Venezuela

[polymerpunkah]

Quote

"Military action is possible. If that's what's required, that's what the United States will do," Pompeo said in an interview with Fox Business Network, but added the United States would prefer a peaceful transition of power in Venezuela.

Though I assume (and hope) that that is just bluster.

 

[Red Phoenix]

3 hours ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

It's almost like something can be about different things to different people.

 

Yeah true. American and Venezuelan govs just straight up with the actual agenda, liberals living in a fantasy land and pretending it's about something completely different because they can't accept the reality of the situation openly.

 

I'm not saying you have the same view either, but to a lot of liberals, carving through the country with military forces won't be such a big issue as long as the US and allies get to stamp the mark of western capitalism on the country and cleanse the socialists from power. Any violence in defence of the country won't be accepted, violence to take the place over will be fine though, as long as the media do their job and only focus on bad things the Venezuelan gov do.

 

And no I don't accept any gov being violent to their own people. I don't accept that there aren't organised groups inside the country provoking the gov either though. Funding and manipulating groups like that is what the US do in situations like this.

[Red Phoenix]

Once Again, Mainstream Media Get It Wrong on Venezuela

 

Foreign outlets, dutifully supporting Trump administration calls for regime change, reported that a widespread uprising was underway, even though Juan Guaidó’s coup attempt had little support.

 

Caracas—It began with a tweet.

 

In it, Venezuela’s self-declared president, Juan Guaidó, stands in front of a line of military vehicles and rows of Venezuelan soldiers in green uniforms. Beside them is opposition leader Leopoldo López, whom they have freed from house arrest, which stemmed from his role in the 2014 guarimba street protests in which dozens of people were killed.

 

Guaidó, dressed in a black suit and a white shirt, talks to the camera. “Today, the armed forces are clearly with the people,” he says. “The time is now.” He calls on the military to rise up and says they are in the streets. He insinuates that they have taken the Carlota military base in eastern Caracas.

 

My phone rings and then rings again.

 

“It looks like there was a coup,” says a friend’s voice. That is what people are thinking across the city. It’s just after 6 a.m., and the sky is still orange from dawn. Neighbors bang pots and pans, the sound rattling through the open window. School is canceled, and the metro is closed.

 

Supporters of President Nicolás Maduro get the word that people are being called to defend Miraflores, the presidential palace, from a potential attack. They begin to make the trek across the city, some by foot, others by bus or car.

 

A stream of Guaidó supporters flows toward the opposition stronghold of Altamira and the Carlota base, just a few blocks away. But it’s clear that Guaidó has not taken the base; his video was recorded from an overpass nearby.

 

Hooded protesters hurl rocks and other projectiles toward soldiers loyal to Maduro, who force them back with tear gas. The smoke wafts into the crowds, and people stampede back up the street, screaming and covering their faces.

 

Estefani Braz stands on a small wall calling for those around her to stay calm. She’s 28, a mother and a graphic designer, with long curly brown hair. “I thought it was over,” she says. “But we’re going to continue fighting and supporting each other because we are going to get out of this.”

 

Maduro’s ouster seemed within grasp. As if she could almost touch it. But it was just an illusion. Within a few hours, Guaidó and López gave up hope of a military insurrection. López and his wife and daughter requested asylum first in the Chilean embassy and then in the Spanish embassy. Far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro granted asylum to the couple of dozen Venezuelan soldiers who joined the opposition.

 

 In a video that went viral over social media, at least a dozen soldiers who appeared in Guaidó’s early-morning call for an uprising said they were “tricked,” ordered there by a commanding officer.

 

Despite these setbacks, Guaidó led thousands in a march heading west from Altamira, but they were turned back by tear gas from the national guard. Rock-wielding hooded protesters and teams of opposition supporters on motorcycles played cat and mouse with the guard. In a scene reminiscent of the violent 2014 and 2017 protests, the protesters blocked roads and set fire to at least one bus and five motorcycles. Rocks and debris covered the streets. Several dozen protesters were injured, largely from tear gas, according to first-aid providers on the scene. Several guard troops were shot by live rounds from Guaidó’s small rebel force.

 

On the other side of town, thousands rallied before a stage outside Miraflores, where Chavista leaders spoke. They danced to music from large speakers at a rally that would continue through the night in order to ensure that no one would try to take Miraflores.

 

What began as a threat of wide-scale military insurrection against the Maduro government ended in disastrous failure for Guaidó and the opposition—yet another in a 20-year string of aborted US-backed attempts to overthrow the Bolivarian process.

 

Even so, thousands of opposition supporters came out for Guaidó’s May Day march on Wednesday, filling most of Altamira Plaza and surrounding streets.

 

“I don’t feel defeated,” said Aylen Cejas, a teacher and longtime supporter of the opposition. “Many Venezuelans might say this process is too slow, but sometimes it has to be like that.” But those in the crowd seemed subdued, stung by the previous day’s defeat, their hopes lifted and then crushed once more. Earlier, Guaidó said this rally would be one of the largest in Venezuelan history. It didn’t come close.

 

Guaidó is now calling for a series of rolling strikes leading up to a large national strike to push for Maduro to step down. It is hard to imagine how these strikes will be carried out, since most of Guaidó’s support comes from the middle to upper classes and the country is already suffering hyperinflation that is making it hard for people to get food. The last major strike by the opposition was long ago, the 2002–03 oil lockout, in which top executives in the state oil company, PDVSA, shut down the industry—and the country—for two months.

 

Meanwhile, across town, hundreds of thousands marched in support of Maduro.

 

“We are with Maduro—now more than ever,” said Carmen Mejía, an elderly hairdresser, as she marched the final stretch toward Miraflores. “We Venezuelans only have one president, and that’s Nicolás Maduro, and we need to support him.”

 

Many in the crowd said it was one of the largest and most vibrant demonstrations in support of the Maduro government, echoing marches from the era of his popular predecessor, Hugo Chávez. This point is key: If this march was any measure, the continuing push to overthrow Maduro has had the opposite effect, consolidating his base despite internal divisions and criticism of his government.

 

“Guaidó’s stupidity is Chavismo’s best ally, because it has unified people in support of Maduro,” said Gilberto Giménez, the president of the small, pro-Maduro Electoral People’s Movement party.

 

This is a far cry from the image that continues to be pushed by Washington and the opposition, as well as on social media and the international press. On Wednesday night, just two hours after the end of the Maduro rally, Guaidó told Fox News’ Trish Regan that Maduro’s government was crumbling.

 

“Today, between 91 and 95 percent of our population wants change. Today Maduro is very weak. He doesn’t even have the support of the armed forces,” Guaidó claimed. This illusion, like his Tuesday morning tweet, has helped distort the reality of events here for the foreign media.

 

Just one hour after Guaidó’s message, the Venezuelan defense minister tweeted that the military remained loyal to Maduro. The street protesters’ battles outside Carlota made clear that Guaidó did not hold that base and that he had no military support beyond a few dozen soldiers. Yet international outlets continued to report that a widespread military uprising was underway. In a story published that evening, which has now been revised, the BBC asked whether Guaidó controlled a substantial portion of the Venezuelan armed forces.

 

Venezuelans know the power of media. The pretext for the 2002 coup against Chávez was based on images recorded and manipulated by an opposition media outlet to show metropolitan police firing on unarmed protesters. It was a lie, as uncovered in several investigations, including the documentary Llaguno Bridge: Keys to a Massacre, which I narrated and translated into English 15 years ago.

 

The impact of these policies is profound. Donald Trump insists on Twitter that all options are still on the table for regime change in Venezuela. The fight for the image of Venezuela depends largely on who controls the story—one often told these days in less than 280 characters, in images and video.

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/venezuela-coup-media-guaido/

[Strontium]

Map showing where Venezuela's 3.4 million refugees have fled to:

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

3.4m refugees and migrants.

 

Accuracy matters.

[moof]

What happened in 2015?

[polymerpunkah]

 

From that study I posted above.

[moof]

4 minutes ago, polymerpunkah said:

 

From that study I posted above.

Interesting... cheers mate

[polymerpunkah]

It's worth a read.

 

The pair who wrote it aren't hacks.

 

https://twitter.com/zei_nabq/status/1123730637121257476

[Jose Jones]

7 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

3.4m refugees and migrants.

 

Accuracy matters.

Fleeing to Curaçao or Aruba must be an absolute chore.

I felt a bit persecuted by the socialist Labour government of Blair and Brown so I was forced to flee to Australia.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

8 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

3.4m refugees and migrants.

 

Accuracy matters.

And that number is arguably a severe exaggeration.

 

https://www.venezuelasolidarity.co.uk/2018/12/21/myth-vs-reality-what-is-happening-in-venezuela/

 

Finally, is there a ”migration crisis” as the article seeks to demonstrate? It is true that tens of thousands of Venezuelans, especially sections of middle-class youth, have left Venezuela, but the figures that are banded about of 1.6 to 2.3 million Venezuelans who have left Venezuela are only estimates and are clearly inexact, with different agencies coming up with different figures.

 

The estimate of 3 million migrants used in the article and in currency elsewhere in the mainstream media seems to have been arrived at by taking the latest UN figure and adding in an estimated 3,000 a day migration flow into Colombia.

 

But to illustrate the weakness in this approach, which can lead to gross exaggeration, many Venezuelan migrants plan on returning home.Joint research conducted by the Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Relations and the International Organization for Migration found that only 5% planned on staying in the country permanently, while 23% reported that they would only remain in Colombia for a few months to save money.

 

What we can say is migration flows from Venezuela are clearly linked to the enormous pressures placed on the country and its people by the United States in its determination to topple the government. This Guardian article does more to conceal than to reveal this inescapable conclusion.

[SasaS]

It's interesting, I've learnt over the recent years that the occurrence of the phrase "mainstream media" usually signals that the media outlet using it tends to be much less reliable then the aforementioned cursed mainstream media.  

[AngryOfTuebrook]

11 hours ago, SasaS said:

It's interesting, I've learnt over the recent years that the occurrence of the phrase "mainstream media" usually signals that the media outlet using it tends to be much less reliable then the aforementioned cursed mainstream media.  

You'd do well to disabuse yourself of that misconception.

 

The phrase "mainstream media" includes The S*n, the Mail and the Express.  There are plenty of news sources more reliable than that shower of shite.

[SasaS]

5 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You'd do well to disabuse yourself of that misconception.

 

The phrase "mainstream media" includes The S*n, the Mail and the Express.  There are plenty of news sources more reliable than that shower of shite.

Well, exactly. There is (I think) RP's link to another article which also used the same phrase and claims MM reported this or that about the coup, and the MM I read and watched did no such thing.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

RP's link is to The Nation.  It specifically mentions Fox News and the BBC as the "mainstream media" outlets who are getting it wrong on Venezuela.

 

The implication of your post is that, simply because The Nation uses that dreaded phrase, Fox News and the BBC are more likely to be telling the truth about Venezuela.  

 

The idea of dismissing an article because the author uses a widely-used (and perfectly acceptable) phrase that you dislike is just plain silly.  And in this specific instance, the idea of swallowing whole the Fox News/BBC line on Venezuela is very ill-advised.

 

 

[Jose Jones]

Have to agree with SasaS here.  The Mainstream Media line is of a piece with Fake News.

Mostly used by right wing twats who are trying to obstruct the truth.  Anyone using it is generally outing themselves as an imbecile.

[TheHowieLama]

The long established media has a general lean to the left - at least in the States.

If established = mainstream, not sure.

[moof]

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

2 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

Have to agree with SasaS here.  The Mainstream Media line is of a piece with Fake News.

Mostly used by right wing twats who are trying to obstruct the truth.  Anyone using it is generally outing themselves as an imbecile.

Really?

 

On a lot of issues, there's a consensus of opinion (right to centre-right) between most of the printed and broadcast news.  This colours what they choose to report and how they choose to report it.  Other news outlets (say, Morning Star or Al-Jazeera or some of the more serious online news agencies) take a different perspective.

 

Do you think it's wrong to describe the first set of news outlets as "mainstream"?

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that the second set of outlets are less reliable?

 

I'll admit, the abbreviation "MSM" sets alarm bells, but I wouldn't automatically dismiss any journalism which highlights the failings of the more widely read/watched media.

[Jose Jones]

1 hour ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Really?

 

On a lot of issues, there's a consensus of opinion (right to centre-right) between most of the printed and broadcast news.  This colours what they choose to report and how they choose to report it.  Other news outlets (say, Morning Star or Al-Jazeera or some of the more serious online news agencies) take a different perspective.

 

Do you think it's wrong to describe the first set of news outlets as "mainstream"?

Do you think it's reasonable to assume that the second set of outlets are less reliable?

 

I'll admit, the abbreviation "MSM" sets alarm bells, but I wouldn't automatically dismiss any journalism which highlights the failings of the more widely read/watched media.

Yes, its the worst kind of Palin-esque lame bullshit.

 

1.  Report the facts of the news at hand.

2.  In a different article investigate why and how a particular issue may have a force fed opinion.  If there is influence from government, advertisers, etc.

 

Wishy washy non-reporting, then saying "not that you'll hear that in the mainstream media" is just the worst bollocks, and is worse journalism than the stuff they are railing at.

[SasaS]

Well, with the respect to opposition's attempt, it was clearly from the beginning, at least to me, the extent of military support was probably limited, which I think I even commented on and my impression was entirely based on mainstream media reporting on the day (The Guardian and the article-mentioned BBC on the web). So, I had a different experience to that of The Nation. I would expect the Venezuela coverage on Fox in the US is probably different to those of the BBC or other leading European media.
 

BTW, Al-Jazeera I'd classify as mainstream media, it's modeled on CNN/BBC, funded by Qatar and generally as reliable as what they are reporting on is distant from their backers interest, similarly to RT.

[Jairzinho]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

 

BTW, Al-Jazeera I'd classify as mainstream media, it's modeled on CNN/BBC, funded by Qatar and generally as reliable as what they are reporting on is distant from their backers interest, similarly to RT.

 

I think this applies to all mainstream media. If you want critical analysis of things happening in your own country, or a country that has a strong relationship with your country (positive or negative), your best bet is finding media from outside it. Mainstream or otherwise.

[polymerpunkah]

There seems to be two levels of news.

 

One is the shallow, 24-hour news cycle, click-bait news--where every little thing gets reported immediately, true or not, verified or not.

 

Then there is the news of "sober second thought" when the facts, or at least many more of the facts, come out. 

 

You have to take everything reported--by MSM or not--with more than a pinch of salt.

 

 

 

[TheHowieLama]

14 hours ago, moof said:

 

Not sure any outlet would be liberal enough for Chomsky mate.

 

There is no question that the long established media - outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, any of the three networks in the US, and the Turner stations (CNN) lean to the left of the US political spectrum.

[moof]

31 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Not sure any outlet would be liberal enough for Chomsky mate.

 

There is no question that the long established media - outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, any of the three networks in the US, and the Turner stations (CNN) lean to the left of the US political spectrum.

I think that’s highly, highly debatable. To say the very least