View this email in your browser ([link removed])

FAIR

The Bolivian Coup Is Not a Coup—Because US Wanted It to Happen ([link removed])

by Alan MacLeod
NYT: Bolivian Leader Evo Morales Steps Down

When the military forces the elected president to "step down" (New York Times, 11/10/19 ([link removed]) ), there's a four-letter word for that.

Army generals appearing on television to demand the resignation and arrest of an elected civilian head of state seems like a textbook example of a coup. And yet that is certainly not how corporate media are presenting the weekend’s events in Bolivia.

No establishment outlet framed the action as a coup; instead, President Evo Morales “resigned” (ABC News, 11/10/19 ([link removed]) ), amid widespread “protests” (CBS News, 11/10/19 ([link removed]) ) from an “infuriated population” (New York Times, 11/10/19 ([link removed]) ) angry at the “election fraud” (Fox News, 11/10/19 ([link removed]) ) of the “full-blown dictatorship” (Miami Herald, 11/9/19 ([link removed]) ). When the word “coup” is used at all, it comes only as an accusation from Morales or another official from his government, which corporate media have been demonizing since his election in 2006 (FAIR.o
rg, 5/6/09 ([link removed]) , 8/1/12 ([link removed]) , 4/11/19 ([link removed]) ).

The New York Times (11/10/19 ([link removed]) ) did not hide its approval at events, presenting Morales as a power-hungry despot who had finally “lost his grip on power,” claiming he was “besieged by protests” and “abandoned by allies” like the security services. His authoritarian tendencies, the news article claimed, “worried critics and many supporters for years,” and allowed one source to claim that his overthrow marked “the end of tyranny” for Bolivia. With an apparent nod to balance, it did note that Morales “admitted no wrongdoing” and claimed he was a “victim of a coup.” By that point, however, the well had been thoroughly poisoned.

CNN (11/10/19 ([link removed]) ) dismissed the results of the recent election ([link removed]) , where Bolivia gave Morales another term in office, as beset with “accusations of election fraud,” presenting them as a farce where “Morales declared himself the winner.” Time’s report (11/10/19 ([link removed]) ) presented the catalyst for his “resignation” as “protests” and “fraud allegations,” rather than being forced at gunpoint by the military. Meanwhile, CBS News (11/10/19 ([link removed]) ) did not even include the word “allegations,” its headline reading, “Bolivian President Evo Morales Resigns After Election Fraud and Protests.”

Delegitimizing foreign elections where the “wrong” person wins, of course, is a favorite pastime of corporate media (FAIR.org, 5/23/18 ([link removed]) ). There is a great deal of uncritical acceptance of the Organization of American States’ (OAS) opinions on elections, including in coverage of Bolivia's October vote (e.g., BBC, 11/10/19 ([link removed]) ; Vox, 11/10/19 ([link removed]) ; Voice of America, 11/10/19 ([link removed]) ), despite the lack of evidence to back up its assertions. No mainstream outlet warned its readers that the OAS is a Cold War organization, explicitly set up to halt the spread of leftist governments. In 1962, for example, it passed an official resolution
([link removed]) claiming that the Cuban government was “incompatible with the principles and objectives of the inter-American system.” Furthermore, the organization is bankrolled by the US government; indeed, in justifying its continued funding, US AID argued ([link removed]) that the OAS is a crucial tool in “promot[ing] US interests in the Western hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-US countries” like Bolivia.
CEPR: What Happened in Bolivia's 2019 Vote Count?

Corporate media ignored CEPR's finding (11/19 ([link removed]) ) that "neither the OAS mission nor any other party has demonstrated that there were widespread or systematic irregularities in the elections."

In contrast, there was no coverage at all in US corporate media of the detailed new report ([link removed]) from the independent Washington-based think tank CEPR, which claimed that the election results were “consistent” with the win totals announced. There was also scant mention of the kidnapping ([link removed]) and torture ([link removed]) of elected officials, the ransacking ([link removed]) of Morales’ house, the burning of public buildings ([link removed]) and of the indigenous Wiphala flag ([link removed]) , all of which were widely shared on social media and would have suggested a very
different interpretation of events.

Words have power. And framing an event is a powerful method of conveying legitimacy and suggesting action. “Coups,” almost by definition, cannot be supported, while “protests” generally should be. Chilean President Sebastian Piñera, a conservative US-backed billionaire, has literally declared war ([link removed]) on over a million people demonstrating against his rule. Corporate media, however, have framed that uprising not as a protest, but rather a “riot” (e.g., NBC News,10/20/19 ([link removed]) ; Reuters, 11/9/19 ([link removed]) ; Toronto Sun, 11/9/19 ([link removed]) ). In fact, Reuters (11/8/19
([link removed]) ) described the events as Piñera responding to “vandals” and “looters.” Who would possibly oppose that?

Morales was the first indigenous president in his majority indigenous nation—one that has been ruled by a white European elite since the days of the conquistadors. While in office, his Movement Towards Socialism party has managed to ([link removed]) reduce poverty by 42% and extreme poverty by 60%, cut unemployment in half and conduct a number of impressive public works programs. Morales saw himself as part of a decolonizing wave across Latin America, rejecting neoliberalism and nationalizing the country’s key resources, spending the proceeds ([link removed]) on health, education and affordable food for the population.

His policies drew the great ire of the US government, Western corporations and the corporate press, who function as the ideological shock troops against leftist governments in Latin America. In the case of Venezuela, Western journalists unironically call themselves ([link removed]) “the resistance” to the government, and describe it as their No. 1 goal to “get rid of Maduro,” all the while presenting themselves as neutral and unbiased actors.

The media message from the Bolivia case is clear: A coup is not a coup if we like the outcome.



Read more ([link removed])

© 2018 Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up for email alerts from
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting

Our mailing address is:
FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING
124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201
New York, NY 10001

FAIR's Website ([link removed])

FAIR counts on your support to do this work — please donate today ([link removed]) .

Follow us on Twitter ([link removed]) | Friend us on Facebook ([link removed])
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .