Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Wine For Stomach Problems

Press mercenary or primary as the National Fraud

Alejandro Ruiz

How is it possible that voter turnout of 361 thousand people in a small portion of the country has been so successful that "seemed more a day of national choice consultation base, and another primary election which took 2 ½ million people around the country is presented as a sample of "apathy, lack of people and desolation?

Everything is possible through the magic of the mass media.

In Venezuela the opposition and the ruling party of President Hugo Chávez made, each in its own way primaries to choose candidates for deputies to the National Parliament to be reconciled in the elections on 26 September.

The opposition, under the name of Bureau of Democratic Unity (MUD), made its electoral process on Sunday April 25, 2010. For its part, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) consulted its members and supporters on Sunday May 2, 2010.

For most of the Venezuelan media and crime, openly confronted the Bolivarian Revolution, democracy and electoral participation is on the side they say, as the glass of his interests. Never mind the ethics and journalistic objectivity.

Thus, the primary opposition, where 361,000 people voted to choose only 22 of the 110 candidates to the National Assembly nominal (20% of candidates) is to such means "a lesson in democracy", "a process successful "" high participation. "

contrast, recent PSUV internal elections, where 2,540,000 people voted to choose 110 candidates for deputies single-member (100% of candidates) is presented in such media as "a day of low flow," marked by abstention or, at best, "was developed normality. "

One of the most palpable of the mercenary journalism, which makes criminal democrats and revolutionary totalitarian hordes, is found in the "objectivity and impartiality" of the newspaper El Nacional in reviewing both the primary election process. On Tuesday

05/04/2010 (p.2), El Nacional published an analysis of Datanalisis director (A survey of opposition) that compares the participation in the primaries in relation to the total enrolled in the Electoral Register (ER), which in Venezuela is about 17 million voters. Now, from another angle, where there was greater participation. Mindful that Hugo Chávez says opposition but an analyst!

In summary, Luis Vicente Leon said: "From the number of registered voters in the 15 circuits that elected opposition candidates in those primaries voted 9% of voters. Doing the same with the 87 circuits of the PSUV, voted 15%. "

Actually opposition in the primaries voted 2% Voter Registration total (361 thousand people from 17 million), that 9% is only part of the universe 15 circuits. Anyway, it is obvious that 15% of voters who won the PSUV RE (2.5 million 17 million) to more than 2% or 9% partially mobilized the opposition.

Everywhere you look, how they compare, to the newspaper itself El Nacional, denied himself, as evidence: PSUV primaries were more participatory and democratic than those of the opposition MUD.

And how has the media reality that runs daily Miguel Henrique Otero, a member of the SIP?
"Assistance exceeded expectations in primary Opposition , deployed in front El Nacional (EN) in its Monday edition 4/26/2010. None mentioned the 75% abstention in the few circuits where there was consultation on the inside pages as the Technical Coordinator of the MUD reports that opposition participation was 25%, which is actually 9% of RE in these 15 circuits, as This is explained by quantum extrapolation.

"PSUV candidates chose an abstention of 62%" , is what stands El Nacional on its front page on Monday 03/05/2010. All adorned with photos and captions malicious.

And more. Despite the result which is evident in their own pages, El Nacional have no qualms in making an almost epic narrative of the primary partial and denigrate the opposition as much as possible the process of majority party government. Some examples of writing demonstrates handling (dis) information.

In the primaries of the opposition:

1. In the state of Carabobo, read in a trembling voice the day passed "with a large number of voters who waited under the hot sun and long lines. It seemed more a day of national choosing a database query "(EN, 25.04.2010, digital version.)

2. "A week ago Venezuela watched a show of enthusiasm and commitment to democracy" (Editorial EN, 02/05/2010).

3. "After the successful test on Sunday 25 April, when the opposition together with the measured quality independent sectors and the drag of their candidates ..." (Editorial EN, 03/05/2010).

However, in the primaries of Chavez:

1. Voters "hardly" "trying to line up to cover" (EN, 05.03.2010, legend on the front page.) In the "locations capital's apathy was observed, there was no queue (...) missing people "(p.2).

2. "The election of the ruling party passed without incident and amid continuing calls to go to the polls" (EN, 05.03.2010, front page). "To Chavez urged the membership to not stay at home" (p.2).

3. "I just went to the polls 2,539,852 [supporters of the PSUV], representing a 38% and thus, an abstention of 62%" (EN, 05.03.2010, p.2).

must add that for those El Nacional "only" 2 ½ million followers of the PSUV is nothing compared to the 361 thousand voters of the opposition (2% of the Electoral Registry) who participated heroically in this "show of enthusiasm and commitment to democracy" in 15 of 87 nominal circuits, where they managed to "drag" to 25% of their own supporters and, therefore, 75% did not bother to vote. While others, in 72 circuits, and consulted them.

Beyond these political considerations on the necessary primary and electoral alliances, mathematically there is a tangible reality: the opposition took 5% of PSUV supporters and 38%, an issue that should socialist organization review and refine after several internal electoral processes.

In any case, you must be registered in the PSUV to realize that the newspaper El Nacional and the like are a grotesque antiperiodic lesson. Pure mercenary media.


Post a Comment