Friday, December 12, 2008

Bolivia Apocolypse!

The BBC hasn't yet gotten the memo on the demise of the Media Luna.

With the new constitution headed for sure passage in the January referendum, Branko Marinkovic on the run, members of the Santa Cruz Youth Union (UJC) begging the Catholic Church for sanctuary "asylum", and Evo firmly in his strongest political position yet, the BBC runs this story "Bolivia's divisions herald more turmoil" which ridiculously claims, "as the day of the vote [constitutional referedum] approaches, tension is increasing."

"Tension" if you mean the sweat on the rightwing brows as they realize their irrelevance. Down South is absolutely correct to praise the article as a huge improvement over BBC's past performances, delivering a nicely balanced piece, but... (the editors are probably more at fault), in my opinion, at this point to give these loser Hitler lovers equal air time and respect only massages the delusional fantasy world of the Bolivian Right and their racist, violent, doomed opposition. For instance, the UJC vice-president is interviewed as opposed to the president, David Sejas, because their members are currently fractionalized and literally fighting among themselves over the group's leadership.

Sad thing is, this would have been a good article three months ago. I'm sure the BBC will eventually catch up...?


Bina said...

What amazes me no end about the lamestream media is how they give equal weight to truth and bullshit. The Beeb is no better than the rest of them at times like this. They're afraid to admit the obvious--that a solid majority of Bolivians think Evo's right-on. And some of that majority happens to be mestizo, or even white. (Don't take my word for it; watch Cocalero. I was floored by the scene in Santa Cruz where all the business people turned out for a MAS fundraising dinner and told Evo they liked his ideology!)

Why is the Beeb so timid, I wonder?

Lillie Langtry said...

I think the Beeb's mandate for impartiality leads to more problems that it solves sometimes. For example, if they make a programme on evolution, should they give equal weight to people who claim that the world is 6,000 years old and its first humans were called Adam and Eve, just because some such people exist? The impression is then given that the two sides of the argument are equally weighted, which they are not.

I noticed this article about Bolivia being declared 'free of illiteracy':
It's generally positive but still devotes three (quite brief) paragraphs to the 'opposition', Bolivia's 'division', etc.

Without believing it's perfect, I still have admiration for the BBC and get a lot of information from it. But I think that it's hugely difficult for such a large, bureaucratic organisation which ultimately relies on (British) taxpayers for its existence, to be anything other than 'timid'.