Somerby today notes how the New York Times uses a comment from someone who knew Hillary Clinton more than thirty years ago and hasn't spoken to her in years as a source confirming a supposed Clinton personality trait in another one of the tedious "personality profiles." In the spirit of such fine journalism I present to you a little from today's Miami Herald.
In a piece that serves as a fine example of bias journalism Patricio Crooker and Jack Chang begin this way.
After 16 tumultuous months of debate, allies of Bolivia's leftist President Evo Morales hurriedly approved nearly all of a new constitution Sunday morning in a marathon overnight session.
Despite a year and a half of debate the constitution in Bolivia was "hurriedly" approved. Pretending to resolve this odd contradiction, the writers' later note that one of the opposition parties boycotted the vote apparently causing the government to hurry the process (of course the opposition then claimed the vote in congress was illegal because quorum was not reached). Considering that creating a new constitution has been fundamental part of Morales' aims since taking office and that the country has debated the issue for a year and a half and the constitution can only be enacted after the citizenry approves it in a referendum, presenting the issue in this manner seems like a veiled attack on Morales' supposed authoritarianism. Reading further (especially as the story appeared in the Herald - it was a wire story updated in the Herald with local reporting) this sensation is only confirmed.
In the course of the story the reporters manage to quote three opposition leaders harsh criticisms of the legislation without quoting a single supporter. This includes Ruben Costas, the governor of Santa Cruz, Bolivia's richest province, who offered his region the very reasonable advice of participating "militantly to defend and conquer
the hate and resentment that wants to crush us.''
Now certainly with this kind of rhetoric one would think that the new constitution would be quite radical. Or maybe not so much.
"The proposed constitution grants more power to Bolivia's indigenous
majority; abolishes the opposition-led Senate; imposes more state
control over natural gas, minerals and other natural resources; and
permits presidents to be elected to two consecutive five-year terms, a
proposal that Morales' opponents call an authoritarian power grab.
[Of course they call it "authoritarian power grab." That makes perfect sense. The reporters wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't sneak in that little dig before getting to the barrage of criticism they later present. I mean, imagine if other countries in the world had political systems that allowed the reelection of a president. The horror]
A note regarding the how the Senate will be "abolished." One is hard pressed to find any other article regarding the result to use the term "abolish." In the Reuters' version we get this:
The assembly also approved articles requiring election rather than
appointment of top judges, and transforming the voting mechanism for
the upper house of Congress, which is currently controlled by the
opposition
Not only do Crooker and Chang use questionable terminology in their portrayal of the reform of the congress and exclude the mention that judges will be elected - kind of goes against that "power grab" line - they also fail to note the following from Bloomberg (Be nice if one wire story could include all the relevant info, wouldn't it):
The constitution bans discrimination based on sexual
orientation and, for the first time, recognizes black Bolivians
-- descendants of slaves brought to the country by Spanish
colonizers -- as an official minority along with indigenous
groups.
Once more this would go against the dictator theme I suppose. Certainly just talking to the white elite opposition groups isn't going to get you there.
Now we should remember that we are talking about Bolivia, a country that has suffered under decades of extreme poverty (even by Latin American standards) with a tiny, white elite ruling - often ruthlessly - over the vast majority of the indigenous Bolivians while simultaneously selling off the nation's resources and filling their Swiss bank accounts. So if seemingly outlandish claims such as the one above or the following one are made ...
We're at a historic point that means the destruction of our homes, our
workplaces and, above all, the very existence of our people as free
citizens. Santa Cruz is in danger,''
then they better damn well have some basis in reality. C'mon a threat to "very existence of our people as free
citizens." This comment is worthy of reprinting?
Now the version that the Herald saw fit to print goes one step further. They manage to include the reaction from actual Bolivians not in power. So the ace reporters from that staff race over to that epicentre of rationale and intellectual thought on Latin America, Calle 8 in the heart of Little Havana. In this added piece of the story we encounter some comments that remind us of the "thirty year old sources are good enough fro me" school that Somerby highlighted today.
'We are very worried because I think we're going the Venezuelan
way,'' said Alfredo Rodríguez, 53, of Kendall. Rodríguez moved from La
Paz, Bolivia, in 1977 because of a bleak economy. ``I think it will be
a dictatorship.''
''Morales just killed the democracy by doing this,'' said Rodríguez, who owns the restaurant El Cristo in Little Havana.
''We
worry about the future,'' said Rodríguez, who speaks daily to relatives
still in Bolivia. ``The big dark cloud in the sky is a civil war. The
worst thing that Morales did is pit Bolivians against Bolivians.''
So he moved here in 1977? Yes I'm sure he really has his fingers on the pulse of Bolivian society. This is clearly evident by him noting how the new constitution that gives more rights to the long repressed majority must be passed in a democratic referendum. You see that is simply the classic recipe for killing democracy. Hmm. I guess he doesn't mention that. But he does talk to his family.
In the print edition of the paper the editors found Rodríguez's first sage comment to be just perfect to enlarge and print as the only box quote. I mean that is really what the key to this story is. Giving more (some) power to the majority. Maintaining control over the nation's natural resources. Protecting other minorities. Putting everything to vote. When I hear these things, I think dictatorship. (Oh, and can he possible be serious about pitting Bolivians against Bolivians?)
Now of course everyone knows that in order to maintain their journalistic integrity good reporters must always present both sides of any argument regardless of how nonsensical one side is. Oh, wait I'm sorry. When discussing Latin American progressives it is perfectly acceptable to present just one side twice in the form of - to paraphrase an old Blues Brothers line - We've got both types of criticism, unfounded and illogical. Here is Miami resident Abraham Malcuni - eminently more qualified that Rodriguez, having only moved away from Bolivia twenty years ago - offering up this fine morsel of wisdom.
''I am not happy because it has not been a unanimous vote,'' said
Abraham Malcuni, 46, of Miami, who moved from Bolivia 20 years ago and
owns a Bolivian restaurant. ``It was done behind closed doors by a
group selected at the government level by Evo Morales.''
Noting the lack of an unanimous vote in changing the very power structure in a country long dominated by a tiny elite who still control much of the congress is certainly astute critique. Nevertheless I still contend the Herald could have done better by, oh I don't know, talking to someone who lives there. Or at the very least present a criticism that has at least passing relationship with reality.
Sure everyone is entitled to an opinion and I understand that the Miami Herald is legally committed to running at least one hit piece on Chavez and/or Morales every day. However you might think (if you hadn't read their newspaper before) that they would aspire beyond printing what can be generously termed as simple minded slander. Then again that would be a disservice to all the fine ex-despots and gangsters from Latin America who depend on the paper to keep themselves hopelessly delusional and uninformed.
Update:
Perhaps the snarkiness of the post gives the impression that I am very much for the new Bolivian constitution. Honestly I do not know enough details one way or the other to form an opinion. However the Miami Herald isn't paying me to present the issue to the public either. The above critique was specifically related to the coverage of the passing of the constitution and the outlandish claims by those cited. I will, however, certainly be informed prior to any referendum, something I'm quite confident the mainstream media won't be.
Recent Comments