The Daily Grasshopper

Yesterday, I wrote about the failure of two of the country's most "liberal" newspapers to report on several resolutions passed by the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights that harshly condemned Israel. The resolutions were consistently vetoed by one country - the U.S. In fact, the U.S. cast four vetoes on Tuesday in defense of Israel's policies of occupation and collective punishment in Palestine. Neither the New York Times nor the Boston Globe made a mention of the votes, though the Times did run a story by Jim Rutenberg in which he claimed that "traditional notions of objectivity" still prevail in "mainstream journalism," presumably referring to himself and his colleagues at the Times.

Some of you may think I'm going a little too hard on the Globe and its owner, the New York Times Company. After all, hundreds of resolutions get passed by international organizations each year, with little or no fanfare. On a busy news day, maybe a UNHCHR vote doesn't rise to the level of an important story. I'd ask anyone who thinks the Globe and the Times aren't being VERY selective about the news coming out of Geneva to take a look at today's newspapers.

On page A11 of the Times, you'll find an article about the confrontation with North Korea, a member of President Bush's "Axis of Evil," and the country whose leader is competing with SARS for the title of "Most Frightening Thing in Asia These Days." The story, "Bush Takes No-Budge Stance In Talks With North Korea," includes the following paragraph:

"Today the United Nations commission on human rights overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning the North for 'all-pervasive and severe restrictions on the freedoms of thought, religion, opinion, expression, assembly and association' and for 'torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment' of its citizens, including 'imposition of the death penalty for political reasons.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/17/international/asia/17KORE.html

Compare the language of the UNHCHR resolution on North Korea with that from the one of the resolutions condemning Israel, which the Times consigned to oblivion:

"...the Commission among other things reaffirmed the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to resist the Israeli occupation in order to free their land and be able to exercise their right to self-determination; strongly condemned the violations by the Israeli occupation authorities of human rights in the territory, including East Jerusalem; the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory; the war launched by the Israeli army against Palestinian towns and camps which had so far resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including women and children; and the practice of 'liquidation' or 'extrajudicial executions' carried out by the Israeli army against Palestinians."

You can read the entire UNHRC press release about the Israel resolutions here. I recommend it:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/NewsRoom?OpenFrameSet

How many times did you read a variation of "The lone vote against the resolution was cast by the United States"?

There are noteworthy differences between these governments, to be sure, but the most important one is this: Israel is the leading recipient of U.S. military aid, so its abuses get covered up here, even by the "liberal" media, whereas North Korea - not just an enemy but an "evildoer" - is fair game. As I've been pointing out pretty regularly here at the "Daily Grasshopper," these sins of omission by American journalists have resulted in a situation where most Americans literally have no clue as to "Why They Hate Us." The double standard that allows the U.S. to veto a resolution on a much-favored client's abuses yet broadly condemn similar or identical ones when carried out by governments we oppose is taboo here in the U.S. Unfortunately, the rest of the world understands the hypocrisy all too well, and is becoming more and more outraged.

The Globe, not surprisingly, sticks to the Times formula: avoid any mention of resolutions that go against our friends, but do big write-ups on countries that are "official enemies" of the U.S. Here's the article on the North Korea resolution from the Globe, "UN human rights group faults N. Korea":

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/107/nation/UN_human_rights_group_faults_N_Korea+.shtml

Here's something you should ask yourself: Why didn't the Globe run a story yesterday entitled "UN human rights group faults Israel"? Not enough room in the paper?

There are writeups on Cuba in both papers today, too. The Times devotes most of a page to articles on Castro's recent crackdown on dissidents: "U.S. May Punish Cuba for Imprisoning Critics," and "Cuba Attacks U.N. Proposal on Jailed Dissidents." No mention in either story of UNHCHR resolutions against U.S. clients for similar crimes, naturally.

What else are the "liberal" Times and Globe not telling you about today? Well, longtime "Grasshopper" readers may recall an essay I wrote a while back called "Striking Out in Caracas" (http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/011303strikeout.html), about attempts by members of Venezuela's business class to undermine the democratically-elected government of President Hugo Chávez. Over the weekend, to their credit, the Globe and Times both reported that the opposition movement in Venezuela has completely disbanded, with most of the leaders leaving the country for Miami or other more accommodating locales. You can read the Times article here, if you're interested:

"Chávez Still on Top in Venezuela After Tough Year"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/12/international/americas/12VENE.html

But there was a development in Venezuela on Tuesday that neither of these papers has seen fit to mention, although it's a pretty difficult one to ignore if you're concerned about illegal U.S. interventionism abroad. Here's the headline from the Associated Press article: "U.S. dismisses Venezuelan claim it supported coup."

Here's part of the report:

"The U.S. Embassy on Wednesday denied Venezuelan claims that the United States supported last year's short-lived coup against President Hugo Chavez.

Army Gen. Melvin Lopez said Tuesday that Venezuela had proof of U.S. involvement. He said on state television that three U.S. helicopters were in Venezuelan territory during the April 11-14 coup, but didn't elaborate further. 'We have the evidence,' he said."

You can read the whole article here:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/106/world/U_S_dismisses_Venezuelan_claim:.shtml

One can easily think of "evidence" that was not so readily dismissed by the Globe and Times in recent months, and what the results of their credulous reporting on this "evidence" has been, particularly if you were one of the unfortunate people who died during the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

And although the Times and Globe reported admirably on the failure of the opposition to dislodge Chávez, neither gave a balanced account of the coup itself. If you read the Times story, you'll note that they reported 19 deaths in the days leading up to the coup. What they don't report is an equal or greater number of deaths during the short reign of Chamber of Commerce Chairman Pedro Carmona, who unleashed the police on pro-Chávez demonstrators. As many as 50 people were killed in the three days he held office prior to Chávez's return. To read more about the coup, and evidence that strongly suggests the U.S. was involved (official denials notwithstanding - just as it was in Guatemala in '54 and Chile in '73, to name only two examples, which it originally denied), check this out:

http://www.zmag.org/content/LatinAmerica/vulliamy_coup-venezuela.cfm

Gregory Wilpert wrote an excellent article on the role of the corporate media in the events of last April in Venezuela. Here's part of the story:

"Nearly the entire media is owned and operated by Venezuela's oligarchy. There is only one neutral newspaper, which is not an explicitly anti-Chavez newspaper and one state-run television station. During the coup, the state-run station was taken off the air completely and all of the other media kept repeating the coup organizer's lies without question. These lies included the claim that Chavez had resigned and had dismissed his cabinet, that all of the demonstration's dead were 'martyrs of civil society' (i.e., of the opposition, since the media does not consider Chavez supporters as part of civil society), and that Chavez had ordered his supporters to shoot into the unarmed crowd of anti-Chavez demonstrators.

The media never addressed the repeated doubts that members of Chavez' cabinet raised about his resignation. Also, the media did not release the names of those who were shot, probably because this would have shown that most of the dead were pro-Chavez demonstrators. Finally, the media edited the video footage of the shootings in such a way as to avoid showing where the Chavez supporters were shooting-namely, as eyewitnesses reported, at police and individuals who were shooting back while hidden in doorways. Also, they did not show the pro-Chavez crowd repeatedly pointing at the snipers who were firing at them from the rooftop of a nearby building.

These media distortions in the aftermath of the coup drove home the point just how powerful the media is at creating an alternate reality. Those Chavez supporters who were at the demonstration and witnessed the events realized more than ever that power needs a medium and that those who control the media have much more power than they let on. This is why the television stations became a key target in the hours leading up to Chavez' reinstatement. The take-over of four of the eight stations was essential to Chavez' comeback because it showed the rest of the military and the rest of Venezuela that Chavez still had strong support among the population and that if the people really wanted to, they could fight for what was right and win."

http://www.zmag.org/content/LatinAmerica/wilpertcounter.cfm

Wilpert's observations of the media in Venezuela apply broadly. Here, as there, "the entire media is owned and operated by [the] oligarchy." Here, as there, we see "just how powerful the media is at creating an alternate reality." In the "liberal" northeast, no one is criticizing our leading recipient of military aid for its rampant human rights abuses. What a comforting thought - what a pleasant "alternate reality" we inhabit.

Too bad it's not true. And too bad the "alternate reality" isn't being indulged in by the rest of the world, who see all too clearly that, as Wilpert reminds us, "those who control the media have much more power than they let on."

PK
http://www.dailygrasshopper.com