US and UK Press Use Ridicule to Dismiss Venezuela's Chavez
The recent oil take-backs in Bolivia and Ecuador, as well as Hugo Chavez being welcomed by the (socialist) Mayor of London, has allowed the Western press to show themselves for the protectors of capitalism they really area - as Media Lens, a British media watchdog group, reports:
Controlling what we think is not solely about controlling what we know - it is also about controlling who we respect and who we find ridiculous.
Thus we find that Western leaders are typically reported without adjectives preceding their names. George Bush is simply "US president George Bush". Condoleeza Rice is "the American secretary of state Condoleeza Rice". Tony Blair is just "the British prime minister".
The leader of Venezuela, by contrast, is "controversial left-wing president Hugo Chavez" for the main BBC TV news. (12:00, May 14, 2006). He is as an "extreme left-winger," while Bolivian president Evo Morales is "a radical socialist", according to Jonathan Charles on BBC Radio 4. (6 O'Clock News, May 12, 2006)
Imagine the BBC introducing the US leader as "controversial right-wing president George Bush", or as an "extreme right-winger". Is Bush - the man who illegally invaded Iraq on utterly fraudulent pretexts - +less+ controversial than Chavez? Is Bush less far to the right of the political spectrum than Chavez is to the left?
While we're on the subject of media bias, lets take a stroll down memory lane of some of the more appalling MSM blunders(?) in regards to Chavez - as reported by the US watchdog FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting):
Spotlighting (Some) Venezuela Killings: Deaths during pro-Chavez protests don't interest New York Times
U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move
Editing Chavez to Manufacture a Slur: Some outlets spread spurious charges of anti-Semitism
Globalization vs. Growth: NYT op-ed omits stats that debunk pro-corporate claims
Parade Magazine's Chavez Smear: Venezuelan president a terrorist funder?