The new York's crime

Start writing...Venezuela is preparing for more protests today after Sunday’s presidential elections. Earlier this year, Venezuela had a significant election on July 28th. Over 10 million people voted to decide between incumbent Nicolas Maduro, challenger Edmundo Gonzalez, and eight other opposition candidates. As expected, accusations of fraud surfaced. The electoral authorities are heavily controlled by the government, and President Maduro is often labeled as a dictator. His hold on power is seen as an undemocratic attempt to suppress political participation. It was evident from the start that this would not be a free or fair election.
Western media has a distinct approach to foreign elections, often framing them as attempts at leadership changes. In this discussion, I want to focus on how these foreign elections are portrayed in the U.S., particularly in The New York Times. The New York Times holds significant influence in American media. Its tagline is "All the News That’s Fit to Print," and it acts as a historical record for the establishment. Newsrooms often reference it, which amplifies its perspective.
I want to highlight a particular checklist used when covering foreign leaders designated as enemies by the U.S. The New York Times and other papers typically blame all economic and political issues on the government. They ignore the impact of U.S. sanctions and paint the targeted leader as a tyrant. The term "coup" is avoided, replaced with terms like "uprising" or "revolt." Claims of U.S. involvement are met with ridicule, while new U.S.-backed rulers are depicted as democratically minded. Any violence they commit is downplayed, and blame is placed on the deposed leaders for their own downfall.
Historical examples illustrate this pattern. During the U.S.-backed military coup against Eduardo Gomes in Brazil in 1964, The New York Times spoke positively of the new military leader while vilifying Gomes. Similarly, in Chile in 1973, the paper described Salvador Allende, a democratically elected socialist, as a threat to freedom after he was overthrown by a military coup supported by the CIA.
Again in 1953, The New York Times framed the coup in Iran against Mohammad Mossadegh in a similar light. They portrayed the British as blameless while painting Mossadegh as a dictator who wrecked the economy. This selective reporting continues to shape perceptions of countries like Venezuela today.
Venezuela faced significant challenges in the late 1990s, following a severe economic downturn and the implementation of IMF structural adjustment programs. These policies privatized state-run corporations and led to economic decline. By the time Hugo Chavez was elected, the country had faced decades of economic hardship. Chavez implemented policies that improved life for millions, focusing on social spending and reducing poverty.
However, U.S. interests were not aligned with these policies. In 2002, a brief coup backed by the U.S. removed Chavez from power. In the aftermath, The New York Times portrayed Chavez as incompetent and dictatorial despite multiple legitimate election victories under international scrutiny.
The reporting of Venezuelan elections has faced similar biases. Although Venezuelan elections have strong legitimacy standards, The New York Times continues to accuse them of fraud whenever the opposition loses.
Several filters influence The New York Times' reporting. The newspaper is owned by a billionaire family, shaping its output. Its advertisers are multinational corporations with interests that affect which narratives are promoted. Additionally, the reporters often rely on official sources without questioning their motivations. Foreign correspondents in Venezuela frequently live in elitist conditions, limiting their interactions with the average population.
This article does not suggest that every left-leaning leader is perfect. They are still politicians with flaws. However, left-leaning leaders often enact more democratic policies than their right-leaning counterparts, who may use violence to maintain power. The violence perpetrated by the U.S. government and its supported regimes is often overlooked in Western media. This narrative creates a justification for interventions in the minds of many Americans, ignoring the complex realities of these situations.