Random imageNew forum topicsSponsorUser loginActive forum topicsRecent blog postsRecent comments
Currency Rate
|
RAAN Violence/Election IssuesSubmitted by fyl on 5 April, 2008 - 19:49.
We have seen a U.S. State Department warking about travel to Puerto Cabezas due to violence posted here. There is also a lot of press with the headline Ortega Suspends Elections. This source seems to fill in some of the facts behind the rumors.
Electoral authorities decided by consensus on Friday to postpone elections in Waspam, Puerto Cabezas and Prinzapolka, contrary to what the right was asking for, and rejected the attempt to suspend them in the whole region.I am not going to say the decision was not politically motivated but it sounds like the right people (the CSE) decided what to do, not Ortega. Can anyone out there fill in the facts a bit more? ( categories: )
|
NavigationWho's onlineThere are currently 5 users and 30 guests online.
Online users
Who's new
PollHow do you/would you educate your children? Public school 24% Private religious school 27% Private non-sectarian school 20% Home school 8% Don't have/want children 22% Total votes: 51 A Thought... is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once. |
Latest from the Miami Herald (April 7th)
Indigenous Nicaragua towns oppose elections change By TIM ROGERS Special to The Miami Herald (April 7th)
MANAGUA -- Tensions continue to simmer on Nicaragua's northern Caribbean coast following anti-government rioting last Friday that culminated with election officials postponing the upcoming vote in three Sandinista-controlled indigenous municipalities.Osorno ''Comandante Blas'' Coleman, leader of the Miskito indigenous movement known as "YATAMA No Sandinista," said Monday that most people in the regional capital outpost of Bilwi -- one of the municipalities affected by the election postponement -- refuse to recognize the decision by the Supreme Electoral Council, a government body they say is manipulated by President Daniel Ortega. Coleman said his group, which he claims is more than 5,000 strong, will defend its right to vote the same day as the rest of the country next November by ``blocking roads, taking over buildings and obligating [the government] to hold elections here.'' In a telephone interview, the indigenous leader told The Miami Herald that people on the streets of Bilwi are nervous about rumors that the Sandinista Front is going to arm its supporters, and that anti-government groups are already talking about how to defend themselves. ''The situation is serious,'' Coleman said.
For the full article, go to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/story/486498.html
O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.
I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)
And from the right??
The Miami Herald article below does seem to have a little more depth (and should I dare to say objectivity?) than the Prensa Latina piece. The MH article not only even includes opposing sides' viewpoints but also those of an MRS supporter: "Enrique Sáenz, of the dissident Sandinista Renovation Movement, said the ruling Sandinista Front is 'afraid that the [Caribbean] coastal population is going to hand them the bill after their disastrous terms in office.' He noted that the previous elections have been held in the Caribbean during times of flooding and even amid violent protests, and says the conditions are no worse now." I can't imagine why Prensa Latina didn't interview him! http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_news/story/483490.html
O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.
I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)
A Problem
No problem; just hair splitting!
Hair splitting! Note closely the Prensa Latina wording: "set new elections" i.e., after the scheduled upcoming[my emphasis] elections were canceled. Would you be satisfied if the wording in both papers were combined to read,"Supreme Electoral Council (CSE) chairman Roberto Rivas set the new election date for April, 2009,after canceling the upcoming municipal eelections. . . ."??? I think common logic would dictate that the upcoming elections would have to canceled before new elections could be scheduled.
If you really want to split hairs, I suggest you check the OED for a definition of cancel which is "to withdraw or revoke a previous arrangement" (e.g., the election date!):-)
O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.
I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)
Hair splitting or dishonest reporting?
Ok, it might just be bad reporting or it could have been a MH decision to either replace "reschedule" or delete "and set new" but it leaves a false impression.
I worked on the staff of a Seattle-based weekly newspaper named Subtext for a while. I also have been editor and publisher of other publications. From that experience, I am a lot more likely to catch what you see as hair splitting for what it really is—intentional media bias.
I expect media bias from Prensa Latina, La Prensa, El Nuevo Diario, People's Weekly World, and lots of other publications. I expect media bias from George Bush's press secretary. And, based on experience, I expect media bias from the Miami Herald. The MH bias is used to promote anti-Castro, anti-Sandinista, ... sentiment among an audience that started out disliking Castro, et al and ran away to Miami.
So, when I read the MH article I saw a "Ortega creating a dictatorship by canceling elections" piece. Based on the audience and how a lot of newspaper "reading" consists of people skimming the title and possibly first paragraph of news while looking for the sports section, I would classify that piece as something designed to leave a false impression. Not mentioning that the new election date had been set furthers that agenda.
Unlike sports scores, most news stories are a lot more complicated than what can quickly be presented. Personally, I wouldn't have attempted to report the reality of this issue without 1) about 30 years of knowledge of who the players are in the region (which I pretty much have), 2) a trip there, 3) interviewing a whole assortment of people, 4) giving the people I interviewed a chance to comment on my article.
Now, we also know that isn't the way you can write current events stories for newspapers. Two sources that tend to be timely I see as getting a bit closer:
What the have in common is that they are not funded by business/advertising. What is very different is their size and age.
When the BBC reports on a current event they tend to have a lot of historical information of their own available. It is quite common for them to offer links to many other articles they have had on the same subject or area. Thus, you can quickly fill in the blanks in your knowledge.
RNN, on the other hand, is very new. What they are doing is rather than doing marginal reporting on many subjects, they offer in-depth pieces on just a few. Their "stories" (which are actually video) tend to be five to ten minutes long.
Ok, enough. While some will see me as much too sensitive on this subject, I just have enough experience to see how the choice of one word that can be somewhat misleading at the outset of a chain of events will bias the reader all too quickly. After that, each subsequent article gets read using that established bias. Eventually, you get things like "we have to invade Iraq because they have WMDs". And, five years later, lots of people in the U.S. still think that was true.
What is wrong with the local press coverage?
What is wrong with the coverage of El Nuevo Diario and La Prensa? Both report government instigated violence. Both had reporters present to witness the events. Are they acceptable sources of information from your point of view?
Sometimes
When END and La Prensa agree on something, that is a step in the right direction. However, reporting that it was government (I assume meaning FSLN-instigated) in both is not very conclusive as both are anti-FSLN.
Now, if I didn't run an English-language web site about Nicaragua, I would probably stick to local coverage but, for NL readers the information would need to be translated. I don't have a staff of "unbiased" translators available.
I have two points here:
What Local Source Do you Find Convincing?
My vote if for Confidencial and just about anything else Carlos Fernando Chamorro reports. His reports on exdiputado and former FSLN diplomat, Jorge Miranda's extortion racket in Tola are some of the best and most courageous journalism ever done in this country. Every week he puts out quality work on his TV program Este Semana.
None the less, the real issue is how can any government contemplate the denial of the right to vote? Be it national, municipal or regional elections this is so fundamental that I can not find one good reason to support the denial of suffrage. The arguments postulated in support of the denial range from the baseless to the ridiculous. The alleged trauma of the hurricane prevents the voters from properly exercising their right is what Brooklyn Rivera claims as his reason for denial of elections. Or better yet, that the vote should be moved to the summer for the risk of FUTURE hurricanes as claimed by President Ortega. To add insult to injury the people must then submit to interim rulers who have not been elected but appointed by the CSE. No wonder the people are furious.