Manufacturing Consent_ The Political Economy of the Mass Media - Edward S. Herman [100]
3.6.1. TONE OF NEGATIVISM AND APATHY
Time magazine hardly attempts to hide the fact that it takes its cues from Washington. It quotes John Hughes, then a public-relations man for the State Department (and previously, and subsequently, a columnist for the Christian Science Monitor): “It was not a very good election . . . It was just a piece of theatre for the Sandinistas.”89 Time follows this cue with a series of denigrating strokes: “The Sandinistas win, as expected . . . The Nicaraguan election mood was one of indifference . . . The outcome was never in doubt . . . Something of an anticlimax” (all in the issue of November 19, 1984). In an earlier article (October 29), Time indulged in the same negative refrain: “A campaign without suspense,” voters “too apathetic to go to the polls at all” (this was a forecast dredged up well before the election). In both articles, “fear” was also featured heavily. In the Salvadoran election, Time’s tone was different: “There was no denying the remarkable sense of occasion” (i.e., the Reagan administration had a big public-relations investment in the election); “hundreds of thousands . . . braved the threats, and sometimes the bullets, of the Marxist-led [FMLN] to join long serpentine polling lines for the country’s much awaited presidential elections” (Apr. 9, 1984).90 In Guatemala too, “Some 1.8 million voters braved four-hour polling lines, tropical rainstorms and a bewildering array of political choices to cast ballots in their country’s most open and fraud-free elections in more than a decade” (July 16, 1984). There is never apathy or fear of government force in Time’s renditions of demonstration elections.
Stephen Kinzer, in the Times, also took a far less kindly view of the election in Nicaragua than of those in Guatemala, giving enormous attention to election opponents like the U.S. candidate Arturo Cruz (whereas in Guatemala he almost completely ignored the small parties, union protesters, rebels, and human-rights groups), and finding more people voting out of fear than he did in Guatemala, a remarkable discovery given the circumstances in the two countries.91 He focuses steadily on the Sandinistas’ efforts to get out the vote, the fact that the election result is a foregone conclusion, claims of the breaking up of election rallies, and allegations of unfairness and withdrawals by the opposition. As with Time, the voters are “philosophical,” “enthusiasm for the election was not universal,” and “there was little visible enthusiasm.” Kinzer did not compare the electoral modalities, range of options, or other basic conditions in Nicaragua and Guatemala (or El Salvador). In short, he discussed different questions in his news reporting on the elections in Nicaragua and Guatemala, adhering closely to the propaganda frame.92
On the alleged negativism and apathy, both the Irish and LASA delegations noted that voting was not required in Nicaragua and was entirely secret. Therefore, as the Irish delegation pointed out, the low rate of abstention is more meaningful and “invalidates predictions that large sectors of the population were opposed to the election. Furthermore, the percentage of spoiled votes (7.4 percent) is comparable to any European election in a country with a highly literate population” (p. 7). They also note that
Speaking with one old man, awaiting his turn to vote in a rural polling station, one member of the delegation inquired: “What difference do you see between this and any other election in which you voted?” He replied: “Everything.” “In what way?” He simply shrugged: “Everything is different.”
The U.S. media never located anybody like this old man. The Irish delegation also pointed out that
Some observers from other countries suggested that the people did not appear enthusiastic as they went to the polls. This is not surprising as people stood in long queues waiting patiently their turn to go behind