From FAIR <[email protected]>
Subject Guaidó Is Gone, but Media Dishonesty Is Here to Stay
Date January 11, 2023 10:53 PM
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
  Links have been removed from this email. Learn more in the FAQ.
[link removed]

FAIR
View article on FAIR's website ([link removed])
Guaidó Is Gone, but Media Dishonesty Is Here to Stay Ricardo Vaz ([link removed])


The latest iteration of Washington’s regime-change efforts against the democratically elected ([link removed]) Venezuelan government came to an end. On December 30 ([link removed]) , an opposition-controlled parliament whose term ran out two years ago voted to end the US-backed “interim government” headed by Juan Guaidó.

A few outlets recognized that the latest developments represented “a blow” (New York Times, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) or “a failure” (Financial Times, 1/8/23 ([link removed]) ) for the United States, but for the most part the media's goal seemed to be to solidify the biased premises underlying the regime-change operation. Corporate media remain as unwilling as ever to question US foreign policy, regardless of its deadly consequences.

The Guaidó-led operation had earned the wholehearted support of the media establishment from the get-go (FAIR.org, 1/19/19 ([link removed]) , 1/31/19 ([link removed]) ). However, its end did not lead to a reckoning or reevaluation of past coverage. The loyal stenography from Western pundits is as reliable as ever (FAIR.org, 6/13/22 ([link removed]) , 5/2/22 ([link removed]) , 4/15/20 ([link removed]) , 1/22/20 ([link removed]) , 9/24/19 ([link removed]) ).


** The Big Lie
------------------------------------------------------------
NYT: Juan Guaidó Is Voted Out as Leader of Venezuela’s Opposition

Guaidó "declared Venezuela’s authoritarian president an illegitimate ruler," making himself "the most serious threat to President Nicolás Maduro’s authoritarian government," this New York Times story (12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) reported in its first two paragraphs.

The coverage of Guaidó’s demise saw media pundits dust off some of their Venezuela bias greatest hits. The New York Times (12/22/22 ([link removed]) ) used the “authoritarian” label in reference to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro three times in the teaser and the opening two paragraphs of an article. Other favorites like “strongman” (Wall Street Journal, 1/5/23 ([link removed]) ) and “autocratic” (LA Times, 1/5/23 ([link removed]) ) were not far behind.

Likewise frequent were gushing tributes to the “hope” that Guaidó signified (AP, 1/5/23 ([link removed]) ; New York Times, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ), as if the unelected US-backed pretender naturally represented the aspirations of the Venezuelan people. Some sources made the even bolder claim that “the failure to drive out Maduro frustrated Venezuelans” (AP, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ; Al Jazeera, 12/31/22 ([link removed]) ). This is the common maneuver of presuming that all Venezuelans support the opposition, while also ignoring the overwhelming popular rejection
([link removed]) of foreign meddling.

The opening act of any Guaidó story is always the Goebbelsian claim that Maduro’s 2018 electoral win was illegitimate (FAIR.org, 5/23/18 ([link removed]) ), despite the lack of evidence of irregularities and the presence of international observation missions who vouched for the vote’s integrity Venezuelanalysis, 5/31/18 ([link removed]) ).

The unsubstantiated claims about the contest go from “disputed” (BBC, 12/31/22 ([link removed]) ; Reuters, 12/22/22 ([link removed]) ), to “widely deemed" or "believed" or "seen as" or "considered" or "condemned as" "fraudulent” (see Bloomberg, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ; Miami Herald, 12/23/22 ([link removed]) ; AFP, 1/4/23 ([link removed]) ; LA Times, 1/5/23 ([link removed]) ; Washington Post, 12/30/22
([link removed]) ), all the way to “a sham” (Wall Street Journal, 1/5/23 ([link removed]) ; New York Times, 12/22/22 ([link removed]) ; Reuters, 1/4/22 ([link removed]) ).

Once this false premise was established, another one followed: the alleged “constitutional” grounds behind the self-proclaimed “interim government.” Whether by allowing Guaidó and acolytes to repeat the claim (Wall Street Journal, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ; Washington Post, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ), or by casually stating it (AP, 1/9/23 ([link removed]) , 1/9/23 ([link removed]) ; Reuters, 12/29/22 ([link removed]) ; New York Times, 12/22/22 ([link removed]) ),
Western outlets were eager to paint the US-backed presumption with a varnish of legitimacy.

Nowhere to be found was the text or a link to the invoked constitutional article. Because anyone who read Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution ([link removed]) would immediately realize that: a) none of the conditions to declare the presidency “vacant” were met, as Maduro had not died, resigned, been removed by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, become permanently physically or mentally disabled, abandoned his position or been removed by a popular vote; and b) even if one were, it would lead to nothing remotely resembling this parallel government that lasted nearly four years. (Instead, the constitution calls for new direct elections to be held within 30 days.)

Having taken their gaze off of Venezuela as regime-change efforts faltered, corporate journalists needed some dishonest gymnastics to report Guaidó’s demise. In particular, they had to explain why a National Assembly whose term expired two years ago was still around. Their experience in discarding elections boycotted by the opposition and won by Chavismo came in handy (FAIR.org, 12/3/21 ([link removed]) , 1/27/21 ([link removed]) , 5/23/18 ([link removed]) ).

For example, AFP said the former parliament “was replaced by a legislature loyal to Maduro” (12/31/22 ([link removed]) ), ignoring the fact that it was "replaced" through the regularly scheduled elections. But the Associated Press (12/22/22 ([link removed]) , 1/9/23 ([link removed]) , 1/9/23 ([link removed]) ) went a step further by calling the newly elected parliament “Maduro’s rubber-stamping legislature/National Assembly,” as if there is something sinister about a party with a legislative majority supporting a president from the same party. It is not the government’s fault that the opposition, with US encouragement,
decided to boycott elections and pin its hopes on an outright coup.


** Inconvenient truths
------------------------------------------------------------
LA Times: U.S. looks for opportunity in demise of Guaidó, whom it recognized as ‘interim president’ of Venezuela

The LA Times (1/5/23 ([link removed]) ) described the US recognizing a lawmaker with no constitutional claim to power as the actual government of Venezuela as an "audacious gamble."

With all the effort to double down on well-crafted narratives, it was hard to expect any contrition from Western media that cheerfully endorsed Guaidó's baseless claims to power. Instead, his failure was attributed to Maduro, currently serving his second constitutional six-year term, having a “grip on power” (Wall Street Journal, 1/5/23 ([link removed]) ) that was “maintained” (Reuters, 1/4/23 ([link removed]) ), “tightened” (AFP, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) or “proven durable” (Washington Post, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ).

For all the talk of Guaidó’s commitment to "restore democracy" (AP, 1/9/23 ([link removed]) ; LA Times, 1/5/23 ([link removed]) ; New York Times, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ), there was little detail as to how he actually tried to accomplish it.

The opposition frontman’s most serious initiative to overthrow Maduro was a military putsch on April 19, 2019. Yet only a few outlets explicitly mentioned this episode (Wall Street Journal, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ; New York Times, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ). Most included only vague references to a failure “to win over" (AP, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) or "recruit” (Bloomberg, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) the military. The Associated Press (1/5/23 ([link removed]) ) went so far as to falsely describe the Venezuelan armed forces as the
country’s “traditional arbiter of political disputes.” It seems that the preferred means to “restore democracy” in the South American nation was a good old-fashioned military coup.

Not mentioned at all by the establishment outlets was the hardline opposition’s calls for a foreign invasion (Venezuelanalysis, 5/13/19 ([link removed]) ) and, more damningly, Guaidó actually hiring a mercenary company to topple Maduro and put himself in power (Venezuelanalysis, 5/17/20 ([link removed]) ). The best hope was always that US economic sanctions would generate enough suffering to force the government out.

While the “interim government” made no inroads to take power, it was handed control of a number of foreign-held assets worth billions by Washington and allies, among them US-based refiner Citgo ([link removed]) .

Corporate outlets reported that these assets need to be “protect[ed]” (AP, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) or “shield[ed]” (AP, 1/9/23 ([link removed]) ) from creditors, and that the opposition’s control might be jeopardized by Guaidó’s ouster. Spain’s El País (12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) baselessly claimed these resources would be “embezzled” by the Maduro government.

Out of sight is the string of corruption allegations ([link removed]) pertaining to opposition (mis)management of foreign assets (Venezuelanalysis, 10/14/21 ([link removed]) ), which came from the anti-government camp itself. The most publicized case was Colombia-based agrochemical producer Monómeros. Humberto Calderón Bertí, who served as opposition “ambassador” in Colombia, accused ([link removed]) the different factions of treating the company like a “piñata.”

Likewise unmentioned is a series of actions by Guaidó’s camp that have endangered Citgo, from not showing up in court to striking under-the-table deals with creditors to suspicions of conflicts of interest (Venezuelanalysis, 9/25/21 ([link removed]) , 10/4/21 ([link removed]) , 10/23/21 ([link removed]) ).


** ‘Regardless of what form’
------------------------------------------------------------
WaPo: Venezuela’s opposition dissolves Guaidó-led ‘interim government’

The Washington Post (12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) writes about "the opposition-controlled National Assembly" as if there haven't been legislative elections in Venezuela since 2015.

The heightened regime-change attempts by Washington in recent years were cheered at every step by the Western media establishment. By falsely trumpeting Guaidó’s credentials and whitewashing his anti-democratic actions, corporate journalists were free to endorse any and all efforts to place him in power, especially deadly economic sanctions.

Human rights experts estimate these measures have killed ([link removed]) over 100,000 people over the past five years. But some pieces managed to not mention them at all (AP, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ; Bloomberg, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ; El País, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ). The New York Times (12/22/22 ([link removed]) , 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) euphemistically wrote that sanctions were “designed to assist” Guaidó, but as it happened ended up
“forc[ing] Venezuelans to focus on daily survival, not political mobilization.”

Washington imposed, among many other measures, heavy sanctions ([link removed]) on the oil sector of a country that depended on oil sales for over 90% of its export revenue. And the resulting widespread suffering is somehow an unforeseen consequence for the Times! Moreover, not only are the unilateral measures a form of collective punishment ([link removed]) against civilians, they actually preceded ([link removed]) Guaidó.

Other media only brought up sanctions to echo US officials saying they can be used “to pressure Caracas” (Wall Street Journal, 1/5/23 ([link removed]) ), since the US “hold[s] all the cards” (Washington Post, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ). State Department spokesperson Ned Price was quoted as saying sanctions will “remain in place,” and could even be expanded should the Venezuelan opposition say so (AFP, 1/4/23 ([link removed]) ).

As usual, the New York Times (12/22/22 ([link removed]) , 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ) outdid all others in covering for US economic blackmail. The Biden administration recently released ([link removed]) around $3 billion in frozen Venezuelan funds, to be used in social programs via UN agencies, after the Venezuelan government restarted talks with the hardline opposition. The Times (12/22/22 ([link removed]) ) outrageously described it as Maduro “agree[ing] to” allow these funds to be used for aid. Caracas has repeatedly demanded that its assets be released, and even suggested this kind of arrangement. During the pandemic, the government asked that the frozen gold ([link removed]) in the UK be sold to buy food and medicine through
the UN. The Venezuelan opposition and its foreign backers refused.

The latest coverage was just another demonstration that Western media will unflinchingly back Washington’s Venezuela policies no matter what. Even when anonymous officials callously say that the US will continue to recognize the opposition’s “interim government,” “regardless of what form it takes” (AFP, 12/31/22 ([link removed]) ; Al Jazeera, 12/31/22 ([link removed]) ; Washington Post, 12/30/22 ([link removed]) ), loyal stenographers will not hesitate in presenting it as democracy promotion.

It is worth recapping: The media establishment followed Washington’s lead in declaring the 2018 elections fraudulent with no evidence, echoing Guaidó’s “constitutional” claim, backing all sorts of coup attempts, as well as supporting and whitewashing murderous sanctions and the theft of Venezuelan assets. The US’s surrogates can come up with whatever scheme they can think of, and the imperial regime-change arsenal is at their service. And that includes media coverage as dishonest as necessary.

The corporate media pretend to defend the truth and hold those in power accountable. Their claim is just as legitimate as Guaidó’s self-proclaimed “interim presidency.”
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]) .
Screenshot of the email generated on import

Message Analysis