This book explores the challenges faced by the producers of the documentary The Revolution will not be Televised (2003), which is about the early years of the government of Hugo Chávez and specifically the short-lived coup of 11 April 2002. The sympathy of film directors Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain for Chávez is never in doubt throughout the documentary. The documentary's main significance is in the footage which debunks the Venezuelan opposition's claim that pro-Chavista gunmen in downtown Caracas were responsible for 19 deaths on the day of the coup, a version used to justify Chávez's overthrow. The story told by Rod Stoneman, who at the time was the chief executive of the Irish Film Board, sheds light on the formidable obstacles faced by polemical films in their attempts to reach a wide audience.

Stoneman's narrative about the different strategies employed by the filmmakers to finance the film (an effort in which the author himself played a key role), and then to produce it, promote it and finally defend it from attacks by Chávez's detractors, is fascinating. Bartley and O'Briain ruled out centring the documentary exclusively on the coup, which took place seven months after the film team first arrived in Caracas. They instead favoured a ‘wider approach with a greater degree of context and depth about the politics of Venezuela’ (p. 24). Nevertheless, in the course of assembling the documentary, the filmmakers decided to pay considerable attention to ‘the role of the Venezuelan media in the political atmosphere that preceded the coup and, crucially, during the actual coup attempt’ (p. 26). The movie was originally intended to appeal to a niche market, but the lively, ‘unanticipated’ (p. 31) debate generated by its initial showing on Irish national television led to international recognition in the form of awards at documentary film festivals and screenings at movie theatres and elsewhere.

Stoneman then chronicles the campaign to discredit the film spearheaded by Venezuelan opposition members, who were angered by the ‘high international profile’ (p. 38) it had achieved. Newspaper articles and a ‘large-scale internet petition’ accused the filmmakers of having ‘twisted the facts’ (p. 43). In a chapter titled ‘Critique’, Stoneman analyses the specific accusations of the petition. He disagrees with the petition's claim that the filmmakers' occasional use of archival footage that was chronologically out of place distorted the real facts. Nevertheless, he recognises that its utilisation ‘undermines the credibility of the piece’ (p. 51).

In general, Stoneman argues that ‘minor infractions were magnified’ (p. 49) by the petition, but at the same time suggests that given the polemical nature of the subject matter, the filmmakers left themselves open to attack. One example of a slight error which the film's critics seized on was the statement that coup leader Pedro Carmona had ‘fled’ (p. 45) to another country. In fact, Carmona escaped house arrest in Venezuela, sought refuge in the Colombian embassy and was then granted asylum in that nation with the reluctant acceptance of the Chávez government. Another objection formulated by the petition was the filmmakers' failure to obtain the written consent of anti-Chavistas who appear in a scene of a neighbourhood meeting convened to discuss ways to protect the community from the Chavista hordes. Bartley and O'Briain responded by indicating that they had received consents but that some of them were verbal. Stoneman writes that ‘the lack of full, formal written consent from all involved is another minor vulnerability … which came to light as those critical of [the film] used all means to undermine it’ (p. 52).

At one point, the petition campaign appeared to gain momentum as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) suspended plans to show the film. In doing so, the channel's commissioning editor recognised the ‘non-essential nature of these mistakes’, which in no way ‘affect the film's principle [sic] revelation – which is how a coup in Latin America is organised and implemented’ (p. 44). Incidents like this one ‘seen from afar’ may lend themselves to conspiracy-theory thinking. Nevertheless, Stoneman writes that ‘closer to the process … a lack of co-ordination or coherence between financiers [as well as among television stations] can clearly be seen’ (p. 14).

The second half of the book deals with the broader issues raised by the film concerning objectivity in media reporting. The film calls the morning after the coup ‘an extraordinary TV moment in which all was revealed’, in reference to the admission of a leading television personality, Napoleón Bravo, regarding the intricate role played by the media in Chávez's overthrow. The incident, and the media's aggressive behaviour toward the Chávez government in general, is the backdrop to the discussion of the topic of media responsibility.

Stoneman brings up the issue of the pros and cons of impartiality in documentaries. While concurring with the arguments in favour of even-handedness, he makes an exception for situations in which there is much ‘at stake – when the state itself is engaged in armed action’ (p. 80). The author also discusses accusations published in the international media against the US State Department for actively ‘misinforming U.S. journalists’ about the Venezuelan coup. He goes on to state that ‘it is astonishing to discover the way in which a pervasive image-system crosses the globe, reiterating authorised narratives which disclose events deceptively’ (p. 86). Stoneman examines specific methods of deception and distortion. As an example, he discusses the age-old practice of taking quotes out of context. This, he suggests, occurred with a polemical statement by Chávez in which he allegedly revealed anti-Semitic attitudes. Referring to the quotation, Stoneman observes that the clarification of the error reached ‘only a fraction of the audience that received the original inaccurate version of the story’ (p. 103).

In short, Chávez: The Revolution will not be Televised carefully traces the entire experience of a controversial film and in doing so raises paramount issues related to the actions of the Venezuelan opposition, and in general the role of the media in a democratic setting.