The following petition, signed by over a dozen experts on Latin America and the media, was sent today to Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times:
Kort en to the point.
Dezelfde bias als hier beschreven is terug te vinden in de Europese pers, waardoor de Europese burgers een verkeerd beeld van de realiteit mee krijgen mbt de situatie in Latijns America. Zou u indien u de kans had deze petitie ondertekenen om de media tot meer eerlijkheid aan te zetten in hun berichtgeving mbt Venezuela en Honduras? Ja of Nee?
Citaat:
|
May 14, 2013 Dear Margaret Sullivan, In a recent column (4/12/13), you observed: Although individual words and phrases may not amount to very much in the great flow produced each day, language matters. When news organizations accept the governments way of speaking, they seem to accept the governments way of thinking. In The Times, these decisions carry even more weight. In light of this comment we encourage you to compare The New York Timess characterization of the leadership of the late Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and that of Roberto Micheletti and Porfirio Lobo in Honduras. In the past four years, the Times has referred to Chávez as an "autocrat," "despot," "authoritarian ruler" and a "caudillo" in its news coverage. When opinion pieces are included, the Times has published at least fifteen separate articles employing such language, depicting Chávez as a "dictator" or "strongman." Over the same periodsince the June 28, 2009 military overthrow of elected president Manuel Zelaya of HondurasTimes contributors have never used such terms to describe Micheletti, who presided over the coup regime after Zelayas removal, or Porfirio Lobo, who succeeded him. Instead, the paper has variously described them in its news coverage as "interim," "de facto, and "new." Porfirio Lobo assumed the presidency after winning an election held under Micheletti's coup government. The elections were marked by repression and censorship, and international monitors, like the Carter Center, boycotted them. Since the coup, Honduras's military and police have routinely killed civilians. Over the past 14 years Venezuela has had 16 elections or referenda deemed free and fair by leading international authorities. Jimmy Carter praised Venezuelas elections, among the 92 the Carter Center has monitored, as having "a very wonderful voting system." He concluded that "the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world." While some human rights groups have criticized the Chávez government, Venezuela has had no pattern of state security forces murdering civilians, as is the case in Honduras. Whatever one thinks of the democratic credentials of Chávezs presidencyand we recognize that reasonable people can disagree about itthere is nothing in the record, when compared with that of his Honduran counterparts, to warrant the discrepancies in the Timess coverage of the two governments. We urge you to examine this disparity in coverage and language use, particularly as it may appear to your readers to track all too closely the U.S. governments positions regarding the Honduran government (which it supports) and the Venezuelan government (which it opposes)precisely the syndrome you describe and warn against in your column. |
Dezelfde bias als hier beschreven is terug te vinden in de Europese pers, waardoor de Europese burgers een verkeerd beeld van de realiteit mee krijgen mbt de situatie in Latijns America. Zou u indien u de kans had deze petitie ondertekenen om de media tot meer eerlijkheid aan te zetten in hun berichtgeving mbt Venezuela en Honduras? Ja of Nee?
