Chavez wins in Venezuela and The New York Times must be devastated

Hugo Chavez has won another term as President of Venezuela. There’s rarely been a better example of Western corporate media outlets spending years demonising the man and yet he remains popular in his own country. The New York Times have been particularly bad offenders, publishing anti-Chavez propaganda as news. Read this and weep at the standards at the alleged paper of record.

10 comments
  • Henry Forester

    :the newspaper of record? a better and more appropriate label is that of Gore Vidal – "the Typhoid Mary of journalism". It has plenty of competition.

  • examinator

    Antony,
    Give you three guesses why the NYT is so anti Chavez?
    And they all start with M.

    What surprises me though is why anyone reads or pays attention to it.
    like much of MSM (short for Murdoch Street Money …just kidding) are focused on the rump of the news consuming public. the uneducated to the easy to manipulate Mass. In statistical terms those outside or at the fringes the central Standard deviations, politicians and businesses who have something to gain by the Manipulation.

    One only needs to look at the current Alan Jones 'self justification speech yesterday. *2GB audience hasn't changed their view* .. the rest don't listen listen to the program.'
    The point being is that the NYT panders to the emotions of the equivalent demographic. They simply want confirmation not evolution.
    Simply balancing their views with that of the other extreme isn't Objectivity nor does it supply a reasoned proportional solution it never has and never will.
    All good negotiations tend to emphasise what they have in common.
    One could say that MSM operates from the extremes inward. Negotiation works from the Centre outward . The former results in conflict what is different(sensation), the latter works *to * consensus.
    Put in a homily Its easier (more effective) to calm horses down and stopping them from bolting than to drag them together kicking and resisting.

  • Kevin Herbert

    Examinator:

    So you have compelling data in support of your claim that "the NYT panders to the emotions of the equivalent demographic" to Alan Jones' 2GB audience.

    Care to share it with us.

  • examinator

    Kevin,
    'Compelling' is in the mind of the beholder.
    Secondly the rest of the qualification was 'they want confirmation not evolution'

    Notwithstanding consider the conclusion on a wider canvas.
    MSM is based/ funded by advertising
    News papers revenues from ads are dropping
    The reality is that news papers world wide are losing readership. the NYT is no different. Part of the reason is competition along interest lines( niche marketing) leading to the fragmentation of the market. Specialised blogs, web sites (this one), what ever your predilection it is somewhere on the net. MSM are no longer in such a position of unique power (i.e. they can't dictate what is important ( what is news) and as with that goes control of the market place as they once did .)
    psychological fact:- people tend to choose their media to read according to their perspective….(hence they read that which confirms their predetermined views).i.e Albrechtson doesn't read the 'workers daily'. hence she writes from a pre set philosophic lens. Her work may be well written even clever at times, less crude as Jones's in *delivery *(don't be fooled Jones doesn't has a big intellect to go with his ego). but it isn't OBJECTIVE, they both serve different ends of the same demographic i.e. Those that want confirmation not evolution (change).
    [definition of objective in this context is without bias, THE FACTS DETERMINE THE CONCLUSION ..not balance, not emotive rhetoric.]

    This repositioning has two clear consequences their need to refocus to the largest profitable core demographic (Pareto Principal) increasingly that mean less depth of analysis and Cost cutting. As a consequence the following is taking place.
    Most MSM is tending towards " Infotainment" …instant gratification as opposed to in depth (objective) analysis.
    What constitutes news is more often than not is gossip and trivial.
    From a marketing perspective sensation , conflict , controversy sells papers gets viewers etc.
    most are shedding specialist reporters and relying on news wire services like “Reuters,AAP et al”.
    Given the cross ownerships one shouldn't be surprised article like the one in the headline article.
    There are other factors involved not forgetting organisational theory which mandates that the PRIME purpose of any long-term organisation is its own longevity/survival (power).
    Added to that capitalist practice is to 'cash cow' as long as possible.
    Most MSM tends to support Corporate reasoning/motivations because they are one also but BIG Business pays their bills that ensures their prime principal. The demographics in question are primarily the 'right' or those that have an interest in the Satus Quo.

    Is their hard figures that show this for the NYT et al. yes but they are intentionally complex. And written in different contexts . And as such well beyond the scope of this topic and site's intentions.

    • Kevin Herbert

      So in fact you have nothing concrete by way of examples in support of your claim.

      Just more meaningless, generalised statements, poorly expressed..

      Give us a break from such dross please. This important site deserves better.

      • examinator

        Kevin,
        Not true!
        This site is an opinion site not a tutorial in specific fields of expertise.
        Naturally you are at liberty to disagree with me as I with you.
        It is out of respect for you that I spent the time to outline the reasoning citing principals .
        I take it that no matter what I say you will take exception so I'm calling this to an end .

  • Ned

    I take it Examinator, that you are speaking of 'horses for courses' and that they drink the same stuff at the only waterhole/s they know or like, I suppose!!
    As I see it, journalists and politicians (and clergy) are the typical horses and their string/s of ponies swallow from the same hole…..for life.

    • examinator

      Ned,
      Pretty much ;-) he did ask for proofs.

  • Ned

    Indeed.
    A court jury, in a criminal trial is directed to use common sense…. that normally results in proof of ……….!

    • examinator

      Sorry Ned,
      I don't follow what you're meaning.
      Common sense to me is based on knowledge, Objectivity and wisdom (in the sense of knowing what to do with the knowledge in the context) as a jury member you maybe asked something like 'Is their any reason that you may not be objective in this matter'.
      i.e. *What If* I had killed a person with a king hit am I a murderer? it all depends on the context…e.g. if I was answering a cry for help from my teenage daughter's bedroom and found the person I unintentionally killed was trying to kill her.
      in that context is it murder?
      But it is fair in my defence to claim the *principal* of defending my daughter.
      The next issue would be the legal *principal* of proportional force as to if I get charged with manslaughter etc. etc.
      It's simply not Black or white as Kevin is demanding.
      In His world view, I would be charged and convicted of murder. Fortunately for anyone who may have been there the law doesn't necessarily follow his rationale.
      NB. It HASN'T happened to me but I've counselled someone who it had.