To: Ben Fritz
From: Sheldon Rampton
Date: July 8, 2002

Thank you for posting my critique of your article. However, your response to my critique contains a statement which is simply a falsehood. You wrote:

Rampton then takes me to task for criticizing FAIR's statement that the Tribune "seemed to suggest that the coup would have been no bad thing if not for 'the heavy-handed bungling of [Chavez's] successors.'" He accuses me of selective quotation for not also noting that the Tribune said Chavez's return "doesn't mean it's good news for democracy." This sentence is not relevant, though, as FAIR didn't quote it to make its point. What's relevant is the sentence from which FAIR took the quote "the heavy-handed bungling of Chavez's succesors."As I demonstrated, FAIR took that quote entirely out of context to make a misleading point. FAIR is the one engaging in selective quotation -- not me.

How on earth can you dare claim that FAIR "didn't quote" the sentence in question "to make its point"? Here is the relevant passage from the FAIR commentary:

The Tribune stuck unapologetically to its pro-coup line even after Chavez had been restored to power. Chavez's return may have come as "good news to Latin American governments that had condemned his removal as just another military coup," wrote the Tribune in an April 16 editorial, "but that doesn't mean it's good news for democracy." The paper seemed to suggest that the coup would have been no bad thing if not for "the heavy-handed bungling of [Chavez's] successors."

As anyone can see who has eyes, FAIR did indeed quote the very sentence which Fritz claims it "didn't quote to make its point." Please note the relationship between the phrase which FAIR quoted from the Chicago Tribune -- "that doesn't mean it's good news for democracy" -- and FAIR's interpretation, which follows in the very next sentence. It should be clear to any honest reader that the sentence which FAIR quoted served as the textual basis for its claim that the Tribune suggested "the coup would have been no bad thing." I am frankly amazed that Fritz would write that this sentence is "not relevant" because "FAIR didn't quote it to make its point." I do not want to lightly accuse him of deliberate lying, but at best his statement reflects extraordinarily sloppy reading.

Fritz concludes his response by writing,

I never stated that FAIR should not criticize the newspapers for what they wrote. The issue at hand, though, is how FAIR characterized what the papers actually wrote about the coup. As I believe I demonstrated, FAIR misrepresented their editorials in order to score political points. Suggesting that I have a "terrible disregard for democracy and human life in Latin America" because I called FAIR on this is malicious and deeply unfair.

I don't think Fritz HAS demonstrated that FAIR misrepresented the editorials in question. To the contrary, Fritz himself misrepresented the editorials, in order to score political points against FAIR. The New York Times itself belatedly admitted that it and other voices in the U.S. media "applauded" the military coup which attempted to remove Venezuela's elected government. Everything that Ben Fritz has written on this topic is calculated to obscure this point, which was the central point of FAIR's critique. Fritz called it "malicious" for FAIR to criticize the Chicago Tribune's suggestion that the military overthrow of Venezuela's president was good news for democracy. He also says it was "malicious" for me to see disregard for democracy in his own pedantic defense of the newspapers which applauded the coup. Tough. I am sure that FAIR stands by its conclusions, and I certainly stand by mine.

Sheldon Rampton
Editor, PR Watch

To: Sheldon Rampton
From: Ben Fritz
Date: July 12, 2002

Sheldon,

My apologies for taking so long to reply. You're obviously right that I missed FAIR's quote in my response to you. No excuses -- it's a mistake and I apologize. Despite my delay in responding to you, though, I did promptly post a correction on our site.

You still have yet to overcome the basic point that FAIR took that sentence out of context for its own purposes. Even if one were to totally accept your argument that the Tribune piece is pro-coup, the sentence is question reads "Chavez had managed to alienate most Venezuelans before Friday, and his resurrection owes much to the heavy-handed bungling of his successors." The phrase "his resurrection owes much to" is not at all equivalent to the phrase "the coup would have been no bad thing if not for." It's thus no surprise that FAIR used the words "seemed to suggest" before it made that accusation, as those wiggle words let it avoid the fact that the Tribune didn't actually say it.

As for the Tribune piece, I'm not sure how many times we can go back and forth on this, since my point remains largely the same, but I truly do believe you're taking your own disagreement with the Tribune's dislike for Chavez's rule and its explanation of how the coup went down as evidence that they must like his coup. Perhaps you disagree with the Tribune's interpreation of what went on in Venezuela when it says things like:

The catalyst for the crisis was a general strike led by business and labor leaders. It culminated in a huge anti-government demonstration last week that ended when Chavez's security forces gunned down protesters on their way to the presidential palace. His authoritarian tendencies had grown so alarming that many Venezuelans saw the coup as the lesser of the available evils.

If so, you should certainly say that, and it would be an interesting argument--one I don't know enough to weigh in on. Luckily, I don't have to, since FAIR didn't, and neither have you. It's certainly within the Tribune's rights, though, I would think, to interpret what happened in Venezuela as the result of Chavez's authoritarian tendencies which led to mass demonstrations, Chavez's security forces shooting at the demonstrators, and a coup by military officials who thought this was unacceptable. Perhaps that's what happened.

What's important to note in that excerpt is it's the Tribune explaining what it believed happened. The fact that the Tribune thinks things were bad in Venezuela and that the demonstrations/shooting led in part to the coup doesn't mean it supports the coup.

What's the Tribune's actual argument, though? Is it's conclusion something along the lines of "it's too bad this coup didn't work out?" No. It says:

Clearly the country has far to go to establish genuine democracy. And while Chavez has returned to office stronger than before, the economic and social ills that plague his country have not gotten any more tractable.

Maybe his removal and return will induce him and his opponents to moderate their rhetoric, work together to solve these problems, and cool the passions that produced the recent turmoil. Otherwise, Venezuela may be in for a lot worse.

Clearly, the Tribune doesn't like Chavez. But it's certainly within legitimate grounds for a newspaper to editorialize that it thinks a president is lousy and things are unlikely to improve with him in charge.

The only other point I'd like to make is the irrelevance of your claim that:

The New York Times itself belatedly admitted that it and other voices in the U.S. media "applauded" the military coup which attempted to remove Venezuela's elected government. Everything that Ben Fritz has written on this topic is calculated to obscure this point, which was the central point of FAIR's critique.

1)I never claimed the first NY Times editorial didn't condone the coup.

2)The New York Times doesn't specifically mention the Tribune or Newsday editorials, so there's no reason to think it is apologizing for them.

3)Since when is the New York Times the final word on issues of media spin? I must admit I find that a surprising position for the editor of PR Watch to take.

Finally, since you linked to our original exchange on your site and chided me for not posting your second e-mail, I'll assume you're OK with me posting this exchange as well with a link at the bottom of our first one. Beyond the fact that I've been too busy to respond for the past few days, you should also know that we have a strict policy of not posting e-mail correspondence without permission unless it goes to our letters@ address, which is meant for public e-mail.

Best,
Ben

[Email this to a friend]     [Subscribe to our email list]

This website is copyright (c) 2001-2002 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan. Please send letters to the editor for publication to letters@spinsanity.org and private questions or comments to feedback@spinsanity.org.