Feature Article

Presidents and Tyrants

By Peter Carrs

On "Larry King Live" back in October 2006, former President George H.W. Bush was goaded by Larry King to give his gut opinion of Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela. This was soon after Chavez had come to New York and called then President George W. Bush, H.W.’s son, “the devil” from the podium of the U.N. General Assembly. “He’s an ass,” the H.W. said about Chavez.“ …But with oil at $60 a barrel he’s gonna do what he wants to do. But somehow,” he continued, a little dismissively, “in the end, these tyrants have a way of falling.” Although this was just a casual exchange on a national human-interest interview show, it is illustrative of how major U.S. media act as educators of the American audience.

The media as educator role teaches us not only about other nations, but perhaps more importantly about our own nation through a constant reiteration of America’s positive self-image qualities: democratic, freedom loving and freedom protecting, generous, helpful and ready to intervene in the cause of fairness, justice and democracy (to name only a few). In supporting these themes the role of media as educator works not by inclusion, but by omission. If there are parts of stories that aren’t very flattering of American actors and the U.S. in general, these details tend to be downplayed or omitted. Why does this happen? America-negative stories tend to alienate advertisers and advertisers pay the bills. Too many America-negative stories will also alienate official sources, the life-blood of big media. And many journalists crave, and their careers depend on, access to ‘limelight’ political and cultural figures. A big part of access is playing by the rules and sitting on potentially damaging or embarrassing news.

To the rest of the world much of U.S international relations reads likes a ‘whodunit’ without the mystery. But the U.S. public is rarely given a more complex, historical understanding of U.S. involvements overseas by the media. Consequently, the U.S. public often doesn’t understand overseas resistance to U.S. policies and operations and often views much of the ‘world out there’ as ungrateful of ‘America’s benign generosity’. There are often historical reasons for this perceived ingratitude, but these reasons are often omitted from international news stories.

The wellspring of support for popular leftist, anti-American leaders in Latin America like Hugo Chavez (and other leaders around the globe) flows from the violent involvements of U.S. corporate/political actors in that region. These involvements began in the 19th century and continue to this day (note the very recent U.S. supported coup in Honduras). The history of popular and/or democratically elected Latin American leaders directly deposed (often assassinated) by U.S. forces or at the behest of Washington is long and well documented: Herrera in 1921, Arias in 1941, Arbenz in 1954, Allende in 1973 and many, many more. When leftists organize and fight conservative, U.S.-backed repressive regimes they are labeled in the U.S. press as “insurgents,” “agitators,” “rebels” etc.  If, however, the insurgency is U.S.-backed, they are hailed as “freedom fighters” (i.e. Ronald Reagan’s Contras).

The media as educator role functions quietly but it is always in play, often leaving back-story elements by the wayside that could help to more fully inform the American public about international news. When a revered former U.S. President casually says on TV that “these tyrants have a way of falling,” many people around the world can only groan. And many Americans have no idea why.