Is It Credibility Or Is It On Purpose? Main Media On Chavez Death

Funny how the mean stream media is so predictable.  Obviously the written procedures for how to deal with these kind of issues are still not changed for ages.  I am talking about how the main stream media is dealing with the death of Hugo Chavez.

Just listen to the CNN, BBC and , lately, Al-Jazeera covering his death.  In all the reports they made they always reminds you or tells you of the horrible stuff he has been doing.  You will find on CNN something like “Chavez supporting poor has divided the country” or in BBC “ Hugo Chaves: A divided and divisive legacy?” ((I am not quoting the Qatari channel Al-Jazeera because they are lying on the Arabs so much that it doesn’t deserve my one click, on the other hand if the Arabs are so stupid to be lied on that much without noticing, I say let it be)).

Anyway, back to the main topic.  It is obvious that the main stream media is focusing on several point.   The normal coverage when you start watching the report or reading the article wanting to know more about Chavez and then the other hidden points start merging in front of your eyes without being able to do anything about other than changing the channel.  Noticed how the celebration of bearly 100 people in Florida was covered by both CNN and BBC and god knows who els?

This is the BBC News picture about the “group of Venezuelan among others” celebrating the death of Chavez.

This is the BBC News picture about the “group of Venezuelan among others” celebrating the death of Chavez.

CNN reports showed barely a hundred of Venezuelan in Miami celebrating.

CNN reports showed barely a hundred of Venezuelan in Miami celebrating.

Now one question I have to ask here, will these people stop seeking American citizen ship in the US then and go back to Venezuela to help build their country in the new age as they said? Or all this circus just to be used on the media?
One thing to say her if it is not obvious to you.  They are making think immediately that the Venezuelan are two and they are divided and now, after his death, things will back to normal and the “other” Venezuelan, the ones who love America, will be able to take actions.   So what? some might ask, all presidents in the world have two groups with and against.  I say you are right but is it really used that way against the country it self.  You want examples? Look at Egypt and Bahrein and see if the main stream media see the “other” Egyptians or Bahrainis that oppose the pro-American president and see if the are the same as in Venezuela case.

The other point that the media is trying to make a big deal out of it, is how scared the government of Venezuela.  By taking about a plot from the government of hiding his death for 4 months and moving the army to cities and bla bla in order to show the people that the goverment is scared form its own people.  Well, these countries doesn’t have as much police as the free world country, meaning that I don’t think Venezuela is capable of putting 5000 office in service in one night as the British did in London only when there were unrest in 2012.  So the question is why not?  why not emphasizing that there is a government and it is powerful? And it will keep working normally even after Chavez death? Why do they want to easy to take? Why the main stream media wants you defenseless? Why they make y feel that you don’t have the right to defend your country, and that should rest and easy to be taken down.   I can give you hundred of similar strategies they are following in the case of Syria, making you questing even the government duties in allying the law.  Because you have to be defenseless.

One last idea here, I don’t know Chavez and the few stuff I know about him I don’t think he is different from any other president in this world.   He did a lot of things to his country he generalize oil production, which make you understand why the US is happy about his death, he tried to do some good stuff to his people.  And since he is a normal guy he might have taken both good and bad decisions, but at least he did not lunch wars killing millions in Iraq and Afghanistan (Bush, Us and Blair UK), he did not use destructive weapon on civilians (Truman, US), he did not support terrorism to destroy un-wanted governments – un-wanted by the West- (Obama, US,  Hollande, France, Cameron, UK). At least he did not invade Libya of oil (The Free world AKA NATO).



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s