Andrew Friedman

Hugo Chavez, Racism and Reaction

Hugo Chavez's trip to New York City last week attracted a media feeding frenzy. His speeches up in Harlem and at the United Nations' General Assembly, and his reference to President Bush as the devil, provoked strident condemnation from virtually all quarters. Beyond the indignant words of New York City politicians from Mayor Bloomberg to Charlie Rangel, and the inflamatory front page coverage in both the New York Post and the Daily News, we witnessed a prime example of subtle racism and misleading press coverage in American life.

Let's start with the racism. Governor Pataki called President Chavez a

barbarian

. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called him a

thug

. What, precisely, is thuggish or barbarian about him? Leftist politics or provocative rhetoric do not make a thug. A thug is a thief or a bully. And, in fact, it was the gentile upper class in Venezuala, Chavez's opponents and America's steadfast allies, that tried to steal the presidency from President Chavez by force. A barbarian?? - that's as obviously offensive as the pope's characterization of Islam. Chavez runs a sophisticated, modern and democratic state. I am guessing that these words would never have been used to describe a head of state, leftist or otherwise, if he were not dark-skinned and thick-necked.

Right behind the name-calling pols, though, was the name-calling press. Aside from the clear statements of opinion that saturated shows like Face the Nation, the press, almost without exception, referred to Chavez in new stories as a dictator. The New York Times used the slightly more subtle, though no less objectionable, term

strongman

. This language gives the distinct impression that Chavez took power by force, which, of course, he didn't. It implies that he rules, rather than represents the Venezuelan people. He has actually been elected numerous times. He won his most recent election with a far more commanding percentage of the vote than President Bush, and his popularity ratings are sky high in Venezuela.

It's no surprise that the Bush Administration would use misleading language to characterize Chavez as a dictator. It is a shame, though, that the mainstream press provides no factual context to the Bush's spin job. The danger of of an ideologically captive press becomes apparent when we remember that the same thing happenned before the war in Iraq.

Andrew Friedman: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:30 AM, Sep 25, 2006 in New York
Permalink | Email to Friend