Guaidó is gone, but media dishonesty is here to stay.

by Ricardo Vaz, FAIR

The latest iteration of Washington’s regime-change efforts against the democratically elected Venezuelan government came to an end. On December 30, an opposition-controlled parliament whose term ran out two years ago voted to end the US-backed “interim government” headed by Juan Guaidó.

A few outlets recognized that the latest developments represented “a blow” (New York Times12/30/22) or “a failure” (Financial Times1/8/23) for the United States, but for the most part the media’s goal seemed to be to solidify the biased premises underlying the regime-change operation. Corporate media remain as unwilling as ever to question US foreign policy, regardless of its deadly consequences.

President of Venezuelan National Assembly Juan Guaido talks to the people during a rally.

The Guaidó-led operation had earned the wholehearted support of the media establishment from the get-go (FAIR.org1/19/191/31/19). However, its end did not lead to a reckoning or reevaluation of past coverage. The loyal stenography from Western pundits is as reliable as ever (FAIR.org6/13/225/2/224/15/201/22/209/24/19).

The coverage of Guaidó’s demise saw media pundits dust off some of their Venezuela bias greatest hits. The New York Times (12/22/22) used the “authoritarian” label in reference to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro three times in the teaser and the opening two paragraphs of an article. Other favorites like “strongman” (Wall Street Journal1/5/23) and “autocratic” (LA Times1/5/23) were not far behind.

Read More