<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
The Guardian/Observer editors clearly have a horror of Chomsky
(perhaps because he really is the honest person that they pretend to
be). They set these crass "liberal" journalists to interviewing him,
in hopes of an embarrassing revelation, but the kids aren't up to
the task; the following is from Wikipedia:<br>
<br>
<i>Emma Brockes (born 1975) is a British author and journalist for
The Guardian newspaper. She lives in New York. Brockes graduated
in 1997 with a first from St Edmund Hall, Oxford University where
she was editor of the student newspaper Cherwell and won the
Philip Geddes prize for journalism. She worked briefly as feature
writer on The Scotsman, before joining The Guardian in 1997. She
has been recognised by the British Press Awards three times,
taking the 'Young Journalist of the Year' award in 2001 and the
'Feature Writer of the Year' award in 2002, for which she was also
nominated in 2006. In 2005, a profile by Brockes of Noam Chomsky
published in The Guardian sparked controversy when Chomsky
described it as "an exercise in defamation that is a model of the
genre". The Guardian later withdrew the article from the website,
giving "an unreserved apology to Prof Chomsky" and acknowledging
"Ms Brockes's misrepresentation of Prof Chomsky's views". <br>
</i><br>
<br>
On 7/7/11 10:39 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E167BE2.7060909@illinois.edu" type="cite">The
Guardian's Latest Chomsky Smear
<br>
By Samuel Grove/Alborada.net, July 6th 2011
<br>
<br>
In the current world of instant news, cable television and
internet memes, maintaining good PR is an increasingly hazardous
affair. Ryan Giggs provides a recent example of a spectacular
failure to contain or salvage an embarrassing situation. My
favourite example however is still the late Michael Jackson. In an
attempt to prove to the world that he was a normal well balanced
individual he laid himself bare to the cameras and Martin Bashir.
The result? Confirmation that Jackson was decidedly unbalanced and
a new round of charges of child molestation. Jackson is far from
the only one to have put himself in this situation (a kind of
inversion of the 'Streisand Effect'); celebrities quite often
inflict what we could call the 'Jackson effect' on themselves. It
is less associated with media organisations. Recently however the
Guardian has found itself in precisely this situation.
<br>
<br>
The Guardian's shame arguably begins when they decided to hire its
South American correspondent. Rory Carroll's spectacularly inane
and trivial journalism has attracted widespread criticism for its
selectivity and double standards, brazen anti-left bias, and above
all slavish loyalty to Western interests. Quite why the Guardian
has decided to persist with Carroll for so long is more baffling
than his recruitment (although they made a half-hearted attempt to
justify it here). If it's any consolation to the Guardian,
Carroll's relationship with his readers has evolved from genuine
source of animus and indignation to pantomime villain. Carroll
reminds one of Jeffrey Archer. On their own, unremittingly crap
writing and relentless dishonesty are loathsome. There is
something more disarming about the combination of both however.
Maybe one becomes accustomed to the predictability, perhaps they
are just too oblivious to hate, or maybe they wind up becoming
such preposterous self parodies it becomes virtually impossible to
criticise them beyond simply reporting what they have written and
done. At any rate this author is willing to give Carroll the
benefit of the doubt. Raving capitalist ideologue or CIA plant he
is not. On close inspection the overriding factor in Carroll's
writing is sheer laziness. Remarkably Carroll agrees with me.
Reflecting upon his time as a correspondent in South Africa
Carroll admitted that he got 'by perfectly fine speaking only
English and that [he found it] natural to socialise mainly with
people of a similar income and education level.' In Venezuela
Carroll has gone one step further. He has found a formula for
writing articles that means he doesn't even have to leave his
house. He reports upon a crime committed by Venezuela's president
Hugo Chavez alleged by the opposition. He then gives the official
government response to the allegation. He then resolves the
tension between the two sides by getting a quote from an outside
and independent "democracy expert" or 'political analyst' (almost
always a business consultant, more often than not from a well
known Wall St consultancy firm).
<br>
<br>
If Carroll was to take the trouble to step outside the wealthy
district of Caracas where I imagine he lives, he might discover
why people on the left are so keen to find out more about what is
happening in Venezuela and Latin America generally. One person who
has taken a keen interest in the region is the leftist
intellectual Noam Chomsky. In his recent book, Hopes and
Prospects, Chomsky surveys the 'hopes' and 'prospects' for
democracy around the world in the 21st Century. In general the
prospects part was understandably bleak (Chomsky was writing
before the 'Arab Spring'). However Chomsky finds an exception in
Latin America where there "really have been significant, dramatic
changes in the past decade". There are two dimensions to these
changes. Firstly many countries in Latin America are at last
addressing the problems of poverty and inequality which have long
afflicted them. Secondly the continent as a whole is moving
towards integration--a "prerequisite for independence" from
imperial meddling by the United States which itself carries a fair
amount of historic responsibility for the 'rentier' character of
Latin America's economy. Among those countries leading the march
on both fronts is Venezuela. In 1998 Hugo Chavez was elected on a
wave of popular support. Once in power he initiated radical
constitutional reform which among other things gave the population
an institutional foothold in the governing process. Economically
Venezuela can boast some significant successes. Since 1998 poverty
has been reduced by half and Venezula now has the lowest
inequality in the region aside from Cuba. Internationally
Venezuela has been at the forefront of the establishment of
organisations like UNASUR, ALBA and the Bank of the South. Chavez
has also become famous for his outspoken denunciations of Western
aggression and in 2006, in speech at the UN, reserved special
praise for Chomsky's book Hegemony and Survival for drawing
attention to "the hegemonic pretensions of the American empire".
The feelings of respect, it appeared, were mutual. Chomsky has
regularly expressed his support for the democratic developments
taking place in Venezuela as well as the broader developments in
Latin America which Venezuela has spearheaded.
<br>
<br>
Carroll and Chomsky then appear to live in different worlds. On
Sunday however their worlds collided as Carroll took a break from
interviewing business consultants and called Chomsky at his home.
Finally the moment the British left had been waiting for. An
opportunity to get some much needed balance. Not quite. Supporters
of the Bolivarian process and fans of Chomsky were in for a shock.
Chomsky had apparently 'turned his guns' on Chavez, accusing him
of 'amassing too much power' and making an 'assault on democracy'.
Many were incredulous. Either Chomsky was being misquoted in some
way or else he had transmogrified into a clone of Carroll
himself--capable only of delivering vacuous soundbites divorced of
any context. For anyone well acquainted with Chomsky it was clear
he had been the victim of sting journalism. Carroll, however he
had done it, had managed to get a quote, or a series of quotes
from the famous US dissident that could be added to the chorus of
jeers emanating from the bowels of US imperialism. Uproar
understandably ensued: the media lens board bombarded, Joe
Emsberger quickly contacted Chomsky for confirmation and
clarification on the issues raised. Later in the day Chomsky
responded specifically to the Guardian article:
<br>
"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."
<br>
<br>
It was at this point that Carroll, or the Guardian, or both had
their 'Michael Jackson moment'. What they should have done was
withdraw declaring either a score draw or a marginal victory. This
was more or less what they did the last time they set Chomsky up
in an interview. Having attributed to him certain remarks that
were decidedly unrepresentative of his opinion they claimed that
the tape containing the interview had unfortunately been partially
recorded over. However in their rush to prove that Chomsky this
time had indeed said the words that had been attributed to him
they published the transcript of the interview online. What have
we learned? That Chomsky is concerned about the case of a judge
awaiting trial on charges of corruption, that he is generally
suspicious of concentrated power, and that Rory Carroll is indeed
a hack journalist.
<br>
<br>
Surely, for the sake of the Guardian's credibility, now is the
time to relieve Carroll of his duties and let him do what he does
best; composing 'advertisement features' for the tourist board of
the country with the worst human rights record in the hemisphere.
<br>
<br>
Samuel Grove is an editor of <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.alborada.net">www.alborada.net</a> and an associate
producer of ‘Inside the Revolution: A Journey Into the Heart of
Venezuela' (Alborada Films, 2009).
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.alborada.net/samuelgrove">http://www.alborada.net/samuelgrove</a>
<br>
<br>
Source: Alborada.net
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>