{"id":131361,"date":"2019-04-15T12:00:51","date_gmt":"2019-04-15T11:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=131361"},"modified":"2019-04-13T11:41:09","modified_gmt":"2019-04-13T10:41:09","slug":"dictator-media-code-for-government-we-dont-like","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2019\/04\/dictator-media-code-for-government-we-dont-like\/","title":{"rendered":"Dictator: Media Code for \u2018Government We Don\u2019t Like\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

11 Apr 2019 – <\/em>Let\u2019s start with a quiz: Quick! Name some dictators!<\/p>\n

I\u2019m willing to bet most of you responded with just a few of the same names: Assad, Putin, Castro, Kim Jong-un, Gaddafi, Maduro. This is not because they are the only dictators in the world (far from it), or that all of them even necessarily qualify for the title, but precisely because these are the figures most constantly labeled as such by our media.<\/p>\n

\u201cDictator\u201d is a very powerful moniker to give someone. There is a hard-to-define but very important distinction between a government with authoritarian tendencies or a poor human rights record, on the one hand, and a full-blown dictatorship. The very name implies that dictatorial governments should, nay, must<\/em> be resisted and overthrown, while the same action is not appropriate or justifiable for the former.<\/p>\n

Democracy is a supposedly sacred ideal for Americans. Politicians and media tell us that the United States \u201cstands for\u201d democracy and opposes dictatorships everywhere, one reason why the US must continue to involve itself diplomatically and militarily around the world.<\/p>\n

However, Freedom House\u2019s<\/a> \u201cFreedom in the World\u201d studies find that 49 countries\u2014over a quarter of the world\u2019s governments\u2014are \u201cnot free\u201d, a designation they use<\/a> interchangeably with \u201cdictatorships\u201d on their website<\/a> and their reports<\/a>. Why then, do most politically savvy people not know<\/a> the names of all these dictators? Why are they not household names, like Assad and co.? Is it because the United States provides military assistance (training, sales and aid) to three-quarters of them, as Rich Whitney\u2019s study (Truthout<\/strong>, 9\/23\/17<\/a>) suggests?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Most dictatorships in the world are supported by the United States (Truthout, 9\/23\/17)\u2014but this isn\u2019t true of most governments described by US media as \u201cdictatorships.\u201d<\/p><\/div>\n

How Free is Freedom House?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Defining and quantifying what does and does not constitute a dictatorship is a notoriously tricky business, and Freedom House\u2019s strong conservative political bias makes its list and judgments all the more questionable. For one, the \u201cnon-governmental\u201d organization is actually overwhelmingly funded<\/a> by Washington, who employed<\/a> Freedom House in 2006 to perform \u201cclandestine activities\u201d\u2014i.e., regime change operations\u2014in Iran.<\/p>\n

The man in charge of compiling the freedom list, used by Whitney and many others, admitted his methodology consisted of \u201chunches and intuition<\/a>.\u201d And as many scholars<\/a> have indicated, Freedom House also has a long history of supporting US client state dictatorships and attacking enemy states such as Nicaragua; the ratings have a strong conservative<\/a> and pro-US<\/a> ideological bias. Nevertheless, its index is useful, as it is the most commonly<\/a> cited source on the matter, and one can assume that it is not going out of its way to falsely label US allies as dictators.<\/p>\n

When you look at the governments that Freedom House describes as dictatorships, those that are also Official Enemies are frequently described as such in corporate media\u2014for example, Russia (Washington Post<\/strong>, 5\/8\/18<\/a>), Cuba (USA Today<\/strong>, 2\/26\/19<\/a>), Syria (New York Times<\/strong>, 3\/2\/19<\/a>), Belarus (ABC<\/strong>, 3\/5\/19<\/a>),\u00a0 North Korea (USA Today<\/strong>, 3\/22\/19<\/a>) and Venezuela (New York Times<\/strong>, 4\/10\/19<\/a>). Yet \u201cour dictators\u201d\u2014that is, the \u201cnot free\u201d governments that Washington supports\u2014are rarely if ever labeled as dictatorships by the establishment press. In fact, there is very little coverage at all of those countries that are \u201cbehaving themselves\u201d as far as the US State Department is concerned.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s look at the press coverage of four of Freedom House\u2019s \u201cdictators\u201d who receive US military aid, all of whom have been in the news recently: Paul Biya of Cameroon, Abdel el-Sisi of Egypt, Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria and Kazakhstan\u2019 s Nursultan Nazarbayev.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

VOA (2\/14\/19) frames coverage as though Paul Biya\u2019s age is the issue, rather than his anti-democratic rule.<\/p><\/div>\n

Cameroon<\/strong><\/p>\n

The 86-year-old Paul Biya, the longest serving non-royal head of state in the world, has held office in Cameroon since Gerald Ford was president. He recently won a seventh term in office that Foreign Policy<\/strong> (10\/22\/18<\/a>) described as a \u201cfarce.\u201d Cameroon has been in the news of late, due to the government\u2019s human rights abuses pushing the country to the brink<\/a> of a civil war. Freedom House considers<\/a> it to be one of the least free countries in the world.<\/p>\n

However, when discussed at all, Biya was presented matter-of-factly by the media, without the need to add call him a \u201cdictator.\u201d The New York Times<\/strong> (10\/6\/18<\/a>) presented him euphemistically as \u201cone of the world\u2019s longest-serving presidents.\u201d From the coverage, readers would not know he is a dictator, even by Freedom House\u2019s standards. In fact, going through fully 20 years of coverage in the Times<\/strong>, Biya was never once described as a \u201cdictator,\u201d \u201cdespot,\u201d \u201ctyrant\u201d or any other similar designation.<\/p>\n

When Biya was rebuked at all, the tone of the coverage was less condemnatory and more muted criticism. Voice of America<\/strong> (2\/14\/19<\/a>) noted that Biya\u2019s decision to remove presidential term limits (meaning he could rule for life) led some \u201ccritics\u201d to call the move \u201cauthoritarian.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

CNN (2\/13\/19) reports on a \u201cdebate\u201d over whether Gen. Abdel el-Sisi should continue to \u201cserve as president\u201d for the next 15 years.<\/p><\/div>\n

Egypt<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gen. Abdel el-Sisi came to power in 2013 in \u00a0a military coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of President Mohamed Morsi. Sisi recently announced his plan to rule until 2034\u2014effectively in perpetuity.<\/p>\n

The New York Times\u2019<\/strong> article (2\/14\/19<\/a>) on the subject noted that this would \u201cfurther entrench his authoritarian rule,\u201d and even noted he had jailed \u201ctens of thousands\u201d of opponents, muzzled the internet and taken over the courts. Nevertheless, it stopped well short of calling him a dictator. Indeed, it noted that he enjoyed strong support from around the world, and was seen as a \u201cbulwark against Islamist militancy\u201d in the region, endorsed by the US and France. Other media outlets followed this tendency. CNN<\/strong> (2\/13\/19<\/a>) simply described him as \u201ccurrent President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi,\u201d while NPR<\/strong> (2\/14\/19<\/a>) likewise just referred to \u201cEgyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi.\u201d<\/p>\n

While accurately noting Sisi\u2019s \u201cunprecedented crackdown on dissent,\u201d which imprisoned \u201ctens of thousands of people,\u201d the BBC<\/strong>\u2019s report (2\/15\/19<\/a>) labeled him neutrally as \u201cpresident,\u201d and only characterized his steps to rule virtually indefinitely as something \u201copponents of the proposal describe\u201d as \u201ca further step towards authoritarianism.\u201d Thus, its strongest criticism of Egypt is that it\u2019s accused of moving toward \u201cauthoritarianism\u201d\u2014a long way from being a full-fledged \u201cdictator.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

On CNN (3\/11\/19), Abdelaziz Bouteflika is not presented as a dictator stepping down but as a president making an electoral decision.<\/p><\/div>\n

Algeria<\/strong><\/p>\n

After he announced he intended to stand once again for president, massive protests broke out all around Algeria against 82-year-old Abdelaziz Bouteflika. The uprising has been serious enough that he has promised<\/a> to stand down. Despite coming to power fraudulently and ruling with an iron fist for 20 years, media outlets (e.g., CNN<\/strong>, 3\/11\/19<\/a>; Reuters<\/strong>, 4\/2\/19<\/a>) have refrained from describing him as a dictator, with the BBC<\/strong> (3\/6\/19<\/a>) simply referring to him as a \u201creclusive president.\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed, reading the Guardian\u2019<\/strong>s coverage \u00a0(4\/1\/19<\/a>), one would have no idea he was not the epitome of a democrat. The New York Times<\/strong> (3\/12\/19<\/a>) also praised Bouteflika for \u201cbringing back stability\u201d to the North African country, and \u201crestoring the honor of the nation\u2019s army.\u201d As with Cameroon\u2019s Biya, Bouteflika has never once been described as a \u201cdictator\u201d in the last 20 years of Times<\/strong> coverage.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

The New York Times (3\/19\/19) doesn\u2019t shy from labeling Nursultan Nazarbayev the \u201clongtime president of Kazakhstan,\u201d though in the ninth paragraph it notes \u201che won repeated elections with nearly 100 percent of the vote each time.\u201d<\/p><\/div>\n

Kazakhstan<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another ruler propped up with US military aid is Nursultan Nazarbayev. The 85-year-old, in power since 1989, recently announced<\/a> he would step down. It was also revealed that Kazakhstan\u2019s capital, Astana, would be renamed<\/a> Nursultan in his honor (not a common occurrence in democracies\u2014with Washington, named for the winner of an election that involved approximately 1 percent of the population<\/a>, arguably not an exception).<\/p>\n

Nazarbayev has a long history<\/a> of cracking down on freedom of speech, the press and \u00a0religion, and uses torture against his political opponents. Despite this, he was presented positively in the media, with the New York Times<\/strong> (3\/19\/19<\/a>) simply referring to him as the \u201clongtime president of Kazakhstan.\u201d The Associated Press<\/strong> (3\/19\/19<\/a>) called him \u201cthe only leader that independent Kazakhstan has ever known,\u201d praising him for \u201cmaintaining stability.\u201d Reuters<\/strong> (3\/19\/19<\/a>) claimed he was a \u201cwidely popular\u201d leader, with none of the above using the \u201cdictator\u201d moniker.<\/p>\n

The Washington Post<\/strong> editorial board (3\/29\/19<\/a>) published a glowing appraisal of his tenure. It presented him as a visionary leader, an ex-steelworker \u201cwho led the former Soviet republic out of the empire\u2019s chaotic implosion,\u201d claiming he brought Kazakhstan into a peaceful, prosperous new era, while \u201cbuilding national identity\u201d and stopping any ethnic conflict. While noting that he \u201cruled as a strongman\u201d and \u201cwould have been wiser to view dissent and democracy with more tolerance,\u201d the editorial implied his repression was justified, concluding \u201che won\u2019t be soon forgotten\u201d by his people.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

This is not the kind of headline you get if you are a government in good standing with Washington (Miami Herald, 2\/25\/19).<\/p><\/div>\n

Double Standards<\/strong><\/p>\n

The double standard is highlighted by the constant media references to enemy states as dictatorships, whether the label is warranted or not. The Washington Post<\/strong> (1\/4\/19<\/a>) describes leftist Bolivian President Evo Morales as \u201cwishing to become a Venezuela-style dictator,\u201d while the Guardian<\/strong> (12\/3\/18<\/a>) carries warning of Bolivia becoming an \u201cimminent \u2018Venezuelan-Cuban-style\u2019 dictatorship.\u201d<\/p>\n

The leftist Sandinista government of Nicaragua is constantly called a \u201cdictatorship\u201d as well. The New York Times<\/strong> (8\/2\/18<\/a>) published an opinion piece from a Nicaraguan headlined \u201cA Dictatorship Is Rising in My Country Again.\u201d Many other outlets describe him as a \u201cdictator\u201d (Economist<\/strong>, 7\/12\/18<\/a>; Time<\/strong>, 3\/18\/19<\/a>) carrying out a \u201cterrifying crackdown\u201d (National Review<\/strong>, 3\/15\/19<\/a>)\u2014language that is never used for US-backed dictatorships.<\/p>\n

And it takes only a cursory glance at the headlines to see how Nicolas Maduro, \u201cthe child butcher of Venezuela\u201d (Washington Examiner<\/strong>, 2\/21\/19<\/a>), is portrayed:<\/p>\n