Welcome Media Lens Visitors. Important Information Ahead [6 July 2011]
Visitors to this site may recall my correspondence with Noam Chomsky regarding his signature on a letter from academics criticizing a damaging report by Human Rights Watch concerning Venezuela. Therefore, you can imagine my astonishment when I came across the article in The Guardian titled «Noam Chomsky denounces old friend Hugo Chávez for ‘assault’ on democracy». It really doesn’t get any weirder than that! Chávez’s illness seems to have triggered bizarre behavior from his supporters, wouldn’t you agree?
I decided to reach out to Chomsky, and my sense of the surreal only deepened when his response highlighted that The Guardian/Observer, as he predicted, is quite misleading! So here we have a radical leftist taking aim at both Chávez and the Left’s authoritative source! Unbelievable!
From: Alek Boyd [email protected]
Date: 3 July 2011 03:13:45 GMT+01:00
To: Noam Chomsky [email protected]
Subject: RE: Noam Chomsky’s Denunciation of Hugo Chávez for ‘Assault’ on Democracy | World News | The Observer
Dear Professor Chomsky,
I hope this email finds you in good spirits.
In reference to your recent letter concerning humanitarian assistance for Judge Maria Afiuni, published by The Guardian, I wanted to express my gratitude for your renewed focus on human rights in Venezuela. However, I am curious about the sudden shift in your perspective.
I remember discussing a letter you co-signed that opposed similar human rights violations in Venezuela, showing your support. I would appreciate it if you could clarify what led to your change in stance regarding Hugo Chávez’s government.
Best wishes,
Alek Boyd
From: «Noam Chomsky» [email protected]
Date: 3 July 2011 03:42:52 GMT+01:00
To: «‘Alek Boyd’» [email protected]
Subject: RE: Noam Chomsky’s Denunciation of Hugo Chávez for ‘Assault’ on Democracy | World News | The Observer
Reply-To: [email protected]
There hasn’t been a change of heart, sudden or otherwise. As I expected, The Guardian/Observer’s version is quite misleading. The report by the NY Times is significantly more honest. Both, however, omit key aspects I highlighted, including the fact that criticisms from the U.S. government or anyone who supports its actions can hardly be regarded as credible, considering Washington’s far worse human rights record compared to the actual dilemmas Venezuela faces—like the Manning case, which is far graver than Judge Afiuni’s situation. And there’s more.
Update: My dialogue with Chomsky continued; in his next response, he reiterated the “extreme dishonesty” of The Guardian. For once, I find myself agreeing with the renowned linguist…
From: Alek Boyd [email protected]
Date: 3 July 2011 03:54:24 GMT+01:00
To: Noam Chomsky [email protected]
Subject: Re: Noam Chomsky’s Denunciation of Hugo Chávez for ‘Assault’ on Democracy | World News | The Observer
Thank you for your response, Professor Chomsky. Why do you consider The Guardian/Observer’s version to be deceptive? Did they misquote or misinterpret your statements?
What key points did you emphasize throughout?
And if I may ask, can you critique or support the Chávez regime without juxtaposing it against the U.S. government? Shouldn’t the issues be framed solely within the Venezuelan context? After all, Judge Afiuni’s illegal imprisonment is entirely a decision made by Hugo Chávez, unrelated to U.S.-Venezuela relations.
Best wishes,
PS: I concur with you regarding Manning.
Alek Boyd
From: «Noam Chomsky» [email protected]
Date: 3 July 2011 04:38:23 GMT+01:00
To: «‘Alek Boyd’» [email protected]
Subject: RE: Noam Chomsky’s Denunciation of Hugo Chávez for ‘Assault’ on Democracy | World News | The Observer
Reply-To: [email protected]
Let’s start with the headline: complete deception. This theme runs throughout. You can easily tell by comparing the actual quotes with their commentary. As I stated, the NY Times report of a similar interview is much more upfront, further revealing the extreme dishonesty of The Guardian.
I’m confident you would understand if an Iranian dissident who accused Israel of wrongdoing would also mention that charges from Iran and its backers can’t be seen as credible in light of Iran’s more severe abuses. If you don’t see that, which I find unbelievable, you have some serious thinking to do. If you do see it, as I expect, then the same logic applies. That’s precisely why mentioning Manning (and additional issues) is very pertinent.
NC
UPDATE II: Be sure to check out Eva Golinger’s word-for-word plagiarism of my email exchange with Chomsky here. Johann Hari would be proud!
UPDATE III: encore from Noam Chomsky…