{"id":117290,"date":"2018-08-27T12:00:38","date_gmt":"2018-08-27T11:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=117290"},"modified":"2018-09-03T10:58:28","modified_gmt":"2018-09-03T09:58:28","slug":"distorting-past-and-present-reuters-on-nicaraguas-armed-uprising","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2018\/08\/distorting-past-and-present-reuters-on-nicaraguas-armed-uprising\/","title":{"rendered":"Distorting Past and Present: Reuters on Nicaragua\u2019s Armed Uprising"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

23 Aug 2018 – <\/em>From April 18 until late July 2018, an armed insurrection in Nicaragua left hundreds of people dead. The uprising, backed enthusiastically by private media outlets in Nicaragua (in particular one of its largest circulating newspapers, La Prensa<\/strong><\/a>, and the TV network 100%Noticias<\/strong><\/a>), was also supported by local NGOs funded by the US government<\/a> through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The Trump administration and others (the EU parliament, UN officials) publicly backed the opposition\u2019s version of events, as did Amnesty international<\/a> and Human Rights Watch<\/a>. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and his supporters were held responsible for the vast majority of the \u201cprotest\u201d-related deaths, and Ortega (who had been re-elected in 2016) was pressured at first to resign outright, and later to hold \u201cearly elections.\u201d<\/p>\n

I examined 45 Reuters<\/strong> news articles<\/a> about the uprising in Nicaragua since April 18, as the London-based wire service, whose news articles are widely reprinted throughout English-language Western media, provides a good sense of the ostensible facts about the conflict as portrayed by corporate journalism. The story conveyed by Reuters<\/strong> is that the Sandinista government is opposed to democracy and human rights in Nicaragua, while the US government supports these things. Various other sources, which may provoke less distrust than a US government led by Donald Trump, were cited in support of this scenario. But a closer look at the picture presented by Reuters<\/strong> reveals numerous distortions about Nicaragua\u2019s past and present.<\/p>\n

Whitewashing the gruesome US track record<\/strong><\/p>\n

Daniel Ortega first came to power in 1979 when the rebel force he was a part of, the FSLN, or \u201cSandinistas\u201d as they came to be known, ousted the US-backed dictator Anastasio Somoza. \u00a0The Somoza family\u2019s dictatorship was established in 1937 as a direct result of a US occupation that lasted, almost continuously, from 1912 until 1933. By the end of the occupation, Somoza\u2019s father was head of the US-trained National Guard.<\/p>\n

Reuters<\/strong> mentioned the US occupation one time (5\/28\/18<\/a>) in the 45 articles, but very misleadingly suggested it lasted only six years. Somoza was mentioned in 11 of the articles. Only one of those (5\/28\/18<\/a>) mentioned that Somoza was a \u201cUS-backed\u201d dictator. By contrast, Ortega was disparaged as being like Somoza in four articles. \u00a0For example, one article (7\/19\/18<\/a>) said that the protests had led to 300 deaths, and then quoted a government opponent saying, \u201cHe seems more and more like Somoza with the violations of human rights and killings.\u201d Reuters<\/strong> provided no response to this comparison from Ortega\u2019s supporters, but some of the following points would very likely have been made had Reuters<\/strong> looked for one.<\/p>\n

Somoza\u2019s National Guard is estimated to have killed between 40,000\u201350,000 people in his last 18 months in power (John A. Booth, The End and the Beginning<\/em>, p. 181; Thomas W. Walker, Nicaragua<\/em>, \u00a0p. 6). \u00a0One three-week bombing campaign alone by Somoza\u2019s military in September of 1978 killed at least 3,000 people<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The level of US support for Somoza is best illustrated by the Carter administration\u2019s maneuvers to thwart meaningful change as Somoza fell (Walker, Nicaragua<\/em>, p. 37). \u00a0A month before Somoza fled to Miami, the US ambassador to Nicaragua, Lawrence Pezzullo, told Washington that with \u201ccareful orchestration, we have a better than even chance of preserving enough of the [National Guard] to preserve order and hold the FSLN in check.\u201d Only 11 days before Somoza fled, Pezzullo heinously advised<\/a> Washington, \u201cI believe it ill-advised to go to Somoza and ask for a bombing halt.\u201d Carter also made no objection to a $66 million IMF loan to Somoza two months before he fled.<\/p>\n

The Reuters<\/strong> articles never mentioned the horrendous death toll from Somoza\u2019s last stand, or US efforts to keep his repressive apparatus intact when Somoza himself could not be rescued.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Ronald Reagan with a T-shirt promoting the Nicaraguan Contras.<\/p><\/div>\n

Ronald Reagan, dispensing with Carter\u2019s attempt to use finesse, had the US train, arm and finance the Somocista \u201cContra\u201d rebels throughout the 1980s. Reagan\u2019s Contra war in Nicaragua cost 30,000 lives. Reuters<\/strong> mentioned Reagan\u2019s backing for the Contras in eight of the 45 articles. Two (6\/24\/18<\/a>, 6\/3\/18<\/a>) noted the 30,000 people who died as a result of the war against the Contras. None mentioned that the Contras were basically run by Somoza\u2019s ex-National Guardsmen<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Four articles stated that Nicaragua was \u201cone of the poorest countries in the Americas\u201d (4\/20\/18<\/a>), or words to that effect\u2014which is unsurprising, given that 78 years of Nicaragua\u2019s history consisted of direct US military occupation, a brutal US-backed dictatorship, and the Reaganite terrorist war. It wasn\u2019t until about 2008 that Nicaragua\u2019s real GDP per capita<\/a> recovered to the level it had reached when Somoza was overthrown.<\/p>\n

It should be noted that Reuters<\/strong> is capable of putting sweeping indictments in its news articles, provided they are aimed at the Official Enemy. One article (5\/28\/18<\/a>) stated that \u201cOrtega has consolidated his rule by neutralizing and co-opting credible opposition and stalling the development of independent institutions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

\u201c\u2018No Surrender,\u2019 Say Opponents to Nicaraguan President After Clampdown,\u201d was the headline of Reuters\u2018 story (7\/18\/18) accompanying this photo of Nicaraguan police.<\/p><\/div>\n

Casting doubt on Ortega\u2019s democratic legitimacy<\/strong><\/p>\n

One Reuters<\/strong> article (7\/18\/18<\/a>) stated that \u201cOrtega is a former Marxist guerrilla leader who has held elected office since 2007 and also ruled the country from 1979 to 1990.\u201d The contrast between \u201celected office\u201d and \u201cruled\u201d erases Ortega\u2019s electoral victory in 1984 from history; it was never mentioned in any of the articles. One of the ways Reagan justified his aggression against Nicaragua during the 1980s was to claim that Ortega was a dictator, ignoring the 1984 election, \u00a0which Ortega won with 67 percent of the vote, or claiming it was fraudulent. FAIR (Extra!<\/strong>, 10\/87<\/a>) noted in 1987, \u201cEighty percent of the [New York<\/strong>] Times<\/strong> sources about Nicaragua\u2019s election were US officials and Nicaragua\u2019s boycotting opposition.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another Reuters<\/strong> article (6\/24\/18<\/a>) contains this jaw-dropping passage:<\/p>\n

Some in Nicaragua are looking to the lessons of the 1990 election when Ortega was defeated by an alliance led by Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, the widow of a murdered opposition journalist. Her pitch was to end the civil war that claimed more than 30,000 lives.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The \u201copposition journalist\u201d Reuters<\/strong>\u00a0 mentioned, Pedro Joaqu\u00edn Chamorro Cardenal<\/a>, was murdered in 1978 as a fierce opponent of the Somoza dictatorship, but Reuters<\/strong>\u2019 wording deceptively suggests he was killed by the Sandinistas. Even more disgracefully, the \u201clesson\u201d from 1990 was that if you are US-backed candidate promising to end US military and economic attacks on your country, you can use that to win an election. Chamorro\u2019s \u201cpitch,\u201d based on the exploitation of violent foreign intervention, should completely discredit her victory in the eyes of reasonable observers.<\/p>\n

Much of the US establishment has questioned the legitimacy of the 2016 US election based on reports of email hacking by Russia. If email hacking invalidates an election, then what about terrorist attacks and economic blackmail in support of the winning candidate?<\/p>\n

Another Reuters<\/strong> article (5\/16\/18<\/a>) said that<\/p>\n

Ortega, 72, first took power in 1979 after the Sandinista rebels overthrew the Somoza dictatorship. His government then fought a war against US-backed \u201cContras\u201d before he was voted out in 1990.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Again, Ortega\u2019s 1984 electoral victory is edited out of history, and he is presented as finally bowing to the will of voters in 1990. In the eyes of Western journalists, elections don\u2019t exist when Washington doesn\u2019t like the results, but US aggression does not mar an election result that the US government applauds.<\/p>\n

In contrast to its knee-jerk acceptance of Chamorro\u2019s electoral victory in 1990, Reuters<\/strong> relayed opposition allegations of electoral fraud against Ortega in eight articles. One of them (5\/28\/18<\/a>) stated that Ortega was \u201cre-elected in 2016 with nearly three-quarter of the votes after limiting opposition participation.\u201d But an OAS report<\/a> on the 2016 election defended the election\u2019s legitimacy; the OAS\u2019s observer mission, according to the OAS press office, identified<\/p>\n

\u201cimportant advances\u201d and \u00a0\u201cweaknesses typical of all electoral processes\u201d that have \u201cnot affected substantially the popular will expressed through the vote.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The OAS has never been inclined to give governments targeted by Washington a pass; quite the contrary, which is why several years ago leftist governments in the region worked to create alternative organizations<\/a>, like CELAC and UNASUR.<\/p>\n

A year after Ortega\u2019s last re-election, Latinobarometro, a pollster that tends to be biased<\/a> against governments Washington dislikes, found Ortega\u2019s government to be the most popular in Latin America<\/a>, according to a broad range of questions<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (4\/27\/18<\/a>) offered an explanation for why Ortega might be far more popular among Nicaraguan voters than he is with Western journalists:<\/p>\n

Since 2006, Nicaragua\u2019s per capita GDP has increased<\/a> by 38 percent \u2014 more than in Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador or Honduras. Inequality, too, is lower in Nicaragua<\/a> than any of those other countries, save El Salvador. Poverty has been cut nearly in half, according to World Bank data<\/a>, from 48 percent to 25 percent.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

None of the Reuters<\/strong> articles mentioned the poverty reduction that took place during Ortega\u2019s recent years in office.<\/p>\n

Concealing opposition support for social security cuts <\/strong><\/p>\n

Protests erupted in response to the government announcing changes to the social security system. Reuters<\/strong> (4\/19\/18<\/a>) described the changes as follows:<\/p>\n

Employees will now have to contribute 7 percent of their salary to social security, up from a current 6.25 percent. Employers will have to contribute 22.5 percent of salaries from a current 19 percent. Pensioners will also have 5 percent of their pension taken out to be used for medical expenses.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

An article by the Tortilla con Sal collective in Telesur<\/strong> (4\/21\/18<\/a>) clarified that the 5 percent benefit cut would be taken from \u201cretirees\u2019 pensions so they receive the same healthcare benefits as active workers (which they currently do not).\u201d Moreover, the changes removed \u201cthe salary ceiling so that people earning high salaries pay social security contributions proportionate to their income.\u201d<\/p>\n

The majority of Reuters<\/strong>\u2019 articles (27 out of 45) noted that proposed \u201csocial security\u201d (or \u201cwelfare\u201d) changes sparked \u201cthe protests.\u201d Many of those articles referred to the changes as \u201ccuts.\u201d The word \u201cslash\u201d was also used.<\/p>\n

But tellingly, not a single article reported that COSEP, the business lobby that joined the coalition to overthrow Ortega, itself supports very deep and unpopular cuts to social security. On April 19, right after protests began, a COSEP press release<\/a> called on Ortega to \u201cbe responsible,\u201d even if it meant \u201cpaying the political price,\u201d and endorsed a plan for a 20 percent cut<\/a> in social security. The opposition newspaper La Prensa<\/strong> (4\/18\/18<\/a>) also made clear that it supported much deeper cuts to social security than the Sandinistas, dismissing Ortega\u2019s proposal as \u201cjust a patch\u201d in an April editorial that called for \u201cprofound structural changes.\u201d The specific plan COSEP endorsed was based on recommendations by the IMF and FUNIDES, a Nicaraguan NGO funded by the US government<\/a> through the NED. NED funding for the Nicaraguan opposition<\/a> was never brought up by Reuters<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

One Reuters<\/strong> article (5\/28\/18<\/a>) spun the opposition\u2019s lack of coherence beyond an \u201cOrtega must go\u201d line by calling it a \u201cbroad new coalition\u201d that is \u201clooking to the lessons of the 1990 election.\u201d Another (6\/24\/18<\/a>) described the \u201cuneasy union\u201d and \u201cdivision,\u201d but somehow never reported the basic fact that key groups within the opposition want much deeper cuts to social security than what Ortega proposed. Of course, if you are looking to seize power by applying the \u201clessons of 1990,\u201d why worry about such details?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Reuters would be unlikely to characterize protesters as \u201cmainly peaceful\u201d if they were shooting mortars at the police force of a pro-Western government.<\/p><\/div>\n

Hiding violence of \u2018mainly peaceful\u2019 opposition<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Reuters<\/strong> articles generally stuck to uncritically reporting what local rights groups<\/a> claimed about the victims of violence. These claims were backed up by prominent international outfits like Amnesty International. Amnesty\u2019s Erika Guevara-Rosas was quoted by Reuters<\/strong> (7\/18\/18<\/a>) as saying \u201cPresident Ortega has shown time and again that he will stop at nothing to crush all those who dare to oppose his government and anyone unfortunate enough to get in the way.\u201d<\/p>\n

A few times Reuters<\/strong> dispensed with quoting sources, stating directly that Ortega was guilty of a \u201cthuggish response to weeks of protests\u201d (5\/28\/18<\/a>) or \u201cviolent repression of dissent\u201d (7\/24\/18<\/a>, \u00a07\/23\/18<\/a>). Even the Trump administration was uncritically quoted by Reuters<\/strong> (7\/17\/18<\/a>) as joining the \u201coutcry\u201d over human rights. The same article quoted UN human rights spokesperson Rupert Colville as saying \u201cthe protesters were mainly peaceful, though some were armed.\u201d<\/p>\n

They \u201cprotesters\u201d weren\u2019t simply \u201carmed,\u201d though. They killed people.<\/p>\n

Independent journalist Max Blumenthal (Mint Press News<\/strong>, 8\/6\/18<\/a>) went to Nicaragua and spoke to numerous family members of people killed by the \u201cmainly peaceful\u201d opposition, who did a lot more than simply \u201coppose the government.\u201d One high-profile victim miraculously escaped death, a student leader named Leonel Morales, who initially led protests against Ortega\u2019s social security proposals. Soon after protests began, Morales held a nationally televised press conference saying that armed groups had infiltrated the protest movement at a major university. La Prensa<\/strong> (4\/26\/18<\/a>) ran a hostile news article about Morales\u2019 press conference, saying he \u201ctried to delegitimize the protest movement.\u201d<\/p>\n

Days after that press conference, Blumenthal (Shadowproof<\/strong>, 8\/5\/18<\/a>) recounted, Morales was \u201ckidnapped from his girlfriend\u2019s house by a truck full of armed men. He was shot in the face, shot in the stomach, stabbed, and thrown in a ditch to die.\u201d La Prensa<\/strong> never reported the near-fatal assault on Morales, nor did Reuters<\/strong>. Blumenthal, who visited Morales in the hospital<\/a>, was shocked that many high-profile and readily accessible victims of opposition violence were ignored by foreign journalists.<\/p>\n

\n

I visited Leonel Morales today. He is in the hospital in Managua going through a string of surgeries. An armed opposition affiliated gang kidnapped him at his gf\u2019s house, tortured him, slashed and shot him, and left him for dead in a drainage ditch. He miraculously survived. pic.twitter.com\/Ols3Vg2FtV<\/a><\/p>\n

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) July 22, 2018<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n