More on Hugo . . . and Me.
by Paul Giacobbe
Shortly before Christmas a viewer wrote to express his concerns about a report involving Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The story was about the sale of discounted heating oil by Venezuela to a US charitable organization. The reporter, in the course of the story, referred to the Venezuelan president as “Hugo the US hater.”
The viewer wrote that he felt that was an unnecessary editorial comment. The reporter responded directly to the viewer. A portion of that response follows:
I have received no other complaints regarding the CITGO story, but wanted to personally respond to your concerns in the sincere belief that the comments of every viewer are important. I believe the Chavez story was fair, accurate and balanced.
In his commercial, Mr. Kennedy refers to “…heating oil at 40% off from our friends at Venezuela and Citgo”. All of today’s reporting (see Boston Globe, Reuters, etc.) frames the story in the context of our sour relations with Venezuela, and the controversy over Mr. Kennedy’s acceptance of the gift.
Further, a review of a number of recent, and not so recent, news articles concerning Hugo Chavez consistently refer to his “Anti-American rhetoric”. (References to several articles omitted.)
In other articles readily available on the web, Chavez rails against US imperialism, corporate greed, foreign policy, and President Bush in particular.I believe it was fair to refer to Chavez as a US hater, though some might be more comfortable in referring him as a ‘US policy’ or ‘administration hater’. It was my choice of language, not a direct quote.
It would be unfair of me to offer an opinion on the gift of oil, or Mr. Kennedy’s motivation in accepting it.
What some see an editorial slant, others might view as getting to the heart of the matter. I know that style and tone can affect a viewer’s reaction to a story. I’m mindful of that, and will keep your concerns in mind should the story come up again. I hope you’ll keep watching.
I did not completely agree with the reporter and did an on-air response saying so. I agreed with the viewer that the use of the words “Hugo the US hater” constituted both an editorial comment and were an inappropriately demeaning way for an unbiased reporter to refer to a foreign head of state.
I reproduce that reporter’s email to the viewer here for a couple of reasons: First, because he took the time to provide a detailed and reasoned response to the viewer and that’s something, I suspect, most viewers wouldn’t expect, and because this blog provides the opportunity to provide more information – in this case the reporter’s response – than does the time allotted for an on-air report. But I revisit the issue here also because a viewer objected to my on-air report. (Which raises the interesting question: To whom do you complain when you don’t think the ombudsman has been fair?)
Alan A. called to say he was offended at the attempt at political correctness suggested in the ombudsman report. He said that it is true that Chavez hates the US and has said so. He said he felt that the ombudsman report was an attempt to be politically correct at the expense of the truth.
In my discussion with Alan I used an analogy: If an American were traveling in another country and we heard a reporter refer to our president as “Georgie the Iraqi Baby Killer,” we’d likely feel that reporter was biased, and not telling the full truth, even though most of that reporter’s viewers might feel the statement was true. Further, the word “hate” involves someone’s state of mind, and no one but Chavez knows what’s in his own mind.
He may say he hates the US and, if so reported, that would have been appropriate. But suggesting he hates the US based upon his public statements and policies was, for me, too close to an editorial opinion.
