Deputy Editor, Editorial Page
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20071
March 28, 2008
Dear Mr. Diehl,
You will have received a letter of from Venezuela’s Minister of Communications & Information, Andres Izarra protesting what is generally viewed by the Venezuelan government administration as negative and hostile coverage of various aspects of the government of President Hugo Chavez Frias.
As a seasoned foreign correspondent with an intimate knowledge of Venezuela’s past and present, I find myself somewhat in disagreement with Andres’ communications methodology while, quite sincerely, I am inclined to share his umbrage, nevertheless seeking to understand the reasons behind your editorial stance, acknowledging that you have the fullest freedom to express your opinions as, indeed, Andres has his.
I am inclined to believe that both he and you are working from the basic concept of a degree of patriotism, each from your own unique perspective. Andres, I know, is fired with an intense patriotism for Venezuela and its people and, very obviously, reacts strongly when he perceives a series of unremitting attacks on the concept and values that he holds so dear.
I do not believe – in fact I am certain from my knowledge of the man – that Andres is NOT a USA-hater, nor indeed is President Chavez who has pledged his life and being for the ultimate well-being and benefit of the Venezuelan people. This is part of the problem, if indeed there is any significant problem when all is said and done.
It should be more than obvious to you and to your readers that President Chavez’ and his government’s primary allegiance is to Venezuela, its flag and its people. This is a common understanding that, I believe most observers will insist, equally applies to the leaders and administrations of all countries excepting those regimes governed by dictatorships which seek primarily the benefit of the dictator and not necessarily that of his/her people.
We may also have our varied opinions on the leaders of other countries but ultimately it is up to the sovereign will of each country’s citizens to decide on their leadership, to accept his/her rule or to seek such remedies as may need be accomplished to achieve that goal.
Naturally, each country is free to form and express its opinions of other countries and to form such alliances as may be necessary to protect their individual integrity – I believe that as a citizen of the United States of America you hold these principles to be true that all men (and women) should be free to pursue and enjoy happiness.
Quite naturally as a living, breathing Venezuelan patriot – and I can assure you that Andres Izarra is just that! – Andres is saddened, angered and naturally frustrated by the fact that your publications (and others) have printed what he perceives to be repeated calumnies against Venezuela and the Venezuelan people.
I think that had the criticisms (calumnies - call them what you will) been founded on a deeper understanding of the Venezuelan situation, they might have been more easily digested and perhaps acted upon by those in charge of the Venezuelan government but, you will perhaps acknowledge that your own particular and perhaps natural reaction to what you may perceive as Minister Izarra’s “attack” or criticism of your own attitudes is not quite dissimilar to Andres Izarra’s perception, when confronted with a barrage of attacks/criticism from you and your publication, which he suspects is being led by darker forces within the Bush administration seeking to take advantage of Venezuela’s sovereign assets, very much in the same way as many other colonialist powers have sought to do around the world for centuries is not millennia.
This is where I believe it may be more feasible to do what one great leader once advised i.e. to get down off one’s war horse and to walk awhile with the presumed enemy. To do so could easily be more virtuous than continued hostility and be infinitely more productive and less a waste of energy and resources otherwise depleted in continued hostilities. It takes a degree of nobility and humility to achieve but is infinitely more worthwhile.
Andres Izarra is a virtuous man who risked everything in a very positive career as a television news director to follow his conscience and disobey an edict handed down by his then employers at Radio Caracas Television (RCTV) to censor live coverage of events following the ill-fated coup d’etat against President Chavez in April 2002.
Against this background and the circumstances which have followed upon the peoples’ restoration of President Chavez to power, it is difficult for Andres or indeed myself to understand why the Washington Post persists in such ill-informed coverage of Venezuela that is not only incorrect but directly hurtful to each one of us. While I understand where you are coming from as a United States journalist with natural allegiances to your own flag, it is difficult for Venezuelans (who on the whole are an open and generous people) to understand why there apparently is no effort on your part to reconcile or to understand where Venezuelans are coming from - perhaps if you did (stepping down and walking with your warhorse!) you would discover, as I a foreigner in Venezuela have also done, that there is so much more to United States-Venezuela relations than a “War of Words.”
I personally believe that Andres may have erred in his judgement to write so scathingly to you and that much more would have been achieved had he sought rather to help you understand, to invite you to visit Venezuela to see for yourself, to immerse yourself in what Venezuela is really all about. Yes, I know that you personally cannot do this with each and every one of the +200 countries that form the collective of humanity here on earth, but since you have had such a focus on Venezuela it may be worthwhile for you to look more closely on it and to yourself come to what will undoubtedly be a happier conclusion on what Venezuela has to offer the world around it, particularly to the United States of America.
I myself would seek to separate your professionalism as a journalist from the politicking of the US State Department or the White House recognizing, of course, that catering for a USA readership your editorial coverage must of necessity have a bias for and on behalf of that readership. It is perhaps in this regard that Venezuela has been largely misunderstood in North America since you have an instinctive evaluation that a country’s media is largely representative of that country’s people. It is something that very often is misunderstood with regards to Venezuela i.e. that the main commercial media in Venezuela does not operate under any “North American ethos” of fair play and/or judgement.
On both sides of the political divide in Venezuela you have highly-biased coverage and since the commercial media has traditionally had greater prominence, the thrust of what appears to be Venezuelan media “opinion” is also negative to the series of reforms and actions taken by the Venezuelan government to protect and enhance the future for the Venezuelan people – unfortunately this mostly takes expression in diatribes against President Chavez who, himself, is not backward in reacting spontaneously and with equal measure to the string of insults and abuse hurled at him daily by interests who once held quasi-dictatorial rule but are now learning (somewhat reluctantly) to accept democratic rule.
You have used various epithets to describe President Chavez which could equally be used to describe your own president or, indeed, the leader of any other country. You call him a “strongman” but do you think the Venezuelan people would benefit any if he were weak?
The inference that can perhaps be drawn from the word is that President Chavez is “dictatorial” (another loose epithet slung in the fray) but closer inspection would show you that President Chavez is not dictatorial. He has pledged himself to rule by the Constitution which has admittedly been reformed (and I might add with the democratic majority support of the Venezuelan electorate in a 1999 referendum). The United States has amended its constitution on multiple occasions also…
Andres Izarra has sought to explain the essential differences between the Venezuelan government model and that of the United States. Forgive me if I say that I believe the Venezuelan model to be more fair and democratic than that of the United States, but that is something that you yourself would have to witness first hand and it is not my intention to impose any such evaluation on you, rather that you should at least give yourself the opportunity to be informed and to arrive at your own fair and balanced judgements after which I believe any critique you may wish to level would be accepted in Caracas with less distain and perhaps even seen as a friendly gesture towards the RRR (Reform, Revision and Rectification) aspirations already announced by President Chavez.
I feel sure that if you were to take an invitation to step down from your particular warhorse and to walk awhile with Andres Izarra on a one-to-one basis, you would discover a genuine willingness to help you understand that Venezuela and its democratically-elected President have every right to have their own opinions just the same as you have yours.
It is my hope that this can be achieved within a spirit of true journalistic investigation and fairness and I would urge Andres Izarra and his staff to make such opportunities available not only to yourself, Mr. Diehl, but to any number of foreign journalists who have a genuine professional interest in seeking out the truth.
After all, is not this what we all sought and strived for when we first took pen to paper and called ourselves journalists?
Regards
Roy S. Carson
vheadline@gmail.com
Editor/publisher,
VHeadline Venezuela
http://vheadlinevenezuelanews.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment