How does cognitive warfare work in favor of the hegemonic narrative? (2): A comparison between Venezuela and Colombia

Published at: 14/08/2026 04:49 PM

The seismic event that occurred last Monday, August 10 in Colombia evidenced the political media bias that exists when talking or reporting about Venezuela.

Beyond the geological explanations, associated with the depth of the fault and the damage it caused, a simple analysis of news coverage confirmed that there is a marked asymmetric editorial bias between the two disasters, where the international press and content creators applied completely different narrative frameworks to explain humanitarian tragedies of similar magnitude.

While the earthquake in Colombia was humanized through citizen resilience, the earthquake in Venezuela was used to report the failure of the State. In the case of the earthquake that affected part of the Pacific and the Coffee Region, the major national and international media prioritized a narrative of social union, the romanticization of pain and the epic of solidarity, leaving infrastructure failures or government action in the background.

In the neighboring country, the focus is on life stories, we see headlines plagued by individual chronicles of survival, pet rescue and the value of volunteer firefighters. The idea that tragedy erases political differences is reinforced. Recurrent images show civilians forming human chains to remove debris, promoting an epic of solidarity to soften the impact of allegations of state abandonment in Afro-descendant and indigenous regions.

Although the president refused international aid, the press focused its coverage on the technical deployment of the National Unit for Disaster Risk Management (UNGRD) and the Army, categorizing the response as an exercise of operational sovereignty and institutional pride, instead of avoiding potential logistical negligence with a clear instruction to minimize criticism of the Executive.

On the contrary, the coverage of the double earthquake in Venezuela adopted an eminently structural and geopolitical approach, where individual victims were often reduced to statistics to illustrate a pre-existing systemic crisis. The double earthquake in our country was presented as a symptom of the collapse of the State.

The narrative used in Venezuela focused on the fact that the collapse of the buildings was not mainly attributed to the force of the earthquake, but to institutional corruption. Foreign reports focused on the lack of oversight of construction regulations and the deterioration of the materials of the Housing Mission, transforming the natural disaster into a direct consequence of the Chavista administration, presenting them as political structures, not natural ones.

Vulnerability was also presented as a focus; instead of highlighting the neighborhood solidarity that also existed, the media emphasized it as precarious, highlighting the lack of ambulances, the shortage of supplies in hospitals in Caracas and the shortage of police, firefighters and rescuers in the first hours after the earthquake.

This contrast shows how international media tend to apply a “ failed state” framework for economies under economic sanctions, where any disaster is read as a confirmation of the collapse of the system. Instead, for governments allied to imperial interests, a framework of “tragedy and misfortune” applies, where the focus is shifted to the heroic response of civil society and the authorities to preserve institutional stability.

The press framework for the earthquake in Venezuela

The headlines and reports published by international publications such as The New York Times and El País after the earthquakes of June and August 2026 pragmatically demonstrate the contrast in the journalistic framework applied to each nation. The analysis of their reports shows how the frameworks of “collapse due to state corruption” were built for Venezuela and a “lesson in resilience and institutionality” for Colombia.

In the coverage of the double earthquake of June 24, 2026, the headlines omitted the unpredictability of natural phenomena to directly blame the government system and link the disaster to the humanitarian crisis.

The New York Times:

“On Venezuela's Coast, Life Is Reduced to Survival and Burial” (On the coast of Venezuela, life is reduced to survival and burial): The report criticizes the housing promises of the Housing Mission created by Hugo Chávez, pointing out that collapsed popular complexes buried citizens due to negligence in the soil selection and structural corruption.

“Venezuela's Response to Earthquakes Exposes Structural Collapse” ( Venezuela's response to earthquakes exposes structural collapse): The analysis focused on denouncing the supposed “institutional silence” of the president in charge Delcy Rodríguez and the use of official propaganda to cover up the lack of medical supplies and rescue equipment.

The Country:

“The earthquakes in Venezuela caused damage valued at 19.6 billion dollars, according to the World Bank”: The Spanish newspaper chose to approach the disaster from a macroeconomic and institutional perspective, stressing the country's previous financial suffocation due to US sanctions and the fragility of the public purse.

The press framework for the Colombian earthquake

Faced with the earthquake of August 10 in western Colombia, the narrative took a 180 degree turn. The headlines were designed to highlight the epic of the rescue, the functioning of the State and the technical strength of its institutions, softening criticism of the new government.

The New York Times:

“Rescuers Race to Find Survivors After Deadly Colombian Quake” (Rescuers race against time to find survivors after the deadly earthquake in Colombia): Instead of focusing coverage on infrastructure failures in vulnerable areas of Chocó, the press romanticized the “race against time” and the applause of civil communities for the fire crews of the State.

“ Colombia's New President Is Immediately Put to the Test” : The newspaper positively profiled President Abelardo de la Espriella, highlighting his promise that “the victims will not be abandoned” and highlighting an operational contrast with Venezuela's weakened rescue apparatus.

The Country:

“Colombia, under a state of emergency due to the earthquake that causes more than 160 deaths” : The newspaper highlighted the official nature of the measures adopted by the State and quickly included the receipt of international funds (such as those from the CAF and the United States), framing Colombia as an institutionally supported democracy at the international level.

“De la Espriella thanks Bukele without denying the rejection of rescue personnel”: In recording Colombia's controversial rejection of foreign rescuers, the headlines softened the decision, presenting it as an exchange of diplomatic courtesies and national pride in autonomous capacities, a treatment opposed to the reproach that the same position received in Caracas.

The newspaper El País summarized this contrast explicitly in its subsequent comparative analysis: “Two earthquakes, two responses: the reactions of Venezuela and Colombia to the tragedy.” It explained how the media adopted different reporting frameworks: while in Colombia the transparent information flow allowed citizens to learn about the damage in real time, in Venezuela opacity forced citizens to rely on social networks and the internet to know which areas were still under the rubble.

The pain, uncertainty and misfortune for Venezuelan and Colombian citizens are the same, but the narrative is different. It is then a matter of showing how the media use tragedy to attack governments because of political differences, we see how pain is exacerbated for some and actions are omitted for others; in the end, the only people who suffer from these differences are the Peoples.

AMELYREN BASABE/Mazo News Team