Original article republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Numerous international media outlets have stepped up attacks against Nicolás Maduro in a seemingly scripted manner with key messages that they seek to establish as the truth

On Sunday, the people of Venezuela will head to the polls to elect their next president. The 21 million eligible voters in Venezuela have the opportunity to pick between 10 candidates from a broad range of political parties and currents. The two projected front runners however, are from completely opposite ends of the spectrum: incumbent President Nicolás Maduro and candidate for the right-wing Unitary Democratic Platform, Edmundo González.

As election day comes closer, and international mainstream media pays more attention to what is happening in the Caribbean country, several dominant patterns have emerged in the discourse and messages of these outlets.

First of all, several media outlets have carried profiles of the leading candidates, and presented a very stark dichotomy. Maduro is authoritarian, González is democratic. Maduro is oppressive, González is free. In these profiles, when talking about Maduro, they will talk about the alleged amount of money and properties that he owns, but when profiling González, no such questions are asked.

When speaking of González, another type of framing is used, namely, that of the chosen one who was able to bring about the unity of an opposition that has historically had enormous difficulties in reaching minimum agreements. In this way, they want to present a worn out, questioned and “possibly” corrupt candidate (Maduro), while on the other hand, they want to show a peaceful, conciliatory, and ethically pristine candidate (Gónzález). This framing also erases the other eight opposition candidates who are running in these elections who also represent important political sectors. This has a very clear political intention, although not explicitly stated.

It goes without saying that there is almost no mention of the ferocious hybrid war which Venezuela has been subjected to for the last decade and how the Maduro government has endured coup attempts, assassination attempts, a near complete blockade on the country’s economy and oil production, and attempted invasions by paramilitary groups. In this situation of an almost constant political and economic siege, Maduro and his party United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) have not only been able to initiate remarkable economic recovery, but also have forged unity amongst the diverse political progressive tendencies which are under the broad umbrella of Chavismo. During the last several months, the socialist candidate has traveled to dozens of cities and towns across the country to meet with the people, listen to them, and hear their demands of the government and the Bolivarian process. These multitudinous rallies and meetings have received almost no media attention.

Another type of premise that hegemonic media outlets have tried to establish is that of an almost certain electoral fraud if the candidate of the PSUV wins. At the same time they state that if the opposition wins, Maduro will not recognize the results (even though the government has repeatedly publicly stated that it will respect the results, whatever they may be).

That is to say, the media perspective acquires the structure of an informal fallacy called “false dilemma”, in which, according to the hegemonic narrative, either the opposition wins and Maduro ignores the results, or Maduro wins but only through electoral fraud.

For almost a month, these media outlets have also sought to express that the so-called opinion polls (carried out by corporate, right-wing pollsters) give such a wide advantage to González that Maduro will be unable to subtract such difference, implicitly stating that, for almost a month, the election has already been decided. This fatalism also relies on the false premise that election results are absolute and defined several weeks before voting day – completely undermining the people’s will and sovereignty to decide their future.

Furthermore, it is intentionally not said that other polls have put Maduro ahead in terms of voting intentions, thus reinforcing their message that either González wins overwhelmingly or that Maduro carries out electoral fraud. Hence, it is justified, in a somewhat bizarre way, when far-right opposition leaders like María Corina Machado that are backing the candidacy of González, say that the only result they will accept is the victory of their candidate. These figures continue to denounce that Chavismo would only accept a victory of its own. Ironically, only the PSUV has affirmed that it would accept the result, whatever it may be.

This type of Manichean media attitude provokes an evident polarization and increases the tension in a country that already suffered right-wing political violence and tensions after electoral processes.

With all eyes on Venezuela this Sunday, these predetermined media narratives are important to identify and debunk. It will not be the mainstream media outlets like the New York Times, CNN, InfoBae, Voz de América and others that will determine Venezuela’s future, it will be the Venezuelan people.

Original article republished from peoples dispatch under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.