The past few days have been quite chaotic. Noam Chomsky, a well-known advocate for Hugo Chavez, told The Guardian’s Rory Carroll that Hugo Chavez is conducting an «assault» on democracy. This isn’t surprising at all; anyone with a shred of objectivity knows about the dictatorial tendencies of the Venezuelan leader. However, it was shocking to hear this from Chomsky himself. I reached out via email, leading to an intriguing back-and-forth where he accused The Guardian of «extreme dishonesty». This is nothing new—unless, of course, you’re a radical communist who still admires figures like Castro, Chavez, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and Chomsky himself.
Eva Golinger, labeled by the New York Times as «one of the most prominent fixtures of Venezuela’s expanding state propaganda complex», lifted my correspondence with Chomsky in her state-funded publication without giving proper credit, asserting that Chomsky had been misquoted. Given her significant role in chavista propaganda, this was widely circulated in Venezuelan state media. Consequently, The Guardian had to respond, releasing the entire interview transcript. In the prelude to the transcript, I was referred to merely as a blogger instead of by name, likely due to my previous confrontations with The Guardian regarding its consistent dishonesty.
Chavez supporters and organizations run by narrowly-minded individuals are using my email exchange with Chomsky without attribution. One would think that fresh off the Johann Hari scandal, leftists would steer clear of plagiarism. Apparently, the message hasn’t landed. What’s worse is the insinuation that the world’s most respected intellectual uses identical language for different queries—much like Ed Miliband. Some even went so far as to accuse me of actions I haven’t committed, all while omitting my name. I can’t help but wonder why.
So here’s a message: if you’re one of those who come to this page trying to twist my arguments against me, at least have the decency to refer to me correctly. My name is Alek Boyd, not some obscure blogger pretending to be an Arab gay woman. If you want to accuse me of something, back your ridiculous claims with verifiable evidence if you can manage it. Here’s looking at you, Media Lens*. Own up to your mistakes. Have a backbone. The best course of action for you would be to steer clear of issues—i.e., Venezuela—where your arrogance, racism, and ignorance really show.
* Media Lens has made false accusations against me that they cannot substantiate. By clicking the link, you can read the message I sent them. However, note that they haven’t included my message in the relevant article «‘Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela», but on a message board instead. Thus, I’ve sent another email to see if they will uphold their own standards:
From: Alek Boyd [email protected]
Date: 6 July 2011 17:20:45 GMT+01:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: PS: ‘Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela
Dear Editors,
In reference to my earlier communication, which you published elsewhere (on a message board) rather than in the article in question, I find it exceedingly dishonest not to include it within the article itself. If I had wanted to engage on Media Lens’ message board, I would have already done so.
Therefore, I respectfully request that my original message, unaltered, be posted at the bottom of the article, similar to how you’ve handled your communication with Rory Carroll, as you have referred to me inaccurately and falsely.
Cordially,
Alek Boyd
Update: I’ve just noticed that the Media Lens article «‘Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela» has been posted on Chomsky.info, which is Noam Chomsky’s official site. This wouldn’t be an issue if either Media Lens or Chomsky had shown the intellectual honesty to acknowledge my correspondence with Chomsky was used, without proper attribution, as though he had responded to all «Activists and bloggers» with the exact same words. Media Lens and Chomsky lead readers to believe that Chomsky prepared a set of responses for entirely different questions and sent them out globally. According to Media Lens and Chomsky, in response to a question from Chavez supporter Joe Emersberger, Chomsky’s answer was:
‘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. [content in brackets added by Media Lens and/or Chomsky]
Chomsky’s reply to my question:
The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite deceptive. The report in the NY Times is considerably more honest. Both, however, 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.
That’s how «honest» the Left’s so-called «influential intellectual» really is.