Name: After Socialist Victory in Bolivia, Media Still Whitewash Coup - FAIR
Brand: fair.org
SKU: fair-org-36
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

After Socialist Victory in Bolivia, Media Still Whitewash Coup - FAIR

preview

&nbsp;Bolivia’s Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party won a decisive victory in the country’s on Sunday, with its candidate Luis Arce apparently winning by a large enough margin to avoid a runoff, likely achieving an absolute majority. The leading opposing candidate, neoliberal Carlos Mesa, and the right-wing unelected President Jeanine Áñez congratulated Arce on his victory.Some in US corporate media, however, failed to describe what was really going on in the country.The Wall Street Journal () maintained the fiction that Bolivia’s 2019 vote was “marred by irregularities.”When the Wall Street Journal () reported on the MAS victory, for example, it kept to the usual line (FAIR.org, , ) about the previously elected president from MAS, Evo Morales, having been “driven from power” in November 2019 after “an election that observers said was marred by irregularities”—avoiding referring directly to Morales’ military overthrow as a “coup.” Instead, the Journal wrote that “Bolivians rose up against Mr. Morales” after he “had grown increasingly authoritarian” and already “ruled” for 14 years.First off, to say that Morales “ruled” in his country is about as accurate as saying that Barack Obama “ruled” the United States from 2009–17. Until Morales’ ouster, Bolivia was (and hopefully will again be) a functioning democracy. Trying to paint democratically elected leaders as dictatorial autocrats is a time-honored US tradition going back at least as far as Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala, removed in a CIA-backed invasion in 1954.The “irregularities” mentioned are a reference to an analysis by the Organization of American States (OAS), an institution that gets from the United States. Its , released immediately after the election, expressed “deep concern” about a “hard-to-explain change in the trend of the preliminary results.” Their analysis was immediately challenged by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a progressive DC-based think tank, which that the OAS provided “absolutely no evidence—no statistics, numbers or facts of any kind”—to support its conclusions. (See CounterSpin, .) The study was later fully debunked, as reported by both the Washington Post (), which wrote that “the OAS’s statistical analysis and conclusions would appear deeply flawed,” and the New York Times (), which came to similar conclusions (FAIR.org, , ). The Wall Street Journal neglected to mention any of this in its reporting.To say that “Bolivians rose up” against Morales is true only in the narrow technical sense that the coup leaders that forced the president’s removal were from Bolivia. In fact, the situation was far more complicated. After a month-long delay in the vote count, the OAS statement and right-wing protests against the president, military leaders Morales to step down from office and flee the country. Morales eventually took refuge in Argentina, barred from returning to Bolivia due to terrorism charges that Human Rights Watch as “politically motivated.”Jeanine Áñez, a member of a far-right party that won just 4% during elections, declared herself the interim president, violently those who protested the move (FAIR.org, ). The US State Department Áñez’s ascension. At the time, the Wall Street Journal () described these incidents as “a democratic breakout.”Áñez then began to sell off public resources and take out massive international on behalf of the nation. Over the next year, her government delayed elections (FAIR.org, ) until an unprecedented forced the government to agree to an election. Despite all of this, the Journal and other outlets described the coup regime benignly as a “caretaker government.”Describing Evo Morales’ ouster, AP () wrote that “police and military leaders suggested he leave.”The Associated Press () ran a story reprinted by the Washington Post () that had many of the same omissions as the Wall Street Journal piece, describing the coup against Morales as a “resignation” followed by a “self-exile,” and ignoring US support.The New York Times () published a piece that was more sympathetic to Morales and his party, but still contained several critical omissions. The Times cited MAS’s popular support as well as its success in reducing Bolivia’s poverty. Their piece cited Morales describing his ouster and the violence that followed as a“coup,” and did not dispute it.However, in describing his departure from the country, the Times neglected to mention that Morales was under of . After reading that Morales merely “fled the country,” a reader may assume that it was more voluntary than it was.&nbsp; The Times also failed to mention the election’s repeated delays and the general strike that finally brought it into existence.This Washington Post piece () took a less jaundiced view of MAS’s victory, quoting one observer: “There are reasons why populist governments are popular.”The Washington Post () did a better job capturing the situation, describing how the right wing “drove the left from power” last year. They wrote that Morales’ supporters called it a coup, but placed “coup” in quotation marks and linked to a Post piece () headlined “After Morales Resignation, a Question for Bolivia: Was This the Democratic Will or a Coup?” The Post’s post-election piece reported on the many delays as well as the US support for Áñez.The next day, the Post () published a piece that said “Bolivia’s democracy…has delivered Morales’s movement back to power,” and noted positively that “Arce’s victory adds to the sense of momentum behind socialist or left-leaning politics elsewhere in the region.”It may seem surprising that so much reporting on Bolivia still ignores facts that are critical to understanding the situation there, but US media have a long history of reporting on Latin America that does more to please the State Department than to inform readers.&nbsp;Another weaselly such article in today’s Guardian by Tom Phillips, who is a specialist in subtle propaganda rhetoric and diction, mostly against Venezuela…“That faith was well-placed. On Friday morning authorities confirmed a stunning political comeback with Mas’s candidate, the former finance minister Luis Arce, winning Sunday’s presidential election by a thumping 26.3% margin.”It’s not a “comeback” when the party who easily won the previous election easily wins the next one. The only “comeback” was against the undemocratic US-backed coup mongers. And:“There are many complex threads to the tale of Mas’ bounce back from last year’s nightmare, when security forces drove Morales into exile after he tried to extend his 14-year stint as president in defiance of a 2016 referendum.”This timeline is wrong and the actors are wrong. Yes, Morales wanted to run again, but he didn’t illegally “defy” anything. The Bolivian Supreme Court “defied” that referendum by ruling it invalid concerning Morales.He also wasn’t driven into exile for “trying” to do anything. He :succeeded: in extending his term, legally. Then was couped, illegally. Writers like Phillips insist obvious facts and actions are “complex threads”. A lot of stuff is complex with Bolivia, but PRESIDENT WINS VALID ELECTION THEN IS COUPED BY US-BACKED RACIST EVANGELICALS, IN CONCERT WITH CORRUPT ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES is not complex at all. These writers try to obscure what plainly happened.Thanks to Bryce Greene for the clear writing and cogent analysis. The coup occurred because US agencies bribed Bolivian military officers to betray their country. Will they do it again?Excellent read, thank you.One point though is missing: Parts of MAS also turned against Morales.Excellent read, thank you.One point though is missing: Parts of MAS also turned against Morales.Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!THIS IS M FIRST COMMENT EVER.CHECK YOUR SOFTWARE!Some take-aways from this1. Evo was a great president and did wonders for Bolivia2. Two terms as president is enough even for heroes3. Democracy is fragile, is always being attacked, and must always be defended.This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. .FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. We expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, we believe that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.Fairness &amp; Accuracy In Reporting124 W. 30th Street, Suite 201New York, NY 10001Tel: 212-633-6700We rely on your support to keep running. Please consider donating.XThis work is licensed under a License.

&nbsp;Bolivia’s Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party won a decisive victory in the country’s on Sunday, with its candidate Luis Arce apparently winning by a large enough margin to avoid a runoff, likely achieving an absolute majority. The leading opposing candidate, neoliberal Carlos Mesa, and the right-wing unelected President Jeanine Áñez congratulated Arce on his victory.Some in US corporate media, however, failed to describe what was really going on in the country.The Wall Street Journal () maintained the fiction that Bolivia’s 2019 vote was “marred by irregularities.”When the Wall...

public

Bryce Greene

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, holding corporate media accountable for distortions & omissions since 1986. http://mastodon.world/@FAIR

After Socialist Victory in Bolivia, Media Still Whitewash Coup - FAIR

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS