From: harelb@math.cornell.edu (misc.activism.progressive co-moderator)
Subject: The Corporate "Free Press" Covers El Salvador Elections
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: daemon@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: misc.activism.progressive on UseNet ; ACTIV-L@UMCVMB
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 10:59:47 GMT

The Corporate "Free Press" Covers El Salvador Elections

On the sources used by the Times in dealing with the prospective
Nicaraguan election, it can be seen on Table 2 that the Sandinistas,
themselves, accounted for only 39.5% of the sources used; critiacal
U.S. officials and the Nicaragua opposition to the Sandinistas
accounted for 60.5% (31.5 of which indirect) 31.6 opposition (of which
half was indirect/half direct)...

It is even more impressive to see the level of suppression of
inconvenient item sthat are *off* the government's agenda. Note that
there is no mention of fraud in the 1982 election (line 10), although
there had been an inflated vote count (election chief Bustamente had
even admitted a 10% inflation) [4], and more recently the current head
of the Central Electoral Commission, Dr.  Armando Rodriguez Equizabal,
acknowledged that fraud might well have affected over 25% of the 1982
ballots [5]

[ES: US41,ES39,FMLN10 ; Nica: US29, FSLN39.5]

[4] See the discussion in Demonstration Elections, pp. 130-133

[5] Julian Preston, "1982 Vote Fraud Cited by Salvadoran Officials,"
Boston Blove, Feb. 25, 1984. To acknowledge these claims and
admissions would raise questions about the integrity of the election
manageers.

The most striking fact about Table 3 is the almost total suppression
of any discussion of the basic preconditions of a free election. It can
be seen on lines 11-15 that there is not a single mention in 28
articles of the issue of freedom of the press, freedom off
organization, or limits on the ability of candidates to quality and
campaign freely. Only one article mentioned constraints on free
speech and three other hint rathe rgingerly at state terror as a
possible negative influence on voter freedom.

This suppression package is thrown into bold light by the fact that it
is precisely these issues that the New York Times "news" articles
feature in the coverage of Nicaraguan, as can be seen on lines 4-7 of
Table 4. Most dramatic is the dichotomy shown in the treatment of
freedom of the prss in the Salvadoran and nicarguan elections -- the
subject is not mentioned once in 28 Times articles on El Salvador
election; it is mentioned (and usually addressed in detail) in six of
eight articles concerning elections in nicaragua!

As factual background for this dichotomous treatment, it should be
noted tha serious opponenets of the Sandinistas can speak and publish
*in* nicargua; no supproter of the rebels can do so in El Salvador,
and even liberal papers seeking a middle path have been driven out of
existence.

It can also be seen on Table 3 that the New York Tims essentially
suppresses the election sday coercion package. In only four articles
doe sit mention  the legal obligation to vote, in two the requisite
stamping of the voter's identification card; but these and other
elements inducing turnout are never brought together and considered
as a whole.. In not one article is it suggeted that the army-security
forces interest in turnout, and the army record in dealing with
"subversivews, " [se AI ES report --------------------] might make the
legal requirement to vote more compelling...

------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Objective news as systematic Propaganda:

The New York Times on the 1984 Salvadoran and Nicaraguan Elections.

By Edward S. Herman.


Edward S. Herman is a professor of finance, Wharton School, University
of Pennsylvania. His most recent book, with Frank Brodhead, is
Demonstration Elections: U.S.-Staged Elections in the Dominican
Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador" South End Press, 1984.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive