Stephen Lendman: BBC guilty of venality in its misreporting on Venezuela
VHeadline.com commentarist Stephen Lendman writes: Listeners and viewers expecting to find a safe alternative to the corporate-controlled media by turning to the BBC better reconsider their choice just based on the vaunted news organization's reporting on Venezuela and specifically on the misinformation it put out in an online piece on October 8 titled -- "Mass Venezuela opposition rally."
It claims "Tens of thousands of people have marched through the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, in support of the main opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales."
If readers of this piece just went to VHeadline.com, they'd have gotten a much different picture -- from the actual photo of those "tens of thousands" that, in fact, may have been all of a single ten thousand or so in the streets in a show of some kind of tepid support at best and not what anyone would call "mass."
Shame on BBC and its reporter in Caracas Greg Morsbach for lying for the power interests he serves so he reports what they want put out even if it's not true.
Based in Caracas for the BBC, correspondent Morsbach surely knows a massive crowd when he sees one as Hugo Chavez draws them every time he addresses a rally that routinely turns out en masse in a tsunami of red-shirted supporters to see and hear him. He surely can tell the difference between a huge Chavez crowd and the puny one for Mr. Rosales on October 8, many of whom were likely just on the Caracas streets and curious to see what was going on.
The BBC must think this kind of misreporting is the way to maintain a gilt-edged reputation as a reliable news service. The sad truth is that reputation got tarnished many years ago and went to pieces in the shameless reporting the UK-based news organization did in the run-up to the Iraq war when it's entire news operation went into overdrive functioning as a state propaganda service.
But back to the Morsbach report in which he claims the so-called mass rally "filled the main avenues of the city center (and) was the biggest opposition rally Venezuela has seen since early 2004."
It may have been about the only one of any size seen, and it may have partially filled a single avenue, but as the actual photo shows, it thinned out dramatically quite fast after moving away from its core "mass." Correspondent Morsbach may be near-sighted and failed to notice. Surely on BBC pay he can afford new glasses to help him see more clearly so he can report more accurately in the future.
Morsback shamelessly continues: "Young and old (how could he tell even in a smallish-sized crowd) took to the streets to throw their weight behind the campaign of Mr. Rosales... Many claim they were seeking liberty and democracy (did he crash the crowd and interview them) and that made Mr. Rosales their only option."
Finally, at the end of the article, Morsback reported something factual, though hardly newsworthy: "For some (maybe most) it was simply a day out to enjoy the sunshine..." But he quickly reverted to the role he's paid to do as a propagandist claiming: "If Mr. Rosales can keep up this kind of pressure against his rival, the election results may not necessarily be a foregone conclusion."
Pressure?
The only kind he cites in his piece is Rosales' weak-kneed comments that Venezuela was "at (an unexplained) crossroads," and Mr. Chavez was "giving away Venezuela's oil wealth to foreign powers (absurd and false as anyone understanding ALBA knows)."
Morsback ends his piece on a high note though as he may have had a pang of conscience at the end of his otherwise shameless piece of black journalism.
* It forces him to admit that "Mr. Chavez still enjoys a clear lead in opinion polls because of a sense of loyalty that poor and working class voters feel toward him."
But Morsback's conscience pangs weren't strong enough to get him to try explaining why...
Stephen Lendman
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net
* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net -- also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
http://www.vheadline.com/lendman
VHeadline.com commentarist Stephen Lendman writes: Listeners and viewers expecting to find a safe alternative to the corporate-controlled media by turning to the BBC better reconsider their choice just based on the vaunted news organization's reporting on Venezuela and specifically on the misinformation it put out in an online piece on October 8 titled -- "Mass Venezuela opposition rally."
It claims "Tens of thousands of people have marched through the Venezuelan capital, Caracas, in support of the main opposition candidate, Manuel Rosales."
If readers of this piece just went to VHeadline.com, they'd have gotten a much different picture -- from the actual photo of those "tens of thousands" that, in fact, may have been all of a single ten thousand or so in the streets in a show of some kind of tepid support at best and not what anyone would call "mass."
Shame on BBC and its reporter in Caracas Greg Morsbach for lying for the power interests he serves so he reports what they want put out even if it's not true.
Based in Caracas for the BBC, correspondent Morsbach surely knows a massive crowd when he sees one as Hugo Chavez draws them every time he addresses a rally that routinely turns out en masse in a tsunami of red-shirted supporters to see and hear him. He surely can tell the difference between a huge Chavez crowd and the puny one for Mr. Rosales on October 8, many of whom were likely just on the Caracas streets and curious to see what was going on.
The BBC must think this kind of misreporting is the way to maintain a gilt-edged reputation as a reliable news service. The sad truth is that reputation got tarnished many years ago and went to pieces in the shameless reporting the UK-based news organization did in the run-up to the Iraq war when it's entire news operation went into overdrive functioning as a state propaganda service.
But back to the Morsbach report in which he claims the so-called mass rally "filled the main avenues of the city center (and) was the biggest opposition rally Venezuela has seen since early 2004."
It may have been about the only one of any size seen, and it may have partially filled a single avenue, but as the actual photo shows, it thinned out dramatically quite fast after moving away from its core "mass." Correspondent Morsbach may be near-sighted and failed to notice. Surely on BBC pay he can afford new glasses to help him see more clearly so he can report more accurately in the future.
Morsback shamelessly continues: "Young and old (how could he tell even in a smallish-sized crowd) took to the streets to throw their weight behind the campaign of Mr. Rosales... Many claim they were seeking liberty and democracy (did he crash the crowd and interview them) and that made Mr. Rosales their only option."
Finally, at the end of the article, Morsback reported something factual, though hardly newsworthy: "For some (maybe most) it was simply a day out to enjoy the sunshine..." But he quickly reverted to the role he's paid to do as a propagandist claiming: "If Mr. Rosales can keep up this kind of pressure against his rival, the election results may not necessarily be a foregone conclusion."
Pressure?
The only kind he cites in his piece is Rosales' weak-kneed comments that Venezuela was "at (an unexplained) crossroads," and Mr. Chavez was "giving away Venezuela's oil wealth to foreign powers (absurd and false as anyone understanding ALBA knows)."
Morsback ends his piece on a high note though as he may have had a pang of conscience at the end of his otherwise shameless piece of black journalism.
* It forces him to admit that "Mr. Chavez still enjoys a clear lead in opinion polls because of a sense of loyalty that poor and working class voters feel toward him."
But Morsback's conscience pangs weren't strong enough to get him to try explaining why...
Stephen Lendman
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net * Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net -- also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com http://www.vheadline.com/lendman
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
The BBC was created to output State propaganda- whoops I've forgotten this again
12.10.2006 21:31
Hey look, I've realised the BBC is just a State propaganda tool!
Damn, what was that thought again?
Cold War
Hey look, I've realised the BBC is just a State propaganda tool!
Damn, what was that thought again?
Vietnam War
Hey look, I've realised the BBC is just a State propaganda tool!
Damn, what was that thought again?
Miner's Strike
Hey look, I've realised the BBC is just a State propaganda tool!
Damn, what was that thought again?
Kosovo War
Hey look, I've realised the BBC is just a State propaganda tool!
Damn, what was that thought again?
Iraq Invasion
Hey look, I've realised the BBC is just a State propaganda tool!
Damn, what was that thought again?
IS IT REQUIRED THAT MEMBERS OF THE LEFT HAVE THE MEMORY OF A GOLDFISH? Or perhaps, do the billions that the State is able to spend on controlling the thoughts of the population via formal education, and the mass media, actually serve a very real purpose?
May I make a humble suggestion to most of you. Next time you discover how easily an organisation like the BBC lies to you on behalf of your masters, write down that proof on a piece of paper, and stick it on the wall above your computer. DO ***NOT*** RELY ON YOUR BRAIN. The history of left-wing movements PROVES that most members DO have the memory of a goldfish, and spend most of their time parroting the current propaganda crap written for that purpose in the mind-poison mock-liberal rag of choice. There is no shame in being weaker than you would like. Their is a shame in letting others easily exploit that weakness.
twilight
is it memorex or is it ... ?
12.10.2006 23:28
That was a good one - full of laughs!! Thanks for that.
I suspect that it is less a goldfish memory however, and more of a willing gullibility that whatever it is the "authorities" (depending on how those are qualified - for many Brits, this would likely be male, white, middle class, with some experience therefore at least a middle aged father-type figure) have to say about a matter, then that is how that matter really is. Too many Brits and Americans (and it seems Australians and New Zealanders and Canadians - notice the colonial influence here?) seem to have internalised the father imago ... the ruling authoritarian figure ("Father knows best" for those whose memories extend to the 50's and 60's). The father figure is the leading luminary - what he says is the truth is the truth; what he claims is the best way forward is the best way forward. All too often, this gets confused with nation states and even corporations.
The swelling wave from Anglo-American rhetoric is that Daddy reckons that there are two naughty groups in the world: Iran and North Korea. The BBC of course will promulgate daddy's values and perspective uncritcally. In the process, it will bask in the light of Daddy's favour. When CEOs and the Board are beholden to serving the best interests of the share-holders, and when the production and dissemination of information becomes a corporate investment, one must - one MUST! - be suspicious of what is reported. That which is reported favourably must be in the best interests of the shareholders; that which isn't, transgresses or threatens the best interests of the stakeholders. In such a way, stakeholders (whose motivation is profit) will come to endorse that "news" that will serve the ends of the corporate interest, and will decry that which (potentially even) threatens it. In this way, obviously, the corporate self-interest is preserved and re-packaged (at a comfortable profit, I'm sure) to the consumer market as gospel ... or truth, at least. Uncritical and sycophantic the media industry will not alow anything to be printed that will disrupt its cozy empire with the power mongers: every performer needs an advertising executive, after all.
So the tide of hogwash continues to flood over us, and all too many of us take it seriously too. tsk tsk tsk. We just cannot do that to ourselves anymore: we have to quit swallowing everything that is spoonfed us. The media corporations are experts in spinning shit so that it looks like shinola, and can throw a lot of money at doing so in order to convince your five senses, and thereby reduce the grounds for your scepticism. This should not be an unfamiliar gambit.
So, from the shock and horror of the BBC's corruption and mainline political bias to the crap that is printed in the red tops to incur the attention of the working masses, we exist in a context of information warfare. It is our duty to be very cautious, very critical ... to at the very least, deconstruct whatever we hear in terms of the basic triad of: who speaks, who benefits from this argument winning, and what is gained?
As Sheldon Kopp once wrote: "All of the important battles are fought within oneself" - this is one of those battles. Good luck all. It is going to get pretty trippy!!!
dr jeckyl
The flip-side
13.10.2006 11:42
Right - so our correspondent above reckons it may have been more than 10,000 but the BBC is evil and corrupt because they say it's tens of thousands. Would love to find out from a third party what they made of the turn-out (guess it's like protests - average the organiser's inflated estimate against the police's under-estimate and you're somewhere close...)
As usual on this site, it's stated that the BBC is biased in one way, as if this is widely agreed fact, when there are plenty of other critics who see it the other way. A quick google reveals many who think the BBC is too pro-Chavez....
(Glad there's someone on the ground for Indymedia in Venezuela doing a head count, though)
Norville B