Independent
media outlets tend to pose alternative viewpoints that conflict with
the narratives espoused by mainstream media. But when it comes to
Venezuela, whose socialist government is in danger of being
overthrown, they are parroting the mainstream line or ignoring the
issue altogether.
by
Whitney Webb
Part
3 - Zero Hedge’s flawed coverage of Venezuela
Despite the
clear similarities between Venezuela and other victims or would-be
victims of U.S. regime change, some alternative media sites refuse to
even report on the U.S.’ role in destabilizing Venezuela, instead
blaming “socialism” for all of the country’s ills. This,
incidentally, is the very same pro-regime change stance taken by U.S.
mainstream media and the U.S. government.
One
consistent example is Zero Hedge, a respected news aggregation site
in alternative media with a focus on finance and libertarian
politics. Though Zero Hedge has never hesitated to point out U.S.
regime change meddling in countries like Syria, Ukraine, Libya,
Honduras and others, it flat out denies the other forces that have
clearly had a significant role in shaping Venezuela’s current
crisis.
Zero Hedge
is often accurate in its analysis of why certain economic crises have
begun, yet it claims that the problems of Venezuela’s oil sector
are due to “mismanagement, a lack of investment and
re-nationalization of foreign oil companies,” without mention
of the artificial manipulation of oil prices that Zero Hedge has
acknowledged was carried out covertly by the U.S. and the Saudis for
geopolitical reasons.
This
assessment suggests that Venezuela’s economic problems, with
relation to the economy’s main driver (oil), are the sole fault of
the Chavista government. While these factors have certainly played a
role, the drastic decline in oil prices cannot be ignored in good
conscience.
However,
Zero Hedge has done just that, blaming all of Venezuela’s problems
on its embrace of socialism and ignoring other factors that could
debunk the “failed socialist state” narrative. It has even
scoffed at the idea that the U.S. would orchestrate a coup against
Maduro, despite the fact that the U.S. has targeted the Chavista
government in the past, most notably in 2002.
In addition,
one of Zero Hedge’s most recent articles on Venezuela began with
the following: “Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has made it
clear: Nothing short of the invasion threatened by President Donald
Trump will stop him from holding a vote on a new constituent assembly
that will officially replace the country’s legislature and likely
allow the embattled president to rewrite the country’s
Constitution, cementing his grip on power.”
This
assessment, however, is inaccurate and buys into the depiction of
Maduro as a “power hungry” president “cementing his grip on
power” at all costs. Maduro is actually authorized by Venezuela’s
current constitution to call for a National Constituent Assembly. On
the other hand, the assembly would not replace the
opposition-controlled legislature, as it is tasked solely with
authoring a national constitution. This claim comes exclusively from
the Venezuelan opposition, who are so opposed to the Assembly that
they refused to participate in it, allowing Western media to suggest
that only the ruling Chavista party would “hand-pick” the
assembly’s membership.
Source,
links:
Comments
Post a Comment