The media is a primary source of information throughout the world for billions of people.  Therefore, the media accepts a large responsibility to provide accurate and objective information for its reader. The April 2002 coup in Venezuela received extensive coverage from both national and international press. In the following text I will analyze the coverage of the coup by the New York Times and the El Universal, which is a Venezuelan newspaper based in the Capital of Caracas. Through this analysis I will demonstrate that each papers coverage was inaccurate, and presented in a format that would lead the reader to a conclusion that would serve the purpose of the news outlet and its affiliates, but not the reader’s interests.

The mass media serves an important function within a democratic society. The media acts as an informer to the general public on events large and small. The service they provide is a intricate role to having an informed and knowledgeable public. The media can also act as a check and balance for the corporate sector and local, state, and national governments. Helping to keep those institutions accountable for their actions by informing the public on their activities. However, if the media is providing information in a manner that doesn't serve the public, but instead serves the interests of the small group of people who own the mass media.  When that occurs the media has become a tool of propaganda, to be used against the public.

In the book Manufacturing Consent, by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, a propaganda model is presented, defined, applied, and tested.
"A propaganda model focuses on the inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices.  It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public" (Herman & Chomsky 2)
Through this model you can get a clearer understanding of how the mass media is being operated today, and the effects this has on the people of the world.

In the following section I will look at reports from the newspaper El Universal. It is important to note that these articles were taken from the internet and had to be translated to English and lost some of their accuracy in the translation. I put the quotes in exactly as they were translated, so some of the articles read a little funny. The April 11, 2002 news from Caracas via the El Universal was normal for that paper. The El Universal has been and is to this day anti-Chavez and the government he has established. The coverage that day was predominantly on the demonstrations that had been taking place on the 9th and 10th. There were also articles that would herald the events to transpire in the next 72 hours. In a report on the Movement of the Fifth Republics (MVR) response to the strikes, the National Coordinator for the MVR, Francisco Ameliach, reiterated the government’s position. They were stepping back their efforts to counter the CTV and Fedecamaras strikes and protests. More importantly Ameliach makes this statement about the strikers: “There is not any justification for the call to indefinite strike. Who will pay the payroll to the businessmen?” (eluniversal.com).  Ameliach in the earliest stages of the counter revolution would pinpoint the elites greatest weakness and eventual downfall. The majority of the people behind this movement were neither poor nor ultra rich and needed to work to live.

That days paper had two other reports of significance pertaining to the events about to come. The first one's headline read “U.S. supports the democracy” (eluniversal.com). The previous day the U.S. ambassador, Chat Shapiro, and the mayor, Alfredo Rock, had a meeting in which they discussed current events and Shapiro agreed to continuing collaboration with Rock. When asked if the U.S. supported the government and President Hugo Chavez, he answered; "we support the democracy and the constitutional framework" (eluniversal.com). Shapiro and Rock both agreed the situation was difficult but "that all continue inside the constitutional and democratic framework, without violence and peacefully" (eluniversal.com). The fact that Shapiro wouldn't openly support the democratically elected government is auspicious. It would seem that the U.S stance was that they supported democracy, just not this democratically elected government. This statement would be one of many that in a few days the American government would be trying very hard to qualify. The other article's headline said it all: “The environment contains symptoms of uprising” (eluniversal.com). The report would go on to state the seriousness of the events taking place and the Minister of Defense would hint at a "supposed plan conspirator to remove al president Hugo Chavez of the power" (eluniversal.com).

The April 12, 2002 El Universal would concentrate on the deaths that occurred the day before, but it would only cover the deaths of the people who had been killed protesting against the government, demonstrating a clear bias towards the events. The article “Singing toward the death” was a gross portrayal of the sad events. In the first paragraph the protesters were portrayed this way, “To blow of one thirty all they went happy, singing orders, armed with their whistles, pans and banderillas from Chuao to Miraflores”. In the third paragraph, “They walked, without knowing it, course al slaughterhouse by the icy roads of Auschwitz, shouting oni a step behind, feeling that the fight could become hard, but without being imagined such time how much” (eluniversal.com). These descriptions seem as if they were coming from a fiction novel and not from a newspaper. There is absolutely no mention of the poor people protesting for President Chavez that were killed that day as well. In fact it was hard to get accurate numbers on the deaths that day from any where and both parties to this day contend all the deaths occurred on their side. One other article of interest from that day, “The sunset of the Circles”, seemed to hint at the coup to come: “to observe the movement of the supporters al tottering Government of the president Chavez, that to that hour, they were maintained resisting before the fall that was inevitable” (eluniversal.com). This is the second time in two days the paper predicts the fall of Chavez.

April 13, 2002 would see the interim government in place. The El Universal would hail the new regime, and demonstrate its support for the people who had seized power. In the article, “Miraflores left behind the Fifth Republic,” the new regime begins establishing its position and clearly states who’s taking power--the elite.
The officials that rebelled Thursday are the assistants of the President and not to stop accompanying it. The Public Power will function with Pedro Carmona and its ministers. A Counsel of State with 25 persons will assess al transitory president. The country will direct it a president during the transition until there be elections. The not governmental, the Church, Fedecámaras, the CTV should count on representation in the Counsel of State', explained the president Carmona, who then met with representatives of the political parties and of PdVSA (elunivrsal.com).
The previous statements indicates to me that this was definitely a coup d’etat lead by some powerful business men and military commanders. The list of groups to receive representation by the unelected Counsel of State, are the same groups who created the coup. There is also no mention of when the elections for a new government will be or how long this regime will wait to hold them. The government that had been in place was elected, and those organizations did run, they just didn’t get elected.

An even better article from the 13th is the one covering the U.S. reaction. The headline reads, “Washington praises soldiers” and then states the “United States blamed al government of Hugo Chavez to cause the political crisis in Venezuelan, [. . .] and avoided to define what happened as a coup d’etat” (elunivrsal.com). White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, when asked if the Bush administration had approved the coup, said, “Chávez gave the order to his supporters to shoot against peaceful demonstrators disarmed and he tried to impede that independent media of communication reported what he occurred” (elunivrsal.com). The Bush administration had to make a dance of its words and be very careful on its position. It could in no way indicate that what happened in Venezuela was a coup. Why? Because, if it was a coup the U.S. would have to take action, according to the paper, “If the exit of Chávez qualified as military coup, this would imply sanctions against Venezuela under the U.S. international law of aid” (elunivrsal.com). Dozens of papers around the world were calling this a coup, yet the American government didn’t, and in reality couldn't call it a coup, otherwise they would be called on to put sanctions on one of their largest oil suppliers.

On April 14, 2002 the best example of the media serving the interests of the elites was demonstrated. Every large news source from the TV stations to the news papers held a black out and refused to cover the retaking of the government by the officially elected body. On that day Hugo Chavez was released from prison and returned to his rightful place as president. The only national news source to cover it was the small pro-Chavez paper and radio. All pretense of a legitimate news agency was just abandoned. This presents an interesting case because it clearly shows how a few very wealthy men can own most of the media outlets within a country, which allowed them to influence the information being offered to the public.

Now lets look at the New York Times (NYT) coverage. The NYT follows the events within Venezuela thoroughly and often. Venezuela is a valuable commodity to the U.S. and they are connected through trade, business, politics, and people. The NYT has covered Chavez and his actions since his coup attempt in 1992. In fact its the NYT favorite way to describe Chavez, by his coup attempt. In 200 articles researched the NYT uses this statement thirty six times to describe Chavez, “Mr. Chavez a former army colonel who led a failed coup attempt in 1992” (New York Times). It is my contention after reading those articles that the NYT and the Bush administration are not in favor of the Chavez government. The reports by the NYT often highlight what is happening to the affluent class and the oil industry. It was very clear that the oil in that country is very important to their coverage. There reporting on the coup was misleading and contradictory.

The April 11, article mainly covers the effects the strikes were having on the import of oil to the U.S. Towards the end it does offer support for the military personnel that spoke out against Chavez that day and it gives the upper classes' views, like in this statement: “Much of the opposition is rooted in widespread displeasure with Mr. Chavez’s policies. White collar workers view him as a left-wing autocrat” (New York Times). Oddly, there is no mention of the millions of poor blue collar workers who appreciate President Chavez’ policies because so far they are benefiting from them. I see little objectivity within the article. The NYT didn’t even give Chavez the courtesy of using his Presidential title.

The April 12, NYT did not cover the deaths that occurred on the 11th; instead they chose to mention them briefly and then focus in on the events to follow. Their headline reads, “Generals Revolt in Venezuela After 10 Protesters Are killed” (New York Times). The article mentions the effects on the oil industry and quotes the mayor of Caracas, who is a staunch opponent of Chavez, as saying “the government had ‘unleashed their Dobermans,’ charging that the gunmen came from the pro-Chavez district of Libertador” (New York Times). The NYT would close with this quote, “The situation in the country is normal,’ said General Rincon. ‘We call on the Venezuelan people to maintain calm” (New York Times). In the entire article the position of the elected body was not included. They presented the elites stance only. Their choice of quotes to close with was interesting as well because the situation in the country was not normal--there had just been a coup of an elected government in its entirety, and exactly which class of people was supposed to remain calm. The millions of people who elected Chavez and who’s opinions the NYT didn’t cover or the thousands of people who get all the NYT coverage and oppose the government. The Business section also covered the situation in Venezuela; the first paragraph read, “No company in America has as much at stake in the toppling of Venezuela’s mercurial president and the renewed flow of oil from Venezuelan fields as Citgo Potroleum, one of the biggest gasoline makers in the United States  and a wholly owned unit of the Venezuelan state oil company” (New York Times). So, a Venezuelan owned company in the U.S. has a primary interest in the toppling of the government and the NYT reports that, without mentioning the interests of the millions of people who voted that government into office, and who, up until the strikes, had been making very good money with their change in policy to support OPEC.

April 13, the NYT would cover the events on the day before with more detail and show the Bush administration's support for the coup. In the second paragraph the number of dead would rise from 10 to 14, and the numbers were for the same shootings on the eleventh. I can only assume their source from the day before was inaccurate, yet they didn’t make a correction. The U.S. stance on that day was that Chavez’ actions had brought about the coup and they praised the military and police for their actions. Philip T Reefer, a State Department Spokesman described their position this way, “We wish to express our solidarity with the Venezuelan people and look forward to working with all democratic forces in Venezuela to ensure the full exercise of democratic rights” (New York Times). The Bush administration was making some contradictory statements. The government didn’t support the democratically elected government, but it did support the seizing of power by business and military men that didn’t intend to hold an election for a year. I would ask again whose interests are being served in all this. The article would also report on the searches being conducted, they were looking for the strong Chavez supporters, and “searched the homes of the Bolivian Circles” (New York Times).

On April 14, the NYT would run two articles covering the events that led to the return of Chavez’ governments. The articles gave good descriptions of the events and represented the poor Venezuelans point of view also. However, it didn’t say one word about the thirty to forty people killed during the interim government’s time in power. It also did not make one negative comment about those individuals who perpetrated the coup. In the days to come the U.S. would struggle to deny it was involved in the coup. The U.S. would also ask Chavez not to conduct a witch hunt for the opposition leaders. It seems they didn’t want the democratic government, who they didn’t support, to employ the same tactics as the interim government, which they did support. The NYT coverage was inaccurate, inconsistent, and clearly biased through out the entire event. There are internet sources that go into greater detail on these failings by the NYT and will be listed below.

It has only been through several different sources that I have been able to discover what it was that took place in Venezuela during the coup.  The examples I gave above are only a portion of the inaccuracy and bias that was coming through the two newspapers. Both papers are read by millions of people and if those people relied on those papers as their only source for information then they would have a skewed perspective. This is not an acceptable practice, especially for the NYT. If the NYT is representing the interests of the elites in a foreign country, then whose interests are they serving here in the U.S.?

Recommended Reading:
The Nation.  www.thenation.com/,  there are three great articles about the coup.  Venezuela's    Media Coup, Spotlighting (Some) Venezuela Killings, U.S. Papers Hail Venezuela Coup as Pro-Democracy Move.  I also highly encourage reading Manufacturing Consent, "The Political Economy of the Mass Media," by Herman and Chomsky.