I just wrote this piece about a study of Globovision (a Venezuelan TV broadcaster) that was done by American University’s Center for Latin American and Latin Studies (CLALS).

Despite concluding that Globovision’s content was not biased in favor of the Venezuelan government or the opposition since an ownership change in May of 2013, CLALS decided to spin the findings in a way the hopelessly biased international media might find palatable.  I remarked in my piece that the CLALS researchers “either share the [international media’s] bias against Venezuela’s government, or feel strongly obliged to cater to that bias.”

Had I remembered this piece that Keane Bhatt did about CLALS back in 2013, I would have simply stated that CLALS shares the same bias as the international press. In fact, Keane Bhatt exposed CLALS engaging in blatant dishonesty, not just bias, regarding Venezuela.

Whoever suggested Globovision pay CLALS to do the study gave them gutsy advice. On the one hand, CLALS cannot be credibly accused of being partial to the Venezuelan government, quite the contrary.  Therefore CLALS was, in that sense, a good choice to rebut the widely spread insinuation that Globovision is now a government mouthpiece. On the other hand, I, personally, would not have trusted them to do the study honestly given their track record.

It will be interesting to see if Reuters, AP and others in the western media write anything up about the Globovision study. I know some Venezuela-based reporters have made inquiries of the researchers. Will the reporters end up spinning the findings (along the lines the researchers themselves suggested) or simply ignore the study?

---