By Julie Webb-Pullman
The United States media, for its coverage of Honduras!!
Not for the first time, the judges of this prestigious award were unable to break a tie.
Fox, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous other purported sources of factual reportage have spent the last week vying to outdo each other in the most savagely-fought disinformation war since the Venezuelan Constitutional referendum earlier this year, making a clear winner impossible.
Although the judges were somewhat disappointed in the lack of originality, the Honduran campaign being a simple rerun of the failed Venezuelan attempt, they came to the unanimous conclusion that linking the litany of lies simultaneously to a military coup distinguished the Honduran coverage from that of Venezuela, where there was a seven-year gap, and from other recent sustained disinformation campaigns interspersed with invasions or overthrows, such as in relation to Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Haiti.
As the overall title threatened to be shared by so many, the judges decided to award places to the three winning lies, thus restricting the numbers of eligible prize-winners. Any media outlets who have refrained from promoting the top three, miss out on the all-expenses-paid luxury week in a tropical resort, inclusive of entertainment and activities. [i]
The Winning Lie - Zelaya was holding an illegal referendum on 28 June to change the constitution.
Fact – Zelaya was holding a non-binding opinion poll about whether to have a referendum in November. The opinion poll was perfectly legal according to article 5 of the Honduran “Civil Participation Act” of 2006. Under this act, all public functionaries can perform non-binding public consultations to inquire what the population thinks about policy measures. This act was approved by the National Congress and it was not contested by the Supreme Court of Justice, when it was published in the Official Paper of 2006. [ii]
The 28 June opinion poll was to be just that – Zelaya establishing the wishes of the populace through a non-binding opinion poll.
The referendum itself proposed for November was to be about the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly, and would have seen the Honduran people, not Zelaya, decide whether they wanted to establish such a body.
Finally, The Honduran Constitution says nothing against the conformation of an elected National Constituent Assembly with the mandate to draw up a completely new constitution.
Second Porker – Zelaya was trying to perpetuate or extend his hold on presidential power through the referendum, violating articles 5, 239 and 374 of the Constitution.
Fact – The referendum (as distinct from the opinion poll) was always proposed to be held together with the November elections. Zelaya is not participating in the presidential elections of November 2009, meaning that he could not have been re-elected, regardless of the outcome of the referendum!
Moreover, it is impossible to know or predict what a National Constituent Assembly might suggest regarding presidential periods and re-elections, as it does not even exist, and would not do so until a referendum had been held whereby the people decided whether they even want one!
Even if a National Constituent Assembly was composed, any and all of its proposals would have to be subsequently approved by all Hondurans - and this would have, and could only possibly have, happened AFTER Zelaya had concluded his term.
Finally, even if the Honduran people through a Constituent National Assembly DID decide to extend presidential terms, and/or that earlier presidents could become presidential candidates again, such dispositions would form a part of a completely new constitution, and could not possibly be in violation of the 1982 Constitution, whether articles 5, 239 and 374 or otherwise. Again, none of this could possibly have happened until AFTER Zelaya had already completed his term.
Third Porker - Zelaya’s removal from power and replacement by Micheletti was legal.
Fact - The legal procedure permitted under article 205(22) of the 1982 Honduran Constitution, is for the National Congress to impeach Zelaya – this article states that public officials suspected to have violated the law are subject to impeachment by the National Congress. The National Congress did not impeach Zelaya, but ordered his forced abduction and removal from the country by the military. Even Honduras Deputy Attorney General Roy David Urtecho has admitted that he has launched an investigation into why Zelaya was removed by force instead of taken to court.
In order to qualify for the holiday package, media must be able to demonstrate they have published ALL THREE of the winning lies. The media who achieves “most-repeated” of all three will get a special bonus prize of voice-recognition software and a pair of binoculars, in acknowledgement of the professional handicaps pursuant to persistent nose-growth.
The judges take this opportunity to extend their congratulations to the United States mass media for yet another stunning demonstration of their consummate ability to ignore the facts in their pursuit of their perception of the US national interest.
Footnotes:
[i] Located at the southern tip of Cuba, this recently-renovated resort offers everything the discerning journalist could wish for to get away from it all, yet keeps frisson alive – total privacy, devoted individual attention, and extreme sports – forget the water-skiing and sail-boarding of yesteryear, water-boarding leaves them for dead!
[ii] Alberto Valiente Thoresen,
http://counterpunch.com/thorensen07012009.html*************
Julie Webb-Pullman (click to view previous articles) is a New Zealand based freelance writer who has reported about - and on occasion from - Central America for Scoop since 2003. Send Feedback to
julie@scoop.co.nz 
