| Reuters Cant Find US Critics to Question Amazons Anti Venezuela Propaganda | MR Online Reuters Can’t Find US Critics to Question Amazon’s Anti-Venezuela Propaganda

Reuters can’t find U.S. critics to question Amazon’s anti-Venezuela propaganda

Originally published: FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting) on September 18, 2019 (more by FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting))  |

A line from the trailer for Jack Ryan, an Amazon TV drama whose second season streams on November 1, is:

A nuclear Venezuela…. You will not hear about it on the news, ’cause we’ll already be dead.

The trailer implies that Venezuela is going through the “greatest humanitarian crisis in history” because it buys weapons from “the Russians.” Of course. “It would fit a pattern,” says the Jack Ryan character, a CIA operative played by John Krasinski, who’s better known as Jim Halpert, the likeable paper salesman in The Office.

My favorite reaction to the premise of this upcoming Jack Ryan season came from U.S. historian Gary Alexander:

No matter how cynical you might be about propagandistic American media, you are not prepared for how much watching this trailer is like snorting 100% pure John Bolton.

Common Dreams’ Eoin Higgins (9/5/19) put together a nice roundup of the outrage and ridicule the trailer provoked on Twitter from independent journalists and others based in the US: Abby Martin, Adam Johnson, Alex Rubinstein, Chase Madar and Sunjeev Berry.

That’s far from an exhaustive list, but Reuters “missed” all of it. The news wire published an article the next day (9/6/19) headlined, “Amazon‘s Jack Ryan TV Series Lambasted for Promoting Venezuela ‘Invasion.’” The article stated:

Venezuelan Culture Minister Ernesto Villegas took to Twitter on Thursday evening to describe the show as: “Crass war propaganda disguised as entertainment.”

Villegas was the only person quoted or cited in the piece as a critic of the trailer. Are we to believe a Maduro government official is the only person Reuters could find on Twitter who “lambasted” the premise of the show?

The Reuters article on the upcoming Jack Ryan season also said that the

action/adventure video game Mercenaries 2, released in 2008, was set in a fictionalized war-torn Venezuela. That fueled outrage among Venezuela’s ruling Socialist Party, who called it an apology for U.S.-backed violence in the region.

Again, it’s apparently beyond Reuters to cite anti-war voices in the U.S. who were disgusted by the game. Chuck Kaufman of the U.S.-based Alliance for Global Justice said that the game was

capitalizing on negative and inaccurate U.S. press stories about Venezuela and its leader, Hugo Chavez, in order to make a quick buck. It’s another piece of anti-Venezuelan propaganda that serves only the U.S. military, pure and simple.

Unlike Kaufman, Reuters predictably exonerated the corporate news media in its explanation of why murderous fantasies about Venezuela appeal to the U.S. Entertainment industry:

The country’s socialist politics, rampant crime and open confrontation with the United States has made it attractive to the U.S. entertainment industry.

Incidentally, Mathew Alford and Tom Secker in their book National Security Cinema insightfully analyzed how the entertainment industry is frequently co-opted by U.S. military and intelligence services. So those are two UK-based writers for Reuters to ignore.

In covering the Jack Ryan trailer, Reuters also said nothing about Amazon’s lucrative CIA links (FAIR.org, 8/6/13). U.S. anti-war activist (and FAIR associate) Norman Solomon wrote about them in 2014, and asked, “In view of Amazon’s eagerness to dump the WikiLeaks site at the behest of U.S. government officials, what else might the Amazon hierarchy be willing to do?”

Produce incredibly vile pro-war TV is one answer to Solomon’s question, but Reuters also does its part for empire on a regular basis.

I’ve written before about how Reuters consistently reports the murderous impact of U.S. economic sanctions on Venezuela as a mere allegation by the Maduro government. For a month after U.S. economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeffery Sachs published a study (CEPR, 4/25/19) linking U.S. sanctions to tens of thousands of deaths, Reuters stuck with the “Maduro says” formulation, before finally mentioning the study in one article (6/9/19). Reuters has consistently reverted to the “Maduro says” approach since then—even the day after it finally mentioned the Weisbrot/Sachs study (Reuters, 6/10/19). In fact, the Jack Ryan article said “Maduro blames” Venezuela’s dire situation “on U.S. sanctions that have hobbled the country’s oil industry.”

The “Maduro says” approach has made Reuters flirt with wild conspiracy theory at times. Last year a drone dropped bombs on a military parade where Maduro spoke. This year, Reuters (8/14/19) said the incident is one that Maduro “describes as an assassination attempt.”

This technique not only invisibilizes principled U.S.-based dissent from Washington’s aggression, but also associates anti-war and anti-imperial views with governments it has helped Washington vilify. This is not limited to Venezuela.

For example, an article about John Bolton’s recent firing (Reuters, 9/11/19) says that “North Korea has denounced Bolton as a ‘war maniac’ and ‘human scum.’” Do you have to be a North Korean official to think Bolton, an architect of the Iraq War that killed at least 500,000 Iraqis, is a despicable person? Reuters couldn’t find a quote from peace activists in the U.S. expressing revulsion towards Bolton?

RT America (9/6/19) did its own article about the Jack Ryan trailer, featuring several U.S. anti-war voices—thereby showing that the U.S. political culture, beyond the “mainstream” at least, is not the moral and intellectual wasteland you might think it is if you rely on sources like Reuters. Of course, if (aside from small independent media) the only place one can go to hear U.S. critics of U.S. propaganda is an outlet affiliated with another U.S. enemy—Russia, RT’s sponsor—then the propaganda system wins either way.

Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds.