Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has long been demonized by the Western media as a “leftist firebrand” (the U.K. Independent), “militaristic strongman” (Financial Times), and as “Venezuela’s demagogue” (The Washington Post).

Mainstream news outlets have yet to fully investigate the Uribe administration’s role in the failed December operation.

It reflects recurring distortions in mainstream journalistic writing on Bolivia. There are a few outright falsehoods, like the “indigenous militias,” but beyond inaccuracies, U.S. reporting on Bolivia is misrepresented by the language and narrative form, shaped more by external perceptions and strategies than by Bolivian reality.

Later this month, the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) will publicly determine the “authenticity” of laptops recovered from a rebel encampment in Ecuador after a March 1 raid on the camp by the Colombian military. Based on previous press coverage of the incursion and the documents, we are concerned that the media take extreme care in interpreting the Interpol findings.

In a civil conflict such as the one in Colombia, propaganda is an important weapon. It is difficult for journalists and analysts to independently investigate the reality on the ground and so statistics and information are obtained from a variety of sources in order to draw conclusions. However, the mainstream media in the United States is often over-reliant on two sources: Colombian and US government officials. Not surprisingly then, it is the perspectives of the Colombian and US governments that inevitably dominate most news reports. By comparing conflict trends and human rights statistics with media coverage of Colombia’s violence, it is possible to understand why and how the public’s perception of the conflict has been distorted.

Apparently, Miami is a parallel universe where reality can be distorted with impunity. It's hard to know where to begin a critique of this June 17 Miami Herald editorial by Eduardo Gamarra. His editorial describes tense protests, but his manipulative account is unforgivable and grossly distorts the background leading up to the protests.

There are two salient trends in the US reporting about Bolivia: (1) the personalization of Morales as the representative of Bolivia’s transformation backed by social movements and (2) the misrepresentation of both the new Bolivian Constitution and the so-called Autonomy Statutes of the business and regionalist elite.

Independent reporting, free from the government’s fiery rhetoric, has been noticeably absent. A careful and sober account of Venezuelan media that focuses on the most basic and uncontroversial facts of what constitutes the Venezuelan media today has been non-existent in mainstream U.S. media (and even in many independent sources as well). Such reporting could present a more accurate picture of the actual situation of freedom of expression in Venezuela.

Recent coverage of the pending U.S. trade deal with Colombia made clear that major U.S. media outlets presented only their preferred side of the story rather than providing the public with the range of information necessary for an honest, informed debate on U.S. trade policy. Major media pulled out all the stops to come out in support of this one: NAFTA, human rights, terrorism, paramilitaries, Hugo Chávez... Wait, what?

The Andean Information Network (AIN) analyzes Simon Romero's recent New York Times article on the complex drug war relationship between Washington and the administration of Bolivian President Evo Morales. According to AIN's analysis, Romero's report contains multiple inaccuracies and misleading information, giving readers a skewed understanding of coca-related issues in Bolivia.

The mainstream media is howling over Hugo Chávez's bid to change the constitution for a third term, while coverage of Colombia's Álvaro Uribe, a staunch U.S. ally, to do the same raises few, if any, questions in the media. U.S. news coverage of parallel political events in Colombia and Venezuela offers an opportunity to test the usefulness of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s “propaganda model,” developed in their 1988 book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

Any evenhanded comparison of the Colombian and Venezuelan governments’ human rights records would have to note that, though Venezuela’s record is far from perfect, that country is by every measure a safer place than Colombia to live, vote, organize unions and political groups, speak out against the government or practice journalism. But this new survey shows that, over the past 10 years, editors at four leading U.S. newspapers have focused more on purported human rights abuses in Venezuela than in Colombia, and their commentary would suggest that Venezuela’s government has a worse human rights record than Colombia’s.