By Steve Ellner
Via Email
November 25, 2008
Today PBS’s Frontline broadcast its 90 minute “The Hugo Chavez Show.” The Frontline team contacted me when they were here in Venezuela about 5 months ago and paid my fare to Caracas as well as hotel and per diem expenses in order to interview me. In the filmed interview I spoke of a new model that is emerging that, for example, promotes popular participation, that emphasizes the communities, that excludes the business sector from cabinet positions, and that forces the wealthy to pay income tax. None of this analysis was used, even though they told me at the time that they were very impressed by the analysis. Instead I appear on two occasions making some brief innocuous statement. From the very outset it is evident that Frontline is presenting a line, namely that Chavez is a media pro (“the first virtual president of the twenty first century) but that his rule has been a disaster. Nearly everybody that is interviewed, both politicians and analysts are anti-Chavistas including many who are known for being aggressively anti-Chavez. The guy that talks the most is Teodoro Petkoff who is introduced as a left-wing journalist, thus making it seem as if Chavez is getting it from all sides. How can Petkoff be described as left-wing if he was one of the main architects of the neoliberal policies of the Caldera administration? It’s like calling Clinton a leftist. There is no discussion at all of popular participation in decision making. The 2 month general strike, according to their version, was broken thanks to a guy named Wilmer Ruperti (few have heard about this guy here) who contracted private shipping companies and went on to become one of Venezuela’s richest people. No talk at all about the popular mobilizations that were essential to the government’s success. Also, anyone listening to the program who knows nothing of Venezuela is left with the impression that Chavez indeed resigned on April 11, 2002. That, of course, is a flat lie.
I would like to ask the question: why is the U.S. media incapable of presenting the other side when it comes to Chavez’ Venezuela? I do not object to the version that they present and the occasional lies (which I find less disturbing). What disturbs me the most, is that they make no effort to present the pro-Chavez side, or an analysis (such as my own) which talks of problems and downsides but also interesting and positive developments. Isn’t the media morally obliged to present both sides of the story? Isn’t a program like this one unethical from a journalistic viewpoint? Some progressives say that the problem with the media is that everything is put in sound bites. Well here is a case of a 90 minute program in which the media had all the time in the world to present both sides (actually there are more than 2 sides to Chavismo), and instead they present a consistent line. It makes you wonder why these guys ever complained about alleged “monolithic Communism.”
26 comments:
Wow, now there's a rhetorical question if ever there was one.
Wow, now there's a rhetorical question if ever there was one.
A rhetorical question is one that its presenter poses rhetorically, as if the answer were already given. Ellner doesn't treat the answer as a given, though, so I don't think the question is rhetorical. It's an honest question that deserves an honest answer from the producers of the Frontline program.
“None of this analysis was used, even though they told me at the time that they were very impressed by the analysis.”
You can be impressed about something unintelligent.
“There is no discussion at all of popular participation in decision making.”
The documentary actually demonstrates that popular participation is a total farce. There is only one voice that counts in Chavez’s project: his. Did you see what he did with the guy who dared to tell him that some people weren’t interested in moving to his socialist city? Did you see what he did with Eleazar Diaz Rangel?
“Wilmer Ruperti (few have heard about this guy here)” Were do you live? Utah? I live in Caracas and Ruperti is simply Chavez’s Cisneros. Everyone knows that.
“Also, anyone listening to the program who knows nothing of Venezuela is left with the impression that Chavez indeed resigned on April 11, 2002.” Not true. They make it clear it was a coup against Chavez. They even talk of US involvement. By the way, Chavez did sign a resignation letter which was later confirmed by García Carneiro but then, you were probably in Utah.
“What disturbs me the most, is that they make no effort to present the pro-Chavez side, or an analysis (such as my own)”. Not true. Half of their talking heads are pro-Chavez. I am sorry their arguments (and yours) weren’t compelling.
“Isn’t a program like this one unethical from a journalistic viewpoint?”
Here we have a liberal calling PBS unethical. I guess only Granma and Pravda will do in your world, providing that they quote you.
Take it easy, get over it. They just didn’t find your interview as interesting as yourself.
By the way, one question for Justin. Why are you avoiding the one subject that matters in Venezuela now: Chavez’s obsession with his re-election. Man that’s a good one! Go ahead, support it openly. Tell us why it is a good thing. Educate us.
Take it easy, get over it. They just didn’t find your interview as interesting as yourself.
Hmmm. I could have sworn there was a byline on the original post. Ah, yes, the byline reads "By Steve Ellner." As in the historian Steve Ellner, who lives in Venezuela and has authored and co-authored a number of books on Venezuelan history and politics. Now, is my name Steve Ellner?
You can be impressed about something unintelligent.
How would you know that Ellner's analysis was "unintelligent" if you weren't even able to see it in the film?
What is unintelligent is to simply assume that those who hold different viewpoints than your own are "unintelligent."
As for the documentary itself, I still haven't seen it yet, so I don't care to comment about it until I've actually viewed it.
The United States government is a world imperialist power, and its plutocrats and the corporations that they have vast stakes in set the parameters of acceptable discussion.
In the case of this Frontline hit-piece, it is clear that they had a desire to paint Chavez and the Bolivarian project in very unflattering terms.
This propaganda is directed toward, mainly, the US intellectual and managerial classes--teachers, corporate functionaries, fund managers, bankers, professors, etc.
If the US ever shifts course and starts to directly attack Venezuela--through violence/invasion or in the economic arena--then the managerial classes will jump on board (because Chavez is such a thug dictator, and the people that support him are poor and stupid).
Come on, don't be incredulous in the face of this propaganda. Re-read your Chomsky and Herman. This is standard practice. PBS is a quasi-public propaganda institution that always has been a participant in helping shape the empire's foriegn policy goals.
Sure, you can point to interesting examples of them drifting off the reservation--but the rule still holds.
When Quico, Miguel, and Daniel all chimed in to praise this propaganda, that signaled to me that it was incredibly skewed toward the right of the Venezuelan political spectrum.
The US managerial classes and the intellectual class will eat this shit up.
If this documentary was actually balanced, I would have been surprised. But, hey, at least you got a free trip--paid for by the empire and its flunkies. Don't feel too bad.
The lie has traveled half-way around the world--now truth needs to get out of bed and put its boots on. Time to work to counter and problematize the empire's propaganda once again. It never stops--and let's hope that the empire under Obama doesn't revert back to Kennedyesque death-squad democracy in the region.
I apologize, it was Ellner that was given the free trip, not Justin.
Mr. Ellner has always seemed a smidge naive, even though the has provided some pertinent, democratically-focused, information from Venezuela.
Question everything, ruthlessly. One's ethics and politics will come to the forefront of one's discourse because these undergird the ever present filtering systems that are part and parcel to elementary human cognition.
yes, this is for Ellner to respond Justin. Not everything is about you. If you note it at the end there is a quesiton for you, only one. Man, why are you all so self centered and delicate?
This is the request for you Justin:
Please educate us on the virtues of the unlimited re-election.
Why is it good for Venezuela?
Why is it legal to vote again for it?
"As for the documentary itself, I still haven't seen it yet, so I don't care to comment about it until I've actually viewed it."
By publishing this note you are endorsing a point of view and you know it. Watch it. It will do you good.
But please, educate us with your position on unlimited re-election as the only current interest Chavez has.
Mr. Ellner has always seemed a smidge naive, even though the has provided some pertinent, democratically-focused, information from Venezuela.
My guess is that Ellner's take on the media is not that different from your own; I don't concur with the view that he's naive. Rather, he's caught in a Catch 22. If he were to critically scrutinize the media in the way that Herman and Chomsky do, he would lose whatever access he has to the media. Put yourself in his shoes.
and not a word about the re-election. Should we infer that you support it?
and not a word about the re-election.
Oh, I'm sure I'll eventually post something about it.
Should we infer that you support it?
That's a matter for the Venezuelan people to decide. I object to the very notion that Americans should have any say whatsoever on the matter.
"That's a matter for the Venezuelan people to decide. I object to the very notion that Americans should have any say whatsoever on the matter."
But yet you have an opinion about anything else in Venezuela. Wouldn't it be that you don't want to tell the truth?
and by the way. They already said that they didn't want the re-election therefore if you are consistent with your opinion you should be against re-election.
But yet you have an opinion about anything else in Venezuela.
No, actually, there are many things Venezuelan that I don't opine about, and this is one of them. My opinions mostly concern how the Chavez government is presented in the United States, not every little detail about Venezuela's domestic politics.
Of course, I'm more than happy to express my opinions about the nature of American propaganda because I'm afraid that such propaganda is laying the groundwork for greater hostility toward Venezuela down the road. My own research indicates that the lens through which Americans see Venezuela is grossly distorted by the interests of elites.
They already said that they didn't want the re-election therefore if you are consistent with your opinion you should be against re-election.
Once again, that's a matter for Venezuelans to settle.
Once again you are being illogical.
Venezuelans already decided.
You just don't want to support publicly Chavez's proposal because it embarrasses you.
Once again you are being illogical.
Venezuelans already decided.
Uh, no, you're the one who isn't using logic here. Firstly, the constitutional referendum was much more broad than a simple referendum on whether to get rid of term limits. Secondly, there's no rules against double jeopardy in politics. In politics, a initiative can be defeated in one election and then put before the electorate again in another. In fact, it happens all the time in state elections in the United States.
You just don't want to support publicly Chavez's proposal because it embarrasses you.
No, this is a matter of principle. Once again, I object to the very notion that Americans should have any say in Latin America's electoral affairs, so I practice what I preach and don't take positions on such referendums. Incidentally, I did the same with regard to Venezuela's constitutional referendum.
"In politics, a initiative can be defeated in one election and then put before the electorate again in another. In fact, it happens all the time in state elections in the United States."
A year after the fact on the verge of an economic debacle because the president said so?
And what about the constitution saying that a decision taken in a referendum can't be voted twice?
"No, this is a matter of principle. Once again, I object to the very notion that Americans should have any say in Latin America's electoral affairs, so I practice what I preach and don't take positions on such referendums. Incidentally, I did the same with regard to Venezuela's constitutional referendum."
Oh please! You even published wrong information promoting fake surveys. Man you have a short, short memory. You even apologized
Oh please! You even published wrong information promoting fake surveys.
You're confusing a mistaken prediction with a stated position on the referendum. I know this is hard for people like you to understand, but predictions are distinct from normative positions.
Never did I once take a position for or against the constitutional referendum. Never did I once suggest Venezuelans should or shouldn't vote in favor of the constitutional reforms. In fact, on the day of the constitutional referendum, I explicitly explained in the comments section of the Caracas Chronicles that I hadn't taken a position on the constitutional referendum.
As for the polls, none of them turned out to be very close to the mark. The poll in which I placed far too much faith was certainly off the mark, but so were the opposition polls. Datanalisis and Consultores 21 had the opposition winning by double digits when, in fact, the "No" campaign won by barely more than a point. In other words, the poll that I mistakenly relied upon was no more "fake" than any of the others.
Man you have a short, short memory. You even apologized
No, my memory is just fine. The problem is that you have a selective memory. I apologized for calling the opposition "suckers" for expressing so much confidence that they would win, but I never apologized for taking a position on the referendum because I never took a position.
Well, I have an opinion: I say that term limits are a mere stunt, a gimmick, and a ruse. If elections are clean, then people should have the right to elect whomever the majority of the voting public favor. I know that there are nuanced arguments having to do with particulars, but this is my inclination.
Anonymous, why are you trying to climb up Justin's ass? The guy is pretty balanced and nuanced in his thinking. He has had strident and polite debate with Venezuela's opposition--as well as people that lean to the left.
I just don't get why Justin's posts and his comments bring so much animosity and ire.
Justin, I can put myself in Ellner's shoes--it is just that when I walk in them it fucks up my feet. There is an economic angle that I am very much aware of: damned if you do, damned if you don't. Ellner is a liberal/left voice that is acceptable to draw quotes from--as long as the insight doesn't cut too close to the mythological bone.
I am so happy that the empire's options for the Americas are ever more truncated. But an empire in decline can be ferocious and brutal. Let's just HOPE that an Obama administration can be somewhat sane. There is a huge Latino vote that could be used as leverage to make the State Department back-off some of the bat-shit historical inclinations.
Ellner is a liberal/left voice that is acceptable to draw quotes from--as long as the insight doesn't cut too close to the mythological bone.
Ellner is more to the left than you think. The media occasionally go to him to create a semblance of balance, but they leave out those quotes of his that, as you say, "cut too close to the mythological bone." We can't blame Ellner for the fact that media quote him selectively.
In the end, it's better that Ellner be on the media's rolodex because his quotes often convey important information that other sources fail to provide.
Well, this is a classic conundrum, Justin.
I will say this about that strategy--it certainly didn't help democracy in Latin America for much of the last century. Basically, if you can't say what is the truth in the face of cynical, undemocratic, imperialism you've given them the power.
We all have more power than we think.
Really, in my view, it was rather pathetic reading Ellner's whining--as if he really expected anything different.
Again, pick up the Chomsky and Herman; review past and current history; be prepared to deal of some tension in one's professional life. Yes, it may even entail a pay-cut.
I encounter ethical conundrums on the scale that Ellner faces quite frequently. When I surrender to fear it doesn't have very pretty results.
Do you think that when you really hunker down and prepare for the invasion/coup phase that his buddies in the corporate propaganda media are going to publish Ellner's rejection and rebuke.
Haiti was not pretty with the last coup. They whacked democracy good--and even got Brazil's help in the repressive aftermath.
I am not saying that there is no place for pulling one's punches--but when it is done too often it merely emboldens the jackels.
Basically, if you can't say what is the truth in the face of cynical, undemocratic, imperialism you've given them the power.
I think Ellner does say the truth. What the media quote from him are just tid-bits of what he says to them. Once again, you can't logically base your assessment of Ellner's analysis upon what the media selectively quote from him. In order to logically assess Ellner's analysis, you would have to look at his unfiltered work. His books are quite good.
And by the way, Slave Revolt, it's not always the case that a televised presentation of Chavez is as biased as the Frontline documentary is. Yes, it's probably the norm among feature-length stories, but Barbara Walters' program on Chavez in 2007 really wasn't too shabby.
This is very interesting Justin. I watched the film and got almost the exact same impression as Ellner. Great to hear what his take was on it.
Immediately you can tell the film is totally biased because they go directly to some of Chavez' biggest political enemies to get their take on him. I mean, Petkoff? That guy couldn't give an objective analysis if his life depended on it. Then they go to Miquilena, Rory Carrol, and on and on. The only realy pro-Chavez person that they interview is this slightly wacky uneducated lady from the barrio, who obviously isn't able to make much of a case for why she supports Chavez, other than that she loves him. It gives the impression that Chavez' support is derived from people who don't really have a lot of knowledge or sense.
It is fairly easy to make Chavez look bad if you just take many of his "out of context" quotes, or the slightly crazy things he says from time to time, and tell his story that way. Chavez definitely has a way of saying outrageous things from time to time that make him look bad. That is basically what PBS did.
They have almost no real analysis of the political process taking place in Venezuela and throughout Latin America right now. PBS made a very stupid, meaningless movie about how Chavez can run off at the mouth. They didn't make a movie about the political process he is leading.
Post a Comment