In another report, BBC was jubilant in quoting Venezuela's corporate press. They welcomed Chavez's ouster and called him an "autocrat," "incompetent" and a "coward." They accused him of "order(ing) his sharpshooters to open fire on innocent people (and) betray(ing his) country."
BBC went along without a hint of dissent or a word of the truth, but where was BBC when a popular uprising and military support restored Chavez to office two days later? It quietly announced a "chastened....Chavez return(ed) to office after the collapse of the interim government....and pledged to make necessary changes." In spite of vilifying him in the coup's run-up, cheerleading it when it happened and calling it a resignation, BBC put on a brave face. It had to be painful saying: "The UK welcomed Mr. Chavez's return to power, saying that any change of government should be achieved by democratic means."
It's hard imagining Caracas correspondents Greg Morsbach and James Ingham see it that way. Morsbach called the country a "left-wing haven" on the occasion of 100,000 people taking part in the 2006 World Social Forum in the capital. He said the city is "used to staging big events (opposing) 'neo-liberal' economic policies," then couldn't resist taking aim at Chavez. "Five hundred metres away from the (downtown) Hilton," Morsbach noted, "homeless people scavenge in dustbins for what little food they can find." He then quoted a man named Carlos "who spent the last three years sleeping rough on the streets" and felt Bolivarianism did nothing for him.
It's done plenty for Venezuelans but Morsbach won't report it. Under Chavez, social advances have been remarkable and consider two among many. According to Venezuela's National Statistics Institute (INE), the country's poverty rate (before Chavez) in 1997 was 60.94%. It dropped sharply under Bolarvarianism to a low of 45.38% in 2001, rose to 62.09% after the crippling 2002-03 oil management lockout, and then plummeted to a low of around 27% at year end 2007. In addition, unemployment dropped from 15% in 1997 to INE's reported 6.2% in December 2007.
Morsbach also omitted how Chavez is tackling homelessness. He's reducing it with programs like communal housing, drug treatment and providing modest stipends for the needy. His goal - "for there (not) to be a single child in the streets....not a single beggar in the street." It's working through Mission Negra Hipolita that guides the homeless to shelters and rehab centers. They provide medical and psychological care and pay homeless in them a modest amount in return for community service. No mention either compares Venezuela under Chavez to America under George Bush (and likely Britain under anyone) where no homeless programs exist, the problem is increasing, nothing is being done about it, and the topic is taboo in the media.
Instead in a BBC profile, Chavez is called "increasingly autocratic, revolutionary (and) combative." He's a man who's "alienated and alarmed the country's traditional political elite, as well as several foreign governments," (and he) court(s) controversy (by) making high-profile visits to Cuba and Iraq" and more. He "allegedly flirt(s) with leftist rebels in Colombia and mak(es) a huge territorial claim on Guyana."
The account then implies Chavez is to blame for "relations with Washington reach(ing) a new low (because he) accused (the Bush administration) of fighting terror with terror" post-9/11, and in a September 2006 UN General Assembly speech called the president "the devil."
Chavez's December 2007 constitutional reform referendum was also covered. It was defeated, the profile suggested controversial elements in it, but omitted explaining its objective - to deepen and broaden Venezuelan democracy, more greatly empower the people, provide them more social services, and make government more accountable to its citizens. Instead, BBC highlighted White House spokeswoman Dana Perino saying: Venezuelans "spoke their minds, and they voted against the reforms that Hugo Chavez had recommended and I think that bodes well for the country's future and freedom and liberty."
In another piece, Inghram took aim at the country's "whirlwind of nationalisations, and threats to private companies (are) changing Venezuela's economic climate and threaten to widen a tense social divide." It's part of Chavez's "campaign to turn Venezuela into a socialist state" with suggestive innuendoes about what that implies, omitting its achievements, and reporting nothing about how business in the country is booming or that Chavez's approach is pragmatic.
Instead, Inghram cites his critics saying "his plan is all about power" (and) bring(ing) no benefit to the nation" in lieu of letting business run it as their private fiefdom. It's how they've always done it, Venezuelans were deeply impoverished as a result, and BBC loves taking aim at a leader who wants to change things for the better and is succeeding.
It refers to his "stepp(ing) up his radical revolution since being re-elected in December 2006." Venezuela is "very divided" and its president "far too powerful (and) can rule by decree" - with no explanation of Venezuela's Enabling Law, his limited authority under it, its expiration after 18 months, and that Venezuela's (pre-Bolivarian) 1961 constitution gave comparable powers to four of the country's past presidents.
BBC further assailed Chavez's refusal to review one of RCTV's operating licenses and accused him of limiting free expression. Unreported was the broadcaster's tainted record, its lack of ethics or professional standards, and its lawless behavior. Specifically omitted was its leading role in instigating and supporting the aborted April 2002 coup and its subsequent complicity in the 2002-03 oil-management lockout and multi-billion dollar sabotage against state oil company PDVSA.
Despite it, RCTV got a minor slap on the wrist, lost only its VHF license, and it still operates freely on Venezuelan cable and satellite. Yet, if an American broadcaster was as lawless, it would be banned from operating, and its management (under US law) could be prosecuted for sedition or treason for instigating and aiding a coup d'etat against a sitting president. BBC ignored RCTV's offense, assailed Hugo Chavez unjustifiably, and reported in its usual deferential to power way.
It falsely stated RCTV's license wasn't renewed because "it supported opposition candidates (and said) hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Caracas....some to celebrate, others to protest." Unexplained was that pro-government supporters way outnumbered opponents, it's the same every time, and they gather spontaneously for every public Chavez address. Also ignored is that opposition demonstrations are usually small and staged-for-media events so BBC and anti-Chavistas in the press can call them huge and a sign Chavez's support is waning. As BBC put it this time: The situation "highlight(s), once again, how deeply divided Venezuela is" under its "controversial" president - who's popular support is so considerable BBC won't report it.
BBC's War Against Mugabe
On April 4, The New York Times correspondent Michael Wines wrote what BBC often reports: "New Signs of Mugabe Crackdown in Zimbabwe." It highlighted "police raids....against the main opposition party, foreign journalists (and) rais(ed) the specter of a broad crackdown (to keep) the country's imperiled leaders in power."
I am a 72 year old, retired, progressive small businessman concerned about all the major national and world issues, committed to speak out and write about them.
I 'subscribe' to the BBC via my google reader and I am in a position to watch BBC News and BBC Prime via cable.
BBC News is an almost complete waste of time, a 'shadow' of its former glory. It's fair to say that it has become the 'Fox News" of Europe. It's 'news readers' are simpletons, pompous and ask stupid questions that utterly miss the point!
I have simply 'boycotted' BBC until it gets it head out of its ass and starts covering the news courageously and independently.
Who NEEDS the beeb? Who NEEDS Fox....when other more diverse and reliable sources are available?
by
Len Hart (132 articles, 174 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 550 comments)
on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 5:54:23 AM
I failed to mention that the BBC CENSORED David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto. I managed to 'snag' the uncensored interview in which Bhutto stated clearly and without hesitation that Bin Laden had been murdered. BBC Censored Benazir Bhutto's Reports that Bin Laden Had Been Murdered
BBC --obviously in reaction to 'concerns' that her comments had blown the official conspiracy theory of 911 right out of the water --CENSORED her comments from all subsequent broadcasts. I saved the censored versions as well.
Cearly --news organizations will 'edit' interviews and otherwise 'produce' them for broadcast. What makes this a BLATANT example of censorship is the fact that no other statement by Bhutto was touched, altered or 'censored' in any way. ONLY her statement re: bin Laden was excised. Everthing else was untouched.
Subsequent reporting of Bhutto's 'death' is also suspect. But, again, thanks to alternative sources, gunmen taking aim at Bhutto are clearly seen in videos BEFORE the 'explosion'. The government report that she died of a head wound when she banged her head falling back into the car is blatantly absurd on its face.
I would wager that Musharif's paid hit men shot and killed Bhutto because she represented a threat to Musharif's faustian pact with Bush.
by
Len Hart (132 articles, 174 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 550 comments)
on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 6:02:32 AM
During the entire election fraud in Mexico in 2006 the BBC insisted that there was none. Mexicans themselves will freely admit that to make such a statement about any election in Mexico is absurd, let alone the fiasco of 2006. I wrote the BBC at one point to ask if maybe they did not distribute to their correspondents a list of untouchable governments--ones that should never be seriously criticised by the BBC. I suppose they keep it right next to "the axis of evil" governments that should always be criticised.
Thanks for the exposé.
by
Edgar Pope (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Thursday, April 10, 2008 at 11:37:49 AM
You fogot to tell the story of how the beb helped and propagated so much against the shah and facilitated the arival of the criminal and terrorist mullah's of Qom.- The Fascist Islamic Republic of Idiots - The IRI - of Iran
by
Bahramerad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 1:57:25 AM
Objectivity and honesty is the rule of the game at OEN as I perceive it.
The Shah of Iran had to go. He was, according to CIA analysts one of the most corrupt individuals on the planet, beyond redemption. Given the fact that the man had been brought to power by the CIA itself, and that the CIA is indeed a corrupt entity and a corrupter, then we realize how dire the situation must have been. The Shah's demise was a self-inflicted torment. Accordingly, the Elite and the Powers that be had decided that the miserable creature had to be gotten rid of.
How does this relate to BBC? The BBC is the mouthpiece of the ruling Elite.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 522 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 2:53:55 AM
ramsheyi - I see that you are a prolific commentator!
Now hear this - The Shah did not have to go! — at least not for the reasons that you have regurgitated.
You are quoting the same CIA who had a hand in killing JFK, RFK, The bay of pigs, the Chilean and Argentinean and the Central America fiasco's and that is all in the sixties and seventies- and we all know what they have been up to since 911 - Give me a break!
The Shah's demise was not a self inflicted torment - It was a conspiracy by the Peanut Carter, Callahan the blind, the Russian communist, the 7 Sisters of the Oil Mafia, with the help of the corrupted media such as the BBC.
If you want a history lesson-I am quite willing to provide you with Terrorism, Mullahs, the left and Islam - subject 101 right here.
by
Bahramerad (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 25 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 11:11:31 AM
We are here to educate ourselves , share our knowledge, and learn from each other. This is the purpose of a commuity. So, I will be more than eager to read an article from you on ' Terrorism, Mullahs, The Left and Islam'. The rule of the game is going to be honesty and objectivity with rock-solid documentation.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 522 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 1:58:39 PM
Oddly enough I wrote to the BBC about the amount of propaganda on BBC America but got no response, I didn't expect any. The big change came whe Dr. David Kelly was murderd, one of the BBC reporters, Gilligan presented some facts about the lead up to the invasion of Iraq to which Dr. Kelly was supposed to have supplied. Dr. David Kelly was the leading biological weapons expert and was sure to find nothing, according to at least 6 doctors he couldn't possibly have comitted suicide. Research the story and you will reach the same conclusion.
A result of this Fiasco was the sacking of the senior management and replaced by more Blair type supporters and the BBC has gone from bad to worse, I never watch it, I no need to I can imagine what Frei and Kay are trying to make us believe.
by
douglas kay (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 83 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 9:19:45 AM
Thanks for a long and very informative article Stephen. I am English and because of a little Spanish knew all about the Chavez demonization, and the Kelly thing a bit, but I bought into the Mugabe thing, partly because of the raging inflation seemed to prove something was wrong, but I did not question the reason. I did not and have not heard one peep about the sanctions against Zimbabwe.
It just goes to show you have to keep your guard up against the disinformation and outright lies - everywhere in mass media.
I read all of your articles - your name is on my list of must reads. Thanks.
by
ibrahim turner (25 articles, 31 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 177 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 5:37:45 PM
The raging inflation in Zimbabwe...might that be caused by the neocolonial tactic of making the economy scream....? And guess who supports this: the MDC! They want to gain power, and are prepared to make their people suffer to get it.
Anyone interested about events in Zimbabwe and the background should go to this site:
In which Raimondos media driven disgust makes HIM not Mugabe descend to write the following:
'Mugabe was constantly whispering in his ear, much to the former's apparent annoyance. There was something distinctly reptilian about the African tyrant's visage and general demeanor: at any moment, I fully expected him to flick a foot-long tongue at a passing fly. '
The irony is that Raimondo has Zimbabwe linked to Israel, which also likes to use the insectoid comparison....for Arabs. But the above is such racist bilge, thaty you wonder what Mugabe did to Justin to deserve it.
I wrote to Antiwar and registered my disgust. You will find Lendman is better informed, where he states, in the BBC Imperial Tool, that the BBC is demonising Mugabe. Indeed it is.
by
brian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 134 comments)
on Friday, April 11, 2008 at 10:30:03 PM
thank you for the threads especially the one about Justin Raymondo's dubious honesty and affiliations. For sometimes I considered him a neutral intellectual. But more and more it seems to me that he is in the service of Zionists/ Israel or even a NeoCon puppet. His silence on 9/11 is quite telling. He is, it seems to me a sham, a façade, a sort of pseudo-intellectual Noam Chomsky type hired to divert attention from the Truth. I may be wrong. Anyways, his assertions match the propaganda diffused by the BBC.
by
ramsheyi (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 522 comments)
on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 4:17:22 AM
I dont think Raimondo is a z-ionis-t puppet...His attitude toward Mugabe is hard to fathom.But his language suggests something disturbing. What has Mugabe done to generate that sort of language in an american?
Just found that Kall has made z-ionist a no go word! Hence the dashes.
by
brian (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 134 comments)
on Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 11:18:01 PM
14 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
