The press can be unapologetic about the way its coverage is affected by its political leaning. This is too often true when it comes to the way censorship and other human rights abuses are reported.\n<\/p>\n
\nThe latest case to bring this trend to light was the media fall-out from the controversial non-renewal of broadcaster RCTV\u2019s license in Venezuela in May of this year. Venezuelan president Hugo Ch\u00e1vez is one of the most politically divisive figures in Latin American politics, revered and hated both within Venezuela and on the global stage. This was reflected in the polarity of response: the Washington Post called the measures \u2018proof that Ch\u00e1vez is a dictator\u2019. Another story, however, was being told by others in the media. In the UK, commentators such as John Pilger and Labour MP Colin Burgon leapt to support Ch\u00e1vez, characterising the media response in terms of a political Right capitalising on an opportunity to undermine the Venezuelan government\u2019s socialist programme with the media acting as its accomplice. This crucial politicisation of the media situation, led to a number of robust articles backing Ch\u00e1vez based, not on an impartial scrutiny of the facts, but on the grounds of political affiliation. The outcome of this justification of censorship was embodied in a series of defensive articles run by the Guardian and the New Statesmen, and in a number of high-profile petitions supporting Ch\u00e1vez\u2019s decision.\n<\/p>\n
\nArticles such as Pilger\u2019s ’Venezuela and Censorship’<\/a>, rather than approaching the issue immediately, instead stress Ch\u00e1vez\u2019s positive work in Venezuela: using oil revenue to support the poor of the country rather than line the pockets of international corporation; providing educational programmes to empower the most impoverished members of society; dismantling the corrupt state superstructure and creating a grassroots politics based on the enormous popular support he enjoys. These details avoid the central matter: the government\u2019s decision not to renew RCTV\u2019s broadcasting. The political bias at the heart of the defence is also evident in the depiction of RCTV and those who attacked Ch\u00e1vez\u2019s actions; writing in the Guardian, Colin Burgon opens<\/a> by describing the \u2018neoconservative forces\u2019 and \u2018Christian right groupings\u2019 mobilising against Ch\u00e1vez via a \u2018pliant media\u2019. The fact that RCTV is owned by a private, conservative media corporation (now operating from the US as RCTV International) is stressed, but again, the events surrounding the network\u2019s closure are not the focus. These intensely emotive political appeals create a smokescreen that, while attempting to exonerate Ch\u00e1vez, is successful in convincing only those unaware of the wider context of censorship in Venezuelan.\n<\/p>\n