Oliver 2Nick OliverProfessor Abraham LSP 112 Final Paper20 March 2013An Improper Relationship of State and MediaThe death of a countries leader can spark a wave of questions that if answered incorrectly and with ease could pave a way of destruction of the country into the future. March 5th, 2013 has given Venezuela this wave of inquiry with the death of their President, Hugo Chavez. As a long standing President, Chavez has not had the most polished past that would make him praised throughout his people. With many discrepancies between Chavez and his people, the United States has been in the Venezuelan spotlight, in 2002, for all the wrong reasons. With President George W. Bush in office, his administration was accused of forming a coup in Venezuela to take out President Chavez. Along with the Bush Administrations actions, the New York Times played a major role in its bias reporting of the Administrations attempted takeover. I will describe how Americans were misled and thus oblivious to matters pertaining to their own government, as so often faulted by the Times and also how the United States were directly involved in the failed takeover of President Chavez rule by Venezuelan revolts. From a reader standpoint, it is hard to fathom how a large body of people, say former president George W. Bush and his administration, coincide with a firm that has a sole purpose of informing the public of local, state, national, and international news, such as New York Times. The Times has placed a large amount of devotion into the Bush Administration that even in the presence of false actions and covert operations to overthrow national leaders, would such a paper still follow and publish the wrong doings of our nations government. When the Bush Administration declared a military coup whose job was to overthrow President Chavez, the Times was quick to follow suit. It only took the newspaper two days to print their allegiance to the Administration and their take attempting to replace President Chavez. Following the tracks of the President Bush, the Times stated that President Chavez had resigned his position, but, however, Chavez returned to power three days after. The Times published an editorial saying that President Chavez has been a divisive and demagogic leaderthe reaction, which we shared, overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed (Friel and Falk). This statement by the Times not only followed the Bush Administration, but also their attempts to back track their comments (that paralleled the administration) and state an impartial proclamation that would correct their previous biased reports. Other suspicions the Times carried throughout this period regarding their connection to the Bush Administration was the Times reporting that the Chavez removal was purely Venezuelan affair. This statement directly links the popular paper to the Administration because, given an extensive history of U.S involvement in South America, how after only two days would the Times know about the Administrations involvement in Venezuela and if they had a hand in the coup operation or not (Friel and Falk). What is fascinating about the connection these two figures have is not only does the Times follow the Bush Administration and publish what they see at first sight and in many instances false, biased reporting, is when the Times is finds out they are openly wrong. In that case, it will not refer back to their incorrect reporting, yet, just report the corrected information without any acknowledgement of their previous prejudice statements and continue favoring the Bush Administration. This technique of writing greatly diminishes the New York Times as a credible source in journalism and creates false conflicting points to the public. Another valid point of how the Times pushed the Bush Administrations policies is exemplified in their description of newly placed Venezuelan president, Pedro Carmona. The Times described Carmona as a respected business leader. When placed in power, Carmona immediately dissembled the National Assembly and fired all the members of the Supreme Court. These two acts stirred a major uproar and caused Pedro Carmona to resign and flee the country (Friel and Falk). The words a respected business leader, must of come from a group of influential government officials who believed that this leader could portray more of the United States principles in Latin America. Quotes that the Times uses such as after Chavez resignation, Venezuelan democracy is no long threatened by a would-be dictator or that Chavez stepped down after the military intervened and handed the power to a respected business leader are two pieces that stress the partialities the New York Times had against the Chavez tenet (Coen). In its entirety, the Times lent its support to the coups in Venezuela whose mission was to overthrow President Chavez and inaccurately reported the resignation of President Chavez. Furthermore, the Times motioned that the coup was a victory for democracy and claimed that the Bush Administration had no ties to any Venezuelan coup (Friel and Falk). No newspaper, especially one that carries as much weight as the New York Times should be conveying such a story in a false pretense that favors anyone or anything to the populous. The New York Times misreported the United States covert operations in Venezuela not just once through small text, but multiple times in large editorials, which are exposed to large populations. Siding with the Bush Administration and reporting through their perspective only diminishes the papers credibility and their fulfillment in delivering the news. On April 11, 2002, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was overthrown by a collection of military officers, and the position was filled with Venezuelan businessman, Pedro Carmona. Three days later on April 13th, with mass protest and a military counter-coup, the rebellion was short lived and Hugo Chavez returned to power. Initially, the Bush Administration viewed the removal of President Chavez as a resignation and not actually a takeover of power (as did the New York Times reports). As President Chavez returned to his seat in power, it was clear that there was no sort of resignation of Chavez, but an attempt to take out the leader. The Bush Administration frowned upon Chavez, and they wanted him replaced by someone who could carry out more of a democratic approach and fulfill United States ideologies. Other notable causes that created friction between President Bush and President Chavez were acts that included, in 1999, changing the Venezuelan Constitution and an increase in land grants to the poor (who make up more than half of the 24 million citizens of Venezuela). Also, President Chavez restricted the US of flying over Venezuela during their military activities in Columbia and was the first head of state to visit Saddam Hussein in Iraq since embargoes in 1990 that would put the United States on ailing terms with President Chavez (Bush). With the United States having allegedly been behind the covert operation, many signs do point to its involvement being legitimate. First off, the Bush Administration met several times before the operation with those that would lead the coalition. In these meetings, officials agreed to have President Chavez removed from office as well as proceed with monetary funding to the coups. The United States fed thousands and thousands of dollars to American and Venezuelan groups who opposed President Chavez and also gave money to labor groups who led protest. The motives to all these were simple, oil and a chance to spread U.S democratic views (as will be explained later). With an extractable 300 billion barrels of crude oil available in Venezuela, this would alleviate some pressure of importing oil from the Middle East and thus alleviate U.S tensions with the Middle East. In The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy, the Inspector General Clark Kent, who was in charge of looking into the circumstances surrounding whether the Bush Administration supported anti-Chavez coupes, was questioned by Senator Christopher Dodd on the policy and actions during the weekend of April 12-14, 2002, when Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez was briefly ousted from power, and the six-month period preceding that weekend. This interview was an effort to uncover the U.S involvement in the covert operation but was shorthanded to an extent by the Inspector Generals attempt to cover up some of the U.S connection. Highlighting points in this interview (a) the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an agency created by congress (nonprofit), held funds totaling up to more than $877,000, that financed groups who opposed President Chavez; (b) the United States level of promoting democracy was at a low priority towards Venezuela, given that the country was already democratic and so the reason US sought to implicit democratic ideals in Venezuela seemed insignificant; (c) reports quoting a defense department official saying we were sending informal, subtle signals that we dont like this guy [Chavez]; (d) State Department and US embassy officials did meet on a constant basis and with almost every opposition segment involved in the coup; (d) since the US assistance and NED-funded programs, that went to individuals and groups that were planning to overthrow President Chavez, would have and did violate the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC). Because the United States Constitution establishes that all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land and thus by violating the OAS and IADC, the US dishonored its own Constitution and therefore US law. These five points are clear examples of the United States involvement in the attempt to take over President Chavez and in doing so, even went against their own constitution, making the Bush Administrations actions unlawful. The United States has grown to be diligent in its attempts to achieve policy issues, those that are publicly known and those that are in secrecy. The Bush Administration was so focused on flooding the world with democracy; a motive that has been carried on through previous Administrations, that it went to the extent of assisting a covert operation carried out by US funded, Venezuelan coupes in order to undermine President Chavez. The United States was not involved in the maneuver more for the future of Venezuela itself, but more importantly, for the future of our homeland and the quest to democracy and constitutionality. In the midst of the cold war, fear struck throughout the United States. The communist Russia was a never fading symbol of nuclear warfare about American citizens. Since then and even relevant today, the U.S government has made ample attempts to create a wave of democracy throughout the world and lay to rest the autocratic regimes of communism. The first major, public event conducted to prevent the spread of communism was the Vietnam War. By the late 1960s, the U.S had more than 500,000 troops throughout Vietnam in attempts to halt the spread of communism. The war was respected throughout the American public initially, but as the US grew more involved, opinions turned dramatically. A spur of riots and a new generation of peace spread throughout the U.S that placed the people against their own government. The Vietnam War was a clear example of U.S government involvement in other countries to apply democratic views and selfishly change a country for the sake of the United States, and not the respected country. Nonetheless, this same tactic was used in the attempted overthrow of President Chavez, but on a scale where it was considered covert and hidden from the American people. As worlds third largest oil producer in the world, Venezuela was a good reason for the Bush Administration to intervene in the attempted takeover of President Chavez. Chavez has had a diminishing view over the years prior to the covert operation from his own people due to a weakened economy (from falling oil prices and his economic policies). The population of Venezuela has been hurting from his rule, with 80% of Venezuelans considered poor. The United States portrays strong democratic views, as they should, but even to the extent of persuading and enforcing other countries to join democracy. With U.S involvement, not only could the Bush Administration embed someone who can turn the economy around, but put into action democratic policies that Chavez was leaving out. These policies would benefit Venezuela in their on-going struggle and also, and more importantly, keep the spread of democratic procedures in Latin America that would overall help the U.S in many aspects. Even in the aftermath of the failed coup attempt, President Bush stated, the leftist president who survived the threat must prove that he is a friend of democracy. Former President Bush was also quoted, It is very important for him [President Chavez] to embrace those institutions which are fundamental to democracy. It does not take much to make a realization that the Bush Administration was behind the coup from these quotes for President Bush himself. Another note to take away from these statements are that democracy was the key claim in the attempt to overthrow President Chavez. Even though the coup was a botched attempt, President Bush still encourages President Chavez and Latin America that democracy is the path into the future, democracy is the nonnegotiable demand of human dignity and was also quoted, the future of this hemisphere depends on the strength of three commitments: democracy, security and market-based development. (Anderson) The power of democracy has been strong through generations, and through administration after administration, because its built on strong values that the United States has proven successful, with a proven way of success. Through decades of war and turmoil, the United States is willing to prove to the world that its mission of promoting democracy throughout the world is a top priority. Proven in the U.S and many other countries, democracy is a system that gives the power to the people. It is a form of government where anyone has equal opportunity to hold office and an equal opportunity to have a voice on matters that effect the livelihood of individuals and families. The United States, through the decades, has proven the strength and stability of democracy and wants to share their success with the world. On September 18, 1851, Henry Jarvis Raymond and George Jones published their first paper, The New York Times. For the last 162, the Times has been growing a company that would become the leader in journalism and therefore, the most popular paper in world, with 1,317,100 papers each weekday and 1,781,100 papers each Sunday (2012 average). Also, with 108 Pulitzer Prizes and Citations, the Times are the leading paper for awards by far. The New York Time is based in New York City, with 6 offices in the New York area, 14 national offices, and a total of 26 international offices (About). Being placed on a national and international level, the Times has eyes and ears throughout the world, giving its readers breaking information. With their many accolades, it is has earned the credibility and trust of readers who seek to find the best journalistic writing. But with this much power in such a company, the connections from the New York Times and other sources grow as well. This growth could span outwards to our own government, where information is passed down and published without the reliable, truthful examination of whether it is true or not. The Bush Administration used the Times as a way of shaping the public opinion on the conditions occurring in Venezuela and the Times is just at fault as the Administration for evidently taking sides with the U.S government. This combination of political and media power has put acquitted Americans at fault. Having such an impact on the public, the Times has abused their power in working closely with the Bush Administration, where bias and prejudice has taken over. On April 12, 2001, the Times published that they supported the Venezuelan military coup that was attempting to overthrow President Chavez. In the same piece, the Times said President Chavez had resigned and Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator. These ideals were parallel with the Bush Administration, making the paper susceptible in failing to give honest and trustworthy information. By taking a stance with the Bush Administration, the Times gives its readers no other option than to believe with what is being said about the resignation and support for the military coups. The general American consensus is thus plagued by misreporting because just two days after, Hugo Chavez returned to power and the Times were caught in tie given they followed the Bush Administrations every word. With such a large scale of readership, the Times is able to effect a large population of readers and in result, sway public opinion to the right and away from just providing information and giving the choice to the reader. Another point where the Times misreported and led their readers in a wrong direction was in April 13th when they reported that the coup was strictly a Venezuelan affair. The U.S has had a long track record of immersion in Latin America making a Venezuelan affair seem impractical. Also worth noting is that the Times reported this just after two days of takeover making it prone to knowing that the Bush Administration was involved. That quote was intended to shy Americans away from believing the Bush Administration had any involvement in the coup and it was conducted precisely from Venezuelan coups. Again, leading readers into a misconception that the overthrow had no American connections. Readers have the right to establish their own thoughts about what they are reading, but the Times does not give that opportunity; strictly stating what is right and what is wrong. This false reporting, while curves the general attitude on the situation, also makes Americans oblivious to the truth. Americans are deserving of the truth when their tax dollars are funding Venezuelan coups and the Bush Administration and the New York Times are trying to cover the facts. In May of 2002, the leader of Venezuela was dismantled by Venezuelan coups, who believed democracy should be restored to an aching country plagued by Chavezs oppressing rule. With operations taking a turn for the worse, and Chavez regaining rule after just three days, fingers began pointing to the United States and their involvement in attempt of dismantling President Chavez. The collaboration of President Bushs administration and the New York Times was a joint connection that was held undisclosed during the time of exploit and after. Their participation in the attempted overthrow of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez not only put the Bush Administration in deep water, but also misled Americans because of the incorrect reporting from the Times. Americans deserve to get the truth from our government and the media. Any interference in either of these two fronts will disrupt public opinion on topics that deserve an honest, educated opinion.

Works Cited

"About the Company." The New York Times Company. The New York Times, n.d. Web. 05 Mar. 2013.Anderson, Nick. "Venezuela President Must Embrace Democracy, Bush Says." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 19 Apr. 2002. Web. 05 Mar. 2013."Bush Administration Behind Failed Military Coup in Venezuela - Project Censored | Project Censored." Project Censored. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Mar. 2013.Coen, Rachel. "U.S. Papers Hail Venezuelan Coup as Pro-Democracy Move." FAIR Fairness Accuracy In Reporting. N.p., 1 June 2002. Web. 04 Mar. 2013.Friel, Howard, and Richard Falk. The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy. London: Verso, 2004. Print.