"...being fed to the people of the world daily" got me. You are so right. EVERY day, from EVERY corporate 'news' source, week after week, year after year, relentlessly FOR 'Wall Street' ideology and AGAINST the Chavez government, the Latin American Left and any ideas of social justice and real democracy (honest, transparent elections; campaign money controls; non-monopolistic business and news media; high public participation). They treat this Scumbag Diebold Congress as if it were elected and endlessly slander and lie about a system such as Venezuela's that is OBVIOUSLY better and more representative and has OBVIOUSLY resulted in the "will of the people" being done.
Thus, consumers of Corporate News lose out (are made more ignorant) in two ways: They have no idea what is really going on in Latin America and they have no idea that there is any alternative to what is going on here.
The flaw in "Big Lie" propaganda, though, is that it eventually backfires, due to the inherent curiosity and creativity of the human mind. It may backfire explosively when the Big Liars do great harm or it may backfire in a more orderly way--as it has in Latin America--with the peaceful, persistent rise of democratic values and grass roots organization.
The OP article is quite rare in that it even admits that there ARE Chavez supporters. Could this signal a bit of adjustment by the Corporate Press to the new reality here (the Occupy movement)? Could be just a subtle improvement in the effectiveness of their propaganda. Could be something else--a small indication that they are actually responsive to criticism of their huge and blatant bias. I hardly think that the war against the LatAm Left is going to be over any time soon (Obama's recent blast at Chavez tells us that) so I tend to think that this teensy bit of fairness in an otherwise highly prejudicial article was either a mistake (editors didn't catch it and edit it out) or a minor stab at SEEMING to be more objective.
The Corporate Press has an interesting propaganda problem in that they have traditionally served the need of businesspeople for accurate, "real world" information but are now required to serve transglobal monopolistic corporate interests (non-free "marketplace"
which use propaganda to bulk up their power and wealth.
For instance, they don't want people to know that numerous state and private oil companies stepped into the breach left by Exxon Mobil in Venezuela and invested in developing Venezuela's huge oil reserves on Venezuela's terms (which Exxon Mobil would not accept). Chavez created a level playing field--a real marketplace--by staring down Exxon Mobil and rejecting its bully demands for all the profits with little nor nothing for the people of Venezuela. And it worked! Exxon Mobil is out in the cold. OTHER oil companies benefited. THAT is how a free market should work--with the government fostering real competition while protecting the interests of the poor majority.
Corporate 'news' institutions like Rotters simply ignore this plain evidence of the positive interaction of real democracy with a real "marketplace"--positive in that it benefits everyone--and thus fail to provide businesspeople with real world information. But they are doing a great disservice to businesspeople around the world when they create this kind of black hole where information should be. How is it that the Chavez government has survived; how is it that the Venezuelan economy is recovering and thriving; why do Venezuelans rate their own democracy and financial welfare so highly; how come half a dozen foreign oil companies agreed to Venezuela's terms when Exxon Mobil wouldn't? You can't answer these questions on the basis of Rotters and other Corporate 'news' sources.
Corporate 'news' propaganda is part of a campaign to topple the Chavez government but when that propaganda and those behind the campaign fail, Rotters and brethren are left flat-footed as to the value of their 'news' to anybody interested in reality. Do they even notice this? Does it bother them--or those (few?) among them who might want to be good journalists? Do they believe their own crapola? Hard to say. But reality IS starting to make a comeback and the targets of their propaganda (primary target: the people of the U.S.) ARE starting to notice the lack of real information and the disinformation in the Corporate Press, and--thank the Gods for the Internet--are seeking alternative sources of information and creating their own networks of news and information to bypass the crapola that they are being fed, day in, day out. The inherent curiosity and creativity of the human mind is kicking in. And that is what happened, in a somewhat different way, in Latin America. The poor learned to IGNORE the Corporate Press and created or expanded their own communication networks (mostly "word of mouth" networks).
Is their deigning to mention Chavez supporters in this article a sign that they recognize that their credibility is in doubt? Probably not, but it's an interesting notion to consider. It would also be interesting to track this 'news' service article as to who picks it up and how it is handled (Chavez supporters edited out, for instance?).
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
