After
the New York Times was slammed for obscuring comedian Joanna
Hausmann’s family ties to the Guaido shadow regime, her
coup-plotting father appeared online to defend her with a stream of
insults.
by
Anya Parampil
When the
New York Times approached me seeking permission to use video I
recorded of the Washington DC “Hands Off Venezuela” protest on
March 16, I hoped that somebody at the paper was seeking to atone for
the Gray Lady’s demonstrably one-sided coverage of the US coup
attempt against the internationally recognized Maduro government.
Maybe, just maybe, the editors had had a rare bout of self-reflection
and decided to produce something that gave voice to the many
Americans who rejected the Trump administration’s brazen regime
change operation against Venezuela.
But on
April 1, I woke up to learn that my footage had been used to demonize
the protesters as useful idiots by a YouTube comedian born to one of
the family dynasties of Venezuela’s opposition.
The
comedian in question was Joanna Hausmann, and her appearance in the
supposed newspaper of record was far from funny. How could the paper
justify selecting Hausmann as an authoritative voice on the situation
in Venezuela when she was so closely connected to central players in
the Trump administration’s coup attempt? The answer is that it
couldn’t, so it simply neglected to mention her glaring conflict of
interest.
I took a
deep dive into Hausmann’s family history in a March 10th article
for MintPress, highlighting the role Joanna’s father,
Ricardo Hausmann, played in the neoliberalization of Venezuela’s
economy throughout the 1980s and ’90s as an academic and eventual
member of the repressive Carlos Andrés Pérez administration.
The
piece was inspired by Joanna Hausmann’s Youtube harangue, “What’s
Happening in Venezuela.” Despite promising “a video dedicated to
‘just the facts,’” Hausmann failed to mention that her father
was serving as a top advisor to Venezuelan opposition leader Juan
Guaidó while she argued in support of his self-declared
“presidency.”
Ricardo
Hausmann’s function within the coup government crystalized shortly
following the release of Joanna’s Youtube explainer, when Guaidó
selected the Harvard professor to represent his shadow regime at the
Inter-American Development Bank. The Times took no issue with
the fact Hausmann’s family stood to benefit from the same coup she
was urging viewers to support, and like Joanna herself, neglected to
disclose this ostensibly relevant information.
The
Times appeared to have underestimated the intelligence of its
viewers, and was subsequently bombarded with criticism for its
decision to obscure Hausmann’s background.
One
reader who described himself as “a Venezuelan, [who agrees] with
everything [Hausmann] has to say,” complained in the comments
section of the Hausmann video that the omission amounted to “an
ethical error,” arguing “it should be noted that her father has a
lot to gain politically and professionally should regime change
happen.” The comment forced a response from the segment’s
executive producer, Adam Ellick, who claimed that, while the Times
was “aware of her father’s biography before publication,” it
opted not to acknowledge it because “Ms. Hausmann is an independent
adult woman who has built a popular following on her own.”
Ellick’s
response failed to satisfy the commenter, who emphasized that “the
issue here isn’t one of independence, it’s one of shared
outcomes.” According to Ellick’s logic, it would be
journalistically ethical to ignore Ivanka Trump’s relation to the
President on the basis she is “an independent adult woman” with a
fashion line of her own. Does the Times actually think we are
stupid?
The
backlash against Joanna’s NYT debut grew so intense, it eventually
compelled her father to respond to the controversy. Following the
video’s release, I tweeted criticism of the paper for its failure
to disclose that “Hausmann is the daughter of Guaidó advisor
Ricardo Hausmann,” linking to my article which explained that he
“was instrumental in neoliberalizing and destroying Venezuela’s
economy in the 90s and wants to do it again.”
The
factual statement apparently outraged Professor Hausmann, who charged
that my “tweet surely deserves at least an honorary mention among
the year’s most sexist comments,” adding, “since Joanna is my
daughter, she is not entitled to her own opinion. She must be
speaking on behalf of some male figure that tells her what to say.
Seriously?”
Yes,
seriously! Joanna does not appear to have her “own opinion” —
she has precisely the same opinion as her father, who happens to be
participating in the very coup for which she was advocating. Yet even
if we accept the notion that Joanna formed opinions independent from
her father’s influence, the Times still had an ethical
obligation to disclose her family ties – especially considering
that Professor Hausmann is not her only relative actively working to
achieve regime change in Caracas.
Joanna’s
mother, Ana Julia Jatar, has worked for the US-funded Súmate
organization, which in 2004 tried and failed to oust President Hugo
Chávez via popular referendum. As I reported for MintPress,
Jatar hails from a political family herself.
Jatar’s
father, Braulio Jatar Dotti, was once described by an independent
Chilean news site “as having been ‘in charge of eliminating the
leftist groups’ in Venezuela” in the 1960s, as the government
sought to violently repress the armed Revolutionary Left Movement.
Jatar Dotti even published a manual called, “Disabling the Extreme
Left” in 1963. With her grandfather’s history in mind, it’s no
wonder that Joanna now spends her time attacking the US left for
organizing to oppose war on Venezuela. Apparently, the family that
attacks the left and fails to overthrow governments together stays
together.
While it
is important to understand the full extent to which regime change and
resentment of “the left” runs through Joanna Hausmann’s veins,
her father’s participation in the current coup alone should have
disqualified her to pose as a neutral voice on Venezuela. The Times’
decision to ignore her background is not only offensive to viewers,
but may have also violated the paper’s own ethics code. According
to that code, “staff members must be sensitive that perfectly
proper political activity by their spouses, family or companions may
nevertheless create conflicts of interest or the appearance of
conflict.” The Hausmann scandal undeniably created such a scenario
for the paper.
Joanna
has largely kept quiet amid the deluge of criticism, and is quick to
block those who question her. (She blocked me on Twitter after I
noted her father’s prominent role in the Guaidó shadow regime.)
Why a grown woman professing her total independence needed her father
to come to her defense should be a mystery, as RT Español reporter
Helena Villar observed.
One
Twitter user named Vanessa Salas, who describes herself as “a
personal friend” of Joanna, recommended that I “get to know”
the comedian before making “unfounded statements.” Salas insisted
that her pal was “SMART, THOUGHTFUL, and FEARLESS.” Indeed,
Joanna Hausmann was so fearless that she had to rely on her friends,
family, and an army of trolls to deflect from her wanton journalistic
malpractice.
Joanna
did eventually muster up one non-answer to critics. When a Twitter
user named @unnaband asked why she neglected to mention that her
“father was personally appointed by the very opposition leader”
she promoted in her video, the Youtube comedian hit back: “I am
proud of my dad.”
He is
surely proud of her too. And among the Times editors who
presided over her ethically dubious video rant, there appears to be
no shame.
Source,
links, tweets:
Comments
Post a Comment