Washington Post on Wrong Side of Honduras Media Bias?

After reading the Washington Post's headline, 'In Honduras, One-Sided News of Crisis' you might be initially hopeful that writer Juan Forero is going to call out the MSM for its biased coverage of the Constitutional crisis in Honduras. However, it doesn't take long to realize that he's talking about media outlets in Honduras showing slanted coverage the other way.

Talk about Piling On!


Unless you're a blogger or a talk radio listener, you probably wouldn't know both sides of the story if you live in the United States! CNN actually put forth a bogus story about a Zelaya supporter in Honduras covered in blood who said a child died in his arms. Turns out the blood got there because the guy found some and wiped it all over his shirt. We're still waiting for a retraction from CNN (exposing this despicably unchecked journalism might prove a nobler endeavor Forero could follow).

Aside from the fact that the Obama administration continues to call what happened in Honduras a "coup", it refuses to acknowledge that deposed president Manuel Zelaya attempted to discard the rule of law by using a referendum to circumvent the Honduran Constitution which expressley forbids presidents from being re-elected. The entire outside world seems to be backing the wrong guy if you live in Honduras and show support for your Constitution.

Here, the MSM is biased in favor of Zelaya, the Obama administration is biased in favor of Zelaya, the U.N. is biased in favor of Zelaya, and the Organization of American States has expelled Honduras because they expelled Zelaya. Chavez, Ortega, and the Castro brothers also back Zelaya

Yet the Washington Post is now shining its light on the Honduran media for not covering both sides?! Why should they? The MSM in practically every other country has the other side covered. Coincidentally, the Honduran media is in support of the sitting goverment and against Zelaya (then again, the notion of a patriotic media is rather foreign the American MSM).
From the Post:

Several countries condemned the events of June 28 as a military coup. But in Honduras, some of the most popular and influential television stations and radio networks blacked out coverage or adhered to the de facto government's line that Manuel Zelaya's overthrow was not a coup but a legal "constitutional substitution," press freedom advocates and Honduran journalists said.

That sounds neutral but how is it interpreted to someone just starting to dig into the story? Forero highlights the fact that "several countries" support Zelaya while attacking the local media for supporting its "de facto government".

Now check this out...

Such allegations underscore the one-sided nature of the news that has been served up to Hondurans during the crisis. According to results of a Gallup poll published here Thursday, 41 percent of Hondurans think the ouster was justified, with 28 opposed to it.

Note the insinuation...

While Forero reports the favorable support for the sitting government, he seems to be attributing that support to the one-sided nature of the news in Honduras as a significant reason and practically uses it as a disclaimer for the Gallup poll results.

In fairness to Forero, he does quote sources on both sides of the issue but the central theme of the story is that media bias in Honduras is slanted against Zelaya.

True or not, media coverage elsewhere is EXTREMELY slanted in favor of Zelaya.

Forero's piece did more to contribute to that bias than moderate it.