Visions of a Freeman - xx of
xxx del 201x
That is not how you treat a friend mate.
I will split this analysis into several sections:
1) Integrity check.
1) Integrity Check.
Let us start with an Integrity check.
The title says that Chavez left Venezuela in an economic muddle.
Yet the text right after the title has nothing to do with the title, at all. In fact it has do to with giving details about some doctor that gave a rumour.
This alone broke the style of the article but there are more problems in the form of the article.
Then it touches the Gini coefficient but that has nothing to do with the services a nation has.
It does NOT care about hospitals & health care.
It does NOT care at all about education
It does NOT care about food.
It does NOT care about job stability.
If that is not included then it is certainly a very bad way to cover the issue that is specified in the title which clearly says: "Are you better off than in 1998?"
If someone is going to talk about being better then he has to cover all the variables that form part of quality of living, not only the gross income. Equality does not mean a better standard of life, so this part of the text is seriously flawed & I would say even biased.
Another issue that is seriously wrong with that news is that it focuses on foreign investors as a way of developing, which is absolutely wrong simply because no one invests 1 penny if he does not receive at least 3 pennies in return, which effectively bleeds the country out of it's resources, making this a cruel statement: "hollowed out the country's productive base".
Venezuela is not productive by investments, but by education. The entire article has NOTHING to do with education, at all. Nor the improvement of the work force and it does not show the fact that international companies are still investing in Venezuela, but under a fair agreement with the government simply because we do not need the capital to be be sucked away, we need investments that are actually positive to us, not negative that leave only loses.
They "forgot" to include that not all oil is sold to China and that the money that comes from China is being paid on time and it is not used to pay regular monthly expenses but in infrastructure, which means that that money does not represent a desperate attempt to pay bills, as the BBC portrays it or allows it to be shown that way, which is serious since that article is about business.
If someone has to make an ethical analysis and not some junk news that person has to not only gather information from an ethical source, but also from a dignified source.
If the information is not taken from where it should be taken and we get accustomed to that and we allow this to happen the end result is that journalism as a whole looses the valuable data sources that are NOT enforced because of the awful practice of getting used to spreading the facts, which makes all analysis harder for everyone else.
The first thing an ethical journalist should do is ask the most credible or at least official source, if that information is not available then, and only THEN can data from other sources be used. The reason for that is to stimulate among journalist a practice that improves the sources of information, making it easier for all of them.
The source, which is the Venezuelan Government was never mentioned, simply because they don't care AT ALL about the proper respect they should have to the Venezuelan people and I will talk about that later.
But lets check the sources they used, just to see if it is even ethical:
Dr Jose Rafael Marquina
Ethics is just respect to integrity. If you want to be ethical you have to use sources that at least have a scientific value as a credible source to most of the parts involved. An ethical fact or reference is thus a scientific reference.
Jose Marquina does NOT enjoy credibility among a HUGE part of the Venezuelan population, scientifically it would not be a credible source of ethical information. But even so, the BBC used a man who only gave RUMOURS without any scientific evidence as a support in a news that does not even have anything to do with the title and the rest of the content of the news.
Tal Cual newspaper
That newspaper has strong rejection in Venezuela precisely because it has made a name for itself as a pathological abuser to the principles of ethics...
A source that has serious evidence of lack of ethics or even a newspaper article should NOT be used by any newspaper or media that wants to at least pretend it has any ethics.
As I read this junk I remind my readers of one of the principles for a correctly structured Academic News, and that is to include the source of the data being used in the relative or limit sections. This gives way to a better a more scientific approach to journalism.
Everything that I marked in blue above, inside the content of the news has unaccountable sources. I repeat, unaccountable sources, that means that type of journalism is CORRUPT.
Since it has no sources, then it has no scientific value and thus it is unethical JUNK.
If they want to cover a news from another country the least they can do is have the proper RESPECT and DIGNITY to be ethical and being ethical includes showing the sources, like you would do in a TRIBalance system.
This is why this type of JUNK journalism must be stopped and replaced with REAL PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM in order to achieve better harmony and peace in society.
To me ANY part of a news that is NOT accounted for is simply: BULLSHIT. We have to get used to thinking in that way, it's good for our own intelligence and self respect, specially when we read journalists AND media that do NOT respect their users properly or even use the media to ABUSE other countries.
Arturo Franco of the Center for International Development at Harvard University
If the United Nations and the International Law states clearly that every country in the world is a sovereign state then why is there an International Development Center fully functioning AWAY AND AGAINST the sovereign decisions of sovereign countries?
They can't even have the ethics to respect the dignity & sovereignty of other countries, thus they are obviously NOT an ethical source at all because ethics demands respect & dignity not just to other countries but to the International law.
By the way look at this:
milking its funds to finance his social spending on housing, healthcare and transport.
It never says education... Probably it's done on purpose or the author simply does not care AT ALL about education, which by the way speaks volumes of his academic level...
The fact is that under President Chavez there was a strong investment in education.
Reuters news agency published a special report into a state corporation, Fonden
First of all, Reuters is a News Agency, it has news, not the hard facts. To get the facts you would have to use the official data from the government or a government employee. At least they have to mention the fact that they could not get the data because there was no reply, like it's usually done in normal journalism.
Being that news agencies like Reuters were doing research that is NOT EVEN THEIR PROBLEM and in total disregard for the Venezuelan people and Institutions that is NOT an ethical source at all.
I will prove it:
It found a string of abandoned or half-built facilities, including a paper factory, an aluminium mill and a fleet of unused buses - all of which apparently received money from Fonden.
It says: "apparently" which clearly means that it is unethical data that could be just BULLSHIT, this made even more serious by the fact that they are clearly snooping around in things that should not and is not even their problem.
It is, by the way, an act of aggression to throw "apparently" rocks at another country. If any person wants to talk about any other person in a negative way, specially when countries and governments are involved then they should at least have the decency to communicate with REAL FACTS (scientifically accounted for).
I don't have to say that this fact is enough to prove that Reuters was NOT being an ethical source.
Bank of America-Merrill Lynch, government expenditure rose 30% in real terms
It is clearly NOT THE BUSINESS of a Bank to see and distribute the government expenditures data of another country, specially when it is not even present in that other country or when it is giving data that was given for the purpose of investor analysis and not for awful, unethical journalism. That in itself speaks volumes of how serious that bank is.
At any rate, even if it was grabbed from a web page that we do not know if it was revised by the Venezuelan Government we do not have a link to the source to check it out, all we have is an educated rumour that it said it, no way to check if it is true and to make matters worse, no effort was made to ask the entity that should give these details: The Venezuelan Government.
Lets rate this one as a "moderate" ethical transgression.
Capital Economics, a research company
There we go again... Another company that steps right over Venezuela and wants to control it's information... Just what we need, more commerce with the data instead of getting it from the source or at least try to get it...
Another abuse to Venezuela.
Yet another source to step over Venezuela with, like if there was no Venezuela at all or even a government.
This one is serious because they are not only giving information, but it's not even information at all... Its just a wild guess. Observe: "reckons it could have reached 12% by now". See it says: "it could have reached 12%", that means there is NO CERTAINTY that the data is real, so it is clearly NOT ETHICAL.
"it forecasts a slowdown in 2013, with just 1.8% growth expected, while many analysts are expecting the country to fall into recession this year"
Where is says "forecasts" it means that it is GUESSING, and since it is a GUESS then it is not certain and because it is not certain it is not ethical, this added to other transgressions that make the offence apparent.
It gets worse, observe: "expected". That means it is uncertain as well.
That is not all, observe: "many analysts". What many analysts? Many analysts of what? Is it even analysts of the World Bank? Do they even have a name?
For all that matters, it's many GHOST ANALYSTS. A strong sign of crappy, offensive & aggressive journalism.
And then: "expecting", that means they are not even sure.
Four "maybe" words in a single line! FOUR!
That means there is clearly an intention to make a point out of totally uncertain data. That is a clear sign of intentional aggression.
That "forecast" or probability is not an ethical source, its a guess, a probability.
Observe this: "In theory, it should also help"
Even MORE suppositions... Even more evidence that the journalist does not know what he is talking about or lacks the proper information to even write about it at all.
There it goes again: "But observers reckon".
More GHOSTS without a name!
As survey organisation Consensus Economics says
Yet another way to get that from any other source that is NOT the source itself... Stepping over Venezuela like if we did not even exist and not even specifying if they could not access the data from a legitimate and obvious source.
Bloomberg news agency
Well, well, look at here, if it isn't the hellish hell hole of vultures Bloomberg, mentioned at my site as a MAJOR transgressor to the most elemental principles of Ethics and one of the great media gangsters of Venezuela. Also responsible for interfering directly with the Judicial & political system of Venezuela.
I do not even know why a news agency is considered a credible source, if all they do is redistribute information and in that case he would have to inform of the bottom source anyway. Like for example: "Person X said this at a Bloomberg news". A news agency by itself is NOT a source, unless the news has to do specifically with the Agency and this is not the case so this is, once more, a transgression to ethics.
Let is check what we have:
Do I need say more?
Today President Chavez died.
He was a national hero to millions of people, dozens of millions of people if we add people in his country and abroad.
He was also very liked in South America, the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Central America.
The moment he died, at least a million people cried.
It even hurts me to write this right now. Like him or not he was like a father to Venezuela. Some might say he was a good father, some might say he was an awful father, but he was still the paternal figure.
This attack of the BBC goes beyond the concepts of:
GROSS, BRUTAL, INCONSIDERATE, ABUSIVE, HEARTLESS & SOULLESS.
This is certainly NOT the type of friends Venezuela needs and I doubt this is the type of friends ANY country needs at all!
Even if he had the facts correctly structured, which he did NOT, because he made an attack over suppositions & wild guesses based on unethical sources and procedures, even if he did it was STILL NOT THE TIME TO DO IT.
This is the type of behaviour you would expect from a person that has NO CONSIDERATION for the Venezuelan people AT ALL.
I could care less that all the sources had something to do with capital, I do not believe in the existence of Capitalism but what I just saw was a pure, inhuman act of EXTREME CORRUPTION OF JOURNALISM & even of their own HUMANITY.
This is one more reason why we need Academic TRIBalance Journalism. Simply because we deserve more than BRUTAL JUNK from LAME, UNETHICAL, INHUMAN & BRUTAL MEDIA.
If the BBC even had honour, it would at least fire that ASSHOLE!
And yes, I had to use that word, I have feelings, not like the BBC, it's the only way you know how outraged I feel.
Now look at this:
Need I say more?
But then again, draw your own conclusions...