U.S. Media Wages Propaganda War in South America

by Randy Shaw‚ Sep. 19‚ 2007

Thanks to the Iraq War, George W. Bush has not focused on overthrowing progressive governments in South America. In fact, the Bush Administration has paid so little attention to the region that democracy and progressive economic policies have been allowed to flourish. But the United States media has not given up its historic role as spokespersons for the area’s elites. Led by Simon Romero of the New York Times, the traditional media portrays Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez as a left-wing caricature, almost spoofing his efforts to help the poor. Bolivia’s Evo Morales is another frequent target, and Romero’s September 18 Times story offers the perfect opportunity to dissect media bias against politicians whose greatest sin is actually fulfilling their promises to help the poor.

From the 1950’s through the 1970’s, the CIA retained reporters like Romero to write stories undermining U.S. support for democratic governments in South and Central America. Today, Romero and others need no outside compensation to write such stories, as editors allow them to produce articles that fail the most basic tests of journalistic fairness.

Consider Romero’s September 18th article, “Radical Brings Some Stability to Bolivia.” The piece profiles Evo Morales - one of the world’s most courageous, innovative, and charismatic leaders.

If you are unfamiliar with Morales, go to your video store to rent the documentary “Our Brand is Crisis.” This film on how Clinton strategist James Carville and his consulting group impacted the 2002 Bolivian presidential election provides a great insight into Morales, a candidate in the race strongly opposed by the American team.

Like Hugo Chavez, Morales won his nation’s leadership after years of neo-liberal government dramatically worsened the lives of the poor. Morales vowed to put the interests of Bolivia’s Indian majority first, which made him the target of the nation’s elites and their supporters in the U.S. media.

Romero writes, “for all the worries that Mr. Morales’s radicalism would create economic and political turmoil in Bolivia, the reality of his tenure appears to be that the country is relatively stable.”

Who had such worries? The Bolivian elite who backed Morales’ opponent? Romero? It is left unsaid, but the reader is to understand that (1) Morales is radical and (2) this radicalism raised worries of turmoil.

One would never know from this article that Morales won the Presidency amidst major turmoil. These cataclysms even forced the James Carville-backed leader to flee the country. Instead, Romero wants readers to think that Morales inherited a stable nation and yet risked casting it into chaos.

While many progressives support politicians deemed “radical,” that word has a negative tradition in American political lexicon. One never sees a U.S.-backed ally described as “radical,” and the Times does not use the word to broaden Morales’ support.

After claiming that Morales overcame “worries,” Romero then writes that the President “has surprised even skeptics with the results of his policies.” Again, are these skeptics the same political opponents who had “worries”? Or is Romero describing himself?

Romero then reveals, “the urban upper classes, many of whose members remain explicitly critical of Mr. Morales, are benefiting from the newfound stability and economic vibrancy.” That important fact is in paragraph eleven, and essentially undermines Romero’s longtime framing of Morales as a populist demagogue who would unfairly hurt the well-off.

Despite noting Morales’ success, Romero cites not a single supporter of the President’s policies. Instead, he claims, “critics say Mr. Morales is tilting toward authoritarianism, with rough verbal treatment of opponents and a proposal by supporters to be re-elected indefinitely.”

For Romero, it is fine to cite what anonymous “critics” say without assessing whether such charges have a factual basis. In contrast, there are millions of Americans who believe the Bush Administration is both authoritarian and uses rough verbal treatment of opponents, and can fully document such charges.

But you would never see President Bush respectfully described as “authoritarian” in the New York Times.

Romero then continued his unattributed attacks on a President who he has previously claimed brought stability. He charges Morales with policies that “seem erratic and inspired by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, like his moves this month to establish diplomatic ties with Iran while announcing visa requirements for American visitors.”

Seem erratic to whom? And why in 2007 is the U.S. media acting as if a nation’s relations with Iran are more morally suspect than with our relations with the bloodstained Pakistani government, or the brutal dictators of the Middle East?

Unlike the United States, Bolivia is not propping up vicious dictatorships. But Romero had a chance to link Morales to Venezuela and Iran in the same sentence, and it was too good to pass up.

It drives the U.S. media crazy when a foreign leader puts his country’s interests ahead of that of U.S.-based multinational corporations. And Morales’ unwavering dedication to improving the lives of the poor stands him in sharp contrast to any U.S. president in decades.

Unlike George Bush, Morales has the highest popularity ratings of any Bolivian President in recent memory - further attesting to the virtues of ignoring U.S. media criticism.

Send feedback to rshaw@beyondchron.org