Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words?
HAVANA TIMES — Due to the changes in television programming in Cuba, Channel 21 is giving considerable space for programs by Telesur, the Venezuelan public television network that broadcasts news and features from that nation and the rest of Latin America.
Thanks to that television network, a few days ago I learned about a photo published in the Spanish newspaper El Pais that showed President Chavez in poor physical condition and connected to breathing apparatus. According to TeleSUR, that photo was a fake that had been taken from a video uploaded to YouTube in 2008.
The Venezuelan government, upset over the lack of journalistic ethics, has sued the Spanish periodical, which responded by admitting that the photograph had not been properly confirmed and by also providing an entire story about its origin.
A whole program of discussion and debate regarding the incident was presented entitled Medios sin vergüenza (Shameless Media). I’ve followed all the reports.
But from the beginning, something caught my attention (really bothering me). This was the often mentioned picture not being clearly shown on the screen. Instead they presented a blurred image, which itself can lend to logical conjecture – especially by those who don’t have Internet access and couldn’t see the photo reported in El Pais.
In that broadcast there was an exchange between a professor and a Colombian journalist (Javier Dario Restrepo), who made astute observations about the situation, as well as statements with which I fully agree.
First, he said that what El Pais did was without justification and that he considered it truly unethical, but this didn’t mean there wasn’t an explanation. He then gave the reasons why any media can give distorted or misrepresented information about any topic.
According to Restrepo, when the news that’s circulated isn’t entirely convincing or explicit, and when it’s obtained from an interested party, then there’s room for doubt. This encourages other media sources — antagonistic or not — to spread other versions of the same event. From his point of view, this was what happened.
The information about the health condition of President Chavez is only given by his vice president, Nicolas Maduro, and by the Minister of Communications. This is always very positive and never supported by medical opinions or the presence of specialists who can provide categorical explanations.
There’s also a complete absence of photos, which favors the opposition’s campaigns.
Of course the opinion of this professor was refuted by the Venezuelan journalist who was a guest on the program, as well as by the show’s hostess.
This reminded me about what I said in a post several days ago:
“Evidently, Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias state of health has to be more delicate than what is actually being said. This can be deduced from the absolute absence of images of the recovery of the populist leader. This is why the Venezuelan opposition is speculating about it and engaging in their media campaign.”
In response to this I received strong criticisms from some readers. They accused me of echoing the message of the anti-Chavez media campaigns.
This was not my intention. I was only giving my opinion, and there didn’t exist nor does there now exist information that can contradict that perspective.
We should remember that a few years ago a media campaign was also waged to misrepresent the true health condition of Fidel Castro, which was refuted by photos, videos and even the printed medical diagnose by the doctors who treated him.
The Cuban media, made up of specialists in the art of secrecy, know very well that nothing lends itself more to speculation than silence or overly condensed information. That’s why at the time they were aided by the slogan “a picture is worth a thousand words.”
For the record, we shouldn’t circulate phony photos. However, I’m left with the desire to see the questionable photo and draw my own conclusion. What do you think?