
Venezuelan president NicolĂĄs Maduro embraces Brazilian president Lula da Silva. Photo: Reuters.
Orinoco Tribune – News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond
From Venezuela and made by Venezuelan Chavistas
Venezuelan president NicolĂĄs Maduro embraces Brazilian president Lula da Silva. Photo: Reuters.
By Ricardo Vaz â Jun 22, 2023
Venezuelaâs Maduro government has slowly and steadily regained its diplomatic standing in recent years, overcoming US endeavors to turn the country into a pariah state as part of its regime-change efforts.
Nevertheless, Washington remains hell-bent on ousting the democratically elected Venezuelan authorities, and has kept its deadly sanctions program virtually intact. Western media, which have cheered coup attempts at every step of the way (FAIR.org, 6/13/22, 5/2/22, 6/4/21, 4/15/20, 1/22/20), remain committed to endorsing US policies to the bitter end.
This commitment was on full display recently when President NicolĂĄs Maduro was hosted by Brazilian President Lula da Silva, in a major blow against the campaign to isolate Venezuela. Lula added insult to injury by condemning what he called the ânarrativeâ of authoritarianism and lack of democracy that had been built around Venezuela to justify sanctions and regime change.
President Maduro Affirms Venezuela’s Resolute Stand Against Empire on Carabobo Battle Anniversary
The Western media establishmentâs initial reaction was straight from the five stages of grief. The New York Times, with its unenviable Venezuela reporting record (FAIR.org, 3/26/19, 5/24/19), was in denial, not reporting on the meeting at all. The Financial Times (6/4/23) had a depressed tone, citing the fading hopes of a return toâfree and fair electionsâ in the wake of the Brasilia meeting. The Washington Post (5/30/23) flared in anger, claiming that by hosting Maduro, Lula had betrayed his promise to âsave democracy.â
The reporting around the latest developments saw corporate pundits showcasing a full array of journalistic con artistry to defend their ânarrative,â including dubious sources, inaccurate conclusions, and dishonest context.
Undemocratic references
Corporate mediaâs effort to dismiss Maduroâs legitimacy is heavily built around the use of negative labels. For example, âauthoritarianâ appears almost like an auto-fill suggestion at this point, given its prevalence (Financial Times, 6/4/23; BBC, 5/30/23; Reuters, 5/29/23; AP, 5/30/23; Washington Post, 5/30/23; Bloomberg, 5/31/23). Outlets like the Economist (6/1/23) and the Miami Herald (6/3/23) go straight to âdictator.â
Another dishonest hallmark is casting aspersions on Maduroâs 2018 reelection, with a varied array of labels that go from âdisputedâ (Financial Times, 6/4/23) and âcontestedâ (BBC, 5/30/23) to âcondemned/regarded as a shamâ (Le Monde, 5/30/23; Bloomberg, 5/29/23), all the way to âviewed/declared as fraudulentâ (Washington Post, 5/30/23; Economist, 6/1/23). We have tackled the unsubstantiated âfraudâ claims in previous posts (FAIR.org, 1/27/21, 5/2/22, 1/11/23).
To challenge Maduroâs recognition as Venezuelaâs democratically legitimate leader, Western outlets were willing to platform the most undemocratic voices. Brazilâs former President Jair Bolsonaro, for example, was used as a yardstick on Maduroâs legitimacy. Numerous sources repeated that the far-right leader had âbannedâ the Venezuelan president from entering the country (BBC, 5/30/23; Reuters, 5/29/23; Al Jazeera, 5/29/23; AP, 5/29/23).
This framing is odd, given that Venezuela closed its border with Brazil in February 2019, six months before Bolsonaroâs âban,â in anticipation of a large-scale operation to violate Venezuelan territory. Itâs not as though Maduro had been eager, anyhow, to visit a country that didnât recognize his government â to attend the Rio Carnival, maybe?
What makes it more remarkable is that many of the same outlets have previously described Bolsonaro as a threat to democracy, given his attacks against the countryâs elections and his supporters mimicking the âJanuary 6â playbook in the Brazilian capital (Washington Post, 9/30/22; Financial Times, 9/28/21; BBC, 8/12/22).
The Washington Post (5/30/23) saw no issue in quoting Bolsonaroâs son, a Brazilian senator, despite the numerous accusations of corruption against FlĂĄvio Bolsonaro, and Brazilâs electoral authorities fining him for spreading fake news in the 2022 presidential race.
If there is a character with arguably worse democratic credentials than the Bolsonaro clan, that is former judge and Bolsonaro Justice Minister Sergio Moro. His leading role in the âOperation Car Washâ judicial proceedings has been publicly exposed as unethical and politically motivated, designed to put Lula under arrest and bar him from running in 2018. Still, a number of outlets were happy to simply quote him as an âopposition senator,â who criticized Lula for âhosting a dictatorâ (BBC Mundo, 5/30/23; Al Jazeera, 5/29/23; Le Monde, 5/30/23, AFP, 5/29/23).
Marred journalism
Lulaâs meeting and joint press conference with Maduro were followed by a summit of South American presidents in Brasilia the next day, the first of its kind in many years, with the goal of kick starting the regional integration agenda.
Corporate pundits were ready to use Maduroâs presence and Lulaâs statements to spin and downplay the meeting, claiming that they had âmarred the unityâ (AP, 5/30/23), âproven divisiveâ (AFP, 5/31/23), âclouded the summitâ (Bloomberg, 5/30/23) or caused âdivergent viewsâ (Reuters, 5/30/23).
The reports relied on public comments from Uruguayâs Luis Lacalle Pou and Chileâs Gabriel Boric, who disagreed with the ânarrativeâ comments but distorted them, making it sound like Lula was claiming that issues like migration or human rights violations were made up. Bloomberg went as far as saying the meeting âmade little progress on any substantive issuesâ as a result of Lula backing Maduro.
However, there are plenty of elements that contradict the mediaâs precooked conclusions. First off, Lacalle and Boric were only two of the 12 heads of state present. Second, all the representatives, including the two critics, signed the final âBrasilia consensus,â which, among other things, called for an integration roadmap within 120 days (Venezuelanalysis, 6/1/23).
Finally, there was also a careful cherry-picking of Boricâs statements. From the outlets mentioned above, Reuters and AP chose not to mention the Chilean presidentâs call for US and EU sanctions against Venezuela to be lifted. It would have been more accurate to headline that the summit had found unity in opposing sanctions.
Furthermore, none of the outlets referenced Boric saying he was âhappy to see Venezuela return to multilateral instancesâ where problems can be jointly solved.
Whitewashing sanctions
Though opposition to US sanctions were a key issue, stressed in the summit declaration (which refers to them as âunilateral measuresâ), Lulaâs speech and even Boricâs comments â corporate media did their best to downplay or sometimes endorse the deadly unilateral measures.
The mentions of sanctions were virtually devoid of context, be that detailing what US sanctions entail (an oil embargo, trade hurdles, loss of access to financial markets, etc.), referencing studies on their impact (more than $20 billion in yearly losses, over 100,000 estimated deaths), or mentioning criticism from UN experts, multilateral organizations, or most recently, a group of Democratic House members (Venezuelanalysis, 5/11/23).
The measures that groups like the Washington, DCâbased Center for Economic and Policy Research class as âcollective punishmentâ against the Venezuelan people described as sanctions âon [Maduroâs] governmentâ (BBC, 5/30/23; Washington Post, 5/30/23) or against âMaduro and his inner circleâ (AFP, 5/31/23).
Equally misguided were some attempts to justify the punishing coercive measures, with the BBC (5/30/23) stating that they were a response to a âcrackdown on opposition activists,â and the Associated Press (5/30/23) reporting they were intended to âget Venezuela to liberalize its politics.â Even US officials have stated on the record that sanctions are meant to âaccelerate the collapseâ of the Maduro government (Voice of America, 10/15/18)âevoking President Richard Nixonâs command to âmake the economy screamâ in Salvador Allendeâs Chile.
The Financial Times (6/4/23), to its credit, admitted openly that sanctions were âintended to force regime change in Caracas.â It then proceeded to inaccurately claim that the Biden administration has âshifted awayâ from Trumpâs âmaximum pressure,â when the only difference thus far is a limited license granted to the oil giant Chevron, which places all sorts of hurdles for the Venezuelan state to receive revenue.
Deadline Passes: Who Registered for Venezuela’s Opposition Primaries?
Endorsing exceptionalism
The Financial Times piece also brought up another common feature of foreign policy pieces: the full endorsement of US exceptionalism. It cited former State Department official Thomas Shannon blaming Lula for having âreally undermined the approach that the Biden administration hasâ by hosting his Venezuelan counterpart. Somehow the Brazilian leader was expected to get Washingtonâs blessing before meeting the president of a neighboring country.
In a similar vein, Bloomberg (5/31/23) accused Lula of âundermining Brazilâs power to influence its neighborsâ by presenting Maduro as âa kind of champion of democracy.â The second part is patently false, as Lula made no judgments of Venezuelaâs democracy. Instead, he sought to make the point that it was âinexplicableâ for Venezuela to be targeted because âanother country does not likeâ its government.
The Brazilian leaderâs noninterference stance is in line with past comments. For example, in August 2022, the very same Bloomberg (8/22/22) reported Lula saying he wanted Venezuela to be âas democratic as possible,â while demanding that the country be treated with respect.
As for Lula undermining Brazilâs influence, the claim is based on the delusion that he will only be respected in the region if he does the USâs bidding. Corporate journalists ought to read Fareed Zakariaâs Washington Post column (6/2/23), where he is somehow surprised to find out that the US âcan no longer assume that the rest of the world is on its side.â
Corporate media have had plenty of chances to take note of a world where more countries are pursuing independent foreign policy paths. The Brasilia Summit was a great example, with leaders betting on regional integration and opposing unilateral measures. The ensuing coverage has shown that Western outlets will stop at no length to defend Washingtonâs agenda, even if that means reheating debunked narratives, platforming the most extremist characters, making up controversies and whitewashing deadly sanctions.
(FAIR)
BLA