Chavez and the BBC

Here below my email exchange with Mr Painter of BBC RE: his article ”Latin America faces year of change” (BBC NEWS website, Thursday, 24 November 2005)

Dear James Painter,

In your article ”Latin America faces year of change” (BBC NEWS website, Thursday, 24 November 2005), you write:

“Will it be of the President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela variety or of the moderate President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil variety?”

Could you please be so kind to explain what you mean? Which kind of “variety” President Hugo Chavez is in your opinion?

In your article, you also write:

“Mr Chavez is a "21st-Century socialist", who is strongly anti-US and anti-private sector (since the beginning of 2005), and enjoys close ties with Cuba and Iran.”

As far as I know, Mr Chavez is not “strongly anti-US” as you write. He certainly is strongly anti-US Bush government. You will agree with me that there is quite a difference, won’t you? As a matter of fact, he has many friends and admirers in the United States where in many sectors of the population his popularity is much higher than Mr Bush’s. This might also depend on Venezuela’s Government’s help to poor US communities with, for example, providing cheap oil. Didn’t you know that?

Also, you write that Mr Chavez is “strongly [...] anti-private sector”. I think you should have informed your readers that 1) this is not a crime; 2) thanks to his policies, Mr Chavez is fighting poverty and illiteracy. And with great results indeed.

Finally, you write that Mr Chavez “enjoys close ties with Cuba and Iran”. My question here is: So, what? Why shouldn’t he? The Nobel Prize Gabriel Garcia Marquez is a close friend of Fidel Castro. Even the late Pope visited Cuba and was very well received. So, what? Since Venezuela and Iran are part of the OPEC, I think it’s quite normal to have “close ties” between the two countries. Do you have any reason to think otherwise? Please, let me know.

I would be really interested to know your thoughts about the points I wrote above.

Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

-----

Dear Ms Zamparini,

Many thanks indeed for your email re the article on elections coming up in Latin America.

I agree with your point about Mr Chavez not being anti-American but anti-Bush. The article has been changed. I am fully aware of his plans to distribute cheap oil to poor communities in the USA, and we have reported it widely. The focus of this article was on forthcoming elections and not President Chavez, so we could not mention everything he was doing.

Our job at the BBC is to try and report things as we understand them without taking sides. So it is not up to us to comment on whether being anti-private sector is a good thing or a bad thing. We have certainly published several articles on Chavez's desire to push through reforms for the poor.

Likewise, we do not comment on whether it is a good or bad thing to have close links with Cuba and Iran. Many of his opponents would of course think it is a bad thing, you think it is a good thing. We try to be impartial, and let the reader decide.

In that context, it may be worth adding that the 'variety' of President Chavez does include such close relations, while the 'variety' of President Lula does not.

Thanks again for your comments,

Yours sincerely,

-----

Dear Mr Painter,

Thank you for your reply. It’s not easy to get any reply at all from mainstream media on these days and I do appreciate your extensive explanation.

I am happy you agree that calling Mr Chavez “anti-US” was not correct. Thank you for changing it.

However, I still have serious concerns about what you write. I won’t get much of your time and I would appreciate if you could explain me the following.

In your article you write:

“Mr Chavez is a "21st-Century socialist", who is strongly anti-US [corrected to: anti-President Bush] and anti-private sector (since the beginning of 2005), and enjoys close ties with Cuba and Iran.”

In your email you write:

“we do not comment on whether it is a good or bad thing to have close links with Cuba and Iran. Many of his opponents would of course think it is a bad thing, you think it is a good thing. We try to be impartial, and let the reader decide.”

The problem is not what I think. (By the way, you have just ‘labeled’ me without even knowing my thought.) I just think that “close ties with Cuba and Iran” is neither a good or a bad thing, for the reasons I tried to write in my previous email. I wonder why you wrote those words in that context though. Why didn’t you write “close ties with Spain, Italy and Japan”? The reason can’t be to compare Mr Chavez to Mr Lula, since Mr Lula does have close ties with Cuba and Iran, likewise with Spain, Italy and Japan. The same is true for Mr Chavez. So, why did you choose those two countries? In your email you write:

“Many of his opponents would of course think it is a bad thing”

I am asking you: the reason you wrote those two countries and not others, couldn’t it be that you were thinking what “Many of his opponents would of course think” ?

In your email, you also write:

“Our job at the BBC is to try and report things as we understand them without taking sides. So it is not up to us to comment on whether being anti-private sector is a good thing or a bad thing.”

That’s right: it is not up to the BBC “to comment on whether being anti-private sector is a good thing or a bad thing.” We agree on this part. But you could have written: “who is strongly (...) pro-welfare” or “who is strongly (...) pro-public sector”. But you chose to focus not on ‘what Mr Chavez is’ but on ‘what Mr Chavez is not’. Why? Again, couldn’t it be that you were thinking what “Many of his opponents would of course think” ?

The problem is that that paragraph is just built to project a negative shadow on Mr Chavez. Let alone that that paragraph is followed by this one:

“Mr Lula, on the other hand, is fiscally cautious and market friendly, pursues macro-economic stability, tries to help the poor within that model, and is a serious negotiator on the world stage.”

The keywords here are: “on the other hand”.

The words “on the other hand” assume that Mr Chavez is nothing of what you write Mr Lula is. I would like to call your attention just on the last thing you write Mr Lula is (and Mr Chavez - in your opinion - is not): “a serious negotiator on the world stage.” What do you mean? You mean that being critical of the World Bank and the IMF is lack of seriousness? If you think this – as it seems from your writing – you (and the BBC) do “comment on whether being anti-private sector is a good thing or a bad thing”. Why? Again, couldn’t it be that you were thinking what “Many of his opponents would of course think” ?

Thank you for your kind attention and I look forward to reading your reply.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini