Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela
paulsurovell said:
Jeremy Scahill exposes Trump's Venezuela coup attempt for what it is -- "an open imperialist effort to steal Venezuela's oil."
This is a terrific summary of the situation in nine minutes and 23 seconds. If you want more detail, Scahill has a podcast interview with Alan Nairn, the journalist that challenged Eliot Abrams on mainstream media (and was never invited back), and also journaist Roberto Lovato and attorney Eva Golinger, who was an adviser to Hugo Chavez.
DONALD TRUMP AND THE YANKEE PLOT TO OVERTHROW THE VENEZUELAN GOVERNMENT
the fact that Hillary likes max doesn’t change my opinion of him - I still think he’s riding the fringe wave - sort of like infowars on the Bernie side.
I’ll write more later or whenever I have better internet.
jamie said:
the fact that Hillary likes max doesn’t change my opinion of him - I still think he’s riding the fringe wave - sort of like infowars on the Bernie side.
I’ll write more later or whenever I have better internet.
Looking forward to it. Jamie Ross needs better internet? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
International Committee of the Red Cross rightly accuses the Trump-Bolton coup operation of politicizing humanitarian aid (while they try to starve the Venezuelan people with sanctions) by not sending it through the existing government structures. Does anyone believe Trump and Bolton care about the Venezuelan people?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/red-cross-warns-u-s-about-risks-of-sending-aid-to-venezuela
This Reuters piece provides some insight into Trump-Bolton "meddling" in Venezuela. I wonder how our Russiagate-obsessed elected officials would react if Putin was making offers to the US military. Key phrase -- see bold (mine).
World News
February 8, 2019 / 1:34 PM / Updated 2 hours ago
Exclusive: U.S. in direct contact with Venezuelan military, urging defections - source
Luc Cohen, Matt Spetalnick, Roberta Rampton
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is holding direct communications with members of Venezuela’s military urging them to abandon President Nicolas Maduro and is also preparing new sanctions aimed at increasing pressure on him, a senior White House official said.
The Trump administration expects further military defections from Maduro’s side, the official told Reuters in an interview, despite only a few senior officers having done so since opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself interim president last month, earning the recognition of the United States and dozens of other countries.
“We believe these to be those first couple pebbles before we start really seeing bigger rocks rolling down the hill,” the official said this week, speaking on condition of anonymity. “We’re still having conversations with members of the former Maduro regime, with military members, although those conversations are very, very limited.”
The official declined to provide details on the discussions or the level at which they are being held, and it was unclear whether such contacts could create cracks in the Venezuelan socialist leader’s support from the military, which is pivotal to his grip on power.
With the Venezuelan military still apparently loyal to Maduro, a source in Washington close to the opposition expressed doubts whether the Trump administration has laid enough groundwork to spur a wider mutiny in the ranks where many officers are suspected of benefiting from corruption and drug trafficking.
paulsurovell said:
International Committee of the Red Cross rightly accuses the Trump-Bolton coup operation of politicizing humanitarian aid (while they try to starve the Venezuelan people with sanctions) by not sending it through the existing government structures. Does anyone believe Trump and Bolton care about the Venezuelan people?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/red-cross-warns-u-s-about-risks-of-sending-aid-to-venezuela
But somehow you believe Trump actually wants better Russian relations?
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:But somehow you believe Trump actually wants better Russian relations?
International Committee of the Red Cross rightly accuses the Trump-Bolton coup operation of politicizing humanitarian aid (while they try to starve the Venezuelan people with sanctions) by not sending it through the existing government structures. Does anyone believe Trump and Bolton care about the Venezuelan people?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/red-cross-warns-u-s-about-risks-of-sending-aid-to-venezuela
What I know is that he's been attacked for suggesting it.
Are you on board with US "meddling" in Venezuela?
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:What I know is that he's been attacked for suggesting it.
paulsurovell said:But somehow you believe Trump actually wants better Russian relations?
International Committee of the Red Cross rightly accuses the Trump-Bolton coup operation of politicizing humanitarian aid (while they try to starve the Venezuelan people with sanctions) by not sending it through the existing government structures. Does anyone believe Trump and Bolton care about the Venezuelan people?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/red-cross-warns-u-s-about-risks-of-sending-aid-to-venezuela
Are you on board with US "meddling" in Venezuela?
No he hasn't. Name me one person who has said "no, we don't think Trump should be pursuing better relations with Russia."
And the problem with Venezuela is not US meddling. It's the pile of garbage that Maduro has turned Venezuela into.
Donald Trump imagines Juan Guaidó is the rightful president of Venezuela. Mr. Guaidó, a man of impeccable illegitimacy, was exposed by Cohen and Blumenthal as “a product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington’s elite regime change trainers.” Argentinian sociologist Marco Teruggi described Guaidó in the same article as “a character that has been created for this circumstance” of regime change. Here, his constitutional credentials to be interim president of Venezuela are deconstructed.
nan said:
Juan Guaidó: The Man Who Would Be President of Venezuela Doesn’t Have a Constitutional Leg to Stand On
Four references to the Guaidó/Trump cabal, and nary a mention of the OAS, the EU, Canada or Australia. Unless “cabal” is meant to include them as well.
"Consider two Latin American countries. The first is one of the region’s oldest and strongest democracies. It boasts a stronger social safety net than any of its neighbors and is making progress on its promise to deliver free health care and higher education to all its citizens. It is a model of social mobility and a magnet for immigrants from across Latin America and Europe. The press is free, and the political system is open; opposing parties compete fiercely in elections and regularly alternate power peacefully. It sidestepped the wave of military juntas that mired some Latin American countries in dictatorship. Thanks to a long political alliance and deep trade and investment ties with the United States, it serves as the Latin American headquarters for a slew of multinational corporations. It has the best infrastructure in South America. It is still unmistakably a developing country, with its share of corruption, injustice, and dysfunction, but it is well ahead of other poor countries by almost any measure.
The second country is one of Latin America’s most impoverished nations and its newest dictatorship. Its schools lie half deserted. The health system has been devastated by decades of underinvestment, corruption, and neglect; long-vanquished diseases, such as malaria and measles, have returned. Only a tiny elite can afford enough to eat. An epidemic of violence has made it one of the most murderous countries in the world. It is the source of Latin America’s largest refugee migration in a generation, with millions of citizens fleeing in the last few years alone. Hardly anyone (aside from other autocratic governments) recognizes its sham elections, and the small portion of the media not under direct state control still follows the official line for fear of reprisals. By the end of 2018, its economy will have shrunk by about half in the last five years. It is a major cocaine-trafficking hub, and key power brokers in its political elite have been indicted in the United States on drug charges. Prices double every 25 days. The main airport is largely deserted, used by just a handful of holdout airlines bringing few passengers to and from the outside world.
These two countries are in fact the same country, Venezuela, at two different times: the early 1970s and today. The transformation Venezuela has undergone is so radical, so complete, and so total that it is hard to believe it took place without a war. What happened to Venezuela? How did things go so wrong?
The short answer is Chavismo. Under the leadership of Hugo Chávez and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, the country has experienced a toxic mix of wantonly destructive policy, escalating authoritarianism, and kleptocracy, all under a level of Cuban influence that often resembles an occupation. Any one of these features would have created huge problems on its own. All of them together hatched a catastrophe. Today, Venezuela is a poor country and a failed and criminalized state run by an autocrat beholden to a foreign power. The remaining options for reversing this situation are slim; the risk now is that hopelessness will push Venezuelans to consider supporting dangerous measures, such as a U.S.-led military invasion, that could make a bad situation worse."
Continue reading at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-america/2018-10-15/venezuelas-suicide
Foreign Affairs Media Bias/\Fact Check: Least biased, Factual Reporting High
cramer said:
"Consider two Latin American countries. The first is one of the region’s oldest and strongest democracies. It boasts a stronger social safety net than any of its neighbors and is making progress on its promise to deliver free health care and higher education to all its citizens. It is a model of social mobility and a magnet for immigrants from across Latin America and Europe. The press is free, and the political system is open; opposing parties compete fiercely in elections and regularly alternate power peacefully. It sidestepped the wave of military juntas that mired some Latin American countries in dictatorship. Thanks to a long political alliance and deep trade and investment ties with the United States, it serves as the Latin American headquarters for a slew of multinational corporations. It has the best infrastructure in South America. It is still unmistakably a developing country, with its share of corruption, injustice, and dysfunction, but it is well ahead of other poor countries by almost any measure.
The second country is one of Latin America’s most impoverished nations and its newest dictatorship. Its schools lie half deserted. The health system has been devastated by decades of underinvestment, corruption, and neglect; long-vanquished diseases, such as malaria and measles, have returned. Only a tiny elite can afford enough to eat. An epidemic of violence has made it one of the most murderous countries in the world. It is the source of Latin America’s largest refugee migration in a generation, with millions of citizens fleeing in the last few years alone. Hardly anyone (aside from other autocratic governments) recognizes its sham elections, and the small portion of the media not under direct state control still follows the official line for fear of reprisals. By the end of 2018, its economy will have shrunk by about half in the last five years. It is a major cocaine-trafficking hub, and key power brokers in its political elite have been indicted in the United States on drug charges. Prices double every 25 days. The main airport is largely deserted, used by just a handful of holdout airlines bringing few passengers to and from the outside world.
These two countries are in fact the same country, Venezuela, at two different times: the early 1970s and today. The transformation Venezuela has undergone is so radical, so complete, and so total that it is hard to believe it took place without a war. What happened to Venezuela? How did things go so wrong?
The short answer is Chavismo. Under the leadership of Hugo Chávez and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, the country has experienced a toxic mix of wantonly destructive policy, escalating authoritarianism, and kleptocracy, all under a level of Cuban influence that often resembles an occupation. Any one of these features would have created huge problems on its own. All of them together hatched a catastrophe. Today, Venezuela is a poor country and a failed and criminalized state run by an autocrat beholden to a foreign power. The remaining options for reversing this situation are slim; the risk now is that hopelessness will push Venezuelans to consider supporting dangerous measures, such as a U.S.-led military invasion, that could make a bad situation worse."
Continue reading at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-america/2018-10-15/venezuelas-suicide
Foreign Affairs Media Bias/\Fact Check: Least biased, Factual Reporting High
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/foreign-affairs/
Despite the media bias check this is published by Council of Foreign Relations which pushes a neocon and neoconservative agenda, as described in this article: https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-council-on-foreign-relations-push-toward-a-new-cold-war/238365/
This is not a factual analysis of what is going on--they don't even mention the effect of US santions.
A better site to check out would be Venezuela analysis: https://venezuelanalysis.com/
From this site are some basic facts about the history of Venezuela. The source for these is supposedly Wikipedia, but you can see how these vary from the piece you cited--which leaves out much important information of what happened in the 1980s to make it seem like Chavez and Maduro are solely responsible for all the economic woes.
https://venezuelanalysis.com/basicfacts
Following the death of Juan Vicente Gómez in 1935 and the demise of caudillismo (authoritarian rule), pro-democracy movements eventually forced the military to withdraw from direct involvement in national politics in 1958. Since that year, Venezuela has had a series of democratically elected governments. The discovery of massive oil deposits, totaling some 400 million barrels, during World War I prompted an economic boom that lasted into the 1980s; by 1935, Venezuela's per capita GDP was Latin America's highest, and globalization and heavy immigration from Southern Europe and poorer Latin American countries markedly diversified Venezuelan society.
The collapse of oil prices in the 1980s, and the huge public spending and accumulation of internal and external debts by the government and private sector during the Petrodollar years of the 1970s and early 80s, crippled the Venezuelan economy. As the government devalued the currency in order to face its mounting local and external financial obligations, Venezuelans' real standard of living fell dramatically. Neo-liberal reforms introduced by President Carlos Andrés Perez in February 1989 led to massive rioting and a subsequent crack-down by the military and the police, which came to be known as the Caracazo. It is estimated that state security forces ended up killing between 300 and 3,000 Venezuelans following the riots, between February 27 and March 5 of 1989. A number of failed economic policies and increasing corruption in government and society at large led to rising poverty and crime and worsening social indicators and increasing political instability, resulting in three major coup attempts, two in 1992 and another in 2002. In the February 1992 coup, Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper, attempted to overthrow the government of President Carlos Andres Perez as anger grew against the President's economic austerity measures. Chavez was unsuccessful and landed up in jail. In November of that year, another unsuccessful coup attempt occurred, organized by other revolutionary groups in the Venezuelan Armed Forces and those that remained from Chavez’s previous attempt.
Hugo Chávez was pardoned in March 1994 by president Rafael Caldera, with a clean slate and his political rights reinstated. A collapse in confidence in the existing parties saw Chávez elected President in 1998, and the subsequent launch of a "Bolivarian Revolution", beginning with a 1999 Constituent Assembly to write a new Constitution of Venezuela.
nan said:
Despite the media bias check this is published by Council of Foreign Relations which pushes a neocon and neoconservative agenda, as described in this article: https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-council-on-foreign-relations-push-toward-a-new-cold-war/238365/This is not a factual analysis of what is going on--they don't even mention the effect of US santions.
A better site to check out would be Venezuela analysis: https://venezuelanalysis.com/
Venezuelanalysis.com is a left-leaning, pro-Bolivarian Revolution news website. Its founder Gregory Wilpert said in 2007 that the site had received funding from the Venezuelan government along with grassroots donations, and had mutual support agreements with other groups, such as Green Left Weekly. According to the website (2014), it relies entirely on reader donations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelanalysis
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mint-press-news/
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:No he hasn't. Name me one person who has said "no, we don't think Trump should be pursuing better relations with Russia."
drummerboy said:What I know is that he's been attacked for suggesting it.
paulsurovell said:But somehow you believe Trump actually wants better Russian relations?
International Committee of the Red Cross rightly accuses the Trump-Bolton coup operation of politicizing humanitarian aid (while they try to starve the Venezuelan people with sanctions) by not sending it through the existing government structures. Does anyone believe Trump and Bolton care about the Venezuelan people?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/red-cross-warns-u-s-about-risks-of-sending-aid-to-venezuela
Are you on board with US "meddling" in Venezuela?
And the problem with Venezuela is not US meddling. It's the pile of garbage that Maduro has turned Venezuela into.
Here's mild-mannered Rep Jerry Nadler hysteria-mongering that Trump is refusing to treat Russia as an enemy state that has committed an act of war against the US (equivalent to Pearl Harbor) and continues to wage war against us today.
The UN joins the International Red Cross (see above) in condemning Trump's attempt to politicize humanitarian aid to Venezuela. If he wants to help the people send the aid through existing government channels. But does anyone believe that Trump is motivated by sympathy for Latin Americans (apart from oligarchs)?
Dose of reality:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-un-idUSKCN1PV2GF
“Humanitarian action needs to be independent of political, military or other objectives,” U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York.
“When we see the present stand-off it becomes even more clear that serious political negotiations between the parties are necessary to find a solution leading to lasting peace for the people of Venezuela,” he said.
Guaido wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres last month asking for help in tackling the country’s crisis. But Venezuela’s seat at the 193-member world body is held by President Nicolas Maduro’s government and Guterres is unable to ramp up a humanitarian response in Venezuela without Maduro’s approval or U.N. Security Council authorization.
Excellent statement by Rep. Ro Khanna:
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) on Saturday warned Venezuelan opposition leader and self-proclaimed interim president Juan Guaidó against any attempt to authorize U.S. military force to strengthen his claim to power.
“Mr. Guaido, you can proclaim yourself leader of Venezuela but you don’t get to authorize US military interventions. Only the US Congress can do that. We will not,” Khanna tweeted.
[ . . . ]
The tweet came in response to an interview Guaidó gave on Friday in which he refused to rule out allowing U.S. forces to help push Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro from power, according to AFP.
Guaidó told AFP that he would do “everything that is necessary ... to save human lives” while acknowledging that U.S. intervention is “a very controversial subject," the outlet reported.
cramer said:Venezuelanalysis.com is a left-leaning, pro-Bolivarian Revolution news website. Its founder Gregory Wilpert said in 2007 that the site had received funding from the Venezuelan government along with grassroots donations, and had mutual support agreements with other groups, such as Green Left Weekly. According to the website (2014), it relies entirely on reader donations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelanalysis
Overall, we rate Mint Press Left-Center Biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mint-press-news/
Here's another FAIR analysis of the pro-coup mainstream media's malpractice (is there any mainstream media that's not pro-coup?) -- coverage of US sanctions against Venezuela is virtually non-existent.
https://fair.org/home/us-media-ignore-and-applaud-economic-war-on-venezu
Excerpt:
US Media Ignore—and Applaud—Economic War on Venezuela
Gregory Shupak
The US media chorus supporting a US overthrow of the Venezuelan government has for years pointed to the country’s economic crisis as a justification for regime change, while whitewashing the ways in which the US has strangled the Venezuelan economy (FAIR.org, 3/22/18).
[ . . . ]
Alfred de Zayas, the first UN special rapporteur to visit Venezuela in 21 years, told the Independent (1/26/19) that US, Canadian and European Union “economic warfare” has killed Venezuelans, noting that the sanctions fall most heavily on the poorest people and demonstrably cause death through food and medicine shortages, lead to violations of human rights and are aimed at coercing economic change in a “sister democracy.”
De Zayas’ UN report noted that sanctions “hind[er] the imports necessary to produce generic medicines and seeds to increase agricultural production.” De Zayas also cited Venezuelan economist Pasqualina Curcio, who reports that “the most effective strategy to disrupt the Venezuelan economy” has been the manipulation of the exchange rate. The rapporteur went on to suggest that the International Criminal Court investigate economic sanctions against Venezuela as possible crimes against humanity.
Given that de Zayas is the first UN special rapporteur to report on Venezuela in more than two decades, one might expect the media to regard his findings as an important part of the Venezuela narrative, but his name does not appear in a single article ever published in the Post; the Times has mentioned him once, but not in relation to Venezuela.
The economist Francisco Rodríguez points out that the sanctions the Trump administration issued in August 2017 prohibited US banks from providing new financing to the Venezuelan government, a key part of the “toxification” of financial dealings with Venezuela. Rodríguez notes that, in August 2017, the US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network warned financial institutions that “all Venezuelan government agencies and bodies…appear vulnerable to public corruption and money laundering,” and recommended that some transactions originating from Venezuela be flagged as potentially criminal. Many financial institutions then closed Venezuelan accounts, concerned about the risk of being accused of participating in money laundering.
Rodríguez says that this handcuffed Venezuela’s oil industry, the sector most crucial to its economy, with lost access to credit preventing the country from obtaining financial resources that could have been devoted to investment or maintenance. And whereas previously the Venezuelan government would raise production by signing joint venture agreements with foreign partners who would finance investment, Trump’s sanctions “effectively put an end to these loans . . . . .
cramer said:
nan said:Venezuelanalysis.com is a left-leaning, pro-Bolivarian Revolution news website. Its founder Gregory Wilpert said in 2007 that the site had received funding from the Venezuelan government along with grassroots donations, and had mutual support agreements with other groups, such as Green Left Weekly. According to the website (2014), it relies entirely on reader donations.
Despite the media bias check this is published by Council of Foreign Relations which pushes a neocon and neoconservative agenda, as described in this article: https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-council-on-foreign-relations-push-toward-a-new-cold-war/238365/This is not a factual analysis of what is going on--they don't even mention the effect of US santions.
A better site to check out would be Venezuela analysis: https://venezuelanalysis.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelanalysis
Overall, we rate Mint Press Left-Center Biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed fact checks.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mint-press-news/
Your bias checkers got caught with bias. There is nothing wrong with having a slant, as long as you are open about it. The site I suggested is on the left. But your site pretends to be neutral, and the media bias check supports that and they are both BS. Predictbly, they have a few problems with a site on the left. By the way, the material I copied was from Wikipedia. They used that on VA.
paulsurovell said:
Here's another FAIR analysis of the pro-coup mainstream media's malpractice (is there any mainstream media that's not pro-coup?) -- coverage of US sanctions against Venezuela is virtually non-existent.
Given that de Zayas is the first UN special rapporteur to report on Venezuela in more than two decades, one might expect the media to regard his findings as an important part of the Venezuela narrative, but his name does not appear in a single article ever published in the Post; the Times has mentioned him once, but not in relation to Venezuela.
One might also expect de Zayas’s own organization to regard his findings as important, yet The Independent reported:
Despite being the first UN official to visit and report from Venezuela in 21 years, Mr de Zayas said his research into the causes of the country’s economic crisis has so far largely been ignored by the UN and the media, and caused little debate within the Human Rights Council.
The Independent added, “He believes his report has been ignored because it goes against the popular narrative that Venezuela needs regime change.” That’s his belief. I wonder what the U.N. and the Human Rights Council believe their reasons are.
nan said:
There is nothing wrong with having a slant, as long as you are open about it.
Everybody has a slant to some degree. But not all slants are tilted to the same degree. That matters, and openness is not the same as reliability.
nan said:
By the way, the material I copied was from Wikipedia. They used that on VA.
VA took passages from Wikipedia, but there are differences with what’s on Wikipedia now. I don’t know if the Wikipedia page was altered in the meantime, or if VA made editorial changes. Either way, the material you copied is not from Wikipedia as it stands.
paulsurovell said:Here's another FAIR analysis of the pro-coup mainstream media's malpractice (is there any mainstream media that's not pro-coup?) -- coverage of US sanctions against Venezuela is virtually non-existent.
“Virtually” was a well chosen adverb.
U.S. Sanctions Are Aimed at Venezuela’s Oil. Its Citizens May Suffer First. (NYT)
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:VA took passages from Wikipedia, but there are differences with what’s on Wikipedia now. I don’t know if the Wikipedia page was altered in the meantime, or if VA made editorial changes. Either way, the material you copied is not from Wikipedia as it stands.
By the way, the material I copied was from Wikipedia. They used that on VA.
OK, fair enough. Do you have a problem with the facts they presented?
nan said:
OK, fair enough. Do you have a problem with the facts they presented?
An example.
From Wikipedia: This led to massive increases in public spending, but also increases in external debts, which continued into the 1980s when the collapse of oil prices during the 1980s crippled the Venezuelan economy.
From VA: The collapse of oil prices in the 1980s, and the huge public spending and accumulation of internal and external debts by the government and private sector during the Petrodollar years of the 1970s and early 80s, crippled the Venezuelan economy.
You see the difference: The Wikipedia page mentions the increased public spending and debt but does not attibute the crippling of the economy to those government policies. The VA passage does. There are other spots where terms like “economic crises” or “economic shocks” on Wikipedeia become “neo-liberal reforms” or “failed economic policies” on VA.
I have problem with this presented fact: “Source: Wikipedia.”
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:An example.
OK, fair enough. Do you have a problem with the facts they presented?
From Wikipedia: This led to massive increases in public spending, but also increases in external debts, which continued into the 1980s when the collapse of oil prices during the 1980s crippled the Venezuelan economy.
From VA: The collapse of oil prices in the 1980s, and the huge public spending and accumulation of internal and external debts by the government and private sector during the Petrodollar years of the 1970s and early 80s, crippled the Venezuelan economy.
You see the difference: The Wikipedia page mentions the increased public spending and debt but does not attibute the crippling of the economy to those government policies. The VA passage does. There are other spots where terms like “economic crises” or “economic shocks” on Wikipedeia become “neo-liberal reforms” or “failed economic policies” on VA.
I have problem with this presented fact: “Source: Wikipedia.”
I like the VA version better and I don't have a problem with them changing it to what they think is accurate. Do you think what they are saying is untrue? I looked on the Wikipedia page for changes and there have been lots and lots of changes to the Venezuela page. I don't have the time to sort through on this minor point.
nan said:I like the VA version better and I don't have a problem with them changing it to what they think is accurate. Do you think what they are saying is untrue?
I don’t know; I’d have to do more research. You’re the one who endorsed it as a source. Why do you think what they are saying is true?
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:I don’t know; I’d have to do more research. You’re the one who endorsed it as a source. Why do you think what they are saying is true?
I like the VA version better and I don't have a problem with them changing it to what they think is accurate. Do you think what they are saying is untrue?
Because it's just a general high level overview and it is same/similar to what I have already learned about Venezuela.
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:“Virtually” was a well chosen adverb.
Here's another FAIR analysis of the pro-coup mainstream media's malpractice (is there any mainstream media that's not pro-coup?) -- coverage of US sanctions against Venezuela is virtually non-existent.
U.S. Sanctions Are Aimed at Venezuela’s Oil. Its Citizens May Suffer First. (NYT)
However, the article omits reference to the sanctions imposed prior to Jan 28th, which are a major factor behind the economic crisis. No context provided for the reader.
So the article is yet another example of journalistic malpractice.
It's possible that the reporter submitted an unbiased story that was edited to be consistent with the pro-coup narrative at the editorial level. No way to know.
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Yemaya Nurturing Doula Services
May 13, 2024 at 4:59pm
-
Math and writing tutoring, grades 4-12, all levels. Pub.School teaching exp.
May 13, 2024 at 2:32pm
-
May 11, 2024 at 5:03pm
-
May 11, 2024 at 9:52am
Help Wanted
-
MSF506 FT (55 hrs) Nanny for 2 (Sept Start)
May 14, 2024 at 10:54am
-
MF812 PT Afternoon Nanny for 2 (ASAP Start)
May 14, 2024 at 10:54am
-
Looking for help with House chores
May 13, 2024 at 7:22am
-
Driving Legal Nanny is needed in Paramus, NJ
May 10, 2024 at 12:22pm
-
FHF604 PT Nanny for 2 (Mid-June Start)
May 9, 2024 at 7:42pm
-
HF801 PT Nanny for 1 Infant (ASAP)
May 9, 2024 at 1:18pm
Lessons/Instruction
Rentals
Advertisement
Richard Burr, chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richard-burr-on-senate-intelligence-committees-russia-investigation-2-years-on/