This is a very civil and well written Glenn Greenwald blog taking the New York Times to task for failing to acknowledge their support for the coup that ealier deposed Chavez in Venezuela in spite of the their now coming around to seeing that the US initial characterization of that coup as a victory for democracy was a key action in souring US relations in Latin America. This is Greenwald at his best (without the vitriol and hyperbole). He goes on to note that key media and political institutions have been complicit in creating the malais of the last eight years through their quiet acquiescence to Bush administration positions and actions and urges that the lessons not be masked by revisionist statements from those institutions.
Greenwald provides excellent and pointed criticism of the NYT for both slavish support of Bush imperialism in Venezuela and for trying to slyly rewrite and sidestep their responsibility for unethical journalism.
The big right white corporate media has so demonized Chavez that it is difficult for even informed politicians to propose working positively with Venezuela for fear of being attacked by the press and their voters. The UN delegates applauded Chavez for likening Bush to the devil; they were better informed than the NYT.
It is quality criticism of journalism by a journalist who has a reputation for quality journalism. Greenwald at Salon is like Olbermann at MSNBC, cable vs. broadcast, and online vs. paper. NYT revisionism is a symptom of the times like in politics where players deny the exact thing we already have on tape. History is recorded now so people try to deny it like creationists deny the distant past. I don't expect journalists, news outlets or even politicians to remain chained to their previous mistakes, but simply to admit, correct them, and move on. Any individual or organization that can't maintain their integrity while rethinking a thread of mistakes is unworthy of public life or public trust. Grave mistakes have been made ... More »
I watched the piece about Venezuela on Frontline last week. It was deeply impressive, and depressing. Choosing a president in a democracy is like reaching into a barrel of mostly rotten apples. If you get a rotten one, at least it's your rotten one. In a non-democracy there is only one apple in the barrel and it is rotten. Hugo Chavez may have seemed sound when he was picked by the Venezuelans, but now he is just their rotten apple.