20261: (Chamberlain) 20199: Esser: Stenographers to Power (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>

> CounterPunch
http://www.counterpunch.org

March 10, 2004

Stenographers to Power
US Press Torpedoes Aristide
By MIKE WHITNEY

(...)


> Should we emphasize that [Aristide] was elected by a margin of 92% by the
Haitian people in an election that was not contested, despite the
conspicuous attempts by the NY Times and the Associated Press to
create that impression?  And yet these salient facts have made no
impression
on America's recalcitrant press.


Perhaps because these "salient facts" are dishonestly presented.  Though
since Haiti is clearly "country-of-the week," I'm not sure if Mr Whitney
has any clue about this, as he will have simply taken the facts from some
quick single source.

Behind Aristide's official 91.5% vote in the the Nov. 2000 presidential
election is the fact that this was 91.5% percent with an opposition boycott
and on an estimated turnout of about 10 per cent (and therefore the support
of about 9% of the electorate).  The opposition boycott may not have been
such a factor but people's anger at the regime's appalling performance and
their contempt for the entire political class in general, plus the fact
there wasn't much point in turning out anyway with only one serious
candidate (there were six unknown candidates nobody had ever heard of and
who did no campaigning).

The much-vaunted "international observers" were a group of about 20 mostly
American mostly pro-Aristide activists, who couldn't observe all over the
country.  They saw some apparently regular situations and simply assumed it
was the same elsewhere.  Hardly very scientific.  The other observers were
about 5,000 "grassroots" Haitians (all pro-Aristide).  The 10 per cent
turnout figure was mostly based on what Haitian journalists saw all over
the country.  The govt said 60% (curiously exactly the same as in the
parliamentary elections earlier in the year) and the observers simply
rubber-stamped that.   Radio stations that reported the low turnout were
threatened with violence.  So it's quite dishonest to just cite the 91.5%
and trumpet this as "democratically elected" without explaining the
details.



> Perhaps they have taken the Dick Cheney position that, "Aristide had
worn out his welcome."

Pretty much true, whether said by the crook Cheney or even the Holy
Saddam/Osama himself.



> The astonishing sameness of reporting on the details of the coup, and
the predictable omissions of any US involvement, would have impressed
the editors of Pravda. No brave soul has broken from the "party line."
Isn't it amazing that how similar the "corporate press" is to the
media in totalitarian states?


Once could much more accurately say of the "militant" US "media" coverage
of Haiti:
"The astonishing sameness of reporting on the details of the coup, and the
predictable ravings about non-existent US corporate interests in Haiti,
would
have impressed the editors of Pravda. No brave soul has broken from the
"party
line."  Isn't it amazing that how similar the "rent-a-radical press" is to
the
media in totalitarian states?"



        Greg Chamberlain