Visitors to Media Lens are welcome. Please read this before proceeding [July 6, 2011]
Readers of this site will recall my exchange with Noam Chomsky, when he signed a letter from some academic propagandists denouncing a damaging report by Human Rights Watch on Venezuela. So you can imagine my surprise when I read in The Guardian, “Noam Chomsky accuses old friend Hugo Chávez of indefinite ‘assault’ on democracy.” Now, there’s nothing more surreal than this. Chávez’s cancer seems to have caused his supporters to act in pretty strange ways, right?
In any case, I emailed Chomsky. The surrealism only grew when I read in his reply that The Guardian/Observer, as I had anticipated, is quite misleading! So he’s a radical leftist throwing punches at both Chávez and the leftist bible! Priceless!
From: Alek Boyd [email protected] undefined
Date: July 3, 2011 03:13:45 GMT+01:00
To: Noam Chomsky [email protected] undefined
Subject: RE: Noam Chomsky accuses old friend Hugo Chávez of ‘assault’ on democracy | World News | The Observer
Dear Professor Chomsky,
I hope this email finds you well.
Besides your recent letter requesting humanitarian compassion on behalf of Judge María Afiuni, published by The Guardian, I wanted to thank you for your renewed interest in human rights in my country, while also asking you about the sudden change of heart?
I recall having an exchange with you regarding a complaint letter that some academics sent to Human Rights Watch about very similar human rights violations in Venezuela, a letter you signed in support. I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me on the reasons that led to your change in position regarding Hugo Chávez‘s regime.
Best wishes,
Alek Boyd
From: “Noam Chomsky” [email protected] undefined
Date: July 3, 2011 03:42:52 GMT+01:00
To: “‘Alek Boyd'” [email protected] undefined
Subject: RE: Re: Noam Chomsky accuses old friend Hugo Chávez of ‘assault’ on democracy | World News | The Observer
Reply to: [email protected] undefined
There is no change of heart, sudden or otherwise. The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite misleading. The NY Times report is considerably more honest. However, both omit much of the relevance that I have highlighted all along, including the fact that criticisms from the U.S. government or anyone who supports their actions are hardly taken seriously, given Washington’s terrible track record without addressing the real concerns faced by Venezuela, the Manning case for one, much worse than that of Judge Afiuni. And much more.
Update: my exchange with Chomsky continued, in his other response he reiterated the “extreme dishonesty” of The Guardian. For once, I find myself agreed with the famous linguist…
From: Alek Boyd [email protected] undefined
Date: July 3, 2011 03:54:24 GMT+01:00
To: Noam Chomsky [email protected] undefined
Subject: Re: Re: Noam Chomsky accuses old friend Hugo Chávez of ‘assault’ on democracy | World News | The Observer
Thank you for your response, Professor Chomsky. Why do you say that the The Guardian/Observer’s version is quite misleading? Did they quote you or misinterpret you in some way?
What is the relevance you emphasized all along?
And finally, if I may, can you consider the critique or support of the Chávez regime, without having to attack and push against the U.S. government, but instead frame the issues solely within the Venezuelan context? After all, the illegal imprisonment of Judge Afiuni has nothing to do with U.S.-Venezuela relations; it is an illegal and dictatorial decision by Hugo Chávez.
Best wishes,
PS: I agree with you on Manning.
Alek Boyd
From: “Noam Chomsky” [email protected] undefined
Date: July 3, 2011 04:38:23 GMT+01:00
To: “‘Alek Boyd'” [email protected] undefined
Subject: RE: Re: Noam Chomsky accuses old friend Hugo Chávez of ‘assault’ on democracy | World News | The Observer
Reply to: [email protected] undefined
Let’s start with the headline: total deception. It carries on throughout. You can simply tell by comparing the actual quotes with their comments. As I mentioned, and expected, the NY Times report of a similar interview is much more honest, and once again reveals the extreme dishonesty of The Guardian.
I’m sure you would understand if an Iranian dissident accusing Israel of crimes also mentioned the fact that the charges from Iran and its supporters cannot be taken seriously in light of Iran’s worst abuses. If you don’t get 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 mentioning Manning (and much more) is highly relevant.
NORTH CAROLINA
UPDATE II: don’t miss the verbatim plagiarism of Eva Golinger of my email exchange with Chomsky here without clarification. Johann Hari would be proud!
UPDATE III: encore from Noam Chomsky…