My communication with Dr. Lee Salter, a journalism professor and researcher at the University of the West of England, began with his recent claims that the BBC’s coverage of Venezuela is essentially propaganda:
Dear Dr. Salter,
I just read about your research on Gregory Wilpert‘s website, and I have a couple of questions:
1) Who funds your research?
2) If it’s different from the previous one, who will fund the next stage of the project, the trip to Caracas, etc.?
I would greatly appreciate any clarification you can provide.
Dr. Salter replied:
Dear Alek (if I may?),
Currently, we are not being funded. Most of the research is carried out on our own time, and what the University provides.
The trip to Caracas is self-funded, as a sort of vacation with a friend who will then tour South America.
We hope to organize funding for the next stage, but I haven’t had the time to submit a proposal yet. I should have more time next semester. In fact, I tried to reach out to the press office of the Venezuelan government (to coordinate the research as a form of consultation), but I received no response.
Best wishes, Lee.
Since our initial exchange, the conversation moved to more questions from me. I was pleased with the arguments presented by Dr. Lee Salter. Here’s an excerpt from his response (bold added by me):
… I must say I am a bit perplexed. I am very aware of the purpose of Venezuelanalysis.com. I think the accusation that it is a “propaganda” site is somewhat misleading, but maybe I teach criticisms of propaganda and public relations… Given the chorus of misinformation coming from both Venezuelan and international media (for in the days following the 2002 coup, ALL the UK national newspapers and TV stations echoed the claims of the coup leaders. This is extraordinary. Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes Chávez’s administration and its policies, the fact is that he has a popular mandate… Personally, I believe there are many things that Chávez’s administration has done that are admirable, especially attempts to address poverty and promote education (which were the main pillars of the Labour Party’s 1997 administration in the UK), but perhaps clean drinking water, food, and literacy are too controversial for the “keep them poor, keep them uneducated” brigade… In fact, sometimes, many times, the BBC simply gets it wrong. For example, the management of the shutdowns of major industries a few years ago were constantly reported as strikes. Again, in the UK, the BBC would have reported them as employer lockouts…
… IT is the case that the BBC opposes the military dictatorship in Burma but welcomed it in Venezuela. It is true that the BBC remains silent on the terrible human rights abuses in dictatorships (dressed as picturesque “traditional” monarchies) like Saudi Arabia, but it has fully accepted that the “opposition” frames Chávez as a human rights abuser. (deliberately ignoring the inclusion of international human rights standards in the Venezuelan constitution, and the establishment of human rights defenders…. Coincidentally, I have also been studying the situation since 2002… As for human rights, well, this again is an important topic. What human rights do people have without access to those rights suggested by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights? Oil money. Interesting. Do you have any evidence? Can you point me to these new billionaires? (I’m not joking, as I’ve been trying to say, my interest lies in what is reported and what isn’t, so such information will aid the research)… It’s not wrong to say Hitler was elected initially, but that didn’t mean he had a democratic mandate. Chávez, like it or not, was elected and has had constitutional reforms agreed upon through referenda making your analogy different enough to be inaccurate (add to that that Chávez has no imperial aspirations, does not seek to “unify” a “greater Venezuela” based on race, and does not seek to exterminate opponents en masse, and it becomes even weaker)… Yesterday, I think I had the best insight into contemporary Caracas, better than all the other articles, books, reports, and news combined. I met with a Caracas resident, who gave me a very frank analysis which I believe was accurate. He worked for a mission (I think it’s Ribas), which he initially supported, but found it so poorly organized that, to teach anything, he and his colleagues simply abandoned the program and ran it themselves. He said this was an example of Chávez’s projects: as he said, Chávez is surrounded by incompetents. He thinks that in many ways, Caracas has become a better place, but the government hasn’t addressed the underlying issues. He mentioned that some of Chávez’s people have been completely corrupt (including the recently captured minister), but that Chávez himself probably isn’t. He said Chávez still has mass support, that the constitutional extension of limits was understandable, that elections so far have undoubtedly been clean, and he believes Chávez will likely win the next elections. At the same time, he stated that if Chávez doesn’t win, he fears what may happen, meaning that he wouldn’t be prepared to step down, that there are doubts about the Carter Center’s observations (he believes the Ven Govt is its only client!!), and that while Chávez’s people seem to get away with corruption, their opponents are taken down based on very suspicious evidence…
In light of such BS, from an academic who claims to be only interested in BBC reports rather than Chávez’s policies, my final message to him was: “It really doesn’t make sense to continue this, Lee. I’ll conclude my side of the communications by saying that you’ve left the British academic world down a path of such ignorant, unfounded, and absolutely biased opinions.” That said, Dr. Lee Salter has written things like: “…the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly false scenes of Chávez supporters shooting nonexistent opponents). Surely a beacon of objectivity, huh?