The Miami Herald censors their forum comments in response to their biased coverage of Hugo Chavez.

This won’t come as a surprise to anyone who is monitoring the US coverage of Venezuela but I thought it was a great example of the way the situation in Venezuela is mediated in a biased way for American readers.

Today, the astro turf is: “Venezuela military shows unease with Chávez”. This is a piece of work that would make Judy Miller proud -- via reporter Casto Ocando and the Miami Herald.

It turns out that Ocando’s sources are a disgraced coup plotter now living in Miami, a virulent ant-Chavez “critic” who has a penchant for calling for armed rebellion and a rightwing propagandist. Thank goodness we can count on “fair and balanced” reporting from the Miami Herald. There is no evidence that this reportage reflects the stance of the military on the ground in Venezuela.

When I asked about the sourcing of the story in the paper’s forum, my comment was simply deleted. I guess I asked the wrong right question.

Ocando characterized these three partisans as “observers” when two of them aren’t even on the ground and when the third is on the record as being anything but objective.

I have to wonder, how much is it costing American taxpayers to fund this destabilization of Venezuela? We have so much to do, so many needs to fill. Do we really need to fund a coup that will depose a Latin American leader who is creating jobs and social reform that will enable people to stay home instead of coming here illegally because of their US backed poverty?

Just a question. Hugo Chavez may eat kittens but if the Miami Herald reports it, I'm going to have to look for a second and third source before I believe it.