The Washington Post vs. Venezuela

When Diehl writes a particularly unsubstantiated column, the Post publishes his work on the right-hand side of the opinion page, thus minutely distancing his ravings from the official opinion of the paper.

Over the years, progressive Venezuela watchers have come to regard Jackson Diehl Op-Eds as a sounding board for the urban legends and gossip promoted by Venezuela’s well-connected opposition leaders--sort of a Page Six for anti-Chavez innuendo. His columns have given mainstream credence to the ideas that the democratically elected president is actually a dictator, that a media law banning explicit sex on television is an act of political censorship, and that important literacy and health care programs are nothing more than a cynical attempt to buy votes from Venezuela’s unwashed masses.

The power of a Post editorial is significant, and it is partly due to the work of Mr. Diehl that the storylines above, although easily refuted, have framed the discussion of Venezuela in the U.S. press.

Diehl’s propensity for not letting facts get in the way of an anti-Chavez rant have often drawn the man well-merited and well documented rebuke.

In the lead up to the 2004 recall referendum against Chavez, the Washington think tank Council On Hemispheric Affairs published a paper on the inaccuracies of Diehl’s coverage of Venezuela. “Shame on such a senior Washington Post figure,” COHA wrote, “for dousing Chávez with such flammable fuel which, if ignited, could further seriously undermine the U.S.’ professed intention to consolidate democracy throughout the hemisphere and destroy what little standing this country has today throughout the region.”

More
http://counterpunch.org/wingerter04182006.html