Andrew MacGregor Marshall, a former Reuters Bureau chief, was hung out to dry by his bosses after he obtained classified documents about the Thai monarchy. He recently summed up the way lies are spread by journalists working in the corporate media:

“Nobody ever told me that I should lie, and if they ever had I would refuse. I think most of my colleagues in the mainstream media are similar….

It’s not so much deliberate lies, although some clearly do engage in deliberate lies, but it’s just the sense that there are some things that are safe to say that we become conditioned that they are safe to say, and there are other things that we probably know them to be true, but if we say them we are mocked or delegitimised.”

Indeed, some things are simply true and, regardless of your politics, you should be able to say that they are true. For example, no matter what they think of the Maduro government in Venezuela (or of Maduro’s mentor, the late Hugo Chavez) corporate journalists should be able to honestly tell people what’s on TV and in newspapers in Venezuela – but they don’t. They constantly mislead people – through the use of outright lies and half- truths – into believing that aggressive anti- government views are very hard to find and well on their way to becoming invisible, especially on TV. In a previous piece, I mentioned that this lie was completely debunked by data for Venezuelan TV that the Carter Center gathered in 2013. I also pointed to numerous lengthy (and very friendly and uninhibited) interviews with prominent governments opponents that took place in 2014 on major TV networks, specifically Televen and Venevision.  Back in 2002, anti-government views were so dominant in the private media that it led to a briefly successful coup against the Chavez government.  The perpetrators openly thanked the media for its crucial assistance. After failing to make the coup stick in 2002, and then losing their dominance of the media, the opposition has successfully recruited the foreign corporate press to depict them as voiceless.

Consider this radio interview from July 2014. At about the 7:20 point, Ian Masters asked the UK Guardian’s Venezuela based reporter, Virginia Lopez, the following question:

“…is the fact that the demonstrations against the Maduro government have subsided, and that the opposition is silent, is that to do with the fact that now in Venezuela the Chavistas and the Maduro government basically control all of the media now? It’s sort of like Putin’s Russia, really, where there’s virtually no opposition media left. The last major newspaper that was an opposition newspaper apparently has been bought out by cronies of Maduro, and Globotelevision [sic], also the last opposition television network was bought out six months ago I think, but the newspaper was bought out relatively recently. Is that how it is in Venezuela now, that there really isn’t any opposition voice in the media?”

It appears that Master’s question is sincere, and for that reason especially damning of international press’ coverage of Venezuela. Lopez replied to Masters as follows:

“There’s decreasing numbers of opposition voices, in fact,  the country’s biggest daily which was just recently bought like  you said, just did sort of a clean swipe of all their editorial…all of their opinion commentators. So yes.”

This is staggering dishonesty from Lopez. The “biggest daily” that she refers to is Ulitmas Noticias. It continues to regularly publish op-eds by many of same rabidly anti-government people it published before the ownership change – for example.  Antonio Ledezma, Pompeyo Marquez, Gloria Cuenca among others.  More importantly, she happily allows Masters to believe “there really isn’t any opposition voice in the media” is a very close approximation to the truth. Because she reports for the UK Guardian, which is about as liberal as a corporate outlet gets, her lies will appear more credible than they would coming from a reporter who works for an newspaper regarded as “right wing”.

Where are the news articles in the international press exposing her lies? Nowhere; the following excerpt from a Reuters article is about as good as it gets:

“Opposition critics say the socialist government’s policies are tantamount to slowly muzzling the press.

Government sympathizers argue that private media have historically sided with the opposition, pointing out that they often virulently attacked late socialist president Hugo Chavez, and backed a brief coup against him in 2002.”

Actually, the position of “government sympathizers” is that the opposition no longer dominates the media as it did during the 2002 coup, but that it retains ample access to the TV and print media and regularly uses it to ferociously blast the Maduro government. You don’t have to be a “government sympathizer” to draw this conclusion. You just have to read newspapers, watch TV, and honestly sum up the content.  Regardless, even if Reuters’ “he said, she said” formulation had been more clear and accurate it would remain spineless. Are fierce anti-government voices shut out of Venezuela’s TV and print media? Is that remotely close to being true? Reuters dare not answer. Virginia Lopez, on the other hand, feels it is very safe to answer dishonestly.

Incidentally, Reuter’s did feel safe going with a headline to the article saying “Out of paper: Venezuela’s oldest newspaper halts circulation.” It neglected to mention that the newspaper in question – even if really the “oldest” as claimed – is a small newspaper with a daily circulation of 40,000. Ultimas Noticias, in contrast, has a circulation of about 260,000 according to figures from 2009.  Reuters also neglected to say that a newsprint shortage has impacted some small pro-government newspapers.

All that is required for dishonest journalists to prosper is for honest ones to stick to saying what is politically safe – exactly what Andrew MacGregor Marshall said.