What the death of Chávez tells us about ideology.

It's interesting to see the way the recently passed Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is referred to by different media outlets.

The Guardian, left leaning, says 'Chávez was a hybrid, a democrat and autocrat, a progressive and a bully'.

The Financial Times, newspaper of the bankers, called him: 'the most controversial and quixotic Latin American leader of recent years.' 

Quixotic means someone who pursues unreachable goals who has no regard to practicalities (a bit like a journalist who thinks its appropriate to use the word quixotic).

Fox News (US) gave voice to 'lawmakers' who said: 'Hugo Chavez was a tyrant who forced the people of Venezuela to live in fear'. 

The Fox TV report also said he was 'clown-like', was a man who was 'like Fidel Castro' and said he 'rewrote laws... trampling on the rights of others... becoming an over the top cult personality...[who] turned Venezuela into a propaganda state.' However, they did acknowledge he was a 'champion of the poor', which is nice.

The Daily Mail, who are often the first to be accused of bias in their reporting, offered an applaudably impartial account of Chavez: 'He polarised Venezuelans with his confrontational and domineering style, yet was also a masterful communicator and strategist who tapped into Venezuelan nationalism to win broad support, particularly among the poor.'

The BBC, ever concerned about appearing to lean one way or the other, called him 'Iconic' in their headline. They probably had several meetings before deciding iconic was a word which reflected his status as an important leader yet neither endorsed nor criticised his politics. 

They also refer to him as 'a controversial figure' - a word also deployed by Sky News and ITV News. In the journalism trade calling someone 'controversial' is the first rule of the chapter 'How to sit on the fence'.