UPDATED
First, this does not include the NYT because I have already exhausted my quota of free articles...
Second, there is enough elsewhere anyway to figure out that after 14 years of chavismo and Venezuela allegedly focused attention, too many of them still do not understand what is really going on, while a segment in that group seems sorry that Chavez may go, probably thinking still that he is the dreamed for socialist knight. Oh well...
Are we talking about the same country?
Let first read a report from The Economist and one that I read the same day from The Guardian. They all come from London but apparently they did not make it to the same country... Ah! I miss Rory Caroll..... If the Economist is clearly closer to the point, it is not that The Guardian is way off. I would rather say that The Guardian is missing the forest for the tree (or is it the other way around?)
The third man from London does not help.
Perhaps the BBC may bring us closer to some form of Venezuelan truth. But once again it falls victim of its diffidence. First, opposition just die like flies, a headline that so justly irked JC at CCSCHR. Then the headline changes to three, but at least the article leader specifies the more pro active "have been killed".
OK, let's forget these wimpy scripts and move on to the Sunday coverage. Where this blog saw the biggest rally in the history of the Americas BBC saw at most tens of thousands marchers even though they admit that the Bolivar avenue contained 100,000. At least they did find the opposition march more photogenic than the Chavez shows.
Sorry BBC, but in 2006 you were much better. Then the Tories were not in office I suppose.
Fortunately the Yankees are coming.
If the Brits never seem to quite get it, with the honorable exception of The Economist more in tune than usual, but they again they worry about the real concrete stuff, we can count on the US to have a better understanding of things Venezuelan. Though one cannot say the same thing about foggy bottom......
The Washington Post brings Forero with an important matter: how the youth may decide the election against Chavez. If the WAPo is too lefty for your tastes you can always read IBD which is never at a loss for words: A Thug's Comeuppance? Hugo Loses The Lead. You may observe that this blogger is interviewed for that piece even though he is the most outed social democrat of the English speaking blogosphere. Go figure...... The more to the left a media the less they trust the blogosphere it would seem.
But fear not, yankee media has its share of duds. For example, even if a tad old, there is this thing in Time from Padgett who would have been advised to read blogs before giving the Caldera video a headline value. It reminds me that it has been a good decision to ignore Time and Newsweek years ago.
And what to say about CNN? Out of Sunday it got that Chavez said, before throngs of supporters wearing red shirts in the state of Zulia but Capriles: The 40-year-old former governor of the Venezuelan state of Miranda sported a baseball cap, and a shirt with the yellow, blue and red stripes of the country's flag. His voice strained at times as he struggled to make himself heard above the cheering crowds. That is it. At least the crowds (less than throngs? more?) cheered (at his guacamaya outfit?). At least they have CÑN which is more aware and less idiotic as CNN.
Unfortunately overall it remains that to follow Venezuela in English you need to read blogs and be picky about the media you chose. At this point the best overall coverage on Venezuela is still in El Pais of Spain. The best coverage, more honest and to the point you will find of last Sunday rally of Capriles is the one from correspondents Maye Primera and Luis Prados, a coverage that should put to utter shame the one of the BBC that is not even signed......
Update: the Guardian also carried a much, much better piece. Sure enough it is signed by Rory Caroll who does not buy the B.S. Too bad he is leaving Venezuela coverage for good soon.