The past few days have been somewhat hectic. Noam Chomsky, a well-known apologist for Hugo Chávez, told Rory Carroll from The Guardian about a rather interesting exchange, as Chomsky accused The Guardian of “extreme dishonesty.” Again, nothing new there, unless you’re a radical communist with objectivity issues who continues to admire Castro, Chávez, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and their cheerleader Chomsky.
Eva Golinger, described by The New York Times, a publication that Chomsky seems to respect, as “one of the most prominent figures in Venezuela’s expanding state propaganda complex,” plagiarized without attribution a literal translation of my correspondence with Chomsky, stressing that Chomsky had been misinterpreted. Given Golinger’s high position in the chavista propaganda apparatus, the news was reprinted in state media in Venezuela. So, The Guardian had to react, publishing the complete transcript of the interview without any clarification. In the paragraphs preceding the transcript, I am referred to as a blogger instead of by name. This might be because of my past encounters with The Guardian due to their, erm, extreme dishonesty.
Then, Chávez’s apologists and teams led by blind followers are using my correspondence with Chomsky, without attribution. You’d think that after the Johann Hari fiasco, leftists would avoid “pulling a Hari,” meaning plagiarizing. But no, the message simply doesn’t seem to have sunk in. Worse still, these individuals would like us to believe that the world’s most respected intellectual responds to all kinds of different questions with exactly the same words. Like Ed Miliband. Some even accuse me of things I haven’t done, without using my name. I wonder why that is.
So, here’s a message: if you’re one of those who arrives at this page trying to use my arguments against me, at least have the decency to refer to me correctly. My name is Alek Boyd, not a obscure blogger pretending to be a gay Arab woman. If you’re going to accuse me of things, have the decency to back up your spurious lies with verifiable evidence, if you can find it. Here’s looking at you, Media Lens undefined*. Confess. Have the courage of your convictions. However, the best thing you could do is stay as far away as possible from the topics, that is, Venezuela, on which your arrogance, racism, and ignorance aren’t the shining features of your arguments.
Media Lens has falsely accused me of things they can’t prove. By pressing the link, you can read the message I sent them. However, note that they did not publish my message in the article in question “‘Extreme Dishonesty’: The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela,” but on a message board. So, I sent another email to see if they practice what they preach and demand from others:
From: Alek Boyd [email protected] undefined
Date: July 6, 2011 17:20:45 GMT+01:00
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: ‘Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela
Dear editors,
In addition to my previous communication, which you published on another page (message board) instead of the referenced article, I find it extremely dishonest that it is not included in the article in question. If I had any desire to participate in Media Lens’s message board, I would have done so.
Therefore, I respectfully request that my original, unedited message be published at the end of the article, as you have done with your communications with Rory Carroll, since you have referred to me inappropriately and falsely.
Sincerely,
alek boyd
Update: I just realized that the Media Lens article “‘Extreme Dishonesty’ – The Guardian, Noam Chomsky and Venezuela” has been published on Chomsky.info undefined, which is Noam Chomsky’s official website. That wouldn’t be a problem, of course, if Media Lens or Chomsky had the intellectual honesty to admit that my correspondence with Chomsky has been used without clear attribution, as if Chomsky had responded to all the “activists and bloggers” asking him for explanations with exactly the same words. Media Lens and Chomsky lead readers to conclude that Chomsky prepared a set of responses, presumably to completely different questions, and sent them to friends and foes alike around the world. Media Lens and Chomsky claim that in response to “one question” from Chávez apologist Joe Emersberger, Chomsky’s response was:
‘The Guardian/Observer version, as I anticipated, is quite misleading. The NY Times report is considerably more honest. Both omit much of the relevance I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms of the U.S. government or anyone supporting its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s far worse record without any of the real concerns facing Venezuela, the Manning case for one [Manning is the alleged source of large amounts of restricted material passed to WikiLeaks], which is much worse than Judge Afiuni’s case. And much more [content in parentheses added by Media Lens and/or Chomsky]
Chomsky’s response to my question:
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 I stressed throughout, including the fact that criticisms of the U.S. government or anyone supporting its actions can hardly be taken seriously, considering Washington’s worst record without any of the real concerns facing Venezuela, the Manning case for one, much worse than Judge Afiuni’s case. And much more
So “honest” is really the “most influential” leftist intellectual.