I saw the unreported world on china and it was the opposite of what you say, it was not "right wing bais" it was sympathetic to the poor farmers thrown off their land without compensation and it was a good program. Unreported World is one of the few good TV documentaries out there.

Just watched the one about Bolivia again and still saw the right-wing bias.

This is the only programme currently on TV that has any information at all on the developing world. None of this stuff gets into the news headlines, or into magazine articles except for the New Internationalist. That makes it invaluable.
As for bias, any activist with a gramme of nous can see in what respect the programmes are biased! But what were you expecting? All the mainstream TV production companies will present a mainstream view. They're looking to present information, not provocation. It's for activists to 'read' the programme carefully and assess the authenticity of the information that's there. It's often not as simple as "right wing bias". The bias is in what they leave out. These programmes tend to be a bit too shallow, as they're only half an hour long and there's a limit to what can be shown, or discussed, in that time.

There is a big difference between leaving out information and giving the wrong information. I agree that what happens in third world countries goes unreported. But, giving a misleading picture is not covering news (not even partially), it is manipulating reality to fit a political point of view.

In the case of Bolivia it is quite clear what they have in mind. There are two key issues in the programme that the reporter deals with. The Huanuni mine (the recovery of natural resources from multinationals back onto the hands of the estate), in the words of the reporter "something that suppose to have improve peoples lives, it has created death and destruction".

What? She blamed the nationalisation of the Posokoni mountain by Evo Morales for the violence that escalated 5 & 6 of October 2006. Where 16 miners lost their lives, in a confrontation between cooperativists (private miners) and trade unionists (estate miners).

It is not difficult to double check that nationalization took place 31-10-06, therefore it was not the cause but the solution.

That the problem originated by a British Company RBG, now under intervention and that the people in charge of the assets gave a power of attorney to the private Bolivian miners (in September 2006), who used the poorest people in the area to try and take over a mine that was producing under workers control.
 http://www.laprensa.com.bo/20060906/oruro/oruro01.htm (the local press printed the visit to London)
Clearly the Huanuni mine was a struggle between private exploitation Vs estate control. What had caused violence? The company is Grant Thornton and their office is based in Euston station.

Instead the programme gives the idea that the miners had decided to take sides, some were pro-nationalization, some were pro-privatization. It was nothing like that at all:

COMIBOL the estate company under neoliberal laws was not allowed to administer the mines, it could only lease them to multinationals.

Huanuni, was under RBG for few years, but due to corruption and failure to administrate the mine, the miners (the workers) took control of the mine, and force COMIBOL, the estate company to help them administrate. However there were only 1000 estate miners who benefited from health care and a proper contract and a salary. Most of the miners were in the private sector, and so called "cooperativists" which is a small company with few people benefiting and the majority living in extreme poverty. Those miners wanted to belong to the trade union, but the "cooperativists" were anti-union and would sack any worker they thought was involved in trade union activity. The cooperativists were 5000.

The cooperativists wanted to privatise the whole mountain. The estate miners knew that that would mean worse working conditions and they decided to defend their workplace.

Trade unionists defended their workplace with their lives as it meant the future for themselves and their children. Cooperativists armed with the Grant Thornton letter of intent, claimed rightful ownership and brought criminals into the area who threw dynamite to expensive machinery and to the air pump machines. Miners inside the mine were forced to get out and fight back. The mountain does not belong to any foreign company by the way, and Grant Thornton has nothing to sell in Bolivia, instead there is a large debt that has to repay.

Evo Morales solution was to nationalize the whole mountain (as until they parts of it were lease to cooperativists) and give jobs to the cooperativists (who were working in the Posokoni mountain) in the estate company. So, from 1000 workers today they are 4000. Which proves that the majority were not for private enterprise but for proper jobs.

The Huanuni mine is one of the most successful mines in Bolivia and it is a scary example for all the other mines which are currently under control of multinationals, some of them British. This is why they are trying to give the view that Nationalization causes death and destruction, and so Evo Morales is to blame for the deaths. When in reality those deaths were signed here in London, in Euston station in September 2006.

The second point the documentary deals with is the constituency assembly. According to the reporter representatives were divided by colour and therefore indigenous people were not listening to "white" people and therefore were unable to write the constitution. What she did not explain is that the Right wing who is a minority in the Assembly, with the help of the church have manipulated and blocked any development and agreeing on any significant article by asking that articles can only be written if approved with 2/3 of the votes. The majority of the representatives are leftwing therefore have no problem achieving 60%, but fail to reach 66%. Therefore articles are being discussed and ultimately the new constitution will be approved in a national referendum. We will bypass this way the destructive elements in Bolivia (right wing) who are a minority bent to stop the creation of a fairer country. While a representative was explaining this pointes to the journalist, she was stopped and the reporter explained what the spokeswoman had said, but in such a simplified way that the reporter freely concluded that at the end of the discussions and having failed to reach consensus, there would be a Civil War in Bolivia.

The programme refers to us Bolivians as divided by colour: indigenous vs. "whites", but the "whites" she interviews and who identify as such, are to any standards mixed and not white at all. It is not colour, race divide as the reporter says over and over, but a question of economic status. Those who have enjoyed comfort and a life with 2 or 4 employees to help in their housework and a life of comfort (enjoy all the comforts available in developed countries: technology, fashion, education, holidays, health, etc.) do not want any change. But, the majority who have faced unemployment, poverty and extreme exploitation for years in such a rich country, want change immediately, regardless of the colour of their skin.

Of course there is a lot more to say about the programme.

Amancay