Why A Book About Hugo Chavez Touched A Nerve at The New York Times

by Nikolas Kozloff

Summing Up: The Times’ Belief System

Lowenstein’s discrediting of Chavez is not surprising in light of the overall economic philosophy at the Times. For years, the paper has been touting the so-called virtues of free trade and hemispheric integration, tendencies which Chavez has successfully challenged through anti-poverty programs and promotion of a regional initiative called Bolivarian Alternative of The Americas (known by its Spanish acronym ALBA). Chavez’s own trade initiative is a challenge to Washington, which has long pushed its own corporately friendly FTAA or Free Trade Area of the Americas.

The issue of the Times’ historic support for free trade was analyzed in a thorough 2001 report by the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). Though the Times reported on the contentious FTAA summit at Quebec in 2001 which drew thousands of anti-globalization protesters, the paper “tended to focus more on the politicking and ‘challenges’ that Bush must navigate to seal the deal than on the particulars of what might happen if he succeeds.”

As I point out in my book, Chavez was critical of the FTAA in Quebec, and his antipathy towards the agreement only increased with time. In this sense Chavez shared some common ground with anti-globalization protesters, who were also vilified by the Times. According to FAIR, Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman led the charge in seeking to discredit FTAA critics and the anti-globalization movement. Friedman in fact went as far to say that protesters were “choking the only route out of poverty for the world's poor."

Krugman agreed with Friedman, remarking that "many of the people inside that chain-link fence [hemispheric politicians supporting the FTAA] are sincerely trying to help the world's poor. And the people outside the fence, whatever their intentions, are doing their best to make the poor even poorer."

In a telling aside, FAIR remarked: “Perhaps the most startling thing about these editorials was their failure to acknowledge that the ‘world's poor’ have in fact themselves been taking to the streets to protest globalization.”

Fast forward now from 2001 to 2006, and it’s not surprising that the Times would carry on the torch and seek to criticize Chavez. The fact that the Venezuelan leader has been able to successfully resist some of the tenets of “neo-liberal” economics, in line with the thrust of the earlier anti-globalization movement, is disagreeable to the paper of record.

Chavez will most certainly win the December 2006 presidential election. The question is now just a matter of how wide the margin shall be. George Bush and whomever his successor may be will almost certainly try to further destabilize Venezuela in future.

In light of Lowenstein’s piece, it seems likely that the mainstream media will take its cue from the Times, over generalizing and misrepresenting the truth on Venezuela until the public starts to become obsessed with Hugo Chavez.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of the recently released Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics, and The Challenge To The U.S. (St. Martin’s Press)
*
Why A Book About Hugo Chavez Touched A Nerve at The New York Times