::::::::
I have to wonder how people can actually read (and believe) VenEconomy.com ... I spent about 25 years working as a corporate fraud investigator and technology research investigator/recruiter in several countries. where my job was to decipher situations which others either were not able to decipher or did not want to decipher for reasons of conflict of interest.When one does investigation work, one has to assume that everything that one hears, reads or perceives is basically flawed, false or distorted.
The reason is simple in a general sense, everyone perceives events differently, thus the interpretation of events is different from every differing point of view.
Unless one lives in a completely hermetic environment, we have all experienced this: misunderstanding, misinterpretation. It happens within couples where most arguments and fights are generally due to misunderstandings.
It happens at work, at play, at school, at church " anywhere.
When arguments are not due to misunderstandings, they are usually due to differences in philosophy or values. But sometimes, arguments are due to intentional manipulation of information by one or several parties involved. This is where fraud usually occurs.
VenEconomy, as I see it, is a fraudulent organization.
The first sign of fraud is the fact that many of their "opinion" pieces, published on sites such as Latin American Herald Tribune and VHeadline.com, do not show specific authorship (a name or names). Some of their articles will state, "From the Editors of VenEconomy" " but when I go to their website, I cannot find who the editors are. Weird, no? Or maybe I did not dig deep enough?
One has to wonder why.
Another sign that fraud is happening is when one hears people saying things like: "So and so said this or that ""
Who exactly said it? Why did they say it? When did they say it and in what context?
In a recent VenEconomy article from unspecified authors, entitled, VenEconomy: Venezuela's last redoubts of freedom are disappearing and published on VHeadline.com, they state: "Given this dramatic situation, it is worth recalling Gandhi when he said 'rather than the acts of evil men, it is the indifference of good men that terrifies me.' "
One has to wonder why, what does this statement have to do with the article? Why do they use this quote?
I researched this quote on the internet " and found nothing except for a link referring back to the article in question. Weird, no? If this quote (which appears to have nothing to do with the article) were indeed a (famous) quote from Gandhi, then I think it would show up on several internet pages " but, as far as I can see, it doesn't. So " if I assume that Gandhi never said this exact quote, then I have to wonder where VenEconomy found this quote " or did they invent it? Hummm " (of course, it is also possible that Gandhi did in fact say this, but that it just has never been published on the internet.)
Almost every VenEconomy article I have read tends to avoid specifying the who, when, where and why of the situations they insinuate knowing something about.
For example, in this same article, they state: "Venezuela's last redoubts of freedom are disappearing. The main news of the day is the departure of opposition journalist Alberto Federico Ravell from the executive board of Globovision " Regardless of what is actually happening in Globovision at the moment, the fact of the matter is that the situation is yet further proof that freedom of speech in Venezuela is tenuous " That is why the vast majority of the country sees with concern that Globovision, one of the few media left with an independent editorial line, could fall into the government's clutches, as other media have done in the past."
The above quote is a good example of manipulated information.
If I were to rewrite this I might say the following (and I am quite sure that you would agree with my interpretation): "There is almost no freedom of speech left in Venezuela anymore " Globovision is the last 'free' media outlet in Venezuela, but will soon fall under government control " and the vast majority of Venezuelans fear this." If the above interpretation is what you, as a reader, understood, then you have interpreted what VenEconomy might have wanted you to interpret.
First, in no way is the "vast majority" of the country/people worried about the fate of Globovision. To prove this, Chavez was voted in the last time (2006) [ with a majority of almost 63%. Most, if not all of these people are disgusted by Globovision because of its continued overt lies, its support for violence against pro-Chavez people, its public calls for the assassination of Chavez, whether insinuated or direct, and its plain and simple slanderous nature. Most Chavez supporters call Globovision, "Globoterror" " which characterizes Globovision very well. (Note that in most countries in the western world, Globovision would have been shut down a long time ago and its owners would probably have been jailed.)
So, suppose that of the 37% of the population that did not vote for Chavez, everyone watches and loves Globovision " is that "the vast majority?"
One has to wonder why VenEconomy manipulates information in this fashion " also, Globovision is far from being the last television station or media outlet "left with an independent editorial line." This is a complete lie.
The newspapers El Nacional, El Universal, Tal Cual, and many others, which you can find on newsstands all over the country, are outwardly anti-Chavez and they are still around. Many of the radio stations are openly anti-Chavez and they are still around, and of the main four privately-owned television stations, three of the four are still around: Globovision, Venevision and Televen. The only one which is off the air is RCTV and this is because their license was not renewed (not too long ago) by CONATEL (Venezuela's FCC) for too often breaking broadcasting rules and regulations. RCTV then decided to go on air via cable/satellite and was recently taken off the air again for breaking CONATEL rules.
It is important to note that all these four TV stations, the biggest in Venezuela, participated publicly and openly in promoting the use of violence against Chavez and Chavez supporters in 2002 and 2003. Venevision and Televen are the only two stations, which after some time, decided to stop their illegal activities on air. RCTV and Globovision have never stopped " and have continued to openly call for the use of violence against Chavez and Chavez supporters, including assassination. They do it either openly, by inviting "guests" who will make such open statements, or by strongly insinuating these actions. Public slander is also part of their editorial line.
So, when VenEconomy says: "In Venezuela, most of the television channels toe the government line or are channels owned by the State at the service of the revolutionary process "" one has to assume that this is not true. In fact, it is very far from the truth. VenEconomy then goes on to add fodder to their manipulated information with, "After 34 radio stations were taken off the air and with the threat of the same fate hanging over 200 more that are being 'investigated,' most of the stations that are still broadcasting are exercising stringent self-censorship and even going so far as to take the more critical analysts and anchorpersons off programs with high ratings."
The television/radio stations that were shut down by CONATEL and/or are being investigated have mostly to do with illegal operations (operating without valid licenses or outside their allotted spaces), non-renewal of licenses (on their part) or re-sale of the licenses without approval from CONATEL.
In fraud investigation, you look around, ask questions, see where the pieces don't fit together logically and then, through the fog of lies and manipulation (or errors), you look for contradictions.
Now, why would private companies stop or reduce advertising on the anti-Chavez media?
If this is the case, which I suspect is the case, there must be a reason. If it were true that "the vast majority" of Venezuelans are concerned about the fate of Globoterror (as Ven Economy claims), then I must assume that the vast majority of Venezuelans are anti-Chavez. Thus, the vast majority of Venezuelans read the anti-Chavez press and watch anti-Chavez television and listen to anti-Chavez radio. If that were the case, then the "vast majority" of Venezuelans would be addressed most effectively by advertising in the anti-Chavez media.
However, according to VenEconomy, this is not the case, thus a serious contradiction.
One has to wonder about this.
When such contradictions occur, I usually conclude that:
- The writers are not too bright or
- The writers were drunk when writing or
- The lying writers think that the readers are really dumb
So, when VenEconomy says, in the same article: "Apart from that, the cost of newsprint doubled after the devaluation of the bolivar from Bs.F 2.5/$ to Bs.F 4.30/$." (Note: it should read 2.15, not 2.5!)
One has to ask the question, "Is this true?"
Without giving it a second thought, I would reply, "Probably not true, they lie too often about too many things."
