The New York Times' Larry Rohter attacked our film, South of the Border, for "mistakes, misstatements and missing details." But a closer examination of the piece reveals that the mistakes, misstatements, and missing details are his own, and that the film is factually accurate. I urge Americans to visit www.southoftheborderdoc.com and see for themselves the litany of factual errors made by Rohter and the pervasive evidence of animus and conflict of interest in his attempt to discredit the film. I prefer to focus here on other important points the film aims to elevate.
As shown in South of the Border, since Latin America started electing left and center-left governments, beginning with the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998 in Venezuela, and followed by Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Ecuador, El Salvador, and others, major U.S. media outlets have often provided distorted and biased coverage of the region. This coverage has often portrayed Latin America's shift toward progressive governments as a destabilizing and undemocratic force for the region and a threat to American national security.
Consequently, most media reports on Venezuela frame their stories in ways that are likely to make American audiences distrustful and apprehensive of Venezuela. These frames are reinforced by commonly repeated media myths and inaccuracies that further tend to portray the Venezuelan government as an enemy of the United States, and as an increasingly totalitarian government that is stifling dissent, cracking down on the press, and eroding democratic freedoms.
I have no problem with honest debate surrounding the issues raised in South of the Border or for that matter and of my films. I know very well that my films are provocative and in fact they are intended to promote discussion and to move people to seek information and answers for themselves rather than having it spoon fed to them by uninformed reporters. We have all been victims of years and years of blighted journalism and I pointed that out at the National Press Club last week before a room full of journalists. South of the Border takes an unflinching look at the role the media has played in perpetuating and disseminating misinformation to Americans, and I like to think that it is a counter to the imbalance that has existed. There's a great story unfolding in South America and it needs to be told.
Also Read Bob Naiman's Huffington Post blog "NYT Attacks Border with False Rant of Pro Coup Reporter".
Don't know much about Venezuela so look forward to learning more when I can see the movie.
I just wish the tired old trigger words that go with Latin America, Mexico, Immigration, all that would end - why is there so much fear?
Our media serves the propaganda interests of the US government foreign policy establishment. Just read Lara Lohan's comments regarding the Rolling Stone article
Stone, Penn and Glover are all getting played by him. It's actually pretty funny.
They're his puppets.
End of discussion
Phil Donahue opposed the war in Iraq and was fired from MSNBC. There is no need to shutdown a TV Station when they are quieting journalists on their own or you have someone like Lara Logan who refuses to report anything negative about the people she covers.
What's wrong with him nationalizing industries, like oil, that will benefit all the citizens of his country instead of making a couple of people extremely wealthy?
Stone, Penn and Glover all have their critical thinking in tact and we can all learn from them.
I know it's hard to ignore critics with agenda, like the NYT, because the amass money on Wall Street/City of London to persuade the serfs of their empire that what they do to 3rd world countries is right, just and healthy for the world.
But please be comforted that many people are waking up to the bought-n-paid for propaganda because the same Wall Street crowd that looted Venezuela, when I lived there, are now looting the United States with unlimited bail outs and perpetual war-for-profits.
When Chavez was elected, I never seen so much objectivity and criticism of the government by the press that's mosty owned by the oligarchs of Spain, The Cisneros family.
However, like any responsible nation, a government should not allow propoganda to go as far as cheering the coup de tat of their elected leaders, even if the leader is considered 'bad' by outside opinions'.
Does there exist some croniasm and corruption Chavez's socialist party? Sure
But what government on earth can point the finger? Certainly not the Wall Street owned U.S.
Venezuela is doing alot of things right by making the poor people his priority, will that anger alot of rich Venezuelans who benifited from the corrupt Wall Street puppet governments of the past and have now fled the country? Of course.
But remember, your complacency to get rid of Wall Street is what contributes to the poor who elected Chavez.
The NY Times isn't fit to line the bottom of my birdcage and I wish them exactly what they deserve after the Run-Up to the Bush/Cheney War of Lies and Fraud and their pandering to Wall Street greed and fraud is even more disgusting and exposing of their failure.
May they go the way of all flesh.
But it would never occur to me to draw any general conclusions from their statements.
Why not?
The reportage of a singular point of view does not provide sufficient data to draw any general conclusions. That is a fallacy in reasoning, fairly well known to those who paid attention in school.
Following in your post is a series of unsupported assertions apparently intended to insult Chavez, Stone, and anyone who might take them at their word.
Rhetorically, and argumentation is rhetoric, you do your case harm by making pejorative statements with no support in logic, reasoning, statistics, cause and effect, comparison, figurative expression, rhetorical questions, nor any other of the tools and operations of argumentation.
From what you say, you have not yourself ever lived in Venezuela, and you are challenging the veracity of someone who has at least spent time there.
I don't see Stone as a saint, and recognize that he usually has an axe to grind. But he seems to be out there making those exes his life work, while here we sit idly chatting on a social network. Do you see some inequity of intent and effect here?
You seem like someone who wants to make a statement to be taken seriously. I recommend "Empowering Writers" which website has a great workbook on argumentation and persuasion.
I knew better, but I read the thread for Friday's article "Arizona's Anti-Immigrant Law Hits Women the Hardest" about women suffering violence and rape that are afraid to report and be outed to ICE. I wasted my time reponding to one of many emerging from their rocks to blame the victims with "she can get in line and come here LEGALLY if she wants" (actual quote.) I posted a link to the graph from reason.org showing this assertion as flawed, but was answered back with the "I knew a guy..." story that too many feel trumps actual statistics and documentation.
I wish I could cut-and-paste most of your calm and eloquent words above, because when faced with such blind and intentionally entrenched ignorance of those who continue with not only incorrect, but nasty comments in spite of being shown facts that contradict them, I just want to respond with the exhasperated reaction from Jon Stewart to FoxNews: "Go f@%k yourself!"
The opinions of people who may not have benefitted from the changes made by a government leader do not necessarily mean their view is the correct view and the last word.
Down here we are all thankful that the USA is up to it's ears in Afganistan and Iraq and they can't afford to pay attention to us. The one thing that gets Latin Americans nervous is when the USA begins to pay atention to us because there is probably some general they want to put in charge of our country.
Posish!
R/ PRONESE