Before replying to Carlos’s post, which was quite obviously on the emotional side, I’m going to take the liberty to repost a message he wrote directly to me:

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Carlos Centeno wrote:

Andrew, I wanted to say I’m sorry since I wrote you my comments. It was 3am and I had a long discussion with some opposition’ kids who don’t understand the complexity of the issue in Venezuela. [...] But I really didn’t mean to be angry at you. I know you had good intentions when you wrote the article.

With that said, Carlos nonetheless made a few points worth addressing. I’ve edited out the personal attacks for a more substantive discussion.

Connie Mack does not speak for all of Congress. Quoting Mack does not give a reporter enough evidence to dismiss a whole government. Or would you like it if I quoted Kucinich on several issues or even Murtha?

The article did more than just quote Connie Mack, it made specific mention of legislation he led and successfully managed to get passed as law and official policy. His quote was contextualized in that fashion, without the legislation, it is unlikely that Rep. Mack would have made his way into my article.

Miguel Perez was published by the Chicago Sun-Times just like you could have been published. He does not represent the US media. He is not even a staff reporter at the paper.

Indeed, Miguel Perez is just one example. However, he is definitely a fair and indicative example of the general tone of U.S. news media coverage, which has been far from independent of official White House positioning on the issue. One needs to look no further than FAIR’s extensive documentation on this issue, which my article purposefully linked to (more than any other source). Here is a compilation of those links, which cover more than two years worth of U.S. coverage failings and inaccuracies on the issue:

11-12/06a: “The Myth of the Muzzled Media

11-12/06b: “The Repeatedly Re-Elected Autocrat Painting Chávez as a ‘would-be dictator

01-02/07: “Inexplicable Tongue-Lashing

04/07: “Hyping the Venezuela Threat To NYT, ‘arms spending’ doesn’t mean spending on arms

05/25/07: “Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs Distorting the Venezuelan media story

01-02/08: “Mark Weisbrot on the Venezuelan Referendum ‘It wasn’t any surprise when Chávez conceded’

Quoting the Washington Times is like quoting the Heritage Foundation. And you should know this. So quoting a well-known hardcore right wing newspaper is not fair to your readers who may not know that the Washington Times is not widely read.

I would beg to differ. The Wash. Times still boasts close to 100,000 readers in its circulation and is located in the nation’s capital. Also, I find your characterization of the Wash. Times misleading, as you seem to suggest that it is unique in its right-wing positioning. However, the paper is actually pretty common amongst the other 100 leading dailies in this country with such leanings. After all, the news media is only as liberal as its conservative business owners allow them to be.

You say that “The Washington Post, one of the most influential dailies in the U.S., irresponsibly included quotes about non-existent legal reforms in the leading paragraphs of one article. [...] Are we to censor our interviews on the street to those citizens with full legal knowledge on the issue? It is simple an example of what a citizen feels is happening and you have taken it out of context to say that the Washington Post is backing up the idea that there are legal reforms. You should know better.

Quite the contrary, the Washington Post should *know better* than to run quotes in an article of limited space that state, without question, inaccurate facts. This is of course irresponsible journalism and has nothing to do with censorship. Editorial decisions are made all the time, including quotes of people from the street. Running what they say and feel is fine and dandy, but quite another then running quotes of issues that contain inaccurate facts. A simple example illustrates the point. What if I were an anti-Bush demonstrator and I told the Post, “Bush is a dictator and has never won a legitimate election in his whole political career. He has stolen them all and committed genocide against his own people!” Should they run that quote without question or qualification? Of course not. Quite appropriately, such quotes as that hypothetical are not run in the U.S. news media on Bush, nor should citizen quotes bearing obvious inaccuracies be run in the Post without question.

You also state that polls on the rejection of the government move to pull the plug on RCTV did not show that people who rejected it did it because of their entertainment programming not because they liked the anti-Chavez programming. Are you saying that if people responded that they liked the anti-Chavez programming then it would be wrong to shut RCTV down?

No, I am not saying that RCTV should have been shut down because people did not necessarily support its anti-Chavez programming. *However*, the article was purposefully rebuking misleading suggestions made by upper crust Venezuelans who oppose Chavez and said that the viewership overwhelmingly supported its anti-Chavez programming. Most, as the study found, liked RCTV for its entertainment and not its political content. That passage then was simply undercutting a misleading argument made by upper class anti-Chavez opponents.

Mark Weisbrot and Eva Golinger are known staunch supporters of Chavez. Would you mind if I quoted Hannity and Colmes from Fox News to present president Bush or Mccain as a saint, arguing that Hannity and Colmes are independent media?

Fortunately, Weisbrot and Golinger are far from Hannity & Colmes in terms of their extensive documentation and responsible research. Weisbrot is a long time policy analyst based on the Hill and Golinger, completed an exhaustively documented book detailing links between coup organizers and the Bush administration. Hannity and Colmes do not have such laudable backgrounds when it comes to supporting their often fiery and unsupported claims, all the more reason why Weisbrot and Golinger made their way into my article, and the other two, did not.

You say “The government’s claim that RCTV actively participated in the coup is well documented” Really? Please provide a link to the evidence. There is still no evidence on this matter.

Actually, there is substantial evidence on this issue, ironically gathered by the very person you deride me quoting. She is not the only person to have done so, however. Many others have as well, including one columnist, Salim Lamrani, who was writing for Miami based online weekly. In his article entitled, “Hugo Chávez and RCTV: Censorship or a legitimate decision?“, Lamrani details the connections that RCTV had to the coup. But as Golinger pointed out herself here, those were not the only reasons that RCTV’s publicly controlled and managed license was revoked (which does *not* preclude it from broadcasting from satellite, cable, print and online outlets, as it has done, to my knowledge).

Why didn’t we close VTV in 1992 when the coup (a real coup with tanks an weapons not like the coup you are referring to) was broadcast live and even Chavez got his 1 minute of fame?

Most importantly, the laws that are on the books that allow the Presidential administration to grant and revoke public licenses were not on the books back then, I believe. Secondly, RCTV did far more than what you describe above, including violating tax laws, amongst other matters.

If you have prove that someone edited videos and tampered with materialts then here should be a trial for those people but the channel is not at fault for what these people do.

I do agree that RCTV’s violations should have been handled in a more public and transparent manner, but as a matter of principle, not as a matter of law. Because as it turns out, it does not appear that Chavez violated Venezuelan law with his RCTV decision.

...should the US government close down the New York Times for having misrepresented the facts on Iraq before the US invaded? Should the US government close down The Atlantic Monthly because a reporter tampered and made up sources?

No, I do not think so. But again, RCTV violated the law in far more ways than simply misreporting information. Part of their misinformation served to incite an illegal coup, not to mention the other laws they violated as well. In spite of that, they were allowed to broadcast for a half a decade more and still are allowed to broadcast on the private airwaves, as opposed to the public ones.

You say “However, even the most conservative estimates put private commercial ownership at no less than 75% of the television news media. Other estimates that include more outlets are as high as 95%.” Are you advocating that the government own more media?

No, I am simply saying that the government does not *own* that much of the news media, especially in the print sector.

You say “...was adopted in a 1999 referendum, with over 90% of the vote in its favor. More importantly, however, is the tremendous growth of this new form of media since 2002.” But you quote inaccurate numbers. I don’t know where you got that 90% and it shows how your journalistic integrity shines. The referendum passed with 71.37% in favor yet the abstention rate was 54.74% That means 5 out of 10 Venezuelans did not vote. - http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Elecdata/Venezuela/venref.html

This was your best point, and probably the only helpful one in your comments, as you were indeed correct about the exact numbers for the support that Venezuelans had of the constitutional referendum. This was simply a careless error on my part, as I either checked my notes wrong or perhaps even had a simple typo. The Venezuelan governmental figures have indeed been used by the sources my article relied on, however, including an article by FAIR. Even the 71% figure is still pretty overwhelming, especially in light of the fact that it was a vote on amending the whole constitution and also attracted a higher turnout than most U.S. Presidential elections manage to garner.

Greg Wilpert is a leading political analyst according to who? Seriously, the guy is editor of venezuelanalysis.com, a site largely written by him. you failed to mention he is a leading, pro-Chavez, political analyst. If he is indeed according to you a leading one at that.

He is a leading political analyst because there is no independent journalist who has covered Venezuela, in English, as much as he has done. He has been featured on Democracy Now!, a non-commercial, non-profit news program that I respect a lot, as do many others who read Narco News. While it is certainly true that he is sympathetic to the Chavez administration, I would not call him a staunch blinded supporter and he is certainly not paid or directly connected to the government (or any other, for that matter).

--Andrew