Washington Post coverage of Venezuelan affairs

Since the election of Hugo Chávez as President of Venezuela in 1999, the Washington Post’s editorial page has run 41 editorials, Op-Eds, Columns, and Letters containing substantive mention of Venezuela. Of these, 25 have been editorials written by the Post editorial board itself. * 15 of the editorials have been outright hostile to the government. * 3 presented a negatively biased view of Venezuela. * 7 were fair. The last time the Post editorial board wrote an editorial that can be characterized as fair or balanced was July 2002. The problem is not that the Washington Post editorial board is critical of Hugo Chávez—indeed, there is ample reason to question many of the administration’s policies. Rather, the problem is that the Post’s editorial board has failed to confine itself to the facts when criticizing the current government of Venezuela. Since 1998, the Post’s editors have at various times alleged that Hugo Chávez has: * Ruled in authoritarian manner * Attempted to destroy the private sector and establish state control over the economy * Muzzled the press * Taken political prisoners * Provoked a coup against himself * Ordered police to fire on unarmed demonstrators * Supported insurgents in Colombia * Imported Cubans to assist in the indoctrination of poor Venezuelans * Personally re-written the constitution in order to expand his own powers These allegations are simply not true. In the future, when the Washington Post’s editorial board feels the need to weigh in on Venezuelan issues, its arguments would be much more convincing if they refrained from making false statements.

Continue reading The Washington Post Relies on False Statements when Criticizing Venezuela’s Chavez

Previous Venezuela posts
More on Venezuela