TeleSur is a propaganda mouthpiece for the Chavista regime, since they finance it the most. I think this can be discarded as BS propaganda.

It's a real (not a rhetorical) question: Whom would you NOT "discard"?

In other words, please name a news/opinion source that is totally objective and does NOT reflect, or is not influenced by, the opinions of those who hold the pursestrings--whether those pursestring-holders are CEOs of private corporations, CEO's of subsidiaries of multinational corporations, private individual owners, or governments (England-BBC, USA-NPR, Venezuela-TeleSur) or, in some cases, universities (say, Jefferson Public Radio, out of Southern Oregon University) or other entities, such as the new internet news broadcasters (say, The Young Turks, or Thom Hartmann).

Personally, I've learned not to trust ANY news organization, period. I question them all, understand that they all have biases, and read or view accordingly, sifting the content, judging it for myself. I don't "discard" most news/opinion sources as "BS propaganda." Instead, I vet them--think seriously about their content; seek other info/viewpoints, etc. Some of them present more truth than others. Some are extremely biased. Some need comparison to other news/opinion outlets to arrive at the general truth of a story or importance of an opinion. For instance, I occasionally read The Atlantic and Foreign Policy (and the Washington Psst) to find out what the CIA is thinking. I wouldn't trust them to tell me the time of day, but it's sometimes important to know what they think the time of day is, or what they want me to believe the time of day is. I don't "discard them"; I analyze them. I might conclude that they are "BS propaganda," but that doesn't relieve me of the responsibility of knowing what they are saying, and trying to understand their context and purposes.

TeleSur is as leftist as the people of Venezuela, who have elected and re-elected leftist governments, time and again, since 1998. It naturally reflects the leftist bias of Venezuelans. So be it. Why should it reflect the fascists who tried to overthrow the elected government? They have their own horns anyway, some of which actively participated in the 2002 and other coup attempts. I applaud TeleSur's efforts to balance the private fascist corporate news moguls with coverage from a leftist point of view. It's not "BS propaganda," in my view. It's just a rather good source for an ALTERNATIVE point of view--a point of view that is widely held in Venezuela.

Here, we don't have much to counter the corporate/military bias of, say, the New York Slimes, the Wall Street Urinal, Faux News and the rest--although alternatives are arising, mostly on the internet. NPR is very nearly the worst of the lot, given their slimy veneer of sophistication and education, which fools a lot of people. The BBC, which we have access to here, is perhaps the closest to "objective," but they became increasingly biased and corporate over the previous decade, as the Blairites sought to shut down their independence, mostly over the Iraq War (--and those pressures have not abated).

I cannot think of ANY news source that does NOT have a point of view, often influenced by funders.

So, again, a real question: Whom do you NOT "discard" as "BS propaganda"?

And, maybe another question: What do you mean by "discard"? You want us to erase that viewpoint from the face of the earth? You think the viewpoint of the elected government of Venezuela and a large number of the people of Venezuela deserves no attention whatever? You "discard" it completely because you distrust THAT funding source, but you trust all others (Murdoch, for instance)?

Case in point, Eva Golinger, TeleSur, and VenezuelaAnalysis. Others to discard are sources privately financed by governments sympathetic to the Chavista cause and have financial ties to the Venezuelan government, such as Putin's own propaganda mouthpiece, RT, or people whom time has proven to be utterly wrong in their predictions regarding Venezuela, such as the hack of Mark Weisbrot. And of course any source that's run by useful idiot-levels of leftist ideologues, such as Absence of Logic. That should help you narrow it down.

...but that doesn't answer my question: whom would you NOT discard?

So, whom do you ACCEPT as truthful and unbiased on Venezuela or on other subjects? You say "any source not financed by the Chavista government"? Would you accept, say, Fox News, or the Wall Street Journal, or news corporations in Venezuela that participated in the '02 coup (for instance RCTV), as truthful and unbiased on Venezuela or on other subjects? Would you accept those or others like them because they are "not funded by the Chavista government"? You have no other vetting scheme for judging truthfulness or bias?

My point is that all news/opinion sources have bias of one sort or another, and to different degrees, and I think that most intelligent readers/viewers know this, and make their own judgements on how much to believe what they read/see, or how to evaluate opinions. What are your criteria for making these judgements, and whom do you trust the most to be truthful and objective?

Many others here have no problem reading articles from all over the world, and are smart enough to know what's already been verified - over and over and over right here, even.

[center] [/center]

Or are you denying the fact that TeleSur is mostly financed by the Venezuelan government, whose only intention is to remain in power even if it means ruining the country (as actual facts can show you?) TeleSur is essentially the Latin American equivalent of RT. But hey, then again, you probably believe everything in RT too and think Putin is some kind of benevolent and progressive leader despite the evidence to the contrary.

Right?!

It never fails though, does it ............. as sure as the sun comes up every day, it's a given that anything proving the media bias that has stoked the hatred for Venezuela's democratically elected gov't based on complete lies is derailed with this same crybaby, call the waaaaaaambulance - "not believable, just look where it's from!". Thankfully, most intelligent people have seen it so often it's easily recognizable as the pathetic, pitiful attempt to hide the truth that it is.

I've noticed so much noise is generated by these people who've wandered far from home.

[center]







[/center]
Our defense is information, more information, and unending information. We have opted to keep on watching, thinking, learning, and actively seeking the truth, a much harder path to take than letting propaganda wash over us daily.

There is no rational defense against truth, no matter how bad it is and how much it hurts their agenda. And such an ugly agenda it is.


This one killed me!

Love the pics!

The parked waaaaaambulance for them is a great idea!!!

The facts are not inaccessible, they just aren't popular by any stroke with the corporate stenographers at US "news" outlets, sadly. Not since the right-wing has gobbled up all the independent newspapers, and tv stations, and folded them into right-wing-controlled organizations.

We all know that, have known it for years. Why right-wingers won't acknowledge it is due to the fact if they accept the facts they will have no defense whatsoever in their positions. They only hope to be able to pick off information-deprived people by bombarding them with right-wing contrived lies daily. Everyone else knows better.

Really admire Joe Emersberger. He's an outstanding journalist.

[center] ~ ~ ~ [/center]
On edit, adding another article by this terrific journalist:

Media Rubbish about Venezuelans Who Have Left to Live Abroad

By Joe Emersberger
September 3, 2015

Girish Gupta of Reuters wrote in a recent article

“Around 5 percent of Venezuela’s population of 30 million has left the country since [the late President] Chavez came to power in 1999, said Caracas-based sociologist Tomas Paez, who has published papers and books on migration.”

I wrote to Gupta arguing that the claim that 1.5 million Venezuelans have left since 1999 is far-fetched. In his reply Gupta accused me of “cherry picking” a “tangential” piece of his article. Presumably, if he found the claim tangential, he would not have mentioned it. I’ve since discovered the claim to be even more ridiculous than I thought.

Before addressing that, one should note that Venezuela has twice as many immigrants as it has emigrants according to the World Bank figures cited below. Also, according to the UNHCR, about 200,000 Colombians are living as refugees in Venezuela. Less than 237 Venezuelan refugees are in Colombia. People who believe the international media would assume it is the other way around. Venezuela has long been depicted as a hell from which people are desperate to escape, Colombia as an oasis of human rights and prosperity, or at least a country where nothing particularly bad is happening. An August 23 Financial Times op-ed, for example, claimed that Colombia has “emerged as a superstar economic performer”. I’ve written before about the gruesome way Colombia really stands out in the region.

Returning to the claim that 1.5 million Venezuelans have left since 1999, the USA has been widely reported as the top destination for Venezuelans who have left their country. The US government has the resources to produce reliable statistics on Venezuelan immigrants and has no incentive to produce underestimates. Combining US Census Bureau with Homeland Security data, it is clear that about 100,000 Venezuelans immigrated to the US from 2000-2011 and that, overwhelmingly, they have either done so legally or obtained legal residency very quickly. As of 2013, according to US Homeland Security , about 9,500 Venezuelans per year were getting legal residency, suggesting no recent change in the average number arriving. Judging by overseas voting statistics from 2013, it appears that about a third of Venezuelan immigrants live in the USA. Assuming one out of every three Venezuelans who left since 1999 came to the USA, the data above would yield an estimate of 392,000 leaving Venezuela by 2013, or about 28,000 per year from 1999-2013.

That figure may overestimate how many left Venezuela to live in Spain, Panama and other countries. World Bank figures ( here and here ) say that the population of former Venezuela residents living abroad grew from 463,759 to 521,000 from 2005 to 2010. That works out to about 12,000 per year leaving Venezuela to live abroad during that period, but even 28,000 per year is a very far cry from 100,000 leaving per year since 1999 – the average rate required for the figure Girish Gupta reported to be accurate.

According to the US Census Bureau , 145,000 Venezuelans immigrated to the USA from 1990 to 2011. That figure includes people living in the US legally and illegally , and it represents over 80% of all Venezuelan-born people living in the US as of 2011. According the US Homeland Security Department , 135,000 Venezuelan immigrants obtained legal residency over the same period. Therefore the number of undocumented Venezuelan immigrants living in the USA is possibly as low as 10,000. It is unsurprising, when you consider these figures, that Venezuela has never cracked the US government’s top ten list of countries of origin for undocumented immigrants. Ecuador, which has half Venezuela’s population, has consistently been in the top ten. As of 2012, Ecuador held the number nine spot on the list with 170,000 undocumented immigrants in the USA thanks to the ruinous two decades before Rafael Correa first took office in 2007.

Why We Need the New Yorker to Correct Its Error on Venezuelan Inequality
By Jim Naureckas


Apr 17 2013

My hat is off to Keane Bhatt, NACLA blogger and occasional Extra! contributor, for his tireless efforts to prod one of the United States’ most prestigious media outlets to live up to their professed standards of accuracy. The outlet is the New Yorker, a magazine whose name is practically synonymous with factchecking. It’s a tradition there; they brag about how seriously they take checking the facts. Which makes you wonder how Keane was able to find the glaring, major errors in the New Yorker‘s recent coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, all perpetrated by longtime contributor Jon Lee Anderson.

First, in an online piece (10/7/12) previewing the 2012 Venezuelan presidential elections (originally titled “The End of Chavez?” but renamed “Chavez the Survivor” after Chavez won by a 10 percentage point margin), Anderson asserted that “Venezuela leads Latin America in homicides.” Actually, as can be easily ascertained, Venezuela has half the homicide rate of Honduras, and is below El Salvador as well.

Still, it is true that Venezuela has a high murder rate, even if it’s not the highest. And the online editors did post a correction when Keane brought the mistake to their attention (NACLA, 10/8/12). That is, more than a month after Keane brought it to their attention–and after Anderson admitted it needed to be corrected.

Then came Anderson’s massive 11,000-word piece in the print edition, “Slumlord: What Has Hugo Chavez Wrought in Venezuela” (1/28/13–subscription required), which claimed that Chavez was intent on “preventing a coup like the one that put him in office.”

No. Chavez had earlier led an attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government in 1992, in the wake of government massacres that had killed hundreds if not thousands of protesters. The coup failed and Chavez was imprisoned; he was released by a new government after the president he tried to overthrow was impeached. Chavez ended up coming into office in 1998 in the usual way, via an election, which he won with 56 percent of the vote.

By asserting that Chavez took power through violence, Anderson seems to be trying to call into question the legitimacy of Chavez’s tenure in office. But what he’s really doing is casting doubt on the legitimacy of the New Yorker‘s reporting and factchecking process. How do you write 11,000 words on a political figure without knowing how they got to their position? It’s like writing a long profile on Gerald Ford that refers to that time when he was elected president.

And how does a libel like that get through the magazine’s vaunted factchecking process? One begins to suspect that, as with most of the corporate media, the New Yorker has a different standard when it comes to accusations against an official enemy.

The magazine did correct this mistake as well, again after Keane brought it to public attention. Here’s how Anderson acknowledged he was wrong (Twitter, 3/20/13): “U r right. Now being fixed. Thx x pting out. Not intentional, obv; fctcking errors. U may stop vilifying me now.” Charming.

More:
why-we-need-the-new-yorker-to-correct-its-error-on-venezuelan-inequality