Obama vs. Fox News

The Obama administration properly identified Fox News as the Media branch of the G.O.P. and that's right. Btw, they excluded the Fox in media briefings and meetings in which journalists can be summoned. If they're not journalists but political foes, they ought be treated as such. It is not enough to have a media to be considered a journalist. It's ludicrous.

In a brilliant article in The Nation titled "Just Don't Call it 'Journalism'", Eric Alterman says:

"It's a sad symbol of the state of contemporary American journalism that the White House communications office is doing more to maintain the honor of the profession than are many journalists. But that's just what's happening in the contretemps over Fox News. Interim White House communications director Anita Dunn has explained to the press that the White House plans to treat Fox "the way we would treat an opponent.... As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don't need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

Now, former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino, says as a derogatory: "Obama's Criticism Of Fox Akin To Chavez Tactics". But... wait: Who, if not the Bush croonies, are less entitled to use the word 'Chávez' as a derogatory word? It is? Why? Please, do yourself a little survey: Look how Chavez is treated in The Nation, Salon, Alternet, etc., and then look the same in the Washington Post, Politico, Mo-Jo, Media Matters, Fox News and so.

To my humble understanding, Chávez is far away from the "Big Satan" nick the rightist press tagged he worldwide. Nor they're morally entitled to do so, at least. Not the "Saddam WMD's"'ers, right?

If someone in the USA had said about his president the half about what the Venezuelan RCTV said on Chávez, it would be jailed for sure. Chávez limited itself to not renewing the State permission to air the propaganda RCTV usually made instead. I published a shocking report on that in my spanish blog. To say nothing on the "Puente Llaguno" affaire, in which the media presented the victims as attackers to try to oust Chávez from the Government in 2002.

Then, again: SOME press do not behave as the press is intend to. And when they behave that way, they can't pretend to be treated so. They must be keep away from the real press treatment. Press criticism is OK and should be encouraged. Rol's usurpation, attacks and ouster attempts is another very different issue.

Such three items in the press behaviour, i.e., rol's usurpation, attacks and ouster attempts, often is known worldwide as 'Colour Revolutions' (CR) or 'Velvet revolutions' or Soft Coups.

To the classical (and successful) CR acknowledged worldwide, i.e., Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, etc., many others were tried (without success yet) in Bolivia and Argentina (2008) and Iran 2009, but they're far from concluded.

In the Argentinian case (where I live), at least, the mainstream media is owned by the rich class, and the message they air say is what the rich class and landowners expects to be assimilated by the masses: Israel is OK, but Palestinians are not, Iran and Venezuela are nearby the evil's axis, Chávez and Ahmadinejad ought to be viewed as cockroaches, and so on.

Is this message familiar to you, live you where you live? Yes, the world press message reach the Argentinian tarmac pristine and without any noticeable distortion. Our 'free press' are no more than local amplifiers of The Global Voice the owners try to sell us.

The Argentinian main media operator, owner of the 73% argentinian licenses share is Clarín. And they ought be charged mainly on ouster attempts they did against our elected President, in a no-yet-so-successful Colour Revolution they tried last year and that they still now try to carry out. Clarín is the Argentinian Fox News Obama's equivalent. But it's another story that deserves itself a further article I will tell you in details anytime soon.