Honduras: The Traps of CNN in Spanish

CIA techniques for penetrating news media are well-known and have been denounced, with every possible detail, by various ex-agents of the “Company.” Through journalists who are ideologically compatible and/or paid, the CIA has the capacity to slip slanted or false news into newspapers, radio and television stations, which serves to misinform public opinion.

In his classic book, “Inside the Company: CIA Diary”, Philip Agee denounced journalists, who, during the 1970s, were paid by the CIA in Latin America. An example is Carlos Alberto Montaner, who, through the Agencia Orbe Latinoamericano, served the objectives of the CIA in its aggressive media campaign against Cuba.

In every country, the CIA has links with journalists who sell their integrity for money or who give it up because they seek some political interest. Because of this, one must doubt much of what one reads in newspapers, hears on the radio and sees on television; the best way to form one’s own opinion is to pay attention to media of diverse ideological orientation, especially those that are independent of party and economic interests.

Recently, CNN in Spanish has covered the coup in Honduras with extraordinary talent and malice, spinning stories finely and sometimes not so finely, so that public opinion adopts a position favorable toward the rebels, arguing that President Zelaya is not a good guy and that he would like to remain in power.

There is no room for doubt that CNN in Spanish has enormous influence in the entire region, and not exactly because of its seriousness, or for the pretty face of Claudia Palacios, or for the reactionary journalists who are more North American in their thinking that Latin American; instead, for the simple reason that it is has no competition at all – there is no alternative for the eager news watcher. In Engish, one has other options on cable, like the BBC from London or Al Jazeera, which offer serious and balanced information. Clearly, these two 24-hour news networks are better than CNN – so influential, so “in bed” — “embedded” — with the politics of the United States government.

In Spanish, CNN has an open field that Latin American TV cannot challenge at the moment – perhaps later on. National channels in the whole region are pathetic when one wants to see news; one finds only soap operas or astonishingly vulgar programs. And none offer 24-hour news or even a brief bulletin each hour, on the hour. Because of this, we have to watch CNN.

What we see on CNN is lamentable. To begin with, the journalists have received precise instructions, as usual, about the words they must use. For example, if they talk about the wall the Israeli government has raised to isolate the Palestinians – the new “wall of shame” of our time – they don’t use the word “wall”; instead, they have instructions to use the word, “fence” or “barrier”, even though they refer to a concrete wall worthy of a science fiction film. It is obvious that they want to avoid an analogy with the Berlin Wall, which was much lower. CNN said that the Berlin Wall was “an embarrassment”, but they don’t say the same about the Zionist wall.

With respect to Honduras, the language used clearly indicates the position of CNN in Spanish. They call Micheletti-Goriletti “President”, which is a way of recognizing the military coup. Even worse, through all the journalists from Atlanta, CNN in Spanish has been developing a political thesis to influence unwary or ingenuous viewers. All its artillery is aimed at demonstrating that the coup was justified, because Manuael Zelaya “was becoming a communist.”

These days, a report from CNN in Spanish on “what those who were not in accord with Zelaya thought,” without saying who, presents a skilled assembly of images to show that Zelaya was “incoherent” in his discourse, and that he changed his political position from the day he assumed the presidency – first, being very close to the U.S., and then very close to Venezuela. It is obvious what can be read between the lines: there is no problem with being too close to the U.S., even during the scandalous Bush presidency, but there is a problem in being close to Chavez and the rest of Latin America.

It is obvious that Hugo Chavez has done Zelaya a small favor, and the rebels should be very appreciative of that. The interference of Chavez in other countries irritates wide sectors of the population, even more when he offers generous military interventions. All interference in the internal politics of a country,either from North Americans or from Venezuelans, is offensive to the population. There is no good interference. Cooperation in concrete matters is another thing, such as the current struggle against narcotraffic, and health and education programs.

Mel Zelaya is a clumsy, country man, with a big hat — as rugged as Vicente Fox, with his cowboy boots — in a country that, sadly, has never stood for anything good. The people, with some exceptions, are so apathetic that, for many years, they supported the conversion of their country into a Central American airport for the U.S. to use in attacking Nicaragua during the first Sandanista government. Today, the Nicaraguan army could, with one finger, crush the Honduran army – very similar to Somoza’s national guard – which, without the U.S., would barely be able to cuff and reprimand the civilian population.

But whoever rules in Honduras – Goriletti or Manuel Zelaya – what cannot be allowed is a military coup. A president was chosen, and he must finish his term. There is no excuse for overthrowing him in a coup. And the arguments in favor of approving his reelection through a referendum are also less valid, indicating that rebels fear what the majority of the population may decide. Furthermore, the referendum proposal did not amount to much, simply proposing the installation of a fourth ballot in the elections for the Honduran people to state their opinion about the possibility of revising the Political Constitution of the State.

News media, like CNN, have, on one hand, increased criticism toward Manuel Zelaya to justify the rebels, and on the other, are minimizing and hiding information about repression in Honduras. Repression has caused several deaths and many injuries among the civilian population and, in addition, has restricted the work of journalists and news media, prohibiting the release of news not produced by the de facto government.

It would be very sad and lamentable if the international community would accept the status quo until the elections, in this way impeding the return of Zelaya to the presidency that he never left on his own accord.

But here, the problem is that the “international community” is a band of mafia men. Europe is silent in seven languages, which says much about its position. Sarkozy and Chirac go as far as Gabon to pay homage to the fallen dictator-thief, Omar Bongo, but they don’t move a finger for Honduras. If the European Union had been true to its word, it would have pulled out its ambassadors and suspended cooperation. If the U.S. were consistent with its words, it would have done the same, instead of proposing a dialogue that legitimizes Goriletti-Micheletti, with the sole purpose of buying time until November.

As for Latin America, if condemnation against the rebels was unanimous in the Organization of American States, they have not given other, concrete signals to isolate the de facto regime, like the cancellation of commercial flights, the suspension of commercial and diplomatic relationships, etc. Implicitly, all support the “dialogue” between a legitimate president-elect — even though he is a cretin — and a rebel, who is legitimized by those against the coup.

In this way, the field has been opened for other coups, and Guatemala could be next.