In
another rare 'real journalism' short crisis, the New York Times
decided to reveal the truth about the trucks with 'humanitarian aid'
on the Colombia-Venezuela border, that were set on fire.
As The
Intercept reported:
|
On
February 24, CNN told the world what we all now know is an
absolute lie: that “a CNN team saw incendiary devices from
police on the Venezuelan side of the border ignite the trucks,”
though it generously added that “the network’s journalists
are unsure if the trucks were burned on purpose.”
Other
media outlets endorsed the lie while at least avoiding what CNN
did by personally vouching for it. “Humanitarian aid destined
for Venezuela was set on fire, seemingly by troops loyal to Mr
Maduro,” The Telegraph claimed. The BBC uncritically
printed: “There have also been reports of several aid trucks
being burned – something Mr Guaidó said was a violation of the
Geneva Convention.”
That
lie – supported by incredibly powerful video images – changed
everything. Ever since, that Maduro burned trucks filled with
humanitarian aid was repeated over and over as proven fact on U.S.
news outlets. Immediately after it was claimed, politicians who
had been silent on the issue of Venezuela or even reluctant to
support regime change began issuing statements now supportive of
it. U.S. news stars and think tank luminaries who lack even a
single critical brain cell when it comes to war-provoking claims
from U.S. officials took a leading role in beating the war drums
without spending even a single second to ask whether what they
were being told were true.
But
on Saturday night, the New
York Times
published a detailed video and accompanying article proving that
this entire story was a lie. The humanitarian trucks were not set
on fire by Maduro’s forces. They were set on fire by anti-Maduro
protesters who threw a molotov cocktail that hit one of the
trucks. And the NYT’s video traces how the lie spread: from U.S.
officials who baselessly announced that Maduro burned them to
media outlets that mindlessly repeated the lie.
|
Such
rare 'real journalism' crises in the US corporate media are very
suspicious and should trouble us about the real intentions behind
them. Recall that the New York Times supported almost every
imperialist regime change operation by the US against undesirable
governments.
Recall
also that such a rare crisis hit
CNN a few months ago when suddenly decided to
report the Saudi war crimes in Yemen with the support of the US. It
turned
out that the motive behind this extraordinary
moment was probably to exercise pressure on the current Saudi regime
in order to re-boost a plan for the rapid privatization of the
Aramco, the state-owned oil company, as well as the neoliberalization
of the entire Saudi economy.
So, what
happened now and the New York Times decided to tell the truth
about the burning trucks in Venezuela? A possible explanation could
be related with the failure of the rather 'sloppy' propaganda.
From the
first moment, independent journalists (many Americans among them), as
well as other networks opposite to the Western propaganda, mentioned
the fact that the burning trucks was rather another typical CIA-type
false flag operation in order to justify a US intervention.
When
they saw that the propaganda had little effect on public opinion, the
New York Times decided to play the card of 'real journalism'.
Therefore,
on the one hand, the New York Times attempted to regain some -
already lost - credibility. On the other, the Times tried to
convince the public that the anti-Maduro protester who threw the
molotov cocktail on the trucks was acting alone, therefore, he
couldn't be part of a false flag operation.
Whatever
the truth, there is a moment in the New York Times video which
actually destroys (rather accidentally) the Western narrative of the
'dictator Maduro'. At the beginning of the video you can clearly
observe the security forces approaching the anti-Maduro protesters
with the guns down and the hands up, saying (according to the
translation), "Let's cease, let's cease, let's cease. Let's
cease the violence. Let's cease the violence. Let's put out this fire
first." Now, compare this with the treatment of the Yellow Vests
by the French security forces and decide by yourself where there is
more democracy and where there is more dictatorship.
Comments
Post a Comment