Noam Chomsky Criticizes “Extreme Dishonesty” of the Guardian/Observer on Venezuela

[Peace Patriot]

On Sunday 3 July, The Observer ran an article titled “Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for 'assault' on democracy”. This was written by Rory Carroll, The Guardian's Latin American correspondent based in Caracas....

Subsequently, in an email to queries from blogger Joe Emersberger regarding the accuracy of the Observer article, Chomsky said “The Guardian/Observer version…is quite deceptive”....

Elsewhere, Chomsky...wrote of The Observer article “Let’s begin with the headline: complete deception” adding “That continues throughout. You can tell by simply comparing the actual quotes with their comments. As I mentioned, and expected, the (New York) Times report of a similar interview is much more honest, again revealing the extreme dishonesty of The Guardian.”

As a result of these claims The Guardian has published the full transcript of the interview. At the time of writing (4 July 16:45), unusually for The Guardian, comments can not be left on the transcript.

(original) http://left-click.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=884&Itemid=30
http://alborada.net/brown-carroll-chomsky-chavez-040711
http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2011/07/chomsky-denounces-extreme-dishonesty-of.html

-----------------------

And here's the transcript of the interview. Clearly, Rory Carroll--whose scumbag 'journalism' on Chavez and the Latin American Left I've commented on before (and so have others, as noted by the above article)--has seriously distorted what Chomsky said. But read it for yourself.

(the transcript) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/noam-chomsky-venezuela

One of our resident anti-Chavez propagandists has posted the Rory Carrol article here. Compare and contrast for yourself (article vs interview):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x53756#53766

There follows, in that thread--towards the bottom--something of a discussion of the above (article vs interview). What I noticed about Carroll's interview of Chomsky is that, whatever Chomsky said in praise of Chavez--and Chomsky fulsomely praises Chavez on poverty reduction in Venezuela, on the community councils (public participation) and on Chavez's enormous influence for the better on Latin American independence and economic/political integration (in organizations like CELAC and UNASUR), Carroll ignores it and keeps hammering away--almost literally hammering like a bludgeon--on his own 'dictator' "talking point," coming back to it again and again, no matter what Chomsky says.

You'd think Chomsky would have caught on. (And Chomsky has, elsewhere, stated, about this incident, that he should be more careful who he gives interviews to). Carroll behaves like Bill O'Reilly or any of a number of fascist bullies in the media. And, frankly, I think Chomsky becomes a bit befuddled during the interview. HE is trying to be FAIR--to offer FAIR criticism in a REASONABLE world--while Carroll is OUT FOR BLOOD. In FAIRNESS, no, a strong executive is less than ideal in a democracy--but then Chomsky qualifies this, again and again. There are arguments on both sides, he says, and he is more persuaded by arguments against a strong executive. He does NOT, unqualifiedly, "denounce" Chavez in any way. He is simply talking--ruminating, thinking, looking at both sides, the way REASONABLE people do. Carroll takes this thoughtfulness and, and in his highly distorted article, turns it into a Chomsky attack on Chavez. You can tell, in the interview, that that is where Carroll is going. You can tell it from his obliviousness to everything that Chomsky says except his criticisms of a strong executive, and his repeated efforts to elicit quotes that he can use selectively in his distorted article, on his 'dictator' "talking point." This is the foulest kind of entrapment 'journalism.'

Chomsky says many things--that there are two sides to this and other issues, that he doesn't know much about a number of issues (including threats to the security of the Venezuelan state, i.e., the need for executive power, and the judge issue), that he doesn't remember if he's criticized Venezuela before on human rights (i.e., the judge issue), that "Venezuela has come under vicious, unremitting attack by the United States and the west generally," that "the United States sponsored a military coup which failed and since then has been engaged in extensive subversion" in Venezuela, and more.

But none of this is of interest to Carroll--in the interview, with its "entrapment" questioning or in the highly distorted article that he wrote about the interview. As I said, I think Chomsky should have caught on sooner--but we all have our lapses and weaknesses, trying to engage in reasonable discussion in the face of "Big Lie" propaganda campaigns like the one against Chavez. Chomsky has other weaknesses, in my opinion. (For instance, he loathes the Kennedy's in a visceral way that I think blinds him to the CIA subversion of JFK's presidency.) But I think that his "weakness" in this case is a forgivable one. He failed to vet the reporter--to know who he was and what he had done previously (that he has a corpo-fascist agenda)--and mistakenly presumed that Rory Carroll was really interested in his views and wanted to promote real political debate. Carroll was only interested in propaganda.

I also have to say that I think Chomsky's faith in the New York Slimes is naive. Their Simon Romero has done equally bad hit pieces against Chavez, quite on a par with Carroll and rivaling their previous oil warmonger Judith Miller. Miller, and then Romero, have been so bad that I don't read the Slimes any more as a reliable source of information. They are not to be trusted. The Guardian, on the other hand, is still a mixed bag. Carroll is an anomaly there, whereas Miller was not, and Romero is not, at the Slimes--they reflect the owners' views, which in turn reflect the oil warmongering of the U.S. government, in its service to transglobal corporations, such as Exxon Mobil and BP, and war profiteers. There is no other way to explain Miller's tight relationship with Rumsfeld and his use of her as a conduit for outright lies about Iraq's "WMDs." No honest newspaper would have let that happen.

I feel the same about Romero. No honest newspaper would publish his tripe about Chavez. I suspect that the Guardian, on the other hand--given the totality of its content--believes that it is in some way contributing to diversity or to wide-latitude discussion, by publishing Carroll. I think they may have been duped by a far rightwing extremist (Carroll), whereas the Slimes have not been duped but are complicit in Miller's and Romero's lies. I hope I'm right about the Guardian and that we haven't lost the very last reliable, wide circulation news source, gone off the corpo-fascist cliff like all the others.

[EFerrari]

1. In the comments of the hit piece at the GuardianI

I said I feared Carroll was the Guardian's Simon Romero.

:rofl:

[Judi Lynn]

2. They both have an obsession with restoring the control of Latin America to the U.S.

and whatesver allies it approves at the moment.

http://buschbaby.typepad.com.nyud.net:8090/buschbaby_blog/images/2007/09/25/simonromero.jpg
Latin American people can't be trusted to vote for their own leaders, as clearly stated by both Henry Kissinger and Condoleeza Rice. Their leaders must be chosen by the U.S., and put in place after removing the leftists.

Otherwise, there might be a terrifying domino effect, and democracy might spill over into this country.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Thanks for making that transcript of the "interview" available to us.

Carroll knows how to get out there to push and shove those answers he wants out of his victims, doesn't he? He should be in roller derby, not journalism! He's not really looking for the truth, he'll tell us what he wants to pass as truth.

A writer with an agenda. That's not a "journalist."

[Judi Lynn]

4. This article concurs, Peace Patriot: “Extreme Dishonesty”: The Guardian, Noam Chomsky, and Venezuela

“Extreme Dishonesty”: The Guardian, Noam Chomsky, and Venezuela
by Media Lens / July 6th, 2011

The headline of last Sunday’s Observer article on Venezuela set the tone for the slanted and opportunistic piece of political ‘reporting’ that followed: ‘Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for “assault” on democracy’.

And then the opening line launched into a barrage of spin: ‘Hugo Chávez has long considered Noam Chomsky one of his best friends in the west. He has basked in the renowned scholar’s praise for Venezuela’s socialist revolution and echoed his denunciations of US imperialism.’

The ironic sneer directed at the Venezuelan president apparently basking in Chomsky’s ‘praise’, and the sly hint of robotic ‘echoing’ of his buddy’s rants, were indicative of the bias, omissions and deceptions to follow.

Reporter Rory Carroll, the Guardian’s South America correspondent, had just interviewed Chomsky and set about twisting the conversation into a propaganda piece. (For non-UK readers who may not know: the Observer is the Sunday sister publication of the Guardian newspaper).

More:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/extreme-dishonesty-the-guardian-noam-chomsky-and-venezuela/

[Judi Lynn]

5. Good quote in this piece by Chomsky to Emersberger:

~snip~
Joe Emersberger, an activist based in Canada, also approached Chomsky for a reaction to the piece:

The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive. The report in the NY Times is considerably more honest. Both omit much of relevance that I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms from the US government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of the real concerns that Venezuela faces, the Manning case for one , which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s. And much else. There’s no transcript, unfortunately. I should know by now that I should insist on a transcript with the Guardian, unless it’s a writer I know and trust.1

[Bacchus39]

9. love it. and the transcript too. what's the phrase?? oh yeah: lol n/t

s

[Bacchus39]

6. thanks for posting the transcript!!! Chomsky doesn't believe the judge will get a fair trial

Rory Carroll: A few questions about the case. Do you believe Judge Afiuni could receive a fair trial in Venezuela?

Noam Chomsky: Well as far as I'm aware she's not receiving any trial at all. I rather doubt, I'd be sceptical about whether she could receive a fair trial.

I mean it's kind of striking that, as far as I understand, you probably know better, other judges have not come out in support of her. Which seems rather strange given the circumstances. If Amnesty International does I don't see why judges in Venezuela shouldn't. That suggests an atmosphere of either intimidation or unwillingness to consider the case seriously. I don't know. My suspicion is she would not receive a fair trial.




and that the concentration of executive power

RC: You have been described as an anarchist libertarian. From that perspective what's your take on the enabling laws and the evolution of executive power in Venezuela?

NC: I am opposed to the accumulation of executive power anywhere. One would have to ask whether there is justification for them in terms of the security situation and the attacks on Venezuela. I personally don't think so. But that would be the one consideration that I could think of that would ameliorate it.


RC: So that does mean you think the enabling powers are unjustified?

NC: In my view they are not justified. I can see room for debate about it but my judgment in that debate is that the arguments in favour are not persuasive.

RC: Finally professor, the concerns about the concentration of executive power in Venezuela: to what extent might that be undermining democracy in Venezuela?

NC: Concentration of executive power, unless it's very temporary and for specific circumstances, let's say fighting world war two, it's an assault on democracy.

[eridani]

7. Given current health problems, Chavez ought to be paying more attention

--to succession training. I'd say Chomsky was more into constructive criticism of Chavez, which is by no means an "attack."

[EFerrari]

8. Venezuela is not a monarchy and it's not up to Chavez to train a successor.

But I agree that Chomsky is engaged in a conversation with Chavez that will be useful although its representation in the media will be skewed and even used to attack Chavez as we see even on this thread.

[eridani]

10. Not suggesting that Venezuela tunr into Mexico

Just that Bolicarian advocates need to be grooming leaders of the future, with or without input from Chavez.

[EFerrari]

11. Sure. We wouldn't hear about it though because our media

behaves as if Chavez is the only man in the government, lol.