Editor's Note: On September 22, the New York Times misreported that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez had misspoken about the "death" of the linguist and social critic Noam Chomsky. I initially assumed that the Times report was correct and posted an excerpt of the report here. In reality, Chavez never made any such statement. He spoke of the death of the renowned U.S. economist John Kenneth Galbraith, not of Chomsky (who is very much alive). Here's what Chavez actually said at the news conference following his address to the United Nations:"How to achieve the defeat of imperialism... here is a good proposal, Chomsky's most important and original political work in a decade. It has extraordinary ideas. I have been an assiduous reader of Noam Chomsky like I have been of a North American professor who died recently. Lamentably I never got to meet him, girl. I did try to meet that man, but he was already somewhat deteriorated. Ninety years old, he was, John Kenneth Galbraith. I've read Galbraith since I was a child. And, of course, Chomsky. Great North American authors, great figures, intellectuals."
The Times has yet to issue a correction. Complaints about errors that warrant correction can be e-mailed to nytnews@nytimes.com or left toll-free at 1-888-NYT-NEWS (1-888-698-6397). As the Times itself stipulates, "readers dissatisfied with a response or concerned about the paper's journalistic integrity may reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com or (212) 556-7652."
25 comments:
Not correcting that error, can come back and haunt The NY Times. I'm sure progressive readers, have something to say about this.
saying that the NYT "screwed up", while true on one level, may be too generous. they weren't the only media source who ran w/ this erroneous/fabricated story, which worked to further undermine chavez's credibility, presenting him as a person who is uninformed and continues to speak recklessly (perhaps not even capable of reading the very book he promotes).
according to david peterson's blog over at znet, the faulty translation likely originated from an abc news now special rpt. that may have just been a poor translation which allowed the ideologically-driven media to project their own biases into it. or it may have been intentional. hard to say w/o more investigation.
but surely the times staff had the opportunity to fact check their story (assuming they still remember how to do that when they cite real sources), especially since other outlets -- reuters for one -- correctly attributed chavez's lament to not having met galbraith & not chomsky. venezuelanalysis reports today that chomsky & chavez have established communication and noam will be headed to caracas soon. but there is another sign that this was an intentional bit of dissemination on the part of the times.
as bruce jackson points out in an article today [friday sept 29] over at counterpunch,
About 25% of the New York Times September 23 article on the book's surprising spurt in sales was devoted to Harvard law professor and torture advocate Alan M. Dershowitz, who used the opportunity to badmouth Chomsky's books in general.
"I don't know anybody who's ever read a Chomsky book," Dershowitz said, which is probably more instructive about the range of his own political conversations than Chomsky's readership. "You buy them, you put them in your pockets, you put them on your coffee table," he said. He is confident that the people who buy Hegemony "are not going to get to the end of the book [Chomsky] does not write page turners, he writes page stoppers. There are a lot of bent pages in Noam Chomsky's books, and they are usually at about Page 16."
It's not surprising that Dershowitz-none of whose continuing series of Jack Hornerish autobiographies is exactly a titillating bodice-ripper either-would express that kind of petulant jealousy of a highly-regarded neighbor. He used to insist that his hatred for civil rights attorney William M. Kunstler was simply because Kunstler took on unsavory clients, a few of whom were enemies of Israel, but it always seemed far more likely that the animus came from the fact that Kunstler was recognized everywhere and was liked by almost everyone who knew him, even his legal opponents, while Dershowitz had to introduce himself for people to know who he was and even that didn't make him likeable. So those remarks sniping at Chomsky were just Dershowitz being Dershowitz.
What is is odd is that the Times would quote him at all in this context, let alone at such length. What is his expertise in South American affairs? What is his expertise in Chomsky, whose work, by his own admission, he buys but doesn't read?
Perhaps it's just the Times using Dershowitz as catspaw to help put down Hugo Chávez.
i'd say. they're consciously working to make chavez look stupid & uninspiring.
I don't what's funnier (or tragic depending), a) that he killed Chomsky, b) that he used to read Galbraith as a kid! Or c) you discussing so innocently serious about he really did read Galbraith as a kid.
Yes! It's the press and those evil devil worshippers who made him look like an ass, but very deep, he is a gentleman and a prodigy!
Gee! Don't fall from the bed too hard.
I love the "deteriorated state" comment.Not only is Chavez well read (something feathers probably has trouble imagining of someone with dark skin)but he is as funny as Colbert.
"saying that the NYT 'screwed up', while true on one level, may be too generous. they weren't the only media source who ran w/ this erroneous/fabricated story, which worked to further undermine chavez's credibility, presenting him as a person who is uninformed and continues to speak recklessly (perhaps not even capable of reading the very book he promotes)."
It's certainly true that the "screw-up" reflects the corporate media's own preconceived notion that any leader who challenges imperial power must be an ignoramus. Since the media are predisposed to think that Chavez is a brute, they're more likely to believe erroneous stories that cast him in a negative light. But I still think it's a screw-up insofar as Chavez's statement was taped; any native speaker of Spanish can verify that the Times' translation is erroneous. In the long run, this is not good for the Times' credibility (especially if the blogosphere sufficiently hammers the Times about this). The key right now is to make the Times' error known and thereby expose the lack of integrity in mainstream media's coverage of Hugo Chavez.
Do you know what color is my skin Troutky?
So all minorities have to get behind a military ganster passing up as well read for the sake that he doesn't like Mr. Bush?
Isn't it a little bit of condescending thinking?
Feathers, don't be ridiculous:
First, you called Chavez an ignorant. You said in another post he hasn't read Chomsky and he's just got the Cliff Notes version of his books. Now that it's clear he was referring to JK Galbraith and not to Chomsky you mock him by saying you don't believe he read Galbraith either, at least not when he was young. What's your point, exactly? You seem to be implying that in no way Chavez is as well read as he seems, and your evidence is...what? Personal unbelief?
Get a grip on yourself. Last time I addressed you in a blog you seemed pretty ignorant yourself.
Jose del Solar
Well Jose, what is your evidence that he is a well read man when he acts the opposite in front of the world? Because he said so? Sorry but you have to act too like a well read man. He acts and talks like a charlatan to me.
If I am an ignorant or not for you, rejoice for I am not your president or a public persona which an important job. I am a nobody. And needless to say, I really can't care less what is your opinion of me. What do you want me to answer to your comment? You want me to get into a personal attack with you? I like when people insult me personaly because it proves they have anything better to say.
And, we don't know yet if this JK Galbraith damage control operation is true or not. What is funny is how this is starting to look worst than the original Chomsky incident.
BTW Jose, not that you would descend from your intelectual ego throne to read my ignorant blog, but you can find my good reasons on why I don't believe in U-go Shavezzz bullshit.
His intelectual mentor, a man who knew him pretty well, don't have a lot of good things to say about Chavez's intelect. Sorry.
http://feathersblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/on-why-true-leftist-doesnt-believe-on.html
"And, we don't know yet if this JK Galbraith damage control operation is true or not."
Yes we do know that Chavez never misspoke of Chomsky's "death." Watch the video, dear. There is no "damage control operation" because Chavez never did the "damage" to begin with. The only people doing "damage control" are the editors at the New York Times (by not acknowledging the fact that they screwed up).
"What is funny is how this is starting to look worst than the original Chomsky incident."
It's looking worse for the New York Times, not for Chavez.
What video dear J? The one from VTV?
I saw it, you are right. He was very clear to say it was JKG.
Then there wasn't any damage control op and the NYT has to apologize.
Now... going to the point of he used to read JKG as a child...
"Now... going to the point of he used to read JKG as a child..."
Chavez has been calling himself a "Galbraitanista" for as long as I can remember, Feathers. Seriously. The first time I heard him refer to Galbraith was around six years ago. I distinctly remember it.
Now, it's true that Chavez exaggerates at times, so it's possible that he wasn't a "child" when he first read Galbraith, but it's also possible that he was a child. Galbraith's first book, The Affluent Society, was published when Chavez was a very young boy (in 1958). Since Galbraith was an adviser to Kennedy," it's quite likely that Spanish translations of The Affluent Society were available to Venezuelans in Spanish in the early '60s (especially since the Adeco government of that time was closely allied with Kennedy).
OK Justin, it is possible. I take your point "grano salis" (that is with a grain of salt, but I take it)
"... it's true that Chavez exaggerates at times"
At times? Or all the time dear? He talks toooo much about all the books he used to read when he was a kid. You don't see intelectual and real smart people taking about it. They are humble about it.
Humility is not Chavez's style. I'm interested in the substance of his thoughts and programs, not his style.
I'm sorry, Feathers McGraw, but as far as I am concerned, it takes a "well-read man" to know another. And in my book, there is as of so far no way that you display such qualities in your comments here (in this blog in general).
To me, you come across more as a base, boring bigot, and as a man blinded by political hatred, than as fitting into a rubrication anywhere near that of scholar (or "well-read man").
Come off it, please.
Whatever Agile.
I am not passing myself as well read or a scholar, which I am not. I am criticizing the president of my country.
If Hugo Chavez comes a well read man for you, fine! He doesn't for me and for many well respected Venezuelan intelectuals from the left and from the right who knew him. You can find what Luis Miquilena, Arturo Uslar Pietri, and Manuel Caballero thinks about him. I bet even Chomsky knows what type of person he is but of course, he is not gonna say anything since Chavez has helped him on the sales of his book.
Listen there's nothing wrong with someone who is not well read, or "scholar" as you said. A good president doesn't have to be a scholar or even an educated man, but he has to do his job well. Chavez has not. Even rabid leftist as I imagine you are, who have apologize him for everything for 8 years, are not so sure about him these days:
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=68316
Justin,
Chavez has a lot of substance, as Miquilena said. The problem is that he is all over the place!
"I bet even Chomsky knows what type of person he is but of course, he is not gonna say anything since Chavez has helped him on the sales of his book."
Uh, Chomsky was expressing sympathy for the Bolivarian Revolution long before Chavez's latest UN speech. You shouldn't project your own side's values onto the left. Your side is mostly in it for the money, but Chomsky is not.
Agile,
I believe that Feathers McGraw is a woman. I wouldn't mistake her right-wing hysteria for something more sinister than it is. My sense is that Ms. McGraw long ago underwent a political formation that was very distinct from our own; some bad habits are hard to break. I also sense that there is something more genuine about Ms. McGraw than there is about other reactionaries. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I've long sensed this about her. All in all, Ms. McGraw livens things up a bit in the comments section, so I've learned to be tolerant of her right-wing hysteria.
Best,
Justin
Right wing histeria, as opposed to Left wing lunacy?
Which one is better guys?
I am a conservative but I support socialist programs.
Thanks for your words. You sense my honesty because I care about my country and not because of lunatic politicians from the right, from the center or from the left. They are all the same in a way.
I know you are a honest guy as well who believes in what the left represents.
That's why I like to come here and dialogue with you. :D
Cheers,
F
1) NYT concedes error: Chavez did not say Chomsky was dead, and NYT was slow to correct
Editors’ Note, Corrections, New York Times, October 6, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/pageoneplus/corrections.html
An article on Sept. 21 about criticism of President Bush at the United Nations by President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran reported that Mr. Chavez praised a book by Noam Chomsky, the linguist and social critic. It reported that later, at a news conference, Mr. Chavez said that he regretted not having met Mr. Chomsky before he died. The article noted that in fact, Mr. Chomsky is alive. The assertion that Mr. Chavez had made this misstatement was repeated in a Times interview with Mr. Chomsky the next day.
In fact, what Mr. Chavez said was, “I am an avid reader of Noam Chomsky, as I am of an American professor who died some time ago.” Two sentences later Mr. Chavez named John Kenneth Galbraith, the Harvard economist who died last April, calling both him and Mr. Chomsky great intellectual figures.
Mr. Chavez was speaking in Spanish at the news conference, but the simultaneous English translation by the United Nations left out the reference to Mr. Galbraith and made it sound as if the man who died was Mr. Chomsky.
Readers pointed out the error in e-mails to The Times soon after the first article was published. Reporters reviewed the recordings of the news conference in English and Spanish, but not carefully enough to detect the discrepancy, until after the Venezuelan government complained publicly on Wednesday.
Editors and reporters should have been more thorough earlier in checking the accuracy of the simultaneous translation.
Feathers; Justin,
thanks for the clarifications. I'll try to adjust or suspend my judgement until "further notice" ;)
As for my suggested status as a rabid leftist, well:
I was a delegate for last year's congress of the Norwegian conservative party (then the leading party in a centre-right government coalition; now in opposition to a socialdemocratic majority regime).
This year's congress (less interesting, being in opposition and everything, so I did not position myself to attend) granted observers status and hospitality to a delegation from the Partido Conservador of Nicaragua.
(Could anyone please fill me in on that party, btw? Any input would be much appreciated :)
Participation to such a gathering (annual party congress) is quite select, and I do believe they would have spotted me were I a rabid leftist, long before they granted me full delegate status;)
I just happen to support any peaceful country's right to sovereign democracy, without the more or less hidden intervention (of any kind) from larger more powerful states (or any state, for that matter) that are subject to administrations of a, shall we say, imperialistic hue.
Go figure :)
A
I botched the login-routine, but that was i, obviously..
A
Post a Comment