Centerfield

That explanation doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, since it's not just the amount but the tone of the coverage. Maybe the Economist voices the appropriate concern, but my impression of coverage of Chavez is that it's generally neutral to positive: accounts of some Hollywood nitwit or other's giving Chavez a photo op, uncritically passing on Chavez's diatribes against Bush and the US, thumb-suckers that regard resurgent leftism in South America as a generally hopeful sign.

And since when has Big Media looked at itself as an arm of American foreign policy, so that it covers things in more depth where it can help the Administration (let alone the Bush Administration) advance its policy aims? Big Media's role in the pressure-cooker may be important (I have my doubts about how much Musharraf cares what the NYT says about him), but that can't be an explanation of how it chooses its stories, can it?

Doesn't Venezuela have a better chance having been at one time and for a considerable period self governing?

It looks to me that the idiot media frames its coverage on: helps Bush, hurts Bush. Advances the cause of socialism - retards same. etc.

Some comments.

First, the present spin in media over Pakistan reveals some interesting journalistic tactics. Musharraf is painted as a failed dictator diverting attention away from his second coup with terrorism. The Left media reports he hasn't defeated AQ and that his real enemy seems to be the majority of Pakistanis that want Constitutional Democracy. They have the script despite the Daily Show appearance. This is however, a mischaracterization. He is facing serious militancy from regions that are difficult to over-power. He has escaped death repeatedly. Most Pakistanis think OBL is a hero and their present lamentations over suspended Liberty is a ruse by most who simply want to impose Sharia Law. Remember how Democrats laughed at the results of other Middle Eastern elections? Numerous media outlet play up the risk of loose nukes (CBS and others) while most security firms regard Musharraf's nuclear security rather tight and the dangers long term. Again, the media points to Taliban/AQ take-over of Pakistani regions as "proof" that Musharraf does nothing at the same time depicting a large majority simply deprived of Liberal Democracy.

The idea that Bhutto could just return and stroll up the street with tens of thousands free of terrorist attack is absurd. What was she thinking? Although she claims AQ Khan is still in business and some in the Pakistani government want her dead, another truth is missed. Clinton ordered Sharif (who was then Pakistan's President and who hates Bhutto) to arrest Musharraf for escalating nuclear tension over Kashmir as a wayward General. Note that Reagan had warned Pakistan in '83 that the Israelis and Indians were planning to take out the Pakistani nuclear reactor. Would Hillary have done that? That probably would have been a good move. More than a decade later, Clinton demanded Sharif do something about a nuclear Musharraf AND OBL. Bill flew secretly into Pakistan to talk with Sharif.

Well, Sharif tried to arrest Musharraf and the rest is history. It would have been hard for Bill to work with Musharraf and there seems to be some residual malice left over. What leverage will Hillary offer that Bush can't? Bush was more forceful with Musharraf and Pakistan has been a significant partner in counter-terrorism. The difficulty he faces is real though I am not praising his complete history. Bush did help to defuse tensions with India.

The media suggests Musharraf should walk away, but Bhutto isn't the glue that can hold Pakistan together by herself. A bomb would end her run if she tries to interrogate or confine AQ Khan who is more a national hero than herself. The Democrats seem to fixate on Pakistan because it somehow "proves" Iraq should be abandoned. It somehow "proves" that Bush doesn't care about dictatorship (hey, remember Iraq?) and that he has made the world more dangerous by risking nukes in AQ hands by supporting Musharraf. The Bush position is being assailed as a fiasco without any real suggestions to alter policy save cutting off funds (an Armenian move). Again, media laments but offers little suggestions.

Part of the problem has been Afghanistan. The Democrats applauded as the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban with US help. Now they are stock piling weapons as Kabul negotiates with the Taliban who are making some progress against NATO and Afghani forces. Isn't this a talk with your enemy approach? Why has media not explored this myth of negotiation from weakness? Negotiating has hailed a new push of terrorism by the Taliban. And let's be real. Much of the anti-war wing is opposed to our being in Afghanistan. The international effort to stabilize it is pathetic. Democrats have suggested more troops to go after AQ into Pakistan, but large scale forces by the US are not on the table nor should they be. The success in Afghanistan, an issue with the media only as it is used to bash Bush, is the world's responsibility as AQ in Pakistan is enabled by the general success through the region. China supplies many weapons and few want to take any role in peacekeeping. Where is the media outcry for such dangerous apathy? The more the Taliban get the Northern Alliance to retreat from national defense to protect themselves, the more Southern Afghanistan suffers militant advance and the more Pakistani militants are inspired. This is not Musharraf's or Bush's responsibility, but the media seems intent on making both responsible somehow for the crisis. A fair read would at least explain what Musharraf is really facing. A fair read would see the failure in Afghanistan helping AQ. The media failure to see how AQ is defeated and the kind of effort it requires is glaring. Democrats are not about to suggest we do in Afghanistan what we are doing in Iraq to destroy AQ. No serious Democrat suggests we should launch a ground war into Pakistan to bring order and an end to OBL. Iran would be delighted.

The need to spin the Middle East seems clear. Media does not want to direct attention to Myanmar, Sudan or our South. Chavez is harmless, so they think. This is related to the silence over Belarus, Putin, Iran and Syria. These are just issues that would disrupt the media agenda of painting Bush history. There is plenty we could do to counter the growing influence of Chavez. Iran is far more dangerous than AQ, who will not likely get a nuke anytime soon. Ahmadinejad is waiting patiently, expecting an Israeli attack. The world cries out against this imagining the hordes of Democratic citizens wanting to embrace the West. By the time that happens, Yemen will be running a nuke plant.

The world might be more interested in Musharraf or Iraq, but Syria, Iran and their proxies are calculating and patient. Offshoots of AQ are appearing globally to serve the extremist cause. They will end up connected to Dictator Chavez.

In short the media is playing a game. Calling for investment in Syria one moment and then silence as secret nuclear facilities surface. They tout investment in Kurdistan and are silent over the Armenian resolution. Turkey has soldiers on the ground fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. They select according to the partisan script, filtering what they can to stay on point.

History will show they did this at their own peril, or that of their readers. Hollywood loves Chavez and hates just about every leader that has worked with Bush. They are already after Sarkosy, while Putin moves unscathed. They slam Israel while Ahmadinejad gets many free passes. They question India and Turkey while Assad and Hizb'Allah are ignored. They ignore human rights abuses as they deplore Musharraf and the IDF. They blast Bush while China cranks out the weapons and CO2 as it buys up all the resources it can.

Not a pretty picture of a media whose purpose is to inform its public. Nor is it a nice picture of our collective intelligence.

OK, I checked a couple of quasirandom recent news stories about Chavez and, yeah, they somehow managed to miss that the nice constitional reform is the end of democracy there. I'll concede that Chavez coverage is terrible.

And since when has Big Media looked at itself as an arm of American foreign policy,

...they aren't, of course. It's case of converging interests. It's in the gummint's interest to have more democracies around, and it's in the press interest to play up the drama around Musharraf's troubles for eyeballs. The same thing happened when Marcos fell.

Doesn't Venezuela have a better chance having been at one time and for a considerable period self governing?

The issue is about RIGHT NOW, not long term. Chavez has long ago subdued his internal opposition. If he was going to lose him grip, I think it would've happened a long time ago, like when the referendum arose. That's why he waited til now to shred his constitution. Musharraf, on the other hand, faces a moment of clear weakness, and is particularly vulnerable because American support is one rhetorical prop he's been using.

Max, I think theocracy AT THIS PARTICULAR MOMENT is unlikely. Keep some factors in mind: First, theocracy is never as popular as secular dictators make it sound. BB DID get her crowds on top of that explosion. BB's, Sharif's, and the justice' and lawyers' bravery have surely been raising democratic popularity. Finally, worst comes to worst, Musharraf's successor running the military is secular himself,

To add to my comments, please have a look at this Jon.

It confirms the media slant regarding Musharraf. Chavez's opposition is real and Democratic. There is a longer history there. In Pakistan, most of the opposition is clearly lying about Democracy. Again, you see the media silence over Chavez when people there have a good sense of liberty. Chavez is a real dictator and has cracked down internally, but his lies are not exposed. In Pakistan, the world press is playing a dangerous game as my link suggests. The media reporting of the Middle East is distorted to the point where Americans think there is a ground swell of Pakistanis begging for Democracy against the evil Musharraf. The truth is far from that reporting and that Musharraf is in fact a liberal guy (not that I agree with his entire history). Why you think theocracy in Pakistan is not possible, or a split in the military and the eventual changing on nuclear hands, I am not certain. In Chavez, we see a real Castro-type dictator giving cover for Putin, Assad, Ahmadinejad and eventually other dangers while his people who are well versed in Democracy get little press in the West. The implications for both situations could be very serious over time.

Again, the Western Media supports investment and even promotes the Dallas-based effort to supply Yemen with nuclear power. Is this smart? More to the point: as bombs go off in Yemen, certain opposition leaders champion Democracy to the Western Press. How twisted is reporting that looks no deeper than false words and finds duplicity in almost every US declaration? Media under-reports dangers in Yemen and the foolishness now to promote nuclear reactors while giving support to "democratic" calls by illiberal opposition leaders? It ignores what Hizb'Allah is doing in defiance of the UN. It doesn't comment on Iran's insulting attack on the UN as it hails 3,000 centrifuges. Notice the few reports of Chavez gassing protestors, but the coverage of militant protests over Musharraf's suspension of the very liberty they seek to repeal?

I am not sure Jefferson would agree that the people who fight Chavez are less liberal at heart than those calling Musharraf an enemy of liberty. This is media spin actually diverting from sound foreign policy. It plays to polls, but runs extreme dangers in perverting our self-interest at a critical juncture.

This is another great example. Remember the West pushing back Saddam's invasion? Is this how friends of Democracy talk about the US? It is clear that while many seek to enjoy the liberty of Democracy, a large sector use their liberty to call for our conversion or defeat. Your thread asked some interesting questions and I think it is clear that in an effort to attack what media thinks is dictatorship, it hides an important truth and subverts our national interest as well as that of Liberal Democracy. One almost wishes we let Saddam round up more of these people before we removed him. Then there would be fewer who return our sacrifice with their illiberal and threatening ideals. In this case, supporting OBL and the idea of converting us to their extremist understanding of Islam or killing us. Ap and others would promote these people as defenders of Democracy and Liberty? In Biszaro world maybe. Also note that the Counterterrorism blog received the NYT high praise for 2006 reporting. Now that's strange, yes?

Hope you don't mind Jon, but here is another pro-West leader under pressure. There isn't much talk from US media about Russian activity in Georgia or the Russian missile attack some months ago. Russia also suspends conventional arms agreement not ratified by NATO because of Russian troops in Georgia.

Sarkozy gets a standing ovation in Congress. Democrats applaud his position on Iran? I mention these items because there is much going on in the world which suggests 1. media reporting sucks and 2. Pro-West leaders are under assault. I suppose the Democrats will blame Bush.

Bhutto gives Musharraf an ultimatum to lift emergency rule and promises a "long march" to protest. That is a march certain to get hit by the militants Bhutto says she will fight. It is rather absurd as Bhutto does not represent the majority of Pakistanis. How many will die attending her march which will incite more mania against Musharraf while extremists expand their range? The media continues to frame all of this in a pro-Democracy movement which it is not. In fact, I suspect many out to protest are trying to draw Pakistani troops away from combating the extremists who have used the unrest to take hold of areas in SWAT.

Increased tension between Europe and Russia may freeze efforts to send more troops to Afghanistan. The media is certainly not looking at the big picture though European media is worried about events and have not really hailed Bush as the cause behind problems. There is little US media comment about Interpol placing Iranian nationals on their warrant list for terrorism in Argentina or the fact that Iran now has as many centrifuges running that Pakistan had when they made their first nuclear weapon of which there are now 24 -100.

I'm dying to hear what the Democratic candidates have to say about world events. Right now they are very silent. If Israel decides to strike Iran after the Middle East conference hitting their heavy water and two other major nuke sites, I wonder where the candidates will stand or what the fallout will be. What deals are being made now between Pakistan, Turkey, China and others regarding a possible Iranian strike and the unknown aftermath? My guess is T-minus 10 months and counting and I'm not all that confident about the wizards in charge.

Congress decides to combat Taliban and stabilize Pakistan

Just kidding. Does Congress miss the effect of weakness in Afghanistan with events in Pakistan? Hillary where are you on this one? Given the focus on Musharraf's problems is it rational for Congress to hamper proven gains in Iraq and stem the bleeding in Afghanistan? Tell me how this makes sense....

Perhaps this is what it takes to get AP's attention.

I don't believe Musharraf had guman fire at the protesting crowd. Musharraf is at least concerned what the West thinks or knows he doesn't have them in their pocket with nukes the way Chavez has them with oil. And there were too many lawyers and journalists like ABC which ran a news report tonight about "who is protesting against Musharraf". I don't think the lawyers really represent the anti-Musharraf street at the moment nor do I think a large crowd of lawyers calling Chavez a "dog" would be interviewed on the street by ABC. Maybe they should try to interview those in SWAT.

AP has been running many reports about Pakistan for weeks. I think about the same amount of reporting has appeared in the top headlines regarding Chavez the entire year. As opposed to the majority in Pakistan who hail OBL, students in Iran and Venezuela who really are calling for liberty should be the ones getting Free Press attention. I remember several months ago where Western media actually waivered on Chavez's closing TV stations becuase said TV hadn't followed "established rules of reporting". choke...choke...Not many tears over Putin's score card with journalists. Didn't someone die from a nuclear "hit" traced back to Russian intelligence services? I notice a rift growing between European mainstream reporting and those organs slanted towards US and English consumption.

When one American soldier goes down anywhere around the world, we French remember who saved us, was the gist of Sarkozy's speech to the Congress. The reason he got such an resounding applause (more than for anything else in the last several years) was that SOMEONE in that chamber for a change who was not a canned American political hack, struck a nerve and reminded the friggin Congress what the hell our soldiers and country's sacrifice was and still is all about. So they all rose to there feet shaken from their cobwebs abd triangulations and cheered. However, as he promised to stand with us in Afghanistan, Congress cut the funding from a defense bill slated for our troops fighting the Taliban (see above link).

Have I conflated enough here to make the point that liberty is key South of our border (a very important sphere)? Is it any wonder why millions stream across our border? Amazon cycles 24% of the earth's water. Chavez wants pipes to transport his influence, right across the Amazon. Is there a case that the distortion in reporting about Chavez (and to a certain degree all our "true" enemies and adversaries) as compared to reporting on all those linked in a negitive way from media's view, deserve the top focus which I have also shown excludes, distorts, fails to dig deeper, mischaracterizes etc.

Simon has a post at SF which linked up some recent polling data Newt has collected as part of his conversation with America. It appears more than 80% of Americans regard Iran as a serious or very serious threat. I believe that is more than for AQ and twice that of China. Chavez isn't even on Newt's list (not that I skimmed).

Some of the shift in media focus has to do with dampening the Iranian question. I am not sure that is media's role. European outlets are not quite as loath to discuss the possible. Given Hillary's support of the Israeli strike on Syria, perhaps she should read this. I am not sure she can afford to ignore this until the primaries are over. I hope she is more prepared for events than she was for a question about driver licenses. It is getting to crunch time as Roberterson throws support for Rudy based largely on his position against mounting threats. With the media pushing Hillary, the general election might as well begin.

Interesting new blog discusses Pakistan among other items

Lets take some times to examine the facts.

1. Chavez has been elected, repeatedly, and those elections have been certified as free & fair.

2. Chavez has not declared martial law or nor does he arrest scores of protesters & opposition leaders.

3. This referendum that would allow for unlimited reelection is going to be voted upon...thats the very essence of democracy. How can you claim Chavez is undemocratic?

The referendum also contains an item concerning state of emergency, which allows various rights to ignored. This is troublesome, but if you notice the president of the United States already has these powers to detain & torture terrorists/enemies of the state at will.

Other items in the referendum include lowering the voting age to 16, anti-discrimination legislation for sexuality & also health, and a guaranteed percentage of the national budget for community/local governments.

Let me underscore this point: people get to VOTE on these items. When is the last time Pakistanis got to vote on something meaningful?

4. So, does Chavez run a highly centralized and powerful government? Yes. But nearly all presidencies in Latin America are like that. The President of Brazil even rules by decree. Is Chavez anti-democratic? No way.

You can argue Chavez's policies (I disagree with many of them), but to claim he is an antidemocratic dictator like Musharref is absurd. You are falling victim to Miami lobby hook, line, & sinker.

Well Ahmadinejad's election was labeled as "fair", but let's be serious. He also promised many things of which the economy was declared the most important. Once in power he has be ruthless in supressing opposition. Chavez also has taken extra Constitutional action based on promoting his supporters to give him a blank check. Yes, there will be a vote, but he has used his troops and control of media to promote himself while limiting his opposition.

Is Chavez anti-Democratic? I would say his idea of a 21st century socialism is rather undemocractic. He has used his oil wealth to bolster support for his regime outside his country. He has nationalized private holdings. He has closed opposition media. He has plaster pictures of himself all over the country. He demands an oath to himself from those that serve in the government. When he speaks at the UN, does he speak for the majority of his people? Does the majority (who are CHristians) support his association with Islamic terrorists and with communists? THat would be the height of irony, yes? Why would a Democratic President consider himself an heir to Castro?

As far as declaring martial law or arresting people, Chavez doesn't have fundementalist extremists taking hold of parts of his country. If Chavex was so Democratic why would he decide to build Russian armament plants in his country or need silent subs? Why not bring in Europeans instead? Do the "people" decide? Imagine Bush chumming it up with Ahmadinejad.

Chavez is "trying" to consilidate power as Europeans and other watch. He has kicked out people from land near his uranium fields and threatens to build pipelines through the Amazon.

There is a huge under current growing against him and we will see what he does. The point of my comments was to show how the Western/America Press focuses on Musharraf and excludes much focus on other despots or governments and certainly hasn't given much attention to Chavez. Has Musharraf has started shooting people? Is he an ally in the GWOT? Can you say that Chavez is an ally? With all that cash is he helping out in Afghanistan or protesting Sudan?

The referendum is a set up designed to help him become a tyrannt and I don't see many here very concerned. If Bush had tried doing what Chavez has already done, there would be riots. Who are the terrorists and enemies of the State Chavez is so concerned about? And who are all the people the US has tortured? You make it sound common place.

Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. An example: Bhutto is under house arrest. She wants to stage a huge march. Can you imagine how many will be blown up? So should Musharraf allow Bhutto to increase the chaos? What leader walks into an attack by others she isn't even protesting against?

I am not a big fan of Musharraf. I think he is an improvement over Sharif. Ask an Indian what they think of Sharif or Bhutto. One situation is rather complex and related to events in Afghanistan and extremist Islam in general. No one has ever been able to silence the Northwest territory. Chavez is in no similar boat. He invents enemies and crisis to consolidate power and we ought to use our influence before he becomes another Castro spreading his message across Latin America.

My large point however, was the Press filtering. Chavez and Musharraf are just aspects of that filtering.

And there was a vote recently in Pakistan. The Supreme court there however hadn't made up its mind if it would agree to the results.

Chavez. The comments are interesting. Of course, ABC didn't have journalists on the ground. I love the comparison between taser boy who apologized and students getting shot. Again, you connect the dots. Silent subs, weapon factories, terrorist meetings and the fact that several intelligence experts (do a google) have compared the tactics of recent oil pipeline bombings in Mexico to AQ. There have been some interesting reports about AQ operatives South of the Border. I'm glad to see Brazil has discovered some large oil reserves.

Sean Penn was standing with who? The students or the police?

The ties to terrorism are certainly a concern. (P.S. please forgive all the typos. Friday night weariness and no spell check)

Bravo.... Some tells Chavez to shut up.

Good link. I'd missed that bit. Yeah, Juan Carlos really has done great things to help his people, and Chavez has only hurt his. Fascists not human, eh? Chavez would know, I guess...

How about the lnk between Chavez and the Taliban? And Bhutto is heading how many people into militant attacks? The BBC has an interesting report on some of the political games in Pakistan.

Yep, Chavez should know....LOL. Good luck on your home offer.

Another in the thread looking at media reporting of events concerning Democracy around the world.

Not much reporting of Hizb'Allah Notice his remarks about the will of the majority at the bottom. AP didn't even report this anti-Democractic BS.

Musharraf and Georgia continue to get rapped while not much on Sufis being shot at in Iran, Chavez being told to shut up, Hamas open firing on a rally honoring Arafat or even Russia telling the wolrd not to worry about an oil spill.

Now how many will be blown up on Bhutto's long march?

A comment I found at the end of an article:

"A year or so ago I believe it was the Malaysian PM who said Jews get others to fight their wars for them. The usual uproar ensued. Well, In America, Jewish groups have been open and outspoken to try to get the US to fight another devastating war. All Americans should be livid. If Jews want to truly end antisemitism, I suggest they try something they've never tried befiore: change their bloody act!

Justin, NYC,"

Great source for quoting, Justin. Yes, a bloody fine comment.......

Yes, this bloody act should be ignored as a fine example of Democracy in motion. I guess some think Israel and the West should curb their notion of self-interest and self-defense.

And Israel has a history of having others fight their wars for them? Recent polls suggest more than 80% of Americans think Iran is a serious to very serious threat, while most Democratic leaders have at one time or another called Iran's getting a bomb, unacceptable. It is the West that hopes Israel does their dirty work for them. Oh, I know, this is just the Jewish lobby at work. Iran taches the Protocols of Zion to their youth as well as promoting child bombers and death to Israel and America.

Finally, ABC discusses a rational reason for keeping Bhutto from stupidity. If she is blown up, Liberals will blame Musharraf, yes?