a view contrary to the
views held by the government, but it was a peaceful protest, as far as
I've been able to determine from the news reports."

An analysis of 10 major U.S. media outlets shows very consistent
reporting of the story. Seven of the 10 reprinted the same AP story.
Only the Washington Post, however briefly, brings to light that there
are even two different sides. Most media outlets reported that
following peaceful protests in downtown Caracas, masked Chavista-gunman
attacked anti-government supporters on the campus of the Central
University of Venezuela (UCV). Photos of the masked gunman have
accompanied most of these articles lending themselves as powerful
images of violence against peaceful protestors.

The Miami Herald reported photographers for The Associated Press saw at
least four gunmen - their faces covered by ski masks or T-shirts -
firing handguns at the anti- ChC!vez crowd at the UCV. Terrified
students ran through the campus as ambulances arrived. The New York
Times on Nov. 7th led with the following: "Masked gunmen shot into a
group of students on Wednesday at this country as most prestigious
university. The students were returning from a march here protesting
changes to the Constitution proposed by President Hugo ChC!vez that
could allow him to remain in power indefinitely." The following day,
the Times printed a quote from one of the student leaders likening
their tactics to those of Gandhi.

Unfortunately, these reports have left out an important chunk of the
story. After last Wednesday's peaceful protest, many students headed
back to UCV campus. Here is where things get complicated. According to
ChC!vez supporters, eyewitnesses, and videotape recorded by the
community TV station, Catia TV, opposition students, mainly from
neighboring privates Universities, chased down a group of pro- ChC!vez
students putting up signs in favor of the reform. The pro-ChC!vez group
found refuge in the faculty of Social Work, which is known to be a
ChC!vez friendly zone, and where it was also reported that another group
of pro-ChC!vez students were meeting. The opposition students surrounded
the faculty, armed with weapons, rocks, and gas masks shouting, "We
will lynch you all." According to reports, opposition students fired
weapons, threw rocks at the students inside the building, and lit fire
to the entrance. ChC!vez supporters present that day affirm that the
motorcyclists televised to the world as sinister gunmen, arrived on the
scene as part of a rescue mission to help their companions trapped
inside the building by the rabid opposition outside. They argue that
this was necessary because the Venezuelan army or police force are, by
law, not allowed to enter the grounds of the University. To this day,
the entire truth is not known about the events at the UCV last
Wednesday, but the inability of the international press to report an
unbiased account calls into question their journalist integrity. The
consequences of this could lead to further violence in Venezuela.

Media distortion is nothing new in Venezuela. The media played a
critical role during the 2002 Coup d'C)tat which removed ChC!vez from
power temporarily. At the time major outlets ordered a blackout of pro-
ChC!vez street protests. The movement in the street ultimately led to
the return of the President, and has encouraged a new generation of
community media around the country. It was those small community
stations that spread the news that wasn't available on the major
outlets. What the private and international mainstream media reported
is that pro-government protesters had fired at opposition marchers,
killing over a dozen. It was later revealed that video footage was
manipulated, as were the reports, and that in fact the deaths were
caused by snipers firing from the nearby buildings, and the
pro-government protesters were defending themselves from the armored
vehicles of the metropolitan police, advancing on the crowds from only
a few blocks away. This past summer the Venezuelan government pointed
to the role of Radio Caracas Television in the 2002 coup as the impetus
for not renewing its broadcast license. This is a fact that was
consistently left out of the story reported in the private and
international media. The RCTV story read that ChC!vez was silencing the
station due to their opposition to his policies. The same story
continues to be perpetuated in the US media today. Unfortunately, this
one-sided hypocrisy intentionally leaves out facts leading to one-sided
coverage.

This type of journalism not only misrepresents the truth, but its
impact can have dangerous and lasting effects on Venezuela. We should
call on our media to take more care, to ensure that it reports
everything that is to be reported, and not just the image it wants to
portray.

[JoJo Farrell directs Global Exchanges Venezuelan Reality Tour Program
which aims to expose U.S. Citizens to the complex realities of
Venezuela. He can be reached at jojo@globalexchange.org. ]

                                 *
=================================================================
 NY Transfer News Collective     *    A Service of Blythe Systems
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
            Our main website:   http://www.blythe.org
   List Archives:       http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
   Subscribe:     http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================