[Peace-discuss] British liberal hack journalism...

[C. G. Estabrook]

The Guardian's Latest Chomsky Smear
By Samuel Grove/Alborada.net, July 6th 2011

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.

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).

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.

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:
"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."

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.

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.

Samuel Grove is an editor of www.alborada.net and an associate producer of 
‘Inside the Revolution: A Journey Into the Heart of Venezuela' (Alborada Films, 
2009). http://www.alborada.net/samuelgrove

Source: Alborada.net