How the White House and the media missed the boat on Venezuelan politics. James Sandrolini reports.

Perhaps Latin America’s most half-hearted coup took place on April 11 in Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez, well known for his feisty populism and maverick politics, was ousted not by another political party but rather by Venezuelan military and business interests in tandem—the two essential ingredients for a fascist regime. Only two days later, the briefly deposed president re-claimed his office for which the Venezuelan people had elected him. As if nothing ever happened.

But something did happen. And in the days following the coup US media scrambled to make amends after so casually denouncing what the New York Times referred to as a “ruinous demagogue” and “a would-be dictator.”

The American mainstream press completely dismissed the fact that Chavez has won numerous free-elections and went to town popping small bottles of champagne in celebration of his ousting. Newsday wrote, “Chavez’s Ouster Is No Great Loss.” The Chicago Tribune accused Chavez of “toasting Fidel Castro, flying to Baghdad to visit Saddam Hussein, and praising Osama bin Laden.” After Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) challenged the Tribune to back up the claim that Chavez had actually praised bin Laden, editorial writer Steve Chapman admitted he had “misread” the source (a Freedom House report).

The White House actually released a statement immediately claiming “no coup had taken place” and that Chavez simply “resigned” under pressure from the military. Apparently this was news to Chavez. An obedient press corps parroted the news fed to them by press secretary Ari Fleischer and the “official” story was released to the public. For a few days at least. More recent news reports allege various Bush Administration officials such as policy adviser Otto Reich met several times with the Venezuelan opposition months before the coup—shades of Iran-Contra and the “October Surprise” of 1980, both implicating George Bush, Sr.

And just who was to replace President Chavez? That would be respected business leader Pedro Carmona, who possesses no political background or expertise. Putting the pieces together to this odd puzzle should have been a walk in the park for our dutiful press: Military elites storm the President’s offices claiming he is responsible for the deaths of ten protesters in an anti-Chavez rally; then they remove the democratically elected president from office with no proof of the aforementioned charges; lastly the military installs a powerful business leader representing the opposition, and eliminates the Supreme Court. No constitutional process, no messy elections, no democratic obstacles to fuss over.

This adds up to what is traditionally called a “coup d’etat” in political parlance. But the American commercial press, who ultimately gave their imprimatur to our own un-democratically elected president, chose to ignore the glaringly obvious and go with the flow—the one provided to them by the White House. Rather ironic, no?

The media chill-factor resulting from the 9-11 fallout has much to do with this type of “reporting.” Besides key editorialists’ initial contempt for Chavez’s boat-rocking ways, most newspapers are still cowering from the poison darts of “un-Americanism” and “aiding the terrorists” scare tactics. No major American newspaper wants to be seen as sympathetic to left-wing regimes or critical of the Bush Administration. Ultimately, American media could’ve at least tried to answer the following question posed by Times’ Mexico correspondent Tim Weiner: “When is a coup not a coup?” Answer: “When the United States says so, it seems.”