[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
‘Calibrated’ Dishonesty: Western Media Coverage of Venezuela Sanctions Ricardo Vaz ([link removed])


AP: US to ease a few economic sanctions against Venezuela

AP (5/17/22 ([link removed]) ) reported the US will "ease a few economic sanctions against Venezuela"...

US sanctions, even by outdated estimates ([link removed]) , have killed tens of thousands of Venezuelans. The unilateral policies have been widely condemned by multilateral bodies and human rights experts for their deadly impact, as well as for violating international law (Venezuelanalysis, 9/18/21 ([link removed]) , 9/15/21 ([link removed]) , 3/25/21 ([link removed]) , 1/31/19 ([link removed]) ).

But corporate media readers/viewers in the Global North are completely oblivious to this reality, as establishment outlets have gone out of their way to endorse sanctions by whitewashing their effects altogether (FAIR.org, 6/4/21 ([link removed]) , 12/19/20 ([link removed]) )—writing for example, that Washington has “sanctioned the government” (AP, 5/21/22 ([link removed]) ) rather than the people of Venezuela.

A recent policy opening, microscopic to begin with and closed quickly enough, put all these dishonest traits on display, illustrating how free a rein US officials have to continue inflicting collective punishment on Venezuelans without challenge or scrutiny.


** Stenographers at ‘ease’
------------------------------------------------------------
NBC: U.S. eases some sanctions against Venezuela

...while NBC (5/17/22 ([link removed]) ) said the "US eases some sanctions" in the present tense...

The US Treasury Department on May 17 allowed the US-based oil company Chevron to talk to PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company, to discuss its operations in the country. Officials made clear that the energy giant remained forbidden from drilling or dealing in Venezuelan crude (AP, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ).

Two weeks later, the White House renewed Chevron’s current license ([link removed]) , which only permits maintenance work, until November. Nevertheless, this brief opening revealed some clear trends.

First off, all mainstream outlets had virtually the same headline, writing that the US “eases some sanctions” (NBC, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ), was “to ease a few economic sanctions” (AP, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ) or “begins easing restrictions” (Washington Post, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ) on Venezuela. And though the very narrow scope of the authorization left few word choice alternatives, it certainly did not force corporate journalists to stick to the information spoonfed by “anonymous officials.”

Not a single establishment outlet mentioned that sanctions have an impact on ordinary Venezuelans. Instead, the privilege of “just talking” to oil execs was painted as an incentive for President Nicolás Maduro to resume talks with the opposition.
WaPo: Biden administration begins easing restrictions on Venezuelan oil

...and the Washington Post (5/17/22 ([link removed]) ) told readers that the US "begins easing restrictions."

The meager background/context provided in most pieces left room for plenty of representations. When referencing why government/opposition talks broke down last October, readers were told that Maduro walked away after the “extradition of a close/key ally” to the US (Washington Post, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ; AP, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ). However, there was no mention of the fact that, according to documents ([link removed]) disclosed ([link removed]) by Caracas, the “ally” in question (Alex Saab) has diplomatic immunity, and that Washington violated the Vienna convention by having him arrested overseas and extradited (FAIR.org, 7/21/21 ([link removed]) ).

Corporate outlets continued the habit of echoing unfounded charges against the Maduro administration as absolute truths, be they about electoral fraud (FAIR.org, 1/27/21 ([link removed]) ), drug trafficking (FAIR.org, 9/24/19 ([link removed]) ) or media censorship (FAIR.org, 5/20/19 ([link removed]) ). The consequence is that by now no editor will flinch at a description of the Venezuelan government as “authoritarian” (Washington Post, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ), “autocratic” (CNN, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ) or “corrupt and repressive” (New York Times, 5/17/22
([link removed]) ).

Establishment journalists were also happy enough to echo mobster-like ([link removed]) threats from their anonymous sources, namely that the US will “calibrate” sanctions depending on whether progress in government/opposition talks is deemed acceptable (Reuters, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ; NBC, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ; AFP, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ; AP, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ). US officials refer to policies that are killing thousands of civilians as though they were a dial they can turn up or down at will, and their enablers in the media see
no reason to be alarmed by this.
NYT: U.S. to Offer Minor Sanctions Relief to Entice Venezuela to Talks

The New York Times (5/17/22 ([link removed]) ) more accurately headlined that the US was going "to offer minor sanctions relief."

For its part, the New York Times (5/17/22 ([link removed]) ) described the steps as “minor sanctions relief” which despite the adjective still seems a bit overstated, considering that sanctions include an oil embargo and this was just an opportunity to talk to Chevron. The paper of record also tried to paint sanctions as having little to do with the collapse of Venezuela’s oil industry, writing that they only began in 2019. In fact, the first measures ([link removed]) against PDVSA—cutting it off from international credit—are from mid-2017, after which output collapsed from nearly 2 million barrels a day to 350,000 in three years (Venezuelanalysis, 8/27/21 ([link removed]) ).

Simultaneously, Spain’s Repsol and Italy’s Eni got oil-for-debt licenses that “will not benefit [PDVSA] financially” (Reuters, 6/5/22 ([link removed]) ). And no corporate journalist found any issue with the fact that somehow the US Treasury Department has the power to “let” European corporations deal with Venezuela.


** Not all critics created equal
------------------------------------------------------------
WSJ: Venezuela Sanctions Relief Is a Trap for Biden

Mary Anastasia O'Grady (Wall Street Journal, 5/19/22 ([link removed]) ) warned that the US was "tiptoeing toward a rapprochement with dictator Nicolás Maduro."

The Biden administration revisiting its sanctions policy even a little bit has generated a ferocious backlash that fed corporate media bias. The Wall Street Journal’s opinion section provided its usual extremism, with editorial board member Mary Anastasia O’Grady (5/26/22 ([link removed]) ) writing that the US might be “tiptoeing toward a rapprochement with dictator Nicolás Maduro that will abandon the cause of Venezuelan freedom.”

The Journal columnist referred to the opposition's unelected Venezuelan "interim president," Juan Guaidó, as “internationally recognized,” when the number of countries that actually recognize him is down to 16 (Venezuelanalysis, 12/8/21 ([link removed]) ). She somehow presented the 2002 US-backed military coup that briefly deposed democratically elected President Hugo Chávez as “opponents defend[ing] the rule of law using institutions.”

But there was plenty of bias in news reports as well when it came to weighing pros and cons of the Biden administration’s initiative. Indeed, only “hawkish” criticism of official policy gets airtime (FAIR.org, 5/2/22 ([link removed]) ).

A group of Venezuelan opposition figures, from economists to political analysts to business leaders, penned a letter to the Biden administration in April calling for sanctions relief (Bloomberg, 4/14/22 ([link removed]) ). Though they conceded ([link removed]) to the US’s supposed role in solving the country’s political crisis, they pointed out the obvious: Sanctions are hurting the Venezuelan people. Nevertheless, once it was time to discuss the sanctions policy, none of these figures was reached for comment by corporate journalists.
Guardian: West must not lift sanctions on Maduro, says Venezuelan opposition

Lifting sanctions against Venezuela would "hand victory to an autocratic alliance led by Vladimir Putin," according to whom the Guardian (5/14/22 ([link removed]) ) called “the country’s deputy foreign minister.”

Instead, the Guardian (5/14/22 ([link removed]) ) reached out to the hardliners, going as far as interviewing someone with a made-up job in Guaidó’s “interim government” and calling her “the country’s deputy foreign minister.” The US-sponsored politician opposed sanctions relief without political concessions and—keeping up with the latest trends in propaganda—warned that “if Maduro is helped, so is Putin.”

A number of US House Democrats have grown increasingly vocal in opposing the administration’s Venezuela policy, based on its humanitarian consequences. Days before the timid overtures, they wrote yet another letter to Biden (The Hill, 5/12/22 ([link removed]) ). But when it was time to evaluate the latest measure, this letter earned a grand total of one sentence in just one report (AP, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ).

In contrast, Sen. Marco Rubio (Guardian, 5/19/22 ([link removed]) ) and Rep. Michael McCaul (New York Times, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ), both hardline Republicans, were on hand to accuse the administration of ”appeasing” or "capitulating to” Maduro. The only featured Democrat was notorious anti-Cuba and anti-Venezuela hawk Bob Menendez, whose rejection of showing any mercy to Venezuela was widely circulated (AP, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ; AFP, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ; NBC, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ; Washington Post, 5/17/22
([link removed]) ; Reuters, 5/17/22 ([link removed]) ).

Remarkably, even after the Biden administration decided to kick the can on Chevron’s license down the road until the midterms, outlets like the Associated Press (5/27/22 ([link removed]) ) still only platformed the hardliners. And so, with next to no changes to Trump’s “maximum pressure” efforts, the corporate media audience will see the White House chastised for “bending over backward to appease an oil despot,” but not for causing a reported 30% of the Venezuelan population to be undernourished (Venezuelanalysis, 8/22/21 ([link removed]) ).


** Imperialists in Wonderland
------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg: US Needs to See More From Maduro to Ease Venezuela Sanctions

“The unilateral lifting of sanctions on Venezuela is not going to improve the lives of Venezuelans,” a senior White House advisor absurdly claimed to Bloomberg (5/19/22 ([link removed]) ).

If Western journalists are not keen to tell their audience what sanctions have meant, they are even less eager to challenge outright falsehoods coming from high-ranking Beltway figures.

In a Bloomberg report (5/19/22 ([link removed]) ), writers Patrick Gillespie and Erik Schatzker walked a familiar path by allowing senior White House advisor Juan Gonzalez to play hostage-taker, demanding that sanctions relief will require unspecified “democratic steps” and “bigger political freedoms.” But in the process, they published an outrageous and blatant lie.

“The unilateral lifting of sanctions on Venezuela is not going to improve the lives of Venezuelans,” Bloomberg quoted Gonzalez. Amazingly, the authors let this statement go out unopposed, when in fact lifting sanctions is the most obvious thing the US could do to improve the lives of Venezuelans.

The Venezuelan government ([link removed]) , Venezuelan opposition ([link removed]) figures/groups, UN special rapporteurs ([link removed]) , think tanks ([link removed]) , economists ([link removed]) , US representatives ([link removed]) and even the US Chamber of Commerce ([link removed]) have documented or at least recognized the harmful consequences of unilateral sanctions. To not include a single one of these sources to counter Gonzalez’s ludicrous assertion is a choice that is as deliberate as it is dishonest.

The latest Venezuela appearance in the spotlight showed again just how key the corporate media is for US foreign policy. With their “calibrated” efforts to conceal the consequences of sanctions, Western journalists have in fact made thousands and thousands of Venezuelan victims invisible to the public. It is they who deserve to be sanctioned.


Read more ([link removed])

Share this post: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Twitter"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Twitter" alt="Twitter" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Facebook"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Facebook" alt="Facebook" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Pinterest"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Pinterest" alt="Pinterest" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="LinkedIn" alt="LinkedIn" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Google Plus"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Google Plus" alt="Google Plus" class="mc-share"></a>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[link removed]" title="Instapaper"><img border="0" height="15" width="15" src="[link removed]" title="Instapaper" alt="Instapaper" class="mc-share"></a>
​

© 2021 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])

change your preferences ([link removed])
Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp
[link removed]
unsubscribe ([link removed]) .