An example in bad journalism.
This article is about how the democratic process in Honduras has worked as intended, which in and of itself was a portentous situation (no thanks to the interference by the Administration). However, I want to use this article as an example of bad journalism. Consider:
The Honduran Congress voted on Wednesday not to allow the reinstatement of ousted President Manuel Zelaya, a move that closes the door on his return to power after he was toppled in a June coup.
First of all, there was no “coup” of President Manuel Zelaya. He was removed from power after he tried to circumvent the country’s Constitution to allow himself to run again. The Hondurans were right to be worried about this, as this is how the Hugo Chavez and the leftist leaders of Ecuador and Bolivia were able to get themselves voted in as dictators. Honduras went through all of its institutions – the Supreme Court, the Congress, and their people – to get Manuel Zelaya removed from power. Now, having removed from the country is a point of contention, but by no means is a country who follows its Constitution representative of a “coup”. Also, if this is a coup, why this statement:
The United States quickly recognized the election results but said the vote was only one step toward restoring democracy.
If this was a coup, why in the hell is the United States supporting it? Isn’t that a contradiction? If the Obama Administration, who started all this talk of a “coup”, is now supporting the results of the Honduran election, doesn’t that, umm, mean it is not a “coup”? Or is the new policy of the United States to support things it calls “coups”? If you’re confused, so am I.
Then there’s this:
Human rights groups documented serious abuses by the de facto government of Roberto Micheletti, including several deaths, as security forces cracked down on Zelaya’s supporters and anti-coup media outlets.
If there are human rights groups that documented these serious abuses by the interim government, why not report them? Have you heard of any reports of serious abuses by the interim government? No proof is offered by the reporter of these serious abuses by the interim government documented by human rights groups. This type of reporting is akin to a drive-by shooting perpetrated by a person without a gun.
By the way, can an official government, even one taken over by a “coup” be a de facto government? Doesn’t the term de facto denote that something or someone is acting in some type of capacity outside of its original intent? Hmm, I see: according to Wikipedia, a de facto government refers to “illegal governments”. So…I guess the reporters are saying that the Honduran government as led by Roberto Micheletti is entirely illegal. Got that? Follow your rules, it’s a coup. Set up an interim government that promptly gave way to a legal election, it’s illegal.
Just another day in bad journalism.