|
Sure, criticism is fine. Anyone can say anything they like--and popular leaders like Chavez need criticism more than anyone. I'm talking about corporate 'news' propaganda, and their FREQUENTLY used, sneaky, slimy, disreputable use of "his critics say" to avoid any real discussion or understanding of the situation. If they quoted sources, then those being criticized could answer them, and there would be a dialogue. "His critics say" presents those being criticized with a corporate wall against thoughtful, democratic discussion.
A couple of years ago, I began noticing ubiquitous phraseology in the corporate 'news' as follows (of Chavez): "His critics say" that he is "increasingly authoritarian." Never any attribution. Never anybody that Chavez, his government or his supporters could argue with. So I did a news search, looking for the origins of this charge. And you know what I found out? ONLY ONE PERSON had actually said this--that Chavez was "increasingly authoritarian"--and it was a Venezuela Catholic Cardinal who had spent his career in the Vatican finance office, and got fired in the fascist banking scandals of the 1980s. He was an old fascist (now deceased) who regularly railed against Chavez from the pulpit (and, as it turns out, the reason was that Chavez had cut government subsidies of Church programs), and was allied with a couple of the most rightwing bishops in Venezuela (the ones who signed the coup decree in 2002, that dissolved the Constitution, the courts, the legislature and all civil rights).
But I imagine that Bush/Cheney's State Department was also whispering this crap into the willing ears of corporate 'news' reporters, along with Cardinal Lara. "His critics say...". I also, in my research, found a mountain of evidence that Chavez is NOT authoritarian, "increasingly" or otherwise. Evidence that gets no mention and no weight, in these kinds of 'news' articles, to oppose what "his critics say."
IF we had even half-decent reporting of what this party said, or that party said, and IF the corporate 'news' monopolies had even a shred of an intention of promoting democratic discussion, and IF the general public, the poor, the workers, the oppressed and all who benefit from leftist government had a fair say in the news media, THEN criticism--of any politician--would useful and beneficial. But this wall of fascist puke that we're getting from the corporate 'news' monopolies is NOT freedom of speech. It does NOT promote democratic discussion. It is rife with lies, black holes where information and context should be, and propaganda tricks--and one of those tricks is "his critics say..." (or "as critics point out...").
WHO is REALLY saying this? Bush, Cheney, Negroponte, Exxon Mobil, Venezuela's rich minority and Cardinal Lara! BUT THEY DON'T TELL YOU THAT! "His critics say" is the CEO of the Associated Pukes or the Wall Street Journal, et al, IN AGREEMENT with these fascist fuckwads who are destroying our country and are trying to destroy South American democracy as well.
How can you have a discussion with a Puke-y corporate wall of noise? Where is the debate in "his critics say" (or "as critics point out")? These corporate 'news' monopolists SIDE WITH the anonymous critics, and then conspire to hide them behind the curtain.
That is not freedom of speech. That is not debate. That is not discussion. That is not criticism. That is not meant to be helpful. That does not promote democracy and accountability. That is BULLSHIT--and it benefits no one but war profiteers and global corporate predators.
|