Wall Street Journal Gives Hugo Chavez A Mixed Review -
by Stephen Lendman

In contrast to its one-sided stance on Hugo Chavez,
the June 16 Wall Street Journal had an interesting
article on US based activists in Boston, New York, San
Diego, Miami, Cincinnati and other cities around the
country forming Bolivarian Circles and other groups
supporting the Chavez government.  But it couldn’t do
it without taking its usual swipe at the Venezuelan
leader beginning with the front page article’s title:
Move Over Che: Chavez Is New Icon of Radical Chic.
That’s WSJ language intending to demean in its
headline rather than use a proper one to reflect what
their story was about.

It then used its opening paragraph (which many readers
never go beyond) to convey a flavor of invective
before getting into the heart of a story worth telling
but not without some slaps at Chavez interspersed
along the way.  It referred to the president’s “fiery”
rhetoric (never mentioning its honesty) saying it wins
him few friends in Washington while never explaining
the one place on earth Hugo Chavez will never have
friends in high places is in the nation’s capitol.  It
also accuses Chavez of becoming a “revolutionary hero
nearly on a par with Che Guevara and Fidel Castro,”
that he uses his nation’s oil riches to “prop up Mr.
Castro’s regime,” and that “His dream is to spread the
Venezuelan brand of socialism across Latin America.”

Journal writers are masters of half-truths and
distortion that goes along the the paper’s policy of
being hostile to any government not in line with the
neoliberal Washington Consensus (wreaking havoc
wherever it spreads) and not fully subservient to US
wishes.  Nothing in their article explains that the
Bolivarian Revolution is a true participatory
democracy where the people have a say in how the
country is governed; that the lives of the majority
poor have benefitted enormously by an impressive array
of essential social programs and services unimaginable
in the US; that Hugo Chavez aids his neighbors (Castro
included who aids Venezuela in return) and doesn’t
threaten war or sanctions against them; has no secret
prisons; no illegal political prisoners or illegal
detentions; doesn’t practice torture; doesn’t
ethnically cleanse neighborhoods to aid corporate
developers; and never suspended the constitution even
after a coup d’etat, mass street riots and a crippling
US-instigated oil lockout and shutdown.  It’s even
working to clean up and change a many decade-long
legacy and systemic climate of corruption and
inefficient state bureaucracy and is making slow
progress against great odds that would challenge any
leader. 

When it comes to reporting even a good story about
Hugo Chavez, the Journal has to ruin it by taking
their usual jabs and getting their facts wrong in the
process.  It went on to claim a “darker side” in the
Bolivarian circles within Venezuela stating they help
the “government identify opponents, who are then
denied remedial education and other government
services.”  It reported this was what two US academics
found in a study they conducted that may have been
funded by the Bush administration to report results in
line with its own policy and rhetoric.  Bush officials
also may have bought off some so-called “Human rights
groups” which the Journal writer says claim Chavez is
“dangerously centralizing (his) power, emasculating
Venezuela’s judiciary and threatening press freedom.”
It sounds more like those groups were misquoted and
are talking instead about what’s happening inside the
US as the Bush administration consolidates its power,
is systematically stripping away sacred constitutional
freedoms and is moving the country dangerously closer
to a full-blown police state.  Hugo Chavez is doing
just the opposite in Venezuela, but you won’t learn
that on the pages of the Wall Street Journal or from
their so-called sources.

Nonetheless, the Journal reported an inspiring story
of ordinary US citizens wanting to spread the message
of what, if fact, is happening in Venezuela.  It’s
heartening to learn about groups forming around the
country that hopefully may grow in size and whose
activities may be able to counter the hostile
commentary from high level US officials and the
complicit and stenographic corporate media.  It’s
quite surprising to read on the front page of the WSJ
a quote many in the US would agree with, but we’d
never expect to see it in print in any major US
newspaper.  It’s by a Chavez supporter in Olympia, WA
who says “My political belief is that the US is a
horrendous empire that needs to end.”  Another
supporter said he formed an Oregon Bolivarian Circle
because of his outrage over the 2002 US led failed
coup against the Venezuelan leader.  He went on to
explain he and his Venezuelan-born wife make annual
trips to the country and are impressed by Chavez’s
efforts to provide (free) health care and education
for the poor (who never had it before he was elected).
He then added that he “couldn’t understand why the US
press didn’t see it his way,” so he and others in his
Circle began to sponsor pro-Chavez movies, college
lectures and rallies.  This gentleman actually
appeared on one of President Chavez’s five hour Sunday
call-in television programs “Alo Presidente” and was
called “brother” by the president.

The Journal went on to report on other groups
including one in Philadelphia that has produced three
pro-Chavez videos including one about supportive oil
workers who helped the state-owned oil company keep
operating despite a crippling anti-Chavez strike that
began in December, 2002.  It also explained that the
US based groups get no funding from the Venezuelan
government and instead operate strictly on their own
and do it to “help us counteract the campaign that
there isn’t freedom of expression in Venezuela,”
according to the country’s US ambassador Bernado
Alverez.

Overall, the Journal today was unusual in that it was
both in and out of character in the way it reports on
the Chavez government.  On the one hand, it showed
Hugo Chavez has loyal supporters inside the US working
to spread the truth about his government and
Bolivarian Revolution.  But at the same time, the
flavor of invective was strong, in line with the
Journal’s usual one-sided stance, and it ended up
spoiling what otherwise would have been a fine effort.
Wouldn’t it be nice if one day the WSJ doffed its
empire-friendly garb and told it like it is, fully and
honestly.  Apparently that’s too much to expect from
the newspaper of record for corporate America that
never lets the truth get in the way of their one-sided
support for the US empire and interests of capital.
In spite of it, the spirit of the glorious Bolivarian
Revolution is uplifting and inspiring.  It’s powerful,
spreading and in the end won’t be derailed by Journal
writers or other enemies of those on the side of
social equity and justice.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  Also visit his blog
site at sjlendman.blogspot.com