DIEGO ARRIA.
SEAN MAGUIRE.THE BIAS OF REUTERS.
The blunder of Reuters announcing the victory of Chavez's referendum in the early hours of the evening of December 2 reminded many of the headlines of the Chicago Daily Tribune in 1948, giving Dewey the win over Truman. Today many believe that this was simply an honest error but at the time it was clear that it was inspired by the dislike of democrats felt by the editors of the Chicago newspaper.
Today a similar, or even worse, thing might have happened. Before Reuters came out with its December 2nd story it had already published, in November 28, a dispatch called: "Five Facts about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez" in which the figure of Chavez was the object of sugary treatment. This dispatch was debunked in this blog (see November articles) in a joint piece by myself and Pedro Burelli (also posted it in his blog). However, Reuters came back after a few days with the same theme, in what seemed to be an obvious disregard for our and other criticism.
DIEGO ARRIA
In parallel, Diego Arria was in touch with Reuters, protesting against the obvious bias of the Caracas based Reuters correspondents. When the referendum came and Reuters, once more, jumped the gun, we had little doubt left that this agency had been guilty of unethical behavior. And so did Diego Arria.
Diego Arria has authorized me to publish his communication to Reuters on this matter (below). I also enclose the justifications given by Reuters'correspondent Sean Maguire in Caracas and would ask the readers to compare Maguire's piece with Arria's.
Well done Diego!
ARRIA AND MAGUIRE SPEAK.
DIEGO ARRIA TO REUTERS:
I want to thank you for sending me the link to Sean Maguire’s report after the many complaints received by Reuters-mine I believe was the first one of them right after first Reuters news break which few hours later reminded your readers of the famous victory of Dewey over Truman.
The three Ministers that allegedly provided such information to your journalists violated the law . The Reuters journalists failed to ask them why were they violating the electoral law, and evidently showed unethical indifference to the laws of our country.
Furthermore the alleged polling companies that carried the exit polls were not checked by the journalists. Neither did they look for officials representatives of the NO campaign as they should have. I believe you should ask them the names of the NO representatives they claim were not available to comment. A fact which we are doubtful took place.
I find extremely distressing the journalists statement that their " sources were impeccable, including three cabinet ministers who had been correct in the past and who cited exit polls and early returns. The ministers told us Chavez was ahead by a hefty 6-8 points. An independent source also told us we were on the right track." For Reuters to call an autocratic regime impeccable and objective is truly amazing –to say the least.
We the Venezuelan people were about to lose our liberty and our democracy on December 2nd when Chavez attempted a coup against our Constitution and Reuters should have realized the significance of their reporting to our circumstances to base their report “ on three cabinet ministers” who could not be objective-and to cite and independent as another source but no representatives of the opposition should indicate that there was foul play against the Venezuelan democrats and in blatant favor of the regime. As you remember in the past presidential elections of December 2006 we faced similar issues with the Reuters reporting on the campaign which I brought then to your attention as suggested by Reuters Chairman Niall FitzGerald.
Finally it is clear-and Mr.Maguire does not address the fact- that those journalists showed complete disregard for the electoral laws, independence, neutrality and journalistic ethics. All these elements combined could have caused great damage to the Venezuelan democracy and our liberty.
You must know by now that the regime used the Reuters report to start a massive campaign of disinformation-based on the prestige of Reuters-something that the journalists that reported this false information also disregarded. The Reuters report of the false victory by the SI (Chavez) allowed the regime to hold the announcement of the NO victory by several hours when our future was hanging by a thread and risked peoples reactions in the streets of our country where many could have died. Undoubtedly the Reuters report emboldened Chavez and his regime. Reuters was the only agency besides the Chavez regime to report such false information.
Sincerely
Diego E. Arria
I don’t have Mr Maguire email so please copy the following comments to him as well as to the reporters responsible for the false story.
REUTERS TO PUBLIC OPINION.
Why we are taking heat in Venezuela
December 5th, 2007, filed by Sean Maguire
Venezuela is a passionate place and its politics are particularly feisty.
The fervent supporters of President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution pit
themselves against equally fervent opponents who believe he is driving the
country to dictatorship and ruin. In such an atmosphere the local press
becomes deeply politicised and many readers look outside to international
news organisations to give them a balanced view in tumultuous times. That's
a role that Reuters takes very seriously.
For several hours before official results of Sunday's referendum were
released, Reuters reported senior government sources saying that Chavez was
winning a vote that would allow him to contest elections for life and
enshrine socialism as a state priority in the constitution. The sources were
impeccable, including three cabinet ministers who had been correct in the
past and who cited exit polls and early returns. The ministers told us
Chavez was ahead by a hefty 6-8 points. An independent source also told us
we were on the right track. But they were proved wrong. Chavez was defeated.
We've received many emails accusing us of a breach of trust, of favouritism
and of incompetence. You'll find a selection on the blog where we post
reader comment.
Our mistake was not in using sources to get a beat on the story. We followed
our own sourcing rules properly. We made clear that our sources were linked
to the government and that we had talked to several senior figures. We
specified where they said they had their information from.
We also made strenuous efforts to get the opposition's point of view. But
for a couple of hours we were unable to get them to comment. For some
readers that left the impression that Reuters backed the government's
interpretation of events.
As the story developed and opposition conviction grew that the government's
numbers were wrong, we were slow to give the change the attention it
merited. Some other news organizations emphasised that the vote was too
close to call. In retrospect, it was an approach we should have taken.
We have provided comprehensive and distinguished coverage of the referendum,
one of the most important stories in recent months in Latin America. We
believe our reporting has been balanced and fair. Our stories strive to
explain clearly why Chavez is loved and loathed in equal measure. We erred
in this one instance, not from favouritism towards the Chavez government,
but because we fell away from the high standards we set ourselves.
The three Ministers that allegedly provided such information to your journalists violated the law . The Reuters journalists failed to ask them why were they violating the electoral law, and evidently showed unethical indifference to the laws of our country.
Furthermore the alleged polling companies that carried the exit polls were not checked by the journalists. Neither did they look for officials representatives of the NO campaign as they should have. I believe you should ask them the names of the NO representatives they claim were not available to comment. A fact which we are doubtful took place.
I find extremely distressing the journalists statement that their " sources were impeccable, including three cabinet ministers who had been correct in the past and who cited exit polls and early returns. The ministers told us Chavez was ahead by a hefty 6-8 points. An independent source also told us we were on the right track." For Reuters to call an autocratic regime impeccable and objective is truly amazing –to say the least.
We the Venezuelan people were about to lose our liberty and our democracy on December 2nd when Chavez attempted a coup against our Constitution and Reuters should have realized the significance of their reporting to our circumstances to base their report “ on three cabinet ministers” who could not be objective-and to cite and independent as another source but no representatives of the opposition should indicate that there was foul play against the Venezuelan democrats and in blatant favor of the regime. As you remember in the past presidential elections of December 2006 we faced similar issues with the Reuters reporting on the campaign which I brought then to your attention as suggested by Reuters Chairman Niall FitzGerald.
Finally it is clear-and Mr.Maguire does not address the fact- that those journalists showed complete disregard for the electoral laws, independence, neutrality and journalistic ethics. All these elements combined could have caused great damage to the Venezuelan democracy and our liberty.
You must know by now that the regime used the Reuters report to start a massive campaign of disinformation-based on the prestige of Reuters-something that the journalists that reported this false information also disregarded. The Reuters report of the false victory by the SI (Chavez) allowed the regime to hold the announcement of the NO victory by several hours when our future was hanging by a thread and risked peoples reactions in the streets of our country where many could have died. Undoubtedly the Reuters report emboldened Chavez and his regime. Reuters was the only agency besides the Chavez regime to report such false information.
Sincerely
Diego E. Arria
I don’t have Mr Maguire email so please copy the following comments to him as well as to the reporters responsible for the false story.
REUTERS TO PUBLIC OPINION.
Why we are taking heat in Venezuela
December 5th, 2007, filed by Sean Maguire
Venezuela is a passionate place and its politics are particularly feisty.
The fervent supporters of President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution pit
themselves against equally fervent opponents who believe he is driving the
country to dictatorship and ruin. In such an atmosphere the local press
becomes deeply politicised and many readers look outside to international
news organisations to give them a balanced view in tumultuous times. That's
a role that Reuters takes very seriously.
For several hours before official results of Sunday's referendum were
released, Reuters reported senior government sources saying that Chavez was
winning a vote that would allow him to contest elections for life and
enshrine socialism as a state priority in the constitution. The sources were
impeccable, including three cabinet ministers who had been correct in the
past and who cited exit polls and early returns. The ministers told us
Chavez was ahead by a hefty 6-8 points. An independent source also told us
we were on the right track. But they were proved wrong. Chavez was defeated.
We've received many emails accusing us of a breach of trust, of favouritism
and of incompetence. You'll find a selection on the blog where we post
reader comment.
Our mistake was not in using sources to get a beat on the story. We followed
our own sourcing rules properly. We made clear that our sources were linked
to the government and that we had talked to several senior figures. We
specified where they said they had their information from.
We also made strenuous efforts to get the opposition's point of view. But
for a couple of hours we were unable to get them to comment. For some
readers that left the impression that Reuters backed the government's
interpretation of events.
As the story developed and opposition conviction grew that the government's
numbers were wrong, we were slow to give the change the attention it
merited. Some other news organizations emphasised that the vote was too
close to call. In retrospect, it was an approach we should have taken.
We have provided comprehensive and distinguished coverage of the referendum,
one of the most important stories in recent months in Latin America. We
believe our reporting has been balanced and fair. Our stories strive to
explain clearly why Chavez is loved and loathed in equal measure. We erred
in this one instance, not from favouritism towards the Chavez government,
but because we fell away from the high standards we set ourselves.
An answer of a very low standard.
ResponderEliminarSean Maguire tries to answer the evident bias in favor of the chávez government that was displayed by some Reuter journalists during the referendum on December 6 when they reported on a substantial electoral margin of about seven per cent in favor of the YES.
This answer is not enough, especially when Sean Maguire recognizes that Reuters “erred… because we fell away from the high standards we set ourselves” which obliges to search for an answer how that happened.
Reuter’s knew that reporting on the results was strictly forbidden by the Venezuelan electoral votes…yet they took the word of some government officials. In this respect they should have to name these officials because they have transgressed the Venezuelan laws and in this sense one could say that there are reasonable grounds to suspect and imply that the Reuter’s journalist was essentially a hit man in the operation.
I find it particularly loathsome to hear a reporter who must know of the extremely delicate political conditions in Venezuela and that has basically placed that country on the brink of a civil war, describing the opposing parties as "feisty". Would “feisty” be seen fit to apply describing the relations between the Union and the Confederated States during the American civil war?
Everyone is free to have his own opinions, but not necessarily to announce these anywhere and anytime. A reporter that in a civil war like environment does not act with sufficient care is just not apt to be a reporter.
Maguire’s letter, with no excuse and no declared intention of following up on the issue, is to me just another fall from the high standards that Reuters say they adhere to.
You are right Per.... Reuters behavior has no justification. We will have to watch them with a magnifying glass from now on.
ResponderEliminarGustavo
Good day! I could have sworn I've been to your blog before but after going through a few of the posts I realized it's new to me.
ResponderEliminarRegardless, I'm definitely happy I discovered it and I'll be bookmarking it and checking
back regularly!
My site: mp3 download
An impressive share! I have just forwarded this onto a coworker who had been conducting a
ResponderEliminarlittle research on this. And he in fact ordered me
dinner because I found it for him... lol.
So allow me to reword this.... Thank YOU for the meal!
! But yeah, thanx for spending the time to discuss this issue here on your web site.
Here is my homepage; legally download