Venezuela April 9, 2019
Did the NY Times Violate Its Own Code of Ethics to Feature Child of
Venezuelan Coup Plotter?
After the New York Times was slammed for obscuring comedian Joanna
Hausmanns family ties to the Guaido shadow regime, her coup-plotting father
appeared online to defend her with a stream of insults.
By Anya Parampil
When the New York Times approached me seeking permission to use video I
recorded of the Washington DC Hands Off Venezuela protest on March 16, I
hoped that somebody at the paper was seeking to atone for the Gray Ladys
demonstrably one-sided coverage of the US coup attempt against the
internationally recognized Maduro government. Maybe, just maybe, the editors
had had a rare bout of self-reflection and decided to produce something that
gave voice to the many Americans who rejected the Trump administrations
brazen regime change operation against Venezuela.
But on April 1, I woke up to learn that my footage had been used to demonize
the protesters as useful idiots by a YouTube comedian born to one of the
family dynasties of Venezuelas opposition.
The comedian in question was Joanna Hausmann, and her appearance in the
supposed newspaper of record was far from funny. How could the paper justify
selecting Hausmann as an authoritative voice on the situation in Venezuela
when she was so closely connected to central players in the Trump
administrations coup attempt? The answer is that it couldnt, so it simply
neglected to mention her glaring conflict of interest.
I took a deep dive into Hausmanns family history in a March 10th article
for MintPress, highlighting the role Joannas father, Ricardo Hausmann,
played in the neoliberalization of Venezuelas economy throughout the 1980s
and 90s as an academic and eventual member of the repressive Carlos Andrés
Pérez administration.
The piece was inspired by Joanna Hausmanns Youtube harangue, Whats
Happening in Venezuela. Despite promising a video dedicated to just the
facts, Hausmann failed to mention that her father was serving as a top
advisor to Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó while she argued in
support of his self-declared presidency.
Ricardo Hausmanns function within the coup government crystalized shortly
following the release of Joannas Youtube explainer, when Guaidó selected
the Harvard professor to represent his shadow regime at the Inter-American
Development Bank. The Times took no issue with the fact Hausmanns family
stood to benefit from the same coup she was urging viewers to support, and
like Joanna herself, neglected to disclose this ostensibly relevant
information.
The Times appeared to have underestimated the intelligence of its viewers,
and was subsequently bombarded with criticism for its decision to obscure
Hausmanns background.
One reader who described himself as a Venezuelan, [who agrees] with
everything [Hausmann] has to say, complained in the comments section of the
Hausmann video that the omission amounted to an ethical error, arguing it
should be noted that her father has a lot to gain politically and
professionally should regime change happen. The comment forced a response
from the segments executive producer, Adam Ellick, who claimed that, while
the Times was aware of her fathers biography before publication, it opted
not to acknowledge it because Ms. Hausmann is an independent adult woman
who has built a popular following on her own.
Ellicks response failed to satisfy the commenter, who emphasized that the
issue here isnt one of independence, its one of shared outcomes.
According to Ellicks logic, it would be journalistically ethical to ignore
Ivanka Trumps relation to the President on the basis she is an independent
adult woman with a fashion line of her own. Does the Times actually think
we are stupid?
The backlash against Joannas NYT debut grew so intense, it eventually
compelled her father to respond to the controversy. Following the videos
release, I tweeted criticism of the paper for its failure to disclose that
Hausmann is the daughter of Guaidó advisor Ricardo Hausmann, linking to my
article which explained that he was instrumental in neoliberalizing and
destroying Venezuelas economy in the 90s and wants to do it again.
The factual statement apparently outraged Professor Hausmann, who charged
that my tweet surely deserves at least an honorary mention among the years
most sexist comments, adding, since Joanna is my daughter, she is not
entitled to her own opinion. She must be speaking on behalf of some male
figure that tells her what to say. Seriously?
Yes, seriously! Joanna does not appear to have her own opinion she has
precisely the same opinion as her father, who happens to be participating in
the very coup for which she was advocating. Yet even if we accept the notion
that Joanna formed opinions independent from her fathers influence, the
Times still had an ethical obligation to disclose her family ties
especially considering that Professor Hausmann is not her only relative
actively working to achieve regime change in Caracas.
Joannas mother, Ana Julia Jatar, has worked for the US-funded Súmate
organization, which in 2004 tried and failed to oust President Hugo Chávez
via popular referendum. As I reported for MintPress, Jatar hails from a
political family herself.
Jatars father, Braulio Jatar Dotti, was once described by an independent
Chilean news site as having been in charge of eliminating the leftist
groups in Venezuela in the 1960s, as the government sought to violently
repress the armed Revolutionary Left Movement. Jatar Dotti even published a
manual called, Disabling the Extreme Left in 1963. With her grandfathers
history in mind, its no wonder that Joanna now spends her time attacking
the US left for organizing to oppose war on Venezuela. Apparently, the
family that attacks the left and fails to overthrow governments together
stays together.
While it is important to understand the full extent to which regime change
and resentment of the left runs through Joanna Hausmanns veins, her
fathers participation in the current coup alone should have disqualified
her to pose as a neutral voice on Venezuela. The Times decision to ignore
her background is not only offensive to viewers, but may have also violated
the papers own ethics code. According to that code, staff members must be
sensitive that perfectly proper political activity by their spouses, family
or companions may nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the
appearance of conflict. The Hausmann scandal undeniably created such a
scenario for the paper.
Joanna has largely kept quiet amid the deluge of criticism, and is quick to
block those who question her. (She blocked me on Twitter after I noted her
fathers prominent role in the Guaidó shadow regime.) Why a grown woman
professing her total independence needed her father to come to her defense
should be a mystery, as RT Español reporter Helena Villar observed.
One Twitter user named Vanessa Salas, who describes herself as a personal
friend of Joanna, recommended that I get to know the comedian before
making unfounded statements. Salas insisted that her pal was SMART,
THOUGHTFUL, and FEARLESS. Indeed, Joanna Hausmann was so fearless that she
had to rely on her friends, family, and an army of trolls to deflect from
her wanton journalistic malpractice.
Joanna did eventually muster up one non-answer to critics. When a Twitter
user named @unnaband asked why she neglected to mention that her father was
personally appointed by the very opposition leader she promoted in her
video, the Youtube comedian hit back: I am proud of my dad.
He is surely proud of her too. And among the Times editors who presided over
her ethically dubious video rant, there appears to be no shame.
Anya Parampil
Anya Parampil is a Washington, DC based journalist. She previously hosted a
daily progressive afternoon news program called In Question on RT America.
She has produced and reported several documentaries, including on the ground
reports from the Korean peninsula and Palestine.
