Exchange with Guardian correspondent re.Hugo Chavez
The following is an email exchange from a couple of weeks ago between myself and The Guardian’s Rory Carroll regarding his coverage of politics in Venezuela.
***********
Hi Rory
I was puzzled by a few aspects of your piece in today's Guardian about the inaugurations of Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega. I'm quite interested in what's happening in that part of the world at the moment and I just wondered if you could clarify a few things, if you've the time?
Firstly, I was surprised to see Chavez described as a communist. I've been reading about Chavez for a few years now and I've not seen the description used before, at least not by anyone other than the usual right-wing headbangers, and certainly not by Chavez himself. One of the distinctive things about Chavez's project has always seemed to be his insistence that Latin America be original in its approach - neither following the Washington consensus nor anyone else's prescriptions but inventing its own way forward (which view goes right back to Bolivar and Rodriguez, as I'm sure you know). However, your piece suggests that Chavez is sending his country towards nothing more than plain-old communism. I wondered what the basis for your saying this was. I realise the general theme you were trying to portray was of Ortega and Chavez moving in opposite directions - one "forward", one "backwards" - but I assume there's something more substantive backing up your use of the term "communist" than that.
In particular, you said that Chavez spoke of using Trotsky's "principles of permanent revolution". I'm quite prepared to believe it but would you mind quoting me the part of the speech were he said this? You also call him a "self-described" communist, which again, I'm quite prepared to believe, but it'd be nice to see the quote, which didn't appear in your article. If Chavez did indeed 'come out' as a straightforward communist at his inauguration it'd be a pretty surprising, not to say seminal moment in the "Bolivarian Revolution", which has hitherto only presented itself as nationalist, socialist and democratic.
Secondly, you describe Ortega and Chavez as having indulged in "US-bashing". As far as I'm aware, neither Chavez nor Ortega have ever planned, called for, ordered or backed any physical attacks on the US, so presumably the "bashing" referred to is the use of strongly critical language. I just wonder if your choice of terminology is really appropriate.
Let's suppose that a foreign country - say the USSR - backed a dominant, privileged elite in Britain, arming and training some particularly barbaric security forces to keep that Soviet-friendly elite in power against the wishes of the British population, which languished in squalor. Let's suppose that popular forces overthrew that minority order and the new order was endorsed by internationally recognised free and fair elections. Let's suppose that Russia then - as the US did in Venezuela - helped to engineer a coup to topple the elected government and suspend a constitution that had been ratified in a referendum. Or let's suppose that Russia - as the US did in Nicaragua - backed a terrorist campaign, fought out of a neighbouring country, that aimed at "soft targets" like schools and hospitals, and was condemned by the World Court.
And let's suppose that British leaders retaliated directly against Russia with no more than strongly critical language. If you then called such leaders "Russia bashers" or "Moscow's nemesis" that might of course be literally true. But do you think it would really be appropriate or representative of the situation?
Thirdly, you mention Chavez not renewing the license of an "opposition-aligned TV station". Yours was a fairly long piece, so I wondered why you didn't find space to mention the active role sections of the media, including this TV station, played in the US backed coup of 2002. Again, suppose a foreign country - for the sake of variety, let's say Nazi Germany (I'm not saying the US is the same as the USSR or the Nazis btw; just illustrating the point) - tried to overthrow the elected British government in a coup, and that certain media organisations - e.g. the Daily Mail - played an active role in supporting that operation, only for it to be foiled. Surely any subsequent moves to shut the Mail down would have to be reported as being related to the coup attempt, rather than simply saying that the Mail "opposes" the government, which sends the reader's understanding of the facts in a very different direction. This would be true whether or one thought the paper had the right to continue publishing in spite of its activities. So may I ask why the relevant background wasn't included?
I'd be interested in your responses
Best wishes
David
*******************************
Hi Dave,
Twice in the past week Chavez has publicly described himself - and once included the ex-VP, Rangel - as a communist. I paraphrased the Trotsky permanent revolution reference but there was no ambiguity in the quote from his inaugural address. Fish around and you'll find transcripts.
As for "bashing", well, the rhetoric Chavez uses, and the rhetoric Ortega used in the 80s, are/were very strong verbal attacks. Calling it bashing is a neutral description, not a value judgment on whether it's justified or not.
There are limits to how much background can be included in copy and given that RCTV was not the focus of the story it felt sufficient to term it opposition-aligned.
Best
Rory
****************
Hi Rory - thanks for taking the time to respond.
Transcripts apparently aren't available yet for the speech, but I'll have a read when they are. I think you should have provided a quote if only because Chavez has only portrayed himself or acted as a social democrat until now (albeit with much revolutionary rhetoric). To call himself a communist was a shift (though communist can mean anything from Stalin to Gorbachev) so a direct quote would've been useful.
Re."bashing" - I'm not asking you to make a value judgement (though the word "bashing" does seem a trifle emotive to me). Just to mention the relevant background so people have the necessary information to make a balanced judgement for themselves.
The same is true with RCTV. You say word limits are an issue. I quite understand that. They're an issue for anyone who has to produce written work. The trick (which you don't need me to tell you) is to get all the relevant points across - within the word limit - so that the reader can make a balanced judgement. My point was that you presented the RCTV issue, as you did again today, in a way that distorts the picture. I'm not accusing you of doing that deliberately, but that's certainly the effect, and the word limit doesn't really justify it. The impression you give is of a government silencing people simply for disagreeing with it, as though complicity in a coup (which far goes beyond mere disagreement) were not a factor worthy of the reader's consideration.
Finally, going back to value judgements, there are plenty of implicit and barely implicit value judgements of Chavez and his government in your articles. That's your right as a journalist and I don't have any objection to it. I see no harm in you expressing your opinion, or making it plain, whilst still giving the whole story so other people can come to different views if they choose. My only issue is with the excision of relevant aspects of the story having a distorting effect on the picture that's presented.
Best wishes
David
****************
Carroll didn’t reply to my second email.
If anyone knows where I can get hold of an English language copy of the Chavez inauguration address from earlier this month please let me know. Of course its quite possible that Chavez did declare himself as a communist, but then its also possible that his remarks are being represented that way because the word “communist” is the equivalent of a swearword for many people. Since Chavez took some time to even declare himself a socialist, and since I’ve not heard him describe himself as a communist before or since Carroll’s article, I’d rather read the speech for myself than take his word for it.
***********
Hi Rory
I was puzzled by a few aspects of your piece in today's Guardian about the inaugurations of Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega. I'm quite interested in what's happening in that part of the world at the moment and I just wondered if you could clarify a few things, if you've the time?
Firstly, I was surprised to see Chavez described as a communist. I've been reading about Chavez for a few years now and I've not seen the description used before, at least not by anyone other than the usual right-wing headbangers, and certainly not by Chavez himself. One of the distinctive things about Chavez's project has always seemed to be his insistence that Latin America be original in its approach - neither following the Washington consensus nor anyone else's prescriptions but inventing its own way forward (which view goes right back to Bolivar and Rodriguez, as I'm sure you know). However, your piece suggests that Chavez is sending his country towards nothing more than plain-old communism. I wondered what the basis for your saying this was. I realise the general theme you were trying to portray was of Ortega and Chavez moving in opposite directions - one "forward", one "backwards" - but I assume there's something more substantive backing up your use of the term "communist" than that.
In particular, you said that Chavez spoke of using Trotsky's "principles of permanent revolution". I'm quite prepared to believe it but would you mind quoting me the part of the speech were he said this? You also call him a "self-described" communist, which again, I'm quite prepared to believe, but it'd be nice to see the quote, which didn't appear in your article. If Chavez did indeed 'come out' as a straightforward communist at his inauguration it'd be a pretty surprising, not to say seminal moment in the "Bolivarian Revolution", which has hitherto only presented itself as nationalist, socialist and democratic.
Secondly, you describe Ortega and Chavez as having indulged in "US-bashing". As far as I'm aware, neither Chavez nor Ortega have ever planned, called for, ordered or backed any physical attacks on the US, so presumably the "bashing" referred to is the use of strongly critical language. I just wonder if your choice of terminology is really appropriate.
Let's suppose that a foreign country - say the USSR - backed a dominant, privileged elite in Britain, arming and training some particularly barbaric security forces to keep that Soviet-friendly elite in power against the wishes of the British population, which languished in squalor. Let's suppose that popular forces overthrew that minority order and the new order was endorsed by internationally recognised free and fair elections. Let's suppose that Russia then - as the US did in Venezuela - helped to engineer a coup to topple the elected government and suspend a constitution that had been ratified in a referendum. Or let's suppose that Russia - as the US did in Nicaragua - backed a terrorist campaign, fought out of a neighbouring country, that aimed at "soft targets" like schools and hospitals, and was condemned by the World Court.
And let's suppose that British leaders retaliated directly against Russia with no more than strongly critical language. If you then called such leaders "Russia bashers" or "Moscow's nemesis" that might of course be literally true. But do you think it would really be appropriate or representative of the situation?
Thirdly, you mention Chavez not renewing the license of an "opposition-aligned TV station". Yours was a fairly long piece, so I wondered why you didn't find space to mention the active role sections of the media, including this TV station, played in the US backed coup of 2002. Again, suppose a foreign country - for the sake of variety, let's say Nazi Germany (I'm not saying the US is the same as the USSR or the Nazis btw; just illustrating the point) - tried to overthrow the elected British government in a coup, and that certain media organisations - e.g. the Daily Mail - played an active role in supporting that operation, only for it to be foiled. Surely any subsequent moves to shut the Mail down would have to be reported as being related to the coup attempt, rather than simply saying that the Mail "opposes" the government, which sends the reader's understanding of the facts in a very different direction. This would be true whether or one thought the paper had the right to continue publishing in spite of its activities. So may I ask why the relevant background wasn't included?
I'd be interested in your responses
Best wishes
David
*******************************
Hi Dave,
Twice in the past week Chavez has publicly described himself - and once included the ex-VP, Rangel - as a communist. I paraphrased the Trotsky permanent revolution reference but there was no ambiguity in the quote from his inaugural address. Fish around and you'll find transcripts.
As for "bashing", well, the rhetoric Chavez uses, and the rhetoric Ortega used in the 80s, are/were very strong verbal attacks. Calling it bashing is a neutral description, not a value judgment on whether it's justified or not.
There are limits to how much background can be included in copy and given that RCTV was not the focus of the story it felt sufficient to term it opposition-aligned.
Best
Rory
****************
Hi Rory - thanks for taking the time to respond.
Transcripts apparently aren't available yet for the speech, but I'll have a read when they are. I think you should have provided a quote if only because Chavez has only portrayed himself or acted as a social democrat until now (albeit with much revolutionary rhetoric). To call himself a communist was a shift (though communist can mean anything from Stalin to Gorbachev) so a direct quote would've been useful.
Re."bashing" - I'm not asking you to make a value judgement (though the word "bashing" does seem a trifle emotive to me). Just to mention the relevant background so people have the necessary information to make a balanced judgement for themselves.
The same is true with RCTV. You say word limits are an issue. I quite understand that. They're an issue for anyone who has to produce written work. The trick (which you don't need me to tell you) is to get all the relevant points across - within the word limit - so that the reader can make a balanced judgement. My point was that you presented the RCTV issue, as you did again today, in a way that distorts the picture. I'm not accusing you of doing that deliberately, but that's certainly the effect, and the word limit doesn't really justify it. The impression you give is of a government silencing people simply for disagreeing with it, as though complicity in a coup (which far goes beyond mere disagreement) were not a factor worthy of the reader's consideration.
Finally, going back to value judgements, there are plenty of implicit and barely implicit value judgements of Chavez and his government in your articles. That's your right as a journalist and I don't have any objection to it. I see no harm in you expressing your opinion, or making it plain, whilst still giving the whole story so other people can come to different views if they choose. My only issue is with the excision of relevant aspects of the story having a distorting effect on the picture that's presented.
Best wishes
David
****************
Carroll didn’t reply to my second email.
If anyone knows where I can get hold of an English language copy of the Chavez inauguration address from earlier this month please let me know. Of course its quite possible that Chavez did declare himself as a communist, but then its also possible that his remarks are being represented that way because the word “communist” is the equivalent of a swearword for many people. Since Chavez took some time to even declare himself a socialist, and since I’ve not heard him describe himself as a communist before or since Carroll’s article, I’d rather read the speech for myself than take his word for it.
posted by David Wearing at 3:35 PM
4 Comments:
I assume the inaugural speech in question is that given by Chávez when he was sworn in as president on January 10. It can be found in video form here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmOWfTsMYQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgLSohzZfkU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZkLjaTYAxc
and in transcribed form here:
http://www.abn.info.ve/discurso_txt.php
Communism is mentioned exactly once, when Chávez argues that socialism is more in accord with Christian precepts than capitalism. He quotes the from the Acts of the Apostles, which states that the apostles held there possessions in common. "Your Eminence the Cardinal," he says, "this is even more than socialism, it is communism!"
One thing made me smile when finding this speech. After Chávez concludes the speech, the President of the National Assembly calls for it to be made public in the national newspapers and in video form. These parliamentary traditions are stuck in the 20th century, so she does not mention the Internet form. Moreover, the best place these days to find the speech is on YouTube, a company situated in, of all places, the United States of America.
Alastair, this is useful. Thanks very much. I'm afraid I don't speak spanish, but a word search of the transcript reveals one reference to "comunismo", and its as you describe ("Esto es más que socialismo, señor Cardenal, ¡esto es comunismo!").
I think I just might take this up with Mr Carroll.
Do you know if there's an English translation of this anywhere. I'd be interested to know what Chavez really said in his speech.
Things aren't much better on this side of the Atlantic either even though in the 4 largest states--California, Texas, New York and Florida which make up a third of the total population--a third or more of residents speak Spanish. Minutes 20-27 of this audio program cover the coverage...
Hi, David,
I think i should introduce myself first. i am a journalist from hong kong and my interest in the politics of Latin America had taken me to visit venezuela and its allies twice last year. I got a chance to meet with Hugo Chavez in his programme " HelLo President " and in other occasions.
One thing Iwould like to share with u . My impression on chavez is that, he is not a communist at all as what we understand in Asia. I can tell the differences between on the one hand, the Chairman Mao of China, Pol Pot of Cambodia, communists in former Eastern Europe and USSR, and on the other hand Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa etc in Latin America.
You are right. Those leftist leaders in Latin America are social democrats only. they are not communists. interesting enough to listen to their speech each time. they mention Jesus Christ, Che Guevara more than Karl Marx or Lenin.I even suspect if they fully understand Marxism. They are simply the followers of Simon Boliver, Martin Jose and other nationalist heros. One thing we should understand that ther's been a long tradition of the indigenous people of Latin America to fight against foreign invasion in whatever way. before 20th century invasion with weapons of mass destruction, in 20th century with neo-liberalism.
I think it's unfair to indentify them with those hard core communists in Asia.
For example, Chairman Mao never mentioned the word ' love ' in his speech. because in his opinion, love was the word affliating with bourgeoisie.
But in the speech of Hugo Chavez, he has spoken of love. he has even written a poem to express his love for everything. He has religion which differs himself from the communists.
What is happening in those countries turnig left is a continued struggle which has started a long time ago, back in 15/16 century when Spain invaded Latin America.
Of course there are always problems with socialist govt and its socialist policies, but also with rightist govt too, right? But we should respect the rights of indigeneous people to run their own life. This is the basic human rights. also should we show a bit of our appreciation for the effort they make to break the hegemony of the powerful?
I was born in hong kong and was brought up in the era of british colonialism. I unerstand what colonialism is all about and those people longing for self-autonomy.
As noe-liberalism is so overwhelming and is almost perceived as the only ideology right for all people in this world, for those who want to demostrate " the other world is possible" must face tremendous challenges and obstacles ahead.
As a journalist, i think in this critical moment of history, we should leave our stereotyping impression aside and present the stories more fairly.
David, i have a copy of inaugual speech of chavez in english. but only the hard copy. I will see if I can get u the electronic copy.
Furthermore, I find the views and information I obtained were so different when I talked to the correspondent of Al Jazerra and the correspondents of the western media in caracas.
susanna chui-yung cheung
from Asia Weekly of Hong Kong, China
Post a Comment
<< Home