REPLICAS al artículo "Can you believe Venezuela's pollsters?" de ZMag
Asunto: =REPLICAS al artículo "Can you believe Venezuela's pollsters?" de ZMag De: "Jessica Rosenberg" jessica@obraweb.com Fecha: Vie, 28 de Marzo de 2003, 5:30 pm Para: jessica@obraweb.com
Anexo las excelentes réplicas que se hicieron al artículo "Can you believe Venezuela's pollsters?" de Justin Delacour en ZMag, comenzando con una hecha por Alfredo Kerller en febrero cuando se publicó ese artículo. He remitido estos correos a Delacour con mis breves comentarios anexos de último. Después de leer a todos, a quienes felicito por su elocuencia e iniciativa, he llegado a la conclusión de que este personaje y tantos como él tienen visiones fanatizadas y prejuiciadas más allá de todo raciocinio. Quedo entonces con la duda de si nuestra objetividad y, porqué no admitirlo, animosidad, es un alimento para su necesidad de "luchar" constantemente contra algún "enemigo". Es decir, ellos quieren ser anti-establishment y nosotros nos convertimos en su razón de ser. En conclusión, me pregunto si la indiferencia es un arma más poderosa...Jessica Rosenberg
Apreciado Jorge:
Supe de este infamante artículo no bien apareció en internet a comienzos de febrero y, como comprenderás, mi primera reacción fue la de responderlo como es debido pues pocas veces he visto tanta tergiversación manipulativa. No respondí. Y no lo hice por varias razones:
- Se me ocurrió buscar en internet www.narconews.com para comprender el contexto donde apareció el artículo. Se trata de un periódico digital que respalda claramente todo este movimiento de izquierda que está invadiendo a Latinoamérica (Lula, Gutiérrez, los Sandinistas, el FMLN, la Elisa Carrió, Evo Morales, etc.), que alaba por igual a Chávez que a Fidel, así como a los movimientos cocaleros andinos y otras bellas compañías. Se llama "narconews" porque aboga por la liberación del consumo de drogas (de todo tipo).
- El origen del artículo y el análisis de su contenido me ponen en evidencia que lo que buscaba era desacreditar a las encuestas como fuente de información para interpretar la situación venezolana. Está dirigido claramente a los reporteros norteamericanos y a sus periódicos que con motivo del Paro a partir de diciembre nos tuvieron acosados a José Antonio y a mí como fuentes de información. El artículo, escrito por lo demás con gran habilidad, sale en defensa de Chávez y, me pregunto, cuánto habrá costado.
- La cita de "guerra a muerte" es auténtica pero completamente descontextualizada (creo que tu conoces el documento del cual lo extrajo el redactor y que me enemistó, paradojas de la vida, con la Oposición). Igual le pasó a José Antonio quien te podrá dar copia de la correspondencia originalmente cursada en la cual el periodista que lo cita desmiente su supuesta intencionalidad criminal.
- Finalmente, creo que tengo un prestigio sólido como analista y como encuestador el cual me he ganado justamente por la imparcialidad y la objetividad de mi trabajo, cosa que me es reconocida internacionalmente. Responder a semejante panfleto, por tanto, creo que me desmerece.
No dejes de visitar la página WEB de estos amigos de la coca.
Cordial saludo,Alfredo Keller
J, The funny thing is that this Zmag dude does all this research but fails to notice the SINGLE mnost questionable thing Keller and Datanalisis do, which is that they don't directly poll through inhouse staff themselves, but rather contract out the actual fieldwork to parttimers - now that, to my mind, raises issues, though not the issues the author is thinking.
Many of the parttimers are actuall moonlighting from the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica - they are, in fact, government workers, which seems to suggest they can't be all that antichavista. Others are college students. None are employees of Keller and Datanálisis.
The main reply to the writer, though, is that he's arguing by innuendo.
These guys are personally antichavez (indubitable) therefore they're cheating on their polls (highly questionable.) He never argues the link between the two, other than to suggest that anyone who is antichavez is by definition such a nasty rat that he can't possibly be honest in reporting poll results.
I know Keller and Gil Yepez. They're lifelong pollsters. They take their jobs seriously. Mostly, though, they've spent decades building up reputations for credibility and reliability, their businesses live or die on those reputations, and it's impossible for me to picture them risking their reputations for short term political gain. It bears mentioning that most of their clients are private sector companies who go to them for good, clean marketting information and are most unlikely to be impressed (or hire) pollsters who skew their poll results on demand. Of course the author will just reply that that shows their in bed with the evil oligarchy, but there you have it.
But where the argument truly collapses has to do with track record. Keller and Datanálisis were not any more pro-Chávez in 1998, when their polls accurately predicted his election win, much less in 99 when their polls showed his approval rating at 80%, nor in 2000 when their polls accurately showed his 2-to-1 advantage over Arias (borne out on election day) nor through the beginning of 2001, when he still retained more than 50% popularity. Lefties never seem to have a problem with those polls, which reflected the reality of the time, and which were putting up results that Gil Yepez and Keller hated. For lefties like this guy, the pollsters all just mysteriously became partisan and unfair at the same time in mid-2001, when they started to all show Chávez's numbers dropping like a stone at the same time. I guess the writer would tell you that's just proof of an orchestrated conspiracy, but what can you do?
Their argument appears entirely circular and self-justifying. Polls are correct so long as they show Chávez doing well (in 1998-2001, Chávez never tired of citing poll results and basking in the numbers.) But as soon as the numbers drop, they're fake. Obviously, as far as they're concerned, Chávez's ongoing popularity is a pre-established fact. How can you argue with that?
Thankfully, the 20,000 people who read ZMag are all equally blinded by ideology and unreasonable, and such writing is most unlikely to reach or influence people who matter, who know anything at all, or who have anything like an open mind. So I really wouldn't worry about it.} ft
Dear Mr. Delacour,
I have read with interest your article “Can you believe Venezuela's pollsters?” (www.zmag.org venezuela_watch.htm) that was sent to me via internet. First of all, I would like to thank you for your interest in our country, one of the least understood countries in all of south-America.
From your writing, I think I am safe in thinking that you have never been to this country, so I imagine all your knowledge comes from reading travel books, and probably a lot of government propaganda(in the roman catholic sense of the word)
It is interesting then to try to understand how some body that portrays himself as an unbiased observer, to judge by your observation on the bias of the Venezuelan pollsters, can have such strong opinions about a subject you know very little about.
I think you should prepare yourself to receive a lot of hate mail from Venezuelans here and abroad, a practice I find abhorrent, but that is only to be expected from a nation that has suffered much in the last 25 years and that expects understanding and respect from foreign observers, rather than biased opinions
I will not waste too much of your time in trying to convince you that you are badly mistaken, somebody with such strong opinions is no easily influenced by reason and argument, and besides I’m sure you will be flooded with plenty of input to reflect upon.
I just wanted to let you know, as a citizen of Venezuela, as somebody that experiences day in and day out the increasing intolerance of the political discourse, the ever growing poverty imposed on our society, the increase in crime rate, the diminishing job opportunities and all the familiar situations that go when there is dogma rather than debate, that I envy your freedom, both economical and political, to have opinions; that is a democratic luxury that I personally do not enjoy as a Venezuelan.
Here in this country we have been subjected to bad governments at least for the past 25 years. President Chavez´s regime is but the last in a long chain of incompetent and corrupt governments. Although there is strong evidence to suggest his is the worst one by a long shot as the numbers on poverty, unemployment, crime rate, economic stagnation and political volatility testify.
I really wish that your perception was true and that we Venezuelans were experiencing some sort of social revolution, that would explain much of what you write in your article. Unfortunately, reality is that we have yet another bad government, a rogue government, cloaked under the social justice discourse, but in reality pushing us deeper and deeper into social collapse.
I hope next time you decide to take sides in a discussion you would think of the title of your article and ask yourself: Can I believe the Venezuelan propaganda? Or better still, think of the ordinary people of Venezuela and their suffering and may be you will not find it so easy to defend the gang that is currently spoiling this hopeful land.
Regards, Luis A. Pacheco
Mr. Justin Delacour.- Dear sir: I just read your article called "Can you believe Venezuela's pollsters?", which appeared in ZMag on February 6, 2003. You should know that many of your affirmations about Venezuela are simply not true. Indeed, according to your publication, "Chavez's reforms" include "severance benefits for workers" and "have strongly favored labor at the expense of business." This is a shocking misrepresentation, because Chavez's reforms do not include severance benefits for workers, which is something that has remained unchanged since the times of his predecessor, President Rafael Caldera. Your assertion that "[t]he charge of authoritarianism against Chavez is weak," because "the Chávez administration has not arrested or imprisoned a single journalist or opposition leader," is no longer accurate. It used to be accurate, though misleading, because, until relatively recent times, Chávez harassed and intimidated journalists and opposition leaders, without actually arresting or imprisoning them. You cited Cuban President Fidel Castro as an authority on Venezuelan President Chávez's "excessive generosity and kindness." Please bear in mind that Castro is not precisely the best judge of who is or is not a virtuous democratic president. In fact, Castro has ruled Cuba like an absolute monarch for over forty years, having even appointed his younger brother to succeed him when he dies. Chávez seems to be learning from him, because he has repeatedly said that he shall only relinquish power after having ruled for 23 years. You mentioned "[e]vidence" that "suggests that opposition Generals coordinated the shootings of protesters on April 11, with the objective of using the killings as a pretext to depose Chavez and claim that they had rebelled against his supposed orders to open fire on the people." If such evidence existed, Chávez would have made use of it. Disproving the suposed independence of the Judiciary under his regime, Chávez has spent a lot of time on television trying to defend the snipers, who were government officials and members of his party, and who were filmed shooting at his opponents by an internationally renowned Venezuelan journalist. One of these snipers later said on television that, facedwith the same circumstances, he would shoot again. Your reference to "the deep-seated class hatred by a large segment of Venezuela's business-led opposition," to the pre-Chávez "oligarchic rule", to the "avaricious cohorts in the opposition" and to "the epithets foisted by the wealthy on citizens of dark skin" is, to say the least, ridiculous. Until Chávez tried to overthrow the democratic government in 1992 and succeded in creating an unwelcome political and economical stability, which lasted until his election in 1998, Venezuela was a peaceful and stable democracy. Mestizage, social mobility and even corruption, had made Venezuela very different from other Latin American countries, which were less equalitarian. This characteristic has survived Chávez's regime. The best proof of this is that there are many dark skinned persons and poor persons both in the government and in the opposition. The cliché of a rich, white and greedy elite that ruled Venezuela for forty years, until it was displaced by Chávez, is simply not true. Please look at the photographs of the Presidents of the Republic from 1959 onwards and do some research as to what were their social and economic origins. There are many other mistakes in your article, but I decided to highlight only those I thought were the most glaring and easier for you to verify. Please read the paper attached hereto, which may give you a better understanding about Venezuela, which is badly needed abroad. Best regards, Carlos Eduardo Acedo
Lo que has enviado ya ha sido colgado en la seccion Para replicar. adam.antville.org
En el portal tambien puedes ver otras secciones para reflexion/letters to the editor/replicar:
adam.antville.org adam.antville.org adam.antville.org adam.antville.org adam.antville.org
BTW: www.vheadline.com es una dirección del mismo estilo de zmag, dicen que esta financiada por la cancilleria pero, no obstante son abiertos a cualquier replica.
BTW2: Esta es otro de los articulos presuntamente pagados de Justin Delacour adam.antville.org
saludos, JMG
Dear Mr Delacour,
After reading your article in ZMag, as well as your comments to Janet Kelly on 5 Feb 2003, besides your obviously biased and misinformed opinions, I find particularly unnecessary the derogatory tone you use in addressing Jose Antonio Gil Yepes and Alfredo Keller, as well as Janet Kelly who are all highly appreciated in Venezuelan intellectual, professional and academic circles. Your obvious animosity has no place in intelligent discussion. It only highlights your discourse is beyond any rational dialogue.
The eloquent replies that some Venezuelans have written you (attached below) clarify the imprecisions of the content of your article, and there is nothing much I can add except that these, as many others you must have received, attest to the deep preoccupation we have in the fate of our country, a concept to which you are obviously alien.
Hoping to lead you to reflection, best wishes, Jessica Rosenberg