AP Falsely Portrays Chavez as Seeking 25-Year Term! I am Shocked!

Shocked I tell you! :eyes:

Associated Press Falsely Portrays Chavez as Seeking 25-Year Term

Monday, May 08, 2006 Print format
Send by email


By: Justin Delacour - Latin America News Review

A little scrutiny of a recent Associated Press report about Venezuela provides a lesson in how the English-language press often gets the story wrong. Take the first sentence: "President Hugo Chavez said Saturday that Venezuelan voters should have the chance to decide whether he should govern the country for the next 25 years."

No, such a referendum would not be about "whether he should govern the country for the next 25 years." A referendum would be about whether Chavez would be permitted to run every six years and --in the event that he were to continue winning elections-- serve multiple presidential terms. The AP report's opening sentence makes it sound as if such a referendum would do away with elections in Venezuela, as if its intent would be to grant Chavez a new 25-year term in office! The website of The Calgary Sun even titles the wire report "Chavez seeking 25-year term"!!

This is obviously an extremely poor piece of reporting. Chavez made it clear that, if the opposition committed to participating in the upcoming presidential election, he would not convoke a referendum to end presidential term limits. He explained that the intent of his threat to convoke such a referendum was not to perpetuate himself in power but rather to defend the Bolivarian Revolution.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1723

Journalists just don't think much. They just react.

to portray Chavez as something he is not.

Country has oil. Needs democracy. Needs Uncle Sam to invade and establish democracy.

just not the "right kind" according to the Bushies (like BushCo know what it is). :puke:

It's not a legit new source.

I'll wait for a real source

has it ever occured to you Chavez needs a "media matters" type organization to counter the US Anti-Chavez propaganda? I believe this report over any AP dreck.


<snip>

Fortunately, Agence France Press (AFP) got the story right. The opening sentence of AFP's Spanish-language report reads, "Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez claimed Saturday that, if the opposition decides not to run candidates in the December presidential election, he could decree a referendum to permit his reelection for multiple terms until 2031."

...the New York Times, or the Washington Post, or any other members of the U. S. MSM?

How do you know when members of the U. S. MSM are not lying?

IIRC.

By the way, can you cite a single example of bias from that website?

Media Matters vs. Fox should be your model. Why don't you try to do what they do?

Here's a link in Portuguese - Terra is a big ISP based in Spain. They operate in Brazil and in many other countries, USA included.

http://noticias.terra.com.br/mundo/interna/0,,OI886248-EI294,00.html

And another in Spanish.

http://www.hoy.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=74482

I would translate, but I fear you would doubt the legitimacy of the translation. Go find a speaker of Portuguese or Spanish with political leanings similar to yours instead.

And offtopic, here's something to cheer you up: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2277864

there were posters here who couldn't seem to understand that Chavez was talking about term limits and not dictatorship in perpetuity.

Term limits? I can take 'em or leave 'em. You've got them in the US. We don't have 'em in Canada. But some will jump on any excuse to portray Chavez as a megalomanaical madman.

Sid

especially in this day and age. Of course, likely we will get rid of B* in 2008, but be stuck with his diebold PNAC replacement.

We have no term limits in Canada and our democracy seems to work just fine. Term limits might be fundamental to the US version of democracy, but that's more a reflection of your own political system, than it is to democracy in general.

Sid

If we had term limits, we would not have the brilliant senators we have now Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Max Baucus, Patrick Leahy, etc. Why deny us leaders such as they?

So much for civil discourse.

if your delicate ears were offended by my use of coarse language.

Sid

fuckin Thank you.

Emmy

people who do a good job representing the people get elected to few more terms.

You can have all the term limits you want, if government is not transparent then the crooks can get any of their guys in power.

Otoh if government is transparent, then there's no problem with reelecting the same guy over and over. If at some point he turns bad, the people will know (thanks to transparency) and the president can be replaced.

...and there were no term limits on being president until after FDR's presidency:

22ND AMENDMENT (1951)
<http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20021127amendment_22p9.asp>

QUOTE:

"Just months into his fourth term, Roosevelt died and, with him, the idea of unlimited terms for presidents. An amendment, promoted heavily by the Republican party and by others nervous at the idea of a permanent presidency, was passed in 1947. It was ratified by the states four years later. The amendment limits a president to two four-year terms.

By definition, the more democratic process is to allow the people to choose who their leaders are without restriction. We have term limits because we do not trust the people to choose their leaders properly. By limiting a leaders time in power, we limit the ability of a leader to effect change in our institutions. There’s nothing “democratic” about this; this is about enforcing the stability of the current system. Is it any wonder they enacted this after FDR, one of the only presidents who ever tried to make fundamental shifts (for the better) in the American style of government?

To avoid what is happeneing currently. Our only saving grace is that Bush will be gone by 2008. I have always considered our Republic stronger and greater than one man. But, after Bush and his PNAC cohorts, I see how fragil our system is and how easy it can be manipulated. Term limits for the office of president provides another check (and balance) to the system, helping to avoid a regime takeover.

I do not have as much faith in the tools we use to vote as some of you do. I believe that the election was taken through diebold (and others). If one person can remain in office indefinitaly, we would have no hope of gaining back our country.

it's the fact that the constitution is only 6 years old, and now a charismatic leader, who pushed for it's approval in the first place, wants to overturn the parts of it that are inconvenient to him.

and that Bill of Rights series of ammendments done in 1791?

That's shorter than 6 years, isn't it?

Sid

which one of those expanded the power of government? which one actually changed, or nullified, a section of the Constitution? the Bill of Rights were not changes to the Constitution, they added on specific rights not enumerated in the Constitution. the first amendment to actually change a word in the Constitution, or a previous amendment, didn't happen until the 11th, which changed the scope of the judiciary. that was 1795.

so it was 8 years after the Constitution was ratified. I'm sorry, I was off by 4 years.

If the Venezuelan people don't want their Constitution changed to get rid of term limits, then they'll vote against any ammendment. And no matter how charismatic Chavez is, he can't ammend their constitution without the consent of the people.

Sid

I would have loved for Clinton to have been eligible to run again; I think term limits are undemocratic. But if Clinton had, while in office, made public his own personal campaign to have the 22nd amendment overturned, I'd have seen that as politically tone-deaf at best.

that there is a tradition in the US of not having changes to the constitution apply to incumbents.

Right now Chavez is allowed to run for president forever, because a provision for the number of presidential terms is exceptional. A possible outcome can even be that the number of terms will be limited in the future.

...You're joking, right?

You are allowed to be elected once and can only have one immediate reelection with the constitutionally guaranteed recourse of holding a recall referendum anytime within the last three years of a presidential term. (The last part is needed in the US as well. Let's recall Bush)

So Chavez can be a presidential candidate once more, but if he fails to be reelected the second time then he can't run for office again.

President for the duration of Martial law in the USA. Which, if the War on Terrorism is any indicator, military control will last seemingly forever. Then Passed Down to Jeb, then Barbara Jr., etc. :puke:

No wonder Negroponte is power playing Human Intelligence Assets (Para-Military Ops) from the CIA to the Pentagon.

Hold me Momma!!! :scared:

We need to know which one is the Princess of Wails.

But let's not forget Liz Cheney as VP. :puke:

Dynasty ---> It's for f**king forever!

It'll be interesting to watch the usual suspects smear Chavez... I am actually enjoying the spectacle. You learn a lot by watching propagandists try so hard.

:eyes:

still, it's getting so obvious, that I believe these fools actually believe their own bullshit regarding Chavez. Thanks for the post.

If not Chavez it will be someone else. Brazil is even enriching their own uranium. Yankee Imperialist are busy elsewhere and cannot even take care of problems at home. The New American Century does not seem to be working out too well, we ignore our greatest strength innovation and as we try to control others with our agendas both right and left. The time is coming as we run out of money we will not be welcome anywhere in the world.

We need to worry about the home front first and establish real relationships. South America does not need America's approval pro or con to develop their own institutions. As I get older I find myself agreeing with George Washington, I guess I am becoming a liberal isolationist.

though I could see why people would still be against the referendum. I wouldn't
want to make it easy for a leader in our country to be able to run each election
year. I like the restrictions that are in place. It's a safeguard against
runaway popularity. I doubt that Bush would win another term, as his
popularity has decreased so much, but I would hate giving him the chance to run
again.

But, the article and title were definitely misleading. Not surprising with the
state of our media today.

Hugo Chavez, the media and freedom of speech

First of all according to Amnesty International there are NO political prisoners listed for Venezuela. That is something not even the U.S. can claim.

If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in a lot of trouble very fast.

In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of having supported force and violence against the popular democratically elected government. This is something that would never be allowed in the U.S. media or almost anywhere else for that matter

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela


snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."
__________________


I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidently has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with any credible, independent human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading receipients of U.S. Aid.

http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”

And let's compare his record to the largest recepients of U.S. aid
Here are the three largest receipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order. Feel free to compare them with Chavez's record which is not perfect but a lot better than any of these three.

link for Venezuela: http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Columbia - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=colomb


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa
__________________________

Also the good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin did a special program regarding Hugo Chavez and the media on 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832
_______________

The Venezuelan Revolution : 100 Questions-100 Answers



by Chesa Boudin, Gabriel Gonzalez, Wilmer Rumbos

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560257733/sr=1-1/qid=1145697377/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

________________



http://www.dontattackiran.org

editorial agenda in their misleading story aren't here in this thread.

It seemed that the poster was saying that we shouldn't support Chavez and made the case that he wanted to do away with elections.

I'm glad that the OP here set that matter straight because I was having a hard time imagining how it could be true. But he cited the AP story that said pretty much what he was saying.

Geez

Is Rove here too?