Read on Twitter
What is it with the English media not talking about narcos in #Bolivia? /1
Any news about the current Bolivian crisis that doesn't mention cocalero narcos is incomplete. Why does this say the "bullets found are not a type issued to the military or police" quoting the attorney general, without mentioning the other major player? /2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bolivia-politics/human-rights-violations-in-bolivia-merit-outside-probe-americas-commission-head-idUSKBN1Y02FS
Any news about Sacaba in Bolivia that doesn't mention that many victims were shot from behind with non-military weapons as they approached the barricades is not pro-indigenous. Why doesn't this article ask who was carrying weapons in the crowds? /3 https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780118421/8-killed-in-bolivia-as-protesters-call-for-return-of-ousted-president-evo-morale
If we aren't talking about the narcos' repression of indigenous people, we aren't telling their story. Why doesn't this article draw the line between the insurrectionaries and the people they coerce? Why doesn't it ask why drug traffickers want Evo? /4 https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/bolivias-protests-outcome/602644/
Any news about the Senkata gas plant that doesn't mention the explosives is selling it short. Why does this not even question whether some protesters were connected with the cocalero narcos? /5 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/roadblocks-lifted-bolivia-leaders-attempt-quell-unrest-191125234912576.html
All of the articles above provide some of the story. None of them have even outlined the story of the cocalero narcos or draw a distinction with other indigenous protesters. Most don't even use the terms cocalero or narco. And these are the GOOD articles. They are balanced. /6
They show different perspectives, many I agree with. They're not the ultra-left-wing rags that support Evo at every turn. If the established, supposedly-unbiased news doesn't mention narcos, the fringe leftist outlets certainly don't. /7
Typical English news outlets are doing a good job documenting the military's crimes and the ambiguity surrounding them. The military is probably culpable for much of the bloodshed. They may be lying in some of the cases where they claim they didn't use bullets. /8
But the same media only passingly mentions the vital story of the cocalero narcos, the violent portion of Evo's remaining support. I don't know why. The media in Spanish is covering it better inside Bolivia... /9 https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lostiempos.com%2Factualidad%2Fpais%2F20191121%2Fmercenarios-similares-narcos-terroristas-lideran-conflictos
...and outside of Bolivia. /10 https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lanacion.com.ar%2Fel-mundo%2Fel-chapare-zona-sigue-leal-evo-donde-nid2305362
Lately, I have lowered my estimate of the media's ability to cover a story. The best of them ran the story of Evo's phone call directing his followers to starve out the cities and fight against the Áñez government. /11
The rest barely mention that the military isn't obviously to blame for all the death since Evo resigned. Every news story should call out the violent factions for who they are. Narcos who made #Bolivia into the third largest producer of cocaine and are fighting for control. /12
Many anti-transition protesters were not affiliated with cocalero narcos. They were out there protesting in good faith. Unfortunately they didn't have the leadership that the previous Pitita protesters had keeping the peace. #pititatwittera /13
But importantly the anti-transition protesters were joined by cocalero narcos who wanted to cause deadly conflict, even going so far as to kill other protesters, hoping to incite a response. This fact is common knowledge in Bolivia. /14
But what if Bolivians are wrong. What if it's untrue that cocalero narcos are behind much of the violence? In the case that Bolivians are wrong, why isn't the English media reporting that? Why aren't they at least tackling the cocalero narco story as false? /15
Or if the issue is too muddied to get a clear picture one way or the other, why won't they expound on their difficulties in finding the facts on this part of Bolivia's story that Bolivians think is important? /16
I'm not saying which story I want to hear. You could be pro-narco because the US is to blame for creating black-markets. You could be anti-narco because narcos terrorize everyone. Neutral coverage is fine. Whatever the story, we should see it in the English-speaking media. /17
I have seen just one story that attempts to cover the narco state Evo Morales built in Bolivia. It's from the Wall Street Journal, and they put their own biases in it. Oh, and it's behind a paywall now. /18 https://www.wsj.com/articles/morales-made-bolivia-a-narco-state-11574018858
#Bolivia deserves better. Journalists should expose cocalero narco involvement every time it happens. Or explain why they won't.
