Latin America
Related: About this forumThe New Yorker Should Ignore Jon Lee Anderson and Issue a Correction on Venezuela
The New Yorker Should Ignore Jon Lee Anderson and Issue a Correction on Venezuela
By Keane Bhatt- NACLA, April 26th 2013
Manufacturing Contempt
As a result of many dozenspossibly hundredsof messages from readers over the past few weeks that criticized The New Yorkers inaccurate coverage of Venezuela, reporter Jon Lee Anderson issued a response in an online post on April 23. This marks the first time the magazine has publicly addressed its controversial and erroneous labeling of Venezuela as one of the worlds most socially unequal countries (I highlighted the error in mid-March).
Anderson's "Slumlord" in the New Yorker contained numerous factual errors (FAIR.org)
Although Anderson deprives his readers of the opportunity to evaluate his critics arguments (he offered no hyperlinks to either of my two articles on the subject, nor to posts by Corey Robin, Jim Naureckas, and others), he is clearly writing in response to those assertions.
To his credit, Anderson unequivocally admits two of his three errors: regarding Venezuelas homicides, he acknowledges that he falsely wrote that Venezuela had the highest homicide rate in Latin America. Actually, Honduras has the top rate. Anderson proceeds to explain why Venezuelas high homicide rate is nevertheless a grave problema position none of his critics, myself included, dispute.
The importance of this error rests instead in its revelation of a media culture under the influence of the consistent demonization of a country deemed an official U.S. enemy. This culture certainly played a role in allowing Andersons obvious falsehood to remain uncorrected for five monthsfive months after I first wrote about it, one month after I directly and publicly confronted Anderson about the error, and even then, days after I wrote another article urging readers to demand a correction.
While The New Yorker has dedicated literally no articles to U.S. ally Honduras since its current leader Porfirio Lobo came to power in repressive, sham elections held under a military dictatorship, Anderson was allowed to assert that Venezuelaa country with half the per capita homicides of Honduraswas Latin Americas leader in murders. One might reasonably suspect that a claim on The New Yorkers website asserting that the United States had a higher homicide rate than Bolivia (Bolivias rate is actually over two times as high), would be retracted more expeditiously.
Andersons explanation for his second errorclaiming that Chávez came to office through a coup detat rather than a free and fair electionfurther lays bare the corrupting effects of the generalized vilification of Chávez on basic journalistic standards of accuracy.
Anderson writes that despite his gaffe, he obviously knew Chávez gained the Presidency by winning an election in 1998, as he had interviewed Chávez a number of times, travelled with him, and came to know him fairly well. For Anderson to write such an egregious misstatement, then, and have it pass through what is likely the most rigorous fact-checking process in the industry, exposes a pervasive ideology under which he and his many editors and fact-checkers operate. As Jim Naureckas of Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting wrote, It's like writing a long profile on Gerald Ford that refers to that time when he was elected president.
Finally, Anderson offers a desperate attempt to justify his third factual error, stating:
A number of letters Ive received dispute, out of context, my reference to the same Venezuela as ever: one of the worlds most oil-rich but socially unequal countries; several cite an economic statistic known as the Gini coefficienta measure of income inequality.
Notice that Anderson never tells his readers what Venezuelas Gini coefficient actually is. According to the United Nations, Venezuelas Gini, at 0.397, makes it the least unequal country in Latin America and squarely in the middle range of the rest of the world. Only by sidestepping this brutal empirical obstacle can Anderson attempt to lay out his case. He carries on by reposting three paragraphs of his original essay, which in no way mitigate the falsity of his original claim, for context. Anderson finally concludes by offering a novel justification for his error:
In terms of some of the components of social inequality, notably income and education, Chávez had some real achievements. (Income is whats captured by the Gini coefficient, although that statistic has its own limitations, some particular to Venezuela.) But in housing and violence, his record was woefully insufficient. Those social factors are intimately related, to each other and to the question of equality.
A quick recap is in order before unpacking Andersons argument. Readers may remember that he first responded to evidence on income inequality by proclaiming, on Twitter, his agnosticism toward empirical data. Next, a senior editor at the magazine justified Andersons contention by arguing that Venezuela was one of the most unequal amongst other oil-rich countriesa point I debunked. Now, Anderson has settled on a definition of social inequality that minimizes Venezuelas high educational and income equality in favor of high homicide rates and unequal housing.
But simply saying that Chávezs record was woefully insufficient on housing and violence does not naturally equate to Venezuelas standing as a world leader in social inequality. Anderson must rely on comparative international statistics to justify his position, but fails to do so.
While Venezuelas homicide rate is high by international standards and a significant social ill, this alone does not necessarily make the country more socially unequal than another country with a lower homicide rate. Are Venezuelan homicides more skewed toward low-income residents than those in Costa Rica? Or Haiti? Are Venezuelan murders more targeted at women or ethnic minorities than those in Mexico or Guatemala? And given that the high homicide rate directly affects far fewer than one in a thousand Venezuelans annually, how could this statistic possibly outweigh the effect of massive income-inequality and poverty reductions? If he is solely basing his argument on murder rates, Anderson has no credible explanation as to why Venezuela is one of the worlds most socially unequal countries.
Anderson also doesn't offer statistics showing that housing is more unequal in Venezuela than anywhere else. Thats because its not.
Out of the 91 countries for which the United Nations has available data, Venezuela is 61st in terms of the percentage of its urban population living in slums. That is to say, two-thirds of the worlds countries with available data have larger percentages of their urban citizens living as slum dwellers. In the Western Hemisphere, this includes Guayana, Honduras, Peru, Anguilla, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Belize, Bolivia, Jamaica, and Haiti. (click to enlarge) It is also worth mentioning that this data was taken from 2005, when the percentage of Venezuelas urban population living in poverty and extreme poverty was at 37%. By 2010, according to the United Nations, it had been cut by a quarter, to 28% (p. 43). Furthermore, 2005 predates a massive governmental push in 2011 to build affordable housing. Earlier this year, Venezuelas Housing Commission chair asserted that in the years 2011 and 2012, the Bolivarian government together with the people reached the goal of building 350,000 homes.
It appears, then, that Anderson has discovered a new definition of social inequality that has eluded economists and sociologists worldwideone that systematically downplays Venezuelas educational and income equality while emphasizing a high frequency of murders and a rate of slum-dwelling that is low by international standards.
While one can applaud Jon Lee Anderson for finally acknowledging the value of social indicators and statistical data, he and his magazine cannot be allowed to define social inequality any way they see fit. No social scientist analyzing the available data could argue, like Anderson, that Venezuela is one of the worlds most socially unequal countries. While semantics games may be expedient in avoiding a necessary correction, readers should let The New Yorkers editor David Remnick (david_remnick@newyorker.com) know that a retraction of Andersons claim is long overdue.
Source: NACLA
This work is licensed under a Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives Creative Commons license
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/8859
Judi Lynn
(160,515 posts)Apparently it's pure ego that keeps them throwing out the lies and distortions in their smear campaigns against leftist leaders fascist politicians don't like.
[center]
[/center]
~snip~
There's probably a useful conversation to be had about Jon Lee Anderson's recent coverage of Venezuela and Chavez. His work is marked by weird internal stress points of fact, where the story he seems to be trying to tell about Chavez fails to align with the history of the country. In his January profile of Venezuela and its then-dying president, "Slumlord," he described Chavez's Caracas as a tragically fallen city, but located the "height of its allure" in 1983, or 16 years and six presidencies before Chavez ever took power. Likewise the Tower of David, the unfinished high-rise overrun by squatters that he presents as the monument to the Chavez era, was by Anderson's own account aborted in 1993still six years and a few presidencies before Chavezduring a collapse of the country's banking system. Given the amounts of atavistic propaganda in American news coverage of Chavez, it felt as if Anderson hadn't quite gotten himself clear on the question of how broken Venezuela really is, or to what extent that brokenness is Chavez's work.
More:
http://gawker.com/5989949/little-twerp--get-a-life-the-new-yorkers-jon-lee-anderson-thinks-hes-somebody-on-twitter