Comparative Media system in Latin America and the Caribbean - Term Paper Example

The filmmakers spent at least several months filming Hugo Chavez, his close staff, as well as conducting interviews with Venezuelan citizens. With the coup unfolding, the filmmakers captured footage on the capital’s streets, filming protesters and the increasing violence. The film/documentary’s neutrality has been variously disputed as it painted only Chavez in a positive light, particularly focusing its attention on framing the 11th to 13th of April violence, timeline editing, and omission of personnel and incidents (Stoneman 840).

Cited either as a misrepresentation or an accurate portrayal of the coup’s events, the film contends that private media selectively used the footage to create an impression that the violence was, as a result, of uncivilized and irrational mobs of Chavez supporters. Private media, especially television, repeatedly portrayed supporters of Hugo Chavez shooting into the Baralt Avenue from the Puente Llaguno Bridge, which was occupied by marchers from the opposition (Couret 504). The film contends that footage from this scene was edited to focus on the gunmen, whereas avoiding the people next to them who were trying to cover themselves from being shot.

The film goes on to show the images that were shot from the said bridge, which showed that Baralt Avenue was empty and that there was no march by the opposition on this route. It also showed that those Hugo Chavez supporters were returning fire after being shot at. While it has been charged that this editing in the film was acting as a misrepresentation, especially that the film/documentary makes no mention of the fact that there was shooting at both sets of protesters, the filmmakers were quick to say that the film did not claim that only supporters of the president were fired upon.

There have also been assertions that the footage showed in the film showing the empty Baralt Avenue was shot earlier (Couret 505). It has also been claimed that the street below was not as empty as the film wanted to portray. However, the filmmakers reaffirmed their there were no opposition marches below the bridge at Puente Llaguno with reports from eyewitnesses. The filmmakers, O’Brien and Bartley, were present for the entire period of the coup attempt and in their film/documentary; the filmmakers show the audience the immense power that is held by the mass media, especially the television, in the arena of modern politics (Couret 506).

Hugo Chavez, as president of Venezuela, ensured that every television station was, at liberty, to broadcast any message that they so wanted; although, he went on to use the television station under state control for a question and answer session that involved him each week. This was meant to show that Hugo Chavez was a man of the people. This sought to counter the privately owned media that was against him by giving him a platform to communicate with his people. Following the coup attempt, the stations that were anti-Chavez showed repeatedly footage of demonstrations that were meant to give the impression that Chavez supporters were attacking Chavez supporters (Schiller 483).

What the film illustrates is that the supporters of President Chavez were, in fact, under attack from snipers and were simply being forced to protect themselves by firing back. The news media, especiall