An example of what Hugh is talking about:<br><br>From <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.medialens.org/board/" target="top">MediaLens Message Board</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I think NYT frabricated Chavez's statement that Chomsky is dead</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>Posted by Nico on September 22, 2006, 6:08 am<br>User logged in as: ChrisG<br><br>In a September 21, 2006 NYT article absurdly titled "Iran Who? Venezuela Takes the Lead in a Battle of Anti-U.S. Sound Bites," Helene Cooper writes:<br>"[Chavez] told a news conference that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Mr. Chomsky before he died. (Mr. Chomsky, 77, is still alive.)"[1]<br><br>I later saw this same charge raised on Fox and CNN in order to ridicule Chavez as a buffoon or dope or as otherwise being seriously out of touch with reality.<br><br>Thinking it over, I became pretty suspicious that someone who obviously thinks very highly of Chomsky could somehow think Chomsky is dead, given that Chomsky is undoubtebtly one of the most visibly active individuals on the planet.<br><br>That Chavez would believe Chomsky is dead also seemed to contradict something Chavez said in his UN address. When he began this address and waived Chomsky's book (Hegemony or Survival) in the air, Chavez said, "...Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books..."<br><br>This statement implies Chavez did in fact know Chomsky is still alive. Otherwsie, he should have said, "...Noam Chomsky, and this is one of the last books he wrote..." Or something else that would have referred to Chomsky in the *past* tense.<br><br>After googling to try to get to the bottom of this, I found a Reuters article that offered what appears to be a very different translation of Chavez's statement. According to this Reuters article, Chavez said:<br><br>"The dark-skinned, mixed race leader [Chavez] told New Yorkers to read Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain as well as modern thinkers like Noam Chomsky and John Kenneth Galbraith, lamenting he could not meet Galbraith before he died in April at age 97."[2]<br><br>Now, I see the following three possibile reasons for the discrepency:<br><br>1. The NYT article's translation is right and Reuters' translation is wrong (innocently or deliberately).<br>2. Reuters' translation is right and the NYT article's translation is wrong (innocently or deliberately).<br>3. Both translations are wrong and Chavez was actually lamenting the death of *John Wayne* before having the chance to meet him.<br><br>Now, I don't see any motive for Reuters to fabricate a statement by Chavez saying he lamented the death of John Galbraith--given that Galbraith is in fact dead.<br><br>However, I DO see an obvious motive for the NYT to fabricate a statement by Chavez saying he regrets not getting to meet Chomsky. Such a statemnt is perfect fodder for the Times to use in reinforcing their portrayal of Chavez as a cartoonesque imbecile who even praises a book by a living author who he thinks is dead.<br><br>Although I can't prove it (and I haven't yet found the statement in Spanish to translate it myself), I'm gonna have to say that, assuming Chavez can tell the difference between John Wayne and Chomsky, I'm thinking #2 is the most likely possibility.<br><br>In fact, it looks suspiciously like someone deliberately fabricated this absurd statement to help diffuse some of the heat Bush has been taking as a result of the speech. And to make sure a gravely serious story (of Chavez directly confronting the US about its hegemony) gets circulated as a comic-book fluff-piece only. About a colorful blowhard who made some very silly statements about "the devil," waved some old commie's book around, and falsely asserted that the author of that book is dead.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>And you gotta love the EAGERNESS and GLEE with which Fox and CNN (and, I'm sure, all the other MSM utlets) pounced on this story without the slightest hint of skepticism intruding on their fun.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Anyway, I wanted to bring this to people's attention here, as I haven't seen it brought up elsewhere yet.<br><br>Of course, my hunch could be wrong here and maybe Reuters did get it wrong and the NYT article got it right. But that would really surprise me. Hopefully someone will re-translate the statement soon and force a correction from the Times. Even though the damage has likely already been done.<br><br>Nico<br><br>[1] Cooper, Helene. Iran Who? Venezuela Takes the Lead in a Battle of Anti-U.S. Sound Bites. The New York Times, September 21, 2006.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/world ... ref=slogin<br>[2] Venezuela's Chavez Continues Anti - Bush Harangue. Reuters, September 21, 2006.<br>http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-usa-venezuela-chavez.html<br><br><br>P.S. I don't know if it's the same in Britain as here in the US, but whenever I've heard Chavez's UN speech translated on a TV news show--particularly the part about the devil and sulphur--the translation has been done by a woman (always the same one) who seems to be an actor and turns Chavez's words into a ridiculous improv-sounding stage bit. It's just appalling the lengths to whic hthe media goes in turning every story that threatens the "benevolent" status quo on its head.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>