Emersberger writes: "The hypocrisy and imperial arrogance of a Washington
Post editorial calling for 'political intervention' in Venezuela has already
received some forceful responses, but it is worth highlighting the
editorial's claim that 'as human rights groups have extensively documented,
most of that bloodshed, including 43 deaths, was committed by the regime's
security forces' during violent protests in 2014."
A man photographs the Washington Post building. (photo: AFP)
US Corporate Media Needs a Democratic Intervention
By Joe Emersberger, teleSUR
16 April 16
Washington Post editorial on Venezuela is revealing in unintended ways.
The hypocrisy and imperial arrogance of a Washington Post editorial calling
for "political intervention" in Venezuela has already received some forceful
responses, but it is worth highlighting the editorial's claim that "as human
rights groups have extensively documented, most of that bloodshed, including
43 deaths, was committed by the regime's security forces" during violent
protests in 2014.
The Post editors backed up this claim by linking to a Wall Street Journal
article that vaguely says "human rights groups say the deaths were mostly
caused by the state security forces."
No human rights groups were named that make that claim, but to the Post
editors this shows that something is "extensively documented". Human Rights
Watch, a group that totally shares the Post's imperial assumptions and is
very biased against Venezuela and other left governments in the region, was
only willing to allege in a report that "security forces and armed
pro-government gangs have been responsible for some of the killings."
Reuters journalists on the ground in Venezuela did a very detailed
investigation and made no conclusion about who caused most of the deaths.
Reuters reported that "Eight of the dead appear to be reliably identified as
opposition supporters, and five as pro-government. In the other cases, the
victims' political affiliations are in dispute and hard to prove." It added
that "Eight members of the forces have been killed, all but one of whom were
National Guard troops shot while taking down barriers, according to the
government."
Reuters also reported something that contrasts very markedly with what would
have happened in the United States under similar circumstances: "Prosecutors
have attributed five deaths to members of the security forces and 17 are
under arrest for crimes including brutality, torture and murder."
In fact, in 2015 a National Guardsman was sentenced to an eighteen year
prison term for killing a fourteen year old during protests that took place
a year after the ones in 2014.
In the United States, where police frequently kill unarmed people, including
children, and don't even get charged with a crime, do we need to guess what
would happen if numerous police and bystanders were killed by a foreign
funded movement openly calling for the ouster of the US government?
Setting aside the Post's inability to name any, there may be "human rights
groups" dishonest enough to say that the Venezuelan government caused most
of the protest-related deaths in 2014, but when a corporate outlet like
Reuters is unwilling to make such a claim, it should make people very
skeptical about any "human rights groups" that would.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a Washington DC based
group that takes no money from any government, published a detailed list of
people who died during the 2014 protests and how they died. Only seven
people on that list may be identified as anti-government protesters, an even
that subset includes a few that could be disputed. CEPR found that "Over 10
individuals have reportedly been killed by crashing into barricades, from
wires strung across streets by protesters and in some cases from having been
shot trying to remove barricades." Many of the victims were bystanders whose
political affiliation was far from certain.
Bill Moyers pointed out that in the six month period before the 2003
invasion of Iraq "The Washington Post would editorialize in favor of the war
at least 27 times." Taking any care with facts, or just having a sense of
decency, is simply not something to expect of the Post editors. It is
something that generalizes to so much of corporate media in the United
States.
It largely explains why the U.S. political class is now saddled with a major
embarrassment like Donald Trump. Even if that raving, know nothing bigot
falls short in his quest for the U.S. presidency, his campaign has
dramatically exposed the utter lunacy of calls for U.S. intervention
anywhere. The U.S. corporate media requires democratic intervention led by
U.S. citizens to stop it from normalizing political discourse so poisonous,
irrational and dishonest that one can't help but fear a drift towards
fascism.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
A man photographs the Washington Post building. (photo: AFP)
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/US-Corporate-Media-Needs-Democratic
-Intervention-20160416-0035.htmlhttp://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/US-
Corporate-Media-Needs-Democratic-Intervention-20160416-0035.html
US Corporate Media Needs a Democratic Intervention
By Joe Emersberger, teleSUR
16 April 16
Washington Post editorial on Venezuela is revealing in unintended ways.
he hypocrisy and imperial arrogance of a Washington Post editorial calling
for "political intervention" in Venezuela has already received some forceful
responses, but it is worth highlighting the editorial's claim that "as human
rights groups have extensively documented, most of that bloodshed, including
43 deaths, was committed by the regime's security forces" during violent
protests in 2014.
The Post editors backed up this claim by linking to a Wall Street Journal
article that vaguely says "human rights groups say the deaths were mostly
caused by the state security forces."
No human rights groups were named that make that claim, but to the Post
editors this shows that something is "extensively documented". Human Rights
Watch, a group that totally shares the Post's imperial assumptions and is
very biased against Venezuela and other left governments in the region, was
only willing to allege in a report that "security forces and armed
pro-government gangs have been responsible for some of the killings."
Reuters journalists on the ground in Venezuela did a very detailed
investigation and made no conclusion about who caused most of the deaths.
Reuters reported that "Eight of the dead appear to be reliably identified as
opposition supporters, and five as pro-government. In the other cases, the
victims' political affiliations are in dispute and hard to prove." It added
that "Eight members of the forces have been killed, all but one of whom were
National Guard troops shot while taking down barriers, according to the
government."
Reuters also reported something that contrasts very markedly with what would
have happened in the United States under similar circumstances: "Prosecutors
have attributed five deaths to members of the security forces and 17 are
under arrest for crimes including brutality, torture and murder."
In fact, in 2015 a National Guardsman was sentenced to an eighteen year
prison term for killing a fourteen year old during protests that took place
a year after the ones in 2014.
In the United States, where police frequently kill unarmed people, including
children, and don't even get charged with a crime, do we need to guess what
would happen if numerous police and bystanders were killed by a foreign
funded movement openly calling for the ouster of the US government?
Setting aside the Post's inability to name any, there may be "human rights
groups" dishonest enough to say that the Venezuelan government caused most
of the protest-related deaths in 2014, but when a corporate outlet like
Reuters is unwilling to make such a claim, it should make people very
skeptical about any "human rights groups" that would.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a Washington DC based
group that takes no money from any government, published a detailed list of
people who died during the 2014 protests and how they died. Only seven
people on that list may be identified as anti-government protesters, an even
that subset includes a few that could be disputed. CEPR found that "Over 10
individuals have reportedly been killed by crashing into barricades, from
wires strung across streets by protesters and in some cases from having been
shot trying to remove barricades." Many of the victims were bystanders whose
political affiliation was far from certain.
Bill Moyers pointed out that in the six month period before the 2003
invasion of Iraq "The Washington Post would editorialize in favor of the war
at least 27 times." Taking any care with facts, or just having a sense of
decency, is simply not something to expect of the Post editors. It is
something that generalizes to so much of corporate media in the United
States.
It largely explains why the U.S. political class is now saddled with a major
embarrassment like Donald Trump. Even if that raving, know nothing bigot
falls short in his quest for the U.S. presidency, his campaign has
dramatically exposed the utter lunacy of calls for U.S. intervention
anywhere. The U.S. corporate media requires democratic intervention led by
U.S. citizens to stop it from normalizing political discourse so poisonous,
irrational and dishonest that one can't help but fear a drift towards
fascism.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
