Exchanges with Jon Snow on the Chavez report and interview

[johnwhilley]

A useful exchange with Jon Snow on the Channel 4 News report and interview with President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela (May 16 2006). My original letter is given first.

Dear Jon

I trust you’re well. I watched tonight’s Channel 4
News interview with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
with interest, noting numerous biased references and
loaded language in your report. I’d be grateful if
you could answer three specific questions for me.

1. You refer in the report to “Washington’s decision
yesterday to impose an arms embargo” against
Venezuela. This is followed by the claim that “Chavez
[has] threatened to use [Venezuelan oil] as a big
stick”. Why do you presume to employ the term
"impose" to describe Washington’s actions and "stick"
to describe how a legitimate, sovereign state uses its
own energy resources?

2. You ask President Chavez: “Why do you think people
outside Venezuela think that you are some kind of a
crazy guy?” I ask you candidly, would you, in all
honesty, ever ask Tony Blair, George Bush or others
directly associated with mass killing in Iraq why
people might think them “crazy”?

3. Chavez, of course, supplied you with the logical
answer to your question: it’s all part of the
concerted media campaign against him. You will, no
doubt, reason that your own questions were objective
and even handed. However, would you accept that the
very inference of such a question helps, in itself, to
perpetuate the slander and misrepresentation of
Chavez, a leader who, unlike Tony Blair, enjoys a huge
political mandate and global support?

Best regards
John Hilley
------------------------------------

John hilley your email is simply absurd..Chavez gave perfectly inteligible answers to perfectly acceptable questions. Why, whenever he gives the western media an interview, do people like you start trying to pick holes in his answers. Frankly you people who conspire aginst him need to think agin. He's democratically elected and more than capable of answering your rediculous acusations. Medialens is better than this. Best wishes, jon snow
-------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Jon for your reply.

Actually, I'm not "trying to pick holes in his answers", as you suggest, but drawing attention to the loaded language in your report (as with Jonathan Rugman's recent piece) and the obviously biased question you put to him about being seen as "crazy".

Again, as you seem to have avoided answering my question, would you ever consider asking Blair, Bush, Rice or others involved in the mass murder in Iraq the same question?

You also say: "Frankly you people who conspire aginst him need to think agin [sic]." I'm sorry to sound naive, but I haven't the remotest idea what this means. Could you explain, please?

Best regards
John Hilley

------------------------------

Quite simply that your tender concern for Mr Chavez survival in the Face of all these conspirators is misplace..he desires, even demainbds precisely the interview he got (I know that it show bias that I therefore obliged) he was hugely grateful (embarrassiungly so) to have had the opportunity to answer the questions. Thanks for your continued interest and support, much appreciated, best wishes as ever, jon snow

-----------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for that, Jon.

Yes, I’m sure Chavez was happy, even eager, to use the interview spot to get his arguments across. But that’s not the issue here, or the point of my letter.

As it happens, the interview and report with/on Chavez was not the worst piece I’ve noted. But the biased references are still there.

I note, again, that you have avoided my main question. So, I’ll ask it for the last time: would you, in such an interview, ask Blair, Bush, Rice or others involved in the Iraq disaster why they might be regarded by the public as “crazy”?

I would also like you to consider just how entrenched journalistic assumptions are when it comes to such reports and interviews; how much the liberal media assume neutral or deferential ways of speaking to western leaders, in contrast to the regular references to leftist ‘mavericks’ and ‘fiery’ 'Latin nightmare' leaders.

As Medialens have frequently noted, there is a distinct and reverential language reserved for western politicians, and a quite different one for those like Chavez, Ahmedinejad and others who refuse to conform to Western dictat.

Try, if you will, to reflect on how that loaded language helps form a picture, a set of impressions in the public mind. Your programme may think itself objective and impartial, but, as your “crazy” reference and the recent Rugman piece showed, Channel 4 News is also part of that process, contributing to a cumulative distortion of the Chavez leadership.

Best Regards
John Hilley
------------------------------------------------

Of course I would ask Blair or Bush if they were crazy..in any case its not me who thinks he's crazy..its Bush and Blair and the rest of them, I said as much and he was delighted for the chance to hit back.I have asked Blair the same question over Iraq several times..and as for the rest its simply isnt true..I have given far far tougher interviews to Blair in Britain Bolton in the US etc..you can because we speak the Same language..its much harder through a translator. God knows john there's enough wrong with the Uk media without making it up. I have to say that I think medialens uses an unnecessarily rightwing tone when it Addresses fellow hacks. ..so, I'll as it for the last time'..is just absurd. I used to be a big devotee of medialens but the stuff with chavez and indeed with the death toll in iraq has reduced you to the same level as those you attack...pity..it was good while it lasted. Best wishes, jon snow
------------------------------------------

Thanks Jon.

In particular, thanks for answering my question directly. I look forward to your next interview with Blair and to you asking him this specific question.

You note:

"I think medialens uses an unnecessarily rightwing tone when it addresses fellow hacks."

This is a very odd statement. Moreover, Medialens are not hacks/journalists, as such, but a community of people concerned to illustrate the bias and distortion prevalent within the liberal and corporate media. Neither do they speak with one voice. As with mine, there is a range of opinions stated at the site.

You further note:

"I used to be a big devotee of medialens but the stuff with chavez and indeed with the death toll in iraq has reduced you to the same level as those you attack"

You're obviously convinced about your programme's impartiality regarding Chavez. Again, maybe you should reflect on the Rugman piece. As regards the Iraq death toll (I presume you refer here to the IBC/Lancet debate), I think it predictable that you offer support for what many - epidemiologists and others - consider a deeply flawed project, massively underestimating the death toll and giving the government and pro-war lobby a propaganda tool. I wonder how Channel 4 News can justify that kind of distortion.

Best regards
John Hilley
-----------------------------------------

Well John I wouldn't be excercised but I can tell you candidly that I received a deluge of emails on both issues from people usiung almost exactly the same wording and terminology on the two issues as appeared in medialens. I answered everyone of them and discovered that almost none of them had actually seen the 'offending' material..some thouight the pieces had gone out weeks earlier or later than they had, some thought they weer documentaries when they were news pieces or vice-versa. In short they seemd to have been put up to it. Further their language was intemperate and rightwing in tone. It maybe that you discourage people who access medialens from doing this..or equally you may encourage them todo so. Either way I ergard it has a nasty rightwing method of setting about things. I never mind a dialogue with people who disagree with what I've done..but I hate bombardment from people who quite clearly havent a clue. I hope it wont happen again and that if it does you will actively dissociate yourself from it because it is indeed bringing you into disrepute with journalists who could be sympathetic to your aims.
-----------------

Thanks for that, Jon.

I'm still a little perplexed about your claims of readers/writers adopting a "rightwing" tone. It doesn't fit with my experience of what's posted at the ML board, either as e-mail correspondence or, in political tone - it's an obviously leftish site, after all.

I can't speak for other correspondents, other than to repeat the specific instructions of the ML editors to keep all mails civil, courteous and reasoned. I hope that, if nothing else, I've followed that code here in our exchange.

For me, the principal task is rational debate about social and political injustice, and the way the media form part of that process. We are, after all, not just talking about personal sensibilities here, important as they are, but of great global issues and, in the case of Iraq, the conscious sacrifice of human lives.

Anyway, Jon, thanks for the exchange. I hope you continue to read Medialens. In my opinion it serves a vital purpose in monitoring the liberal media and is a site frequented, in the main, by reasonable, humanistic people.

Good luck
John Hilley
------------------------------------------------

And another thing before I finally give up on medialens john if you think Channel 4 news has an interest in assisting the pro-war lobby youare actually certifiable..I mean for gods sake john if there's one cause upon which we have been disgracefuly consistant it's the bloody war..we have published more evidence of the anglo american culpability in this matter than any other mainstream television outlet in britain..it's stuff like that that discredits medialens..you could be so good if you only used your brains..but we've clearly lost that one. Best wishes, jon snow
-----------------

Hi Jon

I think Channel 4 News does deserve some credit for its war coverage, although there are many instances sitting in the ML archives of bias and misrepresentation.

My main point here concerns your apparent endorsement of Iraq Body Count. This debate has had ample exposure at the ML site and elsewhere. But it remains the case that their count, based primarily on western media outlets, provides a distorted picture of the true scale of death and suffering in Iraq. Can you, at least, recognise how use of that particular count/estimate offers a palliative for the warmongers and those seeking to rationalise the case for the invasion of Iraq?

I also regret to see you bordering on abusive language in your last response. As noted, it serves little purpose and only detracts from healthy, rational debate.

Best wishes
John Hilley

[joe emersberger]

Great job John. I think he clearly becomes abusive. He's also drearily preditable in saying that people who repond to medialens alerts do not think for themselves. It seems the salary of the media worker is inversly related to their ability to debate.

Snow certainly does not respond to EVERYONE who wrote to him about the use of IBC numbers. I asked him a simple, brief question about his use of IBC's numbers: Why doesn't he say that IBC concedes that their count is only half the actual number of deaths? I guess that was too difficult a question.

[Rob Byrne]

Wiithin this interview itself I thought Snow was fair enough, with one important exception. His last question "...alot of people think you are crazy...can you explain that ?". Of course what he ought to have said was "Some people, notably those in positions of privilege in Venezuela or their supporters in the US...think you are crazy...."..

So I'm left wondering if that was a deliberate ploy to leave a bad final impression in viewers minds..or just a slip of the toungue....

[johnwhilley]

Thanks Rob and Joe for the comments above.

Let me say something further here about Jon Snow’s question to Chavez:

“Why do you think people outside Venezuela think that you are some kind of a crazy guy?”

Snow defends his use of the question, thus:

“…in any case its not me who thinks he’s crazy..its Bush and Blair and the rest of them, I said as much and he [Chavez] was delighted for the chance to hit back.”

But this rather begs another question: what makes Jon Snow (and other media commentators) believe that Bush, Blair and others actually do see Chavez as crazy? My bet is that, on the contrary, they regard Chavez as a very thoughtful, rational, geopolitical player, holding a major oil asset, and, thus, a dangerous threat to the interests they represent. As Bush, Blair and others acutely see, both inside Venezuela and beyond, Chavez is not crazy, but a smart and worrying foe.

So, the point we have to consider is what type of assumptions liberal reporters like Snow hold not just about people like Chavez, but about those like Blair and Bush whose own actions, unlike those of Chavez, could arguably be seen as not just crazy, but psychopathic? And if such reporters are capable of hiding or misunderstanding this basic issue, what does it say about their own state of critical mind?

Herein lies, I think, some of the nuances of self delusion within the liberal media bubble. Despite their homage to ‘professional journalism’, such figures routinely employ a certain lingua franca for Chavez, Ahmadinejad et al (mavericks, renegade mullahs, Latin nightmares etc) and wonder, quite sincerely, how it could ever be construed as bias. Likewise, the more passive or deferential tone reserved for western leaders is regarded as inherently appropriate. Again, they wonder, how could that ever be seen as slanted or loaded?

This problem came across quite forcibly for me in watching Jonathan Rugman’s report on Chavez ¾ described by Pilger as one of the most disgraceful reports he had ever seen. That neither Rugman nor Snow can countenance the idea that Channel 4 News is capable of such selective distortion suggests not just a denial of intent, but a serious failure to grasp the reality of where they sit as acceptable mediators of information within the corporate media system.

Jon Snow’s claim that he is (or was) a “devotee” of Media Lens merely reinforces this self delusion. For if he did subscribe to what ML tirelessly say about the corporate media, he could not, like most ML readers, fail to see why he and Rugman were being criticised. Snow’s implicit endorsement of Iraq Body Count, above, is another such example not just of safe liberal propensities, but of a failure to see the reality of how the selection of such figures works as propaganda.

So, I suppose the real question in the end is, how much do they actually see, and how much do they seek to rationalise or deny what they see?

Best
John Hilley

[Rob Byrne]

Hi John,

Excellent analysis..and thanks for digging out the exact quote.

Of course when I say he should prefix his question with "Such and such a group think...." that would be the bare minimum of correctness. You are perfectly right to go beyond that and ask as you do that journaists with integrity should not accept that the powerful frame the structure of the discussion. For example in this case, by posing the question rahter as "You have been vilified and attacked by the media in Venezuela and by powerful interests outside Venezuela...why do you think that is ?".

A couple of things come to mind:
There is a clip in "Chavez: Inside the Coup" of Venezuelan tv where the commentator asks "Do you think Chavez is crazy ?". Snow seems to be echoing that line. In fact when he asked it you can see Chavez rollinghis eyes--it sounds like he is well used to this particular smear.

Chomsky in an interview said that the really annoying thing about slinging dirt is that it works. Dirt sticks so that even when there are good responses and replies to questions of that form it still leaves a tainted image in peoples minds as they consume the headlines and sound bites of the news media. So a responsible journalist would take that into account and avoid contributing to the smear effort;

[johnwhilley]

Thanks for that, Rob. I think you make some really insightful points here.

In particular, you note:


“Chomsky in an interview said that the really annoying thing about slinging dirt is that it works. Dirt sticks so that even when there are good responses and replies to questions of that form it still leaves a tainted image in peoples minds as they consume the headlines and sound bites of the news media. So a responsible journalist would take that into account and avoid contributing to the smear…”

This is one of the main points I put to Jon Snow. It’s the cumulative effect of the repeated smear, whether it’s stated as blanket demonisation in a report like Rugman’s, or in the type of inferred question posed by Snow. The latter is one of those ‘well, I just have to ask you what everyone else is thinking’ type of enquiries which serves to reinforce the myth and distortion.

I asked Jon Snow if he would ever ask Blair a similar question. He eventually responded that he would and, indeed, has done. This is news to me. More specifically, how many interviewers would be prepared to sit down with Blair, Bush, Gordon Brown, Condoleezza Rice and the many others who either initiated, directed or wrote the cheques for an illegal war, and ask them pointedly why people might regard them as war criminals? That the likelihood of such a fair question and just interrogation is so far off the radar tells us all we need to know about the forms of compliance which, as you note, prevail within the institutional media mindset.

Sometimes it’s staggering just to think of the sheer depth and scale of the distortion taking place here; that people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad can be so demonised while people directly responsible for mass killing are still treated as respectable, legitimate politicians going about their every day business. That the liberal media refuse to put a persistent case for their prosecution under the Nuremberg war crimes process is simply shameful. Any liberal media format, from Channel 4 or Newsnight interview to Guardian editorial, which participates, willingly, or without honest reflection, in such a lie, is surely complicit in that crime.


Best regards
John

[Raoul Djukanovic]

[Raoul Djukanovic]

While we're at it, here's another NYT story (which didn't make the Trib this time). Once again, it lays bare the reality as if it were of no consequence. And who said British papers were better than their U.S. counterparts? At least there are some serious nuggets embedded in the spin Stateside...

[Raoul Djukanovic]

Just to underline the point, here's a stinker from today's paper: