TED Conversations

Robert Winner

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed.

Venezuela is falling and we get little news in the USA .... Why.

Three US Diplomats have been expelled from Venezuela ,,, inflation is at 56% ... the socialist party is blaming the US for its socialist regime failure ... the opposition party has been arrested and there is recurring violance in the streets ... they have one of the largest oil field in the world and are going broke because of their economic, social programs, and political policies and the blame game is in full swing.

Why is the news media so agressive in pursuit of Putin and ignoring Maduro and Venezuela?

Share:
  • thumb
    Feb 28 2014: Robert,
    There are several news programs on public television, which originate in different countries, and offer different perspectives of news around the world. I like to flip around to local, regional, national and world news to get a bigger, and sometimes more accurate, informed picture. Then of course, we can always google an area and/or an issue and get all the information we want. Be creative and try not to join in the "blame game" my friend:>)
    • thumb
      Feb 28 2014: As I explained to Brandon (just below) I can get the news. And I watch All major USA channels, BBC, RT, and China Today ... I also get some on RUKU.

      The question is why is the USA media not giving us any information on one of our neighbors? As a matter of fact we do not hear much abour South America at all. Argentina, Venezuela, and Brazil are all having major issues.

      Hopefully not a blame game .... rather an observation.

      Thanks for the reply my friend. Bob.
      • thumb
        Mar 1 2014: The problem is not new. Our media have never covered international news well. I think there is simply an assumption that viewers are highly interested in local news and national news but not in international news.
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2014: Perhaps you are correct. I may be over reaching when I see a correlation between political goals and the extent of coverage. They do not ignore it ... it appears to be selective. There is a "world section" to almost all news stations ... it is short ... but exists.

          I do not exclude other administrations in this as the media is "used" by all politicians. If there is a blame game it would be toward the media ... I would hope that this is an observation not a blame game. However, that is determined by the reader.

          Thanks for the reply. Bob.
      • thumb
        Mar 1 2014: You will have a better sense of this than I, as I don't take cable TV. But years ago when I did and used to watch CNN, I felt like I saw lots of repetitive domestic coverage. When for a short time I had access to Al-Jazeera UK, I saw a much greater focus on international coverage.
      • thumb
        Mar 1 2014: I might add, though, that this article is on the front page of today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/world/americas/slum-dwellers-in-caracas-ask-what-protests.html?hp
      • thumb
        Mar 3 2014: Hi again Robert,
        Your original question is..."...we get little news in the USA .... Why."

        My point, is simply we CAN get international news.....we need to tune in to the appropriate channel:>)

        The reason I mentioned the "blame game" is because it seems like all or most of the conversations you start, eventually lead into blaming our present administration, which this one does as well.

        One comment in this conversation begins...."Sadly true. President Obama has went out of his way to insult other great powers.".....and that comment goes on to "blame" the present administration for other perceived flaws.

        It is very clear from all your conversations how you lean politically Robert, and perhaps you are recognizing that, as you write in another comment...."I may be over reaching when I see a correlation between political goals and the extent of coverage".

        I agree with Fritzie...."The problem is not new". And since you mentioned the present administration, I believe that Obama is MORE transparent then previous USA leaders.
  • thumb
    Feb 27 2014: What news you watch?
    I got notified of an article with videos of Venezuela on facebook earlier this week.
    Facebook works well for me getting news. With friends across the world, it contains many perspectives.
    • thumb
      Feb 27 2014: I view all the USA major channels, BBC, RT, and China Today.

      I tried facebook for a week and tired of it quickly. Just not my thing. No offense. My choice.

      Thanks for the reply. Bob.
  • Feb 25 2014: There are actually 2 major disasters in South America which are under reported: Argentina and Venezuela. Because most of the western reporters have been kicked out of Venezuela and the killing of reporters in the past, most news is coming in 3rd or 4th hand and the sources are questionable.
    • thumb
      Feb 25 2014: Wayne, I agree and also Brazil is experiencing internal strife related to the world cup and future olympic construction.

      The stability of Central and South America has always been shaky. In todays global requirements can these countries play catch up with rapidly changing governments and leadership?

      As our nearest neighboring countries should we be trying harder to cultivate better relationships. How would we go about establishing those ties?

      Thanks for the reply. Bob.
      • Feb 25 2014: Funny but I found more information about Brazil in the Financial Times business section than in the normal news sections.
  • Feb 24 2014: Because we don't care, we will only care if somebody else cares, we don't want something that nobody else wants. If Putin wants to take it, then we will suddenly care and make a big noise about it. Just a guess..
    After all we don't want to pay to high of a price for it either, so we will just wait until it is trashed and then rush in to pick up the pieces.
  • Feb 22 2014: The US has something of an isolationist mentality. Your average citizen doesn't care all that much what happens in the rest of the world.
    Russia, being a great power, as well as the US' traditional rival for for the last 60 years or so, manages to clear that hurdle. Venezuela does not, despite events there being quite a bit more dramatic.
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2014: Sadly true. President Obama has went out of his way to insult other great powers. He made much press by sending a package of "gay" representatives at his request to Russia for the Winter games ... knowing that he was slapping Putin in the face. This may have been pay back for Putin spanking him on the International diplomatic stage regularly.

      This month he made a point of meeting with the Dali Lama when China said it would harm the US China relationship.

      I do not think that ANY other nation should dictate to our President who he can see or not or agree with the internal politics of any other nation in their treatment of "gays". But these were acts of a spoiled child done in spite not by a leader of a nation.

      We have few friends left. Our diplomatic relations have been pathetic for his whole term. In countries around the world leaders in trouble expel US diplomats and blame the problem on them .... and its working.

      The problem is greater than isolationism ... it is planned stupidity in the death of a nation.

      Thank you for the reply. Bob.
      • Feb 22 2014: Don't be so sure about the diplomatic insult thing.
        Chances are, the US is going to if not come to blows, at least find itself in rivalry type situation with some of the rising great powers. Appearing weak by conforming with the other side may not be productive; the opposite if anything, seeing as the primary thing they're competing over is influence over lesser powers.

        My real problem with Obama's foreign policy is his refusal for military action against anything that isn't Bin Laden. Bush used to be able to send a fishing sloop and generals would shake in their boots; Obama sends a carrier fleet and is scoffed at.
        Obama's a paper tiger, and the world called his bluff.
        • thumb
          Feb 22 2014: I agree with most of what you said.

          Please explain why there was not diplomatic insults to China, Russia, Israel, Japan, etc ... Perhaps there are things I am unaware of. Many of our fromer allies met with other nations to pound out solutions without the US Secretary of State in attendence. Most of the meetings were with Russia and Putin.

          Do you consider Secretary of State Clinton and Kerry as successes? Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Victoria Nuland continues to be a loose cannon and a embarressment.

          You are right the world calls him the prince of fools ... a paper tiger gives him to much credit.

          I appreciate your reply. Be well. Bob.
      • Feb 22 2014: There's a difference between going out of your way insulting friends and rivals, and simply being passive aggressive, like say sending out homosexuals to Putin's olympics.

        I wouldn't know about Clinton, she didn't really do anything that caught my eye while she was in office (for better or worse). As an Israeli, however, I can tell you that Kerry is playing a dangerous game, and that most of the chips he's betting aren't his.
        He took a simple set of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that everyone knew was doomed to failure, and instead transformed them into a major, historic summit still doomed to end in failure. Us Israelis are concerned that the failure of these now major negotiations will lead us to an other avoidable Intifada (think mass rioting, rocket attacks, suicide bombers...), all because Kerry needs a spring board to jump off to the 2016 elections.
        Conflicts are like dogs, its best to let the sleeping ones lie. Especially when the mutt in question is feral.
        • thumb
          Feb 22 2014: Clinton was given the job as a reward and career ender. She was enept and dangerous. Kerry is a idiot .... has been in the past and will be in the future. But he is a very rich idiot. which means the party listens to the money even if not the man. Victoria Nuland has been overheard on many seperate occassions making really stupid remarks ... she is insulting and dangerous to further understandings.

          Having said all of that ... I do not think that any of these people have strayed from the wishes and desires of the President. He is a super micro manager who doesn't have a clue. He is a good speaker and a talented blamer with the best spin doctors in the business ... it is my personal opinion that he is only the face of the party and is being controlled by a shadow government.

          Again my opinion ... I do not think the President as passive aggressive ... I think he is a petulent child that does not understand the game and wants to be in charge or take his ball and go home. He has been publically embarressed on many occassions and fails to see the errors of his ways.

          You are VERY right about Israel .... Makes me wonder about his muslim raising, training, and heritage. I also think that Kerry would love to run in 2016 .... it will be interesting to see what the party does ... both Clinton and Kerry have tons of political baggage ... it may be a surprise new comer. The problems the democrats have now is that they are going to lose the Senate if they aren't very careful ... they are spending like crazy already and have conceded some races ... plus the Presidents coattails are not a good thing and getting worse. Candidates are distancing themselves from him already.

          Thank you for the honest and open discussion. These are indeed troubling times.

          I wish you well. Bob.