The Caracas-based correspondent Phil Gunson (left) and Donald A. Lamont, formerly the United Kingdom's ambassador to Venezuela, at a party sponsored by the Venezuelan newspaper
El Nacional in Caracas in 2005.
By Justin Delacour
Latin America News Review
June 12, 2010
About three weeks ago, I posted a
short blurb about a curious
NPR interview with the prominent freelance correspondent Phil Gunson during Venezuela's failed coup of April 2002. I noted that it was "grossly contradictory" for Mr. Gunson to describe the coup leader Pedro Carmona "as a conciliator, as a man of consensus" immediately after having explained that Carmona had just dissolved Venezuela's Congress and Supreme Court. I wrote, "one wonders if Mr. Gunson will ever be called upon to explain the words that he used to describe Carmona at the failed coup leader's moment of infamy."
I checked my blog today and noticed that Mr. Gunson appears to have responded. Thus, I must first thank Mr. Gunson for providing me the opportunity to once again call upon him to explain the words that he used to describe Carmona on that fateful day. Below is Mr. Gunson's initial response to me, followed by my rejoinders.
Hello Justin. Considering that we disagree on just about everything that has happened in Venezuela in the past ten years, I'm a little surprised that you want to pick a fight over something we actually agree on. As you know, because you have read plenty of the articles I have written about the 2002 coup, I condemn the dictatorial behaviour that triggered the well-deserved overthrow of the brief regime of Pedro Carmona. Why don't we have an argument about something more interesting, and relevant to today's Venezuela, such as the ongoing coup against the 1999 constitution by the present regime?
As to whether Mr. Gunson and I "disagree on just about everything that has happened in Venezuela in the past ten years," I doubt that's really true. People can draw quite different lessons from contemporary history without necessarily disagreeing on "just about everything that has happened." Although I'm sure that Mr. Gunson and I have some disagreements with regard to what we think the facts are, I would submit that the primary differences between Mr. Gunson and myself have more to do with the lessons we draw from contemporary Venezuelan history.
To illustrate the point, let us revisit Mr. Gunson's
NPR interview of April 12, 2002. Mr. Gunson stated that, by shutting down Venezuela's National Assembly and Supreme Court, the coup leaders were effectively "dispensing with the need to deal with any remaining opposition on the part of Chavez's supporters." Here, Mr. Gunson and I can agree that his statement is a factual one. What is in question, however, is whether Mr. Gunson is fully capable of drawing conclusions that logically follow from the facts that he himself presents. I would submit that Mr. Gunson's simultaneous description of Carmona "as a conciliator, as a man of consensus" did not logically follow from the facts that he himself had just presented.
With the benefits of hindsight, Mr. Gunson is probably telling the truth when he says that he did not sympathize with Carmona
after the coup failed, but I would submit that Mr. Gunson's glowing words about Carmona on April 12, 2002 clearly indicate that he sympathized with the coup leader at the time (and that he might very well have continued sympathizing with Carmona if the failed coup leader had succeeded in overthrowing Chavez).
The point here is not to "pick a fight" with Mr. Gunson. The point here is to demonstrate that the mainstream U.S. media will tend to favor correspondents whose interpretations don't always logically follow from the facts. The reason that the mainstream media will tend to favor correspondents of this sort is simple: Interpretations that logically follow from the facts do not always coincide with the interests of the media establishment, meaning that sometimes the media establishment wants journalists whose interpretations don't logically follow from the facts.
As to whether there is an "ongoing coup against the 1999 constitution by the present regime" (in Venezuela), I would first ask that Mr. Gunson specify what he means by "coup." To accuse a government of carrying out an "ongoing coup" is a very serious charge that requires explanation before it can be considered a topic worthy of debate. One hopes that Mr. Gunson does not proffer the charge for the simple purpose of trying to justify extra-legal activities on the part of certain segments of the Venezuelan opposition.
