Hugo Chavez is Olbermann's Worser Person of the Day

[wyldwolf]

Said Chavez has peed on his country's laws and citizens.

[Catch22Dem]

1. What are DUers to do?

I'll get my popcorn. Ahhh, what am I saying? I wouldn't be able to handle 5 minutes of what's about to come.

[skipos]

Uh oh. I am no fan of Chavez, but I expect some DU heads to explode

Since you are only as good as your last vote (or in Olbermann's case, your last significant statement) on DU, I expect him to get roasted on this one.

[tritsofme]

2. Olbermann is part of the corportate conspiracy, Great Leader Hugo knows best

Great Leader does nothing wrong, ever, if you disagree you are an imperialistic corporatist.

[Cameron27]

3. Oh dear,

there goes KO. We ought to have a list pinned up in GD.

[IndianaJones]

4. et tu Keith? nt.

[bbinacan]

5. The snowball toward dictatorship

is picking up speed and gaining mass.

[StClone]

20. He's Democratically elected

Getting facts correct would be a great way to start.

[tammywammy]

22. he said toward a dictatorship

Just because you're democratically elected, doesn't preclude the fact that they can become a dictator.

[StClone]

26. Why equivocate

There is no subtlety, many think Chavez will go power mad if he hasn't already. Thinking that is understandable given what we are offered to believe about Chavez. Of all the countries that have horrible leaders, dictators and despotic tyrants the man is not any where near that. Believing the worst is easy, understanding Venezuela's past and current struggle are vital in giving Chavez a chance. Sure he can fail but he hasn't by a long shot yet.

[tammywammy]

29. I'm just stating the facts

Being elected doesn't preclude one from becoming a dictator.

[eridani]

31. You mean like in Columbia? n/t

[Judi Lynn]

34. You may recall a writer at the NY Times, Francisco Toro, who was asked to leave when too many people

knew he was a mouthpiece for the opposition in Venezuela, and he quit, after admitting he was very much an opposition activist in Caracas, and belonged to several NGO's there (working hard to destabilize the government, making good use of the large chunks of taxpayers' change _{George W. Bush} sends the NGO's through the N.E.D., etc.)

He went next to the Financial Times, and continued to crank out the same anti-Chavez crap.

This is something taken from a recent entry in his blog, Caracas Chronicles, describing the Venezuela opposition's use of their media, and the influence their media has on the information used by the public to judge who is Hugo Chavez:

Thursday, October 04, 2007
On the sheer fucking hopelessness of the Abstentionist v. Participationist Debate

~snip~
Now, what was Roberto Giusti really saying back in 2002? He was saying that the information the media publish should no longer be judged by the normal standards of journalistic ethics. Questions of newsworthiness, impartiality, confirmability and public interest would be set aside, and information would be judged by its usefulness in helping achieve an overarching, transcendent political goal: overthrowing the budding dictatorship. Henceforth, when a reporter arrived at a newsroom with a story, the first thing his editor would ask him would be not whether it was true, or whether it was new, or whether it had been confirmed, but rather whether it would help get rid of Chávez.

This new conception of the media's role meant that journalists would abdicate their responsibility to "hold up a mirror to society," to produce a space where society is able to see itself, warts and all, and to recognize its own reality as fully as possible. Henceforth, the media would serve as a trick mirror - reflecting only those parts of reality that it judged would further an ulterior end. That the image such a mirror produces is deeply distorted is tautological: in this context, the distortion is the point. And do notice that this isn't some wild conspiracy theory: this is the understanding of their own role that many of the nation's leading journalists proudly and publicly embraced.

That key figures in the oppo media openly endorsed this way of communicating should've given us pause. That they thought of their ethical obligations as a kind of "luxury", an added extra to be discarded when it proved inconvenient, should've put us on guard. How would we react, for instance, if a doctor took that kind of attitude towards his code of professional ethics?

But we're Venezuelans, so the passion of the political moment overcame us. And it's perfectly understandable. After all, Giusti and Colomina and the rest of them more or less announced, "from now on, we're only going to tell you what you want to hear." Who's going to object to that?

We should've realized all along that decisions made on the basis of a distorted understanding of reality can't be expected to produce the outcomes intended by those making them. We shouldn't be surpsied that the rise of openly partisan journalism set the stage for a series of catastrophic oppo own goals.
(snip)

After years of systematically distorted communications, of decisions we were sure would have one effect and had another, of misplaced allegiances and squandered reserves of trust, it's not surprising that a kind of all encompassing nihilism has taken over opposition discourse, a kind of quiescent, polymorphously disgusted but imprecisely directed wrath based on a kind of existential disorientation that expresses itself in an ironclad refusal to believe in anyone or anything again. That is the legacy of Giusti's gallantry.

If it was just that we didn't understand what's been happening in Venezuela, well, that would be bad, but we could work it out. It's actually much worse than that. It's not just that we don't understand what's been happening in Venezuela, it's that we don't understand that we don't understand what's been happening in Venezuela, and when you don't understand that you don't understand something you're well and truly fucked, because you have no clear path towards gaining an understanding of it. You don't see the need for it!
(snip/...)

http://caracaschronicles.blogspot.com/2007/10/quico-says-dear-katy-thanks-for-your.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

They also use another reporter, Juan Forero, who also has a not so flawless version of the truth in his own writing.

Once you come to grips with the fact these are the words of a man who is acknowledging they have been printing what they want to print, there goes the truth.

Something published recently said that some wire stories are taken from news shown on Venezuelan tv channels. The tv stations are owned by private owners who are also virulent, coup-plotting and participating Chavez haters.

[rjones2818]

6. Oooohhhhh....

So Keith doesn't think much of a democracy in the hands of the citizens of a country, eh?

Hmmmm....

[Basileus Basileon]

7. It's true. He has. He's had some good policies, but rule of law is critical.

I defer to Mr. Olbermann.

[antiimperialist]

19. When did Chavez disrespect the rule of law?

?

[StClone]

21. True with caveat

Venezuela, and this is crucial, is ONE of many S. American Countries where U.S. policies have suppressed the populace, stole their resources and incited violent faction. Chavez is fighting that with what works -- wresting control of his Government and his country from self-serving interests of Big Oil and World Bank. If he were not in control they would be. I support his efforts and see a better future for Venezuela IF the U.S. allows the country to take its own path and Chavez doesn't let power go to his head.

[Basileus Basileon]

25. I completely agree with this post.

What Chavez has done has by and large been good. And that last bit about "power going to his head" is my concern.

What I do not like is that he has systematically eroded many of the checks to his power. He has not yet badly abused his powers, though I think several of his actions are at least suspicious. However, any system of governance that relies upon the charity or prudence of a powerful ruler is in the long run harmful. I trust no man or woman with power.

[StClone]

28. Can there be a transition?

That is the question. Once stability has occurred and Chavez's time has passed will he step aside and allow the rule of law and welcome the next duly elected officials to lead? Or, will it be all about Chavez? If the latter I have failed and so has Chavez.

[tammywammy]

8. Well KO has obviously fallen for the MSM and propaganda

spin of Chavez. Now it's confirmed, Olbermann is a Bush lover.



:sarcasm:

[Phoonzang]

9. It's good that Olbermann is able to recognize a barking bafoon

whether they bark in poor English, Spanish, or Persian unlike people here at DU. *darts*

[ben_meyers]

10. Obviously it's the writers strike!

I've always thought Olberman was just an actor doing a bit.:sarcasm:

[hlthe2b]

11. Many admire Chavez as a populist and socialist. but, he

has trampled on some laws we would expect to be upheld in a democracy. I get pissed when he is villainized and I detest our current policies towards him and others like him in S. America. But, neither should he be canonized. I think KO is trying to reflect that balance in his views towards Chavez. :shrug:

[Bakunin]

12. Whatever happened to

breaking a few eggs to make omelets? Cut him some slack down there, he is fighting B*** too you know.

[leftynyc]

38. Sarcasm tag missing??

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

[StClone]

23. I think you said it best

It's my opinion that there is a concerted effort to demonize Chavez because he stands up against those that lobby for special interests in the U.S. I think he is part showman, but mostly a man driven to take Venezuela to a better social standing. His is an experiment, maybe imperfect, but at least he has the support of his country behind him for the most part. Maybe we should worry more about the good ole' USA and less about Hugo. I think too that if a Dem is elected Chavez will change his stance towards the U.S. substantially.

[eridani]

32. What laws? n/t

[hlthe2b]

35. Here is a brief BBC article.. Not detailed, but gives a glimpse

into this new type of socialist rule... Democracy NOW has reported (fairly) a bit on him as well.. If you care to google.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6315819.stm

[eridani]

40. Ruling on some issues by decree has been legal in Venezuela for at least 40 years

It was a feature of the old constitution which was kept (albeit in a more restricted form) in the new constitution. BBC doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that the predecessors of Chavez invoked the same powers. In fact, this limited ruling by decree is a very common feature of nearly every other South American constitution. It's a problem for the MSM only when a populist does it--they don't mind at all when their pet IMF/WTO whores use it.

Ready for another round of Selective Outrage? Here we go--

A tale of two countries. Which is which? Hint--both are in South America.

A. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in April 2007.
B. Granted its president the right to rule by decree in limited areas in January 2007.

A. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations in April 2007.
B. Its president blocked the renewal of the broadcast licenses of one TV station in May 2007 amd has made threatening noises about a second.

A. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 51% of the vote.
B. During its last election cycle, its president was elected with 67% of the vote.

A. Almost nobody but hard core internets tubes users know anything about what's been happening in this country recently.
B. A lot of users of regular media in the US and elsewhere have heard the name of this country and worry that it might become a dictatorship if it isn't already.

A. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--crickets.
B. On the subject of this country we hear from the US House, the US Senate, and leading presidential candidates--thundering and righteous condemnation.

[femrap]

13. Olbermann has to show

that he is a 'patriot,' I guess.

After all, he has a big electric and gas bill.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Good on you, Keith. Tell it like it is...

And it ain't pretty...not matter how some keep trying to slap lipstick on that Venezuelan pig.

[GeneCosta]

15. Even KO can make a mistake

Chavez dismantles the TV station that worked with anti-democratic militarists and he's called a dictator. Then he calls for an extension of executive terms and he's called a dictator. I didn't know Australia was a dictatorship. I didn't know protecting democracy was a sign of dictatorship.

Total bull on the part of media apologists.

[Norrin Radd]

36. Yep. Back in 04, KO even called some of the debates a "win" for Bush.

[Chulanowa]

16. Any more details than that?

I missed Countdown tonight, but Keith usually has an explanation for his worst people, at least one more involved than "he peed on something"

[StClone]

17. KO is great, but his is an Opinion

If Chavez were not to fight as he has and ruled differently than he has, his people would lose. Not because they couldn't rule themselves by Democratic laws and Constitution but his little country would quickly fall back to outsider's influence of Corporatists and World Bank. I stand by Hugo until I see with certainty his is a rule of a Dictator and the majority of his Venezuelans want him gone. So far all we got is a popular, elected leader nearly loss in a CIA coup and oil company control.

[eridani]

33. If the people vote to change laws or constitutions, those changes are democratic

Doesn't necessarily mean the changes are good, but I'd say thay are none of your business unless you live in Venezuela.

[hlthe2b]

37. It is far more complicated than that...

Do some reading. I am NOT saying he is a dictator. He is a socialist populist. But, his methods to ensure he stays in continuous power, (albeit for a purported defined period at this juncture) and related issues are far from a true democratic model and far more complicated than to assume they occurred by vote of the people.

The model Chavez is creating for himself and Venezuela are not stereotypical for what those on the "right" would like to demonize and those on the "left" would love to celebrate, or at least applaud. The end result of this seemingly "new form of populism" is unclear for the Venezuelan people and South America's future. However, I certainly would agree with those who harshly criticize US policy and any prior or current intervention/interference in the region. This is for Venezuelans to determine.

I do find your stating to some of the others on this thread who are simply trying to discuss and understand the politics of Venezuela that it is "none of their business," to be very unhelpful to constructive dialog. I suspect others would too. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you wished to convey...I hope so...:shrug:

[eridani]

39. There is a hell of a lot of local, neighborhood oriented governing activity--

--that is perfectly capable of bypassing Chavez. It will certainly outlast him.

[antiimperialist]

18. Do you realize Chavez is about to win a referendum?

Is that peeing on the law?

[ellisonz]

24. "Do you want me to pee on you?"

:rofl:

[antiimperialist]

27. The poor are doing much better under Chavez

Food is cheap, the economy is better.
These are "little" things ignored by Chavez haters from "left" and right.

[eridani]

30. It proves that Olberman doesn't know jackshit about Venezuela n/t