extreme dishonesty' -- the guardian, noam chomsky and venezuela

8/6/2019 'Extreme Dishonesty' -- The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/extreme-dishonesty-the-guardian-noam-chomsky-and-venezuela 1/9

'Extreme Dishonesty' -- The Guardian, Noam

Chomsky and VenezuelaMediaLens

MediaLens July 6, 2010

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).

Carroll's skewed view was clear and upfront in his article:

'Chomsky has accused the socialist leader of amassing too much power and of

making an "assault" on Venezuela's democracy.'

As we will see shortly, this was a highly partial and misleading account of



Chomsky's full remarks, leading him to declare afterwards that the newspaper

had displayed 'extreme dishonesty' and that Carroll's article was 'quite

deceptive'.

The news hook was the publication of an open letter by Chomsky pleading for

the release of Venezuelan judge María Lourdes Afiuni who is suffering from

cancer. Afiuni, explains Carroll, 'earned Chávez's ire in December 2009 by

freeing Eligio Cedeño, a prominent banker facing corruption charges.' After

just over a year in jail, awaiting trial on charges of corruption, the Venezuelan

authorities 'softened her confinement to house arrest'.

In the open letter, prepared together with the Carr Center for Human Rights

Policy at Harvard University, Chomsky says:

'Judge Afiuni had my sympathy and solidarity from the very beginning. The way

she was detained, the inadequate conditions of her imprisonment, the

degrading treatment she suffered in the Instituto Nacional de Orientación

Femenina, the dramatic erosion of her health and the cruelty displayed

against her, all duly documented, left me greatly worried about her physical

and psychological wellbeing, as well as about her personal safety.'

He concludes with the plea:

'I shall keep high hopes that President Chávez will consider a humanitarian act

that will end the judge's detention.'

Towards the end of Carroll's article, the journalist injected some token

balance:

'The Chávez government deserved credit for sharply reducing poverty and for

its policies of promoting self-governing communities and Latin American unity,

Chomsky said. "It's hard to judge how successful they are, but if they are

successful they would be seeds of a better world." '



But the blatant spin of the headline and the article's lead paragraphs had

already done the required job ² President Chávez is so extreme that even that

radical lefty Noam Chomsky, one of his best friends in the West, has nowdenounced him.

Chomsky Responds: 'Extreme Dishonesty' And A 'Quite Deceptive' Report

Activists and bloggers were quick to email Noam Chomsky to ask for his

response to Rory Carroll's article in the Observer. In particular, Chomsky

replied as follows to one aggressive challenger who made a series of personal

attacks on him:

'Let's begin with the headline: complete deception. That continues

throughout. You can tell by simply comparing the actual quotes with their

comments. As I mentioned, and expected, the NY Times report of a similar

interview is much more honest, again revealing the extreme dishonesty of the

Guardian.

'I'm sure you would understand if an Iranian dissident who charged Israel with

crimes would also bring up the fact that charges from Iran and its supporters

cannot be taken seriously in the light of Iran's far worse abuses. If you don't

understand that, which I doubt, you really have some problems to think about.

If you do understand it, as I assume, the same is true. That's exactly why

bringing up [the jailed US soldier Bradley] Manning (and much more) is highly

relevant.'

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 [Manning is the

alleged source for huge amounts of restricted material passed on toWikiLeaks], 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.' (Joe

Emersberger, 'Chomsky Says UK Guardian Article "Quite Deceptive" About his

Chavez Criticism', Z Blogs, July 4, 2011)

In fact the very next day after Carroll's article appeared, and no doubt stung

by the rising tide of internet-based criticism, the Guardian took the unusual

step of publishing what is presumably a full transcript of the interview. (Also

unusually, the Guardian did not allow reader comments to be posted under the

transcript.)

But the transcript only served to prove Chomsky's point about the 'deceptive'

nature of the printed article. His comparisons to the justice system in the

United States ² in particular, the torture and abuse of Bradley Manning ² were

edited out. Carroll had asked him about the intervention of the Venezuelan

executive in demanding a long jail sentence for Judge Afiuni. Chomsky replied:

'It's obviously improper for the executive to intervene and impose a jail

sentence without a trial. And I should say that the United States is in no

position to complain about this. Bradley Manning has been imprisoned without

charge, under torture, which is what solitary confinement is. The president in

fact intervened. Obama was asked about his conditions and said that he was

assured by the Pentagon that they were fine. That's executive intervention in

a case of severe violation of civil liberties and it's hardly the only one. That

doesn't change the judgment about Venezuela, it just says that what one hears

in the United States one can dismiss.'



Chomsky added:

'Venezuela has come under vicious, unremitting attack by the United States

and the west generally ² in the media and even in policy. After all the UnitedStates sponsored a military coup [in 2002] which failed and since then has

been engaged in extensive subversion. And the onslaught [...] against

Venezuela in commentary is grotesque.'

Nothing of that appeared in the published Observer article. [* See Update

below]

Also given scant notice were Chomsky's observations about positive

developments in Venezuela and Latin America generally in trying to overcome

the horrendous impacts of over five centuries of European, and latterly also

US, colonialism and exploitation:

'I think what's happened in Latin America in the past 10 years is probably the

most exciting and positive development to take place in the world. For 500

years, since European explorers came, Latin American countries had been

separated from one another. They had very limited relations. Integration is a

prerequisite for independence. Furthermore internally there was a model that

was followed pretty closely by each of the countries: a very small

Europeanised, often white elite that concentrated enormous wealth in the

midst of incredible poverty. And this is a region, especially South America,

which are very rich in resources which you would expect under proper

conditions to develop far better than east Asia for example but it hasn't

happened.'

The above quotes by Chomsky are only extracts of the longest answers, by far,

that he gave in his interview with Carroll. But they didn't fit the journalist's

agenda of setting up Chomsky in 'denouncing' Chávez's supposed 'assault' on



democracy.

Carroll once accurately declared that he is 'not a champion of impartiality'.

Indeed, Joe Emersberger has done much sterling work, exposing andchallenging Carroll's biased journalism from Latin America. Carroll and his

editors clearly have supreme difficulty in answering Emersberger's cogent

emails, judging by their repeated failure to respond.

Readers may recall that the Guardian has a dubious track record in recording

and accurately reflecting the views of Noam Chomsky; that is, when it doesn't

conform to the usual pattern of completely ignoring him. The Guardian's smear

of Chomsky in 2005 marked a real low in the history of this 'flagship'

newspaper of 'liberal' journalism. See 'Smearing Chomsky - Guardian in the

Gutter', 'Smearing Chomsky - The Guardian Backs Down' and the external

ombudsman's report.

Perhaps what is most noteworthy about this whole episode is best summed up

by Emersberger:

'This is not the first time Rory Carroll has taken a highly selective interest in

Chomsky's views on Latin America. When Chomsky signed an open letter in

2008 critical of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Rory Carroll also jumped

all over it. At about the same time, Chomsky signed an open letter to

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe about far more grave matters but it was

ignored by the Guardian. At the time, I asked Rory Carroll and his editors why

they ignored it but they never replied to me. They also ignored an open letter

to Uribe signed by Amnesty International, Human Rights watch and various

other groups. I asked Carroll and his editors why that open letter was ignored

and - as usual - no one responded.'



Concluding Remarks

Noam Chomsky was once famously described by the New York Times as

'arguably the most important intellectual alive'. And yet, as mentioned earlier,

the Guardian is normally happy to ignore him and his views. But when Chomskyexpresses criticism of an official enemy of the West, he suddenly does exist

and matter for the Guardian. That indicates what we already knew: that the

liberal press is perfectly aware of the importance of Chomsky's work. They just

ignore it because it undermines the wrong interests.

Rory Carroll's article is a wonderful glimpse of the kind of status Chomsky

would enjoy if he promoted the myth of the basic benevolence of the West,

and focused on the crimes of official enemies. He would be feted as one of the

most insightful and brilliant political commentators the world had ever seen.

He would be far and away the world's number one political talking head. His

face would be all over the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent, the BBC,

the New York Times and so on.

There is a humbling lesson here also, of course, for those people who are all

over the media. In important ways, the media is a demeritocracy. SUGGESTED

ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for

others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a

polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to:

Rory Carroll, the Guardian's South America correspondent

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/rorycarroll72

Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor



Email: [email protected]

Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/arusbridger

Please blind-copy us in on any exchanges or forward them to us later at:

[email protected]

* Update

July 4, 2011

Dear Rory Carroll,

Hope you·re well there.

Noam Chomsky says your Observer piece yesterday was ¶quite deceptive· and

¶omit[s] much of relevance that I stressed throughout·.

http://bit.ly/jiG736

What·s your response, please?

Best wishes

David Cromwell and David Edwards

Co-Editors, Media Lens

www.medialens.org

July 6, 2011

Hello

Well, the transcript is there so everyone can judge the article, and Prof

Chomsky's response, for themselves.

Just one point: you say the article omitted Prof Chomsky's references to

Manning and US policy on Venezuela. About half-way there is this:

Its author remains fiercely critical of the US, which he said had tortured

Bradley Manning, alleged source of the diplomatic cables exposed by

WikiLeaks, and continued to wage a "vicious, unremitting" campaign against

Venezuela.

Best

Rory



July 6, 2011

Hello Rory,Thanks for writing and pointing out that mistake - apologies. It should have

read that you had given those points scant attention in comparison to the

chosen spin of the ¶dishonest· headline and main thrust of the ¶deceptive·

article. I·ll post an update.

As you rightly say, and as we noted in the alert, people can see for

themselves to what extent the published article reflects what Noam Chomsky

said in the interview.

Moreover, Joe Emersberger·s comments about your selective attention to

Chomsky·s views, and your failure to respond to past challenges, remain

unaddressed. And so do our concluding remarks about the default stance of

the Guardian and the media when it comes to reporting Chomsky·s insightful

observations: simply ignore them.

Best wishes

David Cromwell

extreme dishonesty' -- the guardian, noam chomsky and venezuela

Documents