The Washington Post's Juan Forero comments today (6/30/11) on how Hugo Chavez's illness means that he's off television:

Chavez governs like the host of a reality show, cameras always rolling as he presides over summits, hectors opponents and warns of diabolical American plots to unseat him.

Wherever would he get such ridiculous ideas.

Longtime Hugo Chavez critic Jackson Diehl leads his Washington Post column today (9/27/10)

Debate in Washington about Hugo Chávez --to the extent that it exists--generally centers on whether the Venezuelan strongman is a genuine threat to the United States or a buffoonish nuisance who is best ignored.

This narrow debate over Chavez's rule in Venezuela is something FAIR has documented on the country's top op-ed pages.

Of course, Diehl's point is that Chavez is a genuine threat, so anyone who takes the other position--that he's  merely an annoying buffoon--is naive.

As Steve Rendall explained here last week,  the recent Washington Post editorial ("Colombia Proves Again That Venezuela Is Harboring FARC Terrorists") doesn't really back up its argument that there is some sort of Venezuelan conspiracy to aid the Colombia rebel group FARC. "That Venezuela is backing a terrorist movement against a neighboring democratic government has been beyond dispute since at least 2008," the Post claimed--though there is most certainly a dispute about that evidence.

On Saturday (7/31/10), the Post printed an article by Latin America correspondent Juan Forero, which took a look at this controversy.  What's most notable is that he doesn't reach the same conclusion about the Colombian evidence as the Post's editorial page does; he even unhelpfully notes that FARC members "frequently cross frontiers," which might suggest that their supposed presence on Venezuelan territory does not necessarily indicate support from the Venezuelan government.  

I understand the difference between an editorial and a news report. But is it the Post's position that its reporters must stick to the facts, while the editorial page can say whatever it wants? There's some history to suggest this is the case, but some clarification from the paper would be welcome.