Protests in Venezuela: Media Bias and Maduro's Response

In the past month, in addition to Venezuela, there have been protests in Ukraine, Palestine, and right here in our nations capital – Washington D.C.. This much is a fact. Depending on where you get your information though, you may be very far from understanding, or even knowing about, these events.

During a public meeting in Mexico, President Obama took to the microphone to share his thoughts on Venezuela: “In Venezuela, rather than trying to distract from its own failings by making up false accusations against diplomats from the United States, the government ought to focus on addressing the legitimate grievances of the Venezuelan people.”

Due to poor media coverage, the global audience and President Obama have overlooked President Maduro’s economic reforms and social plans to combat the insecurity that has plagued his country’s people. His economic reforms include: putting price caps on profits to deflate inflation, the initiation of Cadivi 2 (a refined version of a previous law to protect against black market currency exchange and speculation), giving incentives to importers by allowing businesses to use foreign currency exchange. The social plans for ending crime and encouraging participation involve the government sponsored social artistic gatherings that promote peace in all avenues of society. Also, Maduro has been advocating for young men and women to pursue careers in criminal justice to ensure their society’s safety. Obama didn’t mention any of these policies in his speech, and provided no evidence nor basis for his denial of the accussations brought against him.

One example of this poor media coverage was in the Washington Post, which made false claims and left intentional blanks. Their approach was to let “impartial experts” from a neutral policy analysis organization do the job for them. In “Jailed Leader Channels Venezuelas’ Ire,” the Post purports to shed light on Leopoldo Lopez’s heroism after being jailed. The president of the Inter-American Dialogue, the organization featured in the article, and another member of the group, both have a history of denouncing the Chavez led government, and are now doing the same to President Maduro. They claimed that the government couldn’t even keep Lopez quiet. They failed to notice that Lopez turned himself in to the government because of threats on his life from Colombian paramilitary groups associated with Alvaro Uribe. During the arrest, the government allowed Lopez to speak over a microphone to prove they aren’t an authoritarian regime. The article’s “impartial experts” also overlook the fact that Maduro publicly invited opposition leaders to participate in dialogue over differences in policy, something they advocate. But all of this confusion clears up when you realize that major funders to the Inter-American Dialogue are Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and USAID (United States Advancement for International Development), through various foreign embassies. Not to mention that the other member who commentated was a Minister of Trade and Industry under Carlos Andres Perez.

Most egregiously, the New York Times, with perhaps the strongest reputation for unbiased coverage of the news, is selectively reporting and making false claims. To make it seem like Venezuela has an authoritarian regime that censors free speech, they fail to provide an impartial view of both sides. On the face of it this impression cannot be sustained. These reports would not be possible if we did not hear opposition voices critical of the government being broadcast all the time. Just one example: “Protests Swell in Venezuela as Places to Rally Disappear” only focuses on the divisive and controversial issues, rather than comprehensively describing all of the events taking place. Such as, the head of SEBIN (Bolivarian Intelligence Service) and others getting fired for failing to keep order and control. The article goes on to villainize Chavez (the deceased ex-president), and how he compares to Maduro, rather than explaining what Maduro is actually doing to handle the crisis. This is because if they stated how Maduro has advocated dialogue and peace for the Venezuelan people, he would look competent. Trying to win hearts, the article features vivid images of the deaths during the protests, and describing what happened, while conceding that they don’t even know who killed who. This creates a false impression that only the government is to blame.

This though is all too common, the media using demogagic phrases, talking heads offering disingenuous analysis, and global leaders misleading us with plain language. The greater point, and reason why I decided to write about this issue, is that Venezuela (like other countries) suffers constant attacks on its sovereignty and legitimacy solely over its decision to practice democratic inclusion of its people, even the least fortunate, giving everyone equal opportunity and rights, including control of its own natural resources, and its decision to eradicate dependence on the West (or in this case, the North). I hope my view on why it is necessary to broaden our view, investigate those who’s word we take as “truth”, and call out lies, resonates. The political struggle against the domestic oligarchy, U.S. interests, and the hegemonic cultural media in Venezuela, is a battle worth fighting.