Truth over delusion: Hugo Chavez did not accuse the U.S. of causing the Haitian earthquake

[Irish_shark]

2010-01-22
The Anti Press
http://theantipress.blogspot.com/2010/01/truth-over-ideological-delusion-hugo.html

On January 19, Spanish newspaper ABC, a newspaper of record in Spain, published a story entitled Chavez accuses US of causing earthquake in Haiti.

The story was quickly picked up by websites around the globe - most quoting Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as saying the U.S. used a new tectonic weapon to induce the Haitian earthquake. This was, according to Chavez - "only a drill, and the final target is destroying and taking over Iran".

Within the actual story, ABC noted that the information came from an obscure opinion post on the website of a Venezuelan state television channel, VIVE Television. The post referenced a supposed Russian military report on American seismic weapons.

All quotes subsequently attributed to Chavez regarding Haiti and earthquake weapons were in fact direct quotes from this web posting - none of which was ever uttered by Chavez.

Spurred on by the international attention being received by its first story, ABC posted a second article on January 20 under the banner The Secret Weapon to Cause Earthquakes in which it cites Chavez as having blamed the US for razing Haiti.

By the time the story had run its course, it had been covered with varying degrees of accuracy by corporate news channels, foreign outlets eager to accuse the U.S. of another evil deed, and conspiracy websites happy to have their ideas officially validated.

In the end, it serves as one more reminder to those who prefer truth over ideological delusion: there are some subjects for which the myths of journalistic standards will still be displayed - stories about the government of Venezuela are not one of those subjects.

My two cents: Someone in Vive, which is a website funded by the Venezuelan state, made the accusation about the US and earthquakes. But to say that "Hugo Chavez said this or that" is unprofessional journalism and is a falsehood. It's a disgrace that some here are repeating the claim.

By the way, ABC is a conservative newspaper in Spain. The New York Times and everybody else describes it as one. See this piece from 2007, for example: NEW YORK TIMES: "“The situation was unsustainable. The economic figures just kept getting worse and worse and he just didn’t have any answers,” said Hermann Tertsch, a political commentator for the conservative newspaper ABC." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/business/global/08peseta.html

[Robb]

1. That's a bit of a cop-out.

Technically correct, but state TV and Chavez are rather on the same page, aren't they? To put it lightly?

This would be a bit like Gibbs saying something on TV and Obama supporters trying to distance him from it. Or, better, like something posted on OFA.

In other words, direct quoting him was irresponsible. But if it's on OFA, Obama's behind it 100%.

[Irish_shark]

2. Until someone asks Chavez what he personally thinks about the opinion piece, we won't know

It's illogical to think that Chavez, who may not even know that the article exists, agrees with it. Unless every opinion piece in that webiste is submitted to Chavez himself for approval prior to publication, which I highly doubt.

[Robb]

3. State TV, right? nt

[Irish_shark]

4. Who asked Chavez what he personally thinks? n/t

[Robb]

5. Welcome to DU. nt

[Irish_shark]

6. Thanks, and thanks for agree with me

regarding how irresponsible those who quote Chavez directly are.

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. You'll do well here. nt

[apocalypsehow]

15. He did not agree with you. A blatant falsehood is a very poor way to make a first impression. n/t.

[Irish_shark]

17. Yes. He did agree with me in that it was irresponsible to quote Hugo directly

Didn't I say that he agreed with me on that particular point? And didn't he say it was irresponsible to do so?

And this is not "my first impression." I have posted threads before. You just want to scream to the world, "this person is relatively new here therefore he's wrong!" Which makes no sense, of course.

Thanks against to Robb for joining my opposition to sloppy journalism.

[apocalypsehow]

18. He did not agree with you. A blatant falsehood is a very poor way to make a first impression.

Perhaps repeating it will jar the brain cells, and let them start to make first contact...

[Irish_shark]

20. You didn't answer my questions

What a great way to debate. It's a technique used by many clueless people. Imagine this exchange..

Debater A: Obama is not American.
Debater B: Wait a second. There's proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. The birth certificate has even been posted online.
Debater A: Obama is not American.

In this thread, you are the equivalent of Debater A. You simply repeat something and pretend it's true.

Let me give you a change to not be like Debater A. My question again: Didn't I say that the member agree with me in that it's irresponsible to quote Chavez directly? Didn't that member say, in his first post, that it was irresponsible to quote Chavez directly?

[apocalypsehow]

21. Oh, it was answered alrighty. Please clean your eye-specs and reread every post of yours thus far.

Perhaps that will help.

[Irish_shark]

22. No. My questions were posed in post #17

In post #18 you did two things:

1) You copy and pasted the title of post #15, and
2) telling me how your repeating the title might help me understand the issue better.

You did not answer the question of whether or not the other member had said it was irresponsible to quote Hugo directly. For some reason, you run away from the question.

[apocalypsehow]

23. Yes. Your inability to comprehend the text on the screen in front of you is a problem uniquely yours

Please try again.

[Irish_shark]

25. What is the # of the message in which you said whether the member said it was irresponsible

To quote Hugo directly? I will re-read it, if it's true that you answered my question. You can either give me the link or the comment number. If you don't, people are are going to believe (if they don't already believe) that you are just pretending to have answered the questions.

[apocalypsehow]

28. Keep having fun changing the subject and moving the goalposts, etc., etc.

Most of that kind of silliness usually doesn't fly at DU. Have some more fun trying, though.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

26. Welcome to DU

great post.

[Irish_shark]

24. Breaking: Chavez takes down the article

"The story has since been taken down from the Venezuelan Web site, but a Google cache of the charges remains intact." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583588,00.html

Because if it was taken Down, Chavez agreed with it being taken down, right? At least according to your logic.

[Robb]

30. Looks still up to me. No Google needed.

..unless "Terremoto experimental" de Estados Unidos devastó Haití means something other than what I think. :shrug:

http://www.vive.gob.ve/inf_art.php?id_not=15464&id_s=3

[fascisthunter]

11. I had enough of the BS from you folks

you lie, spin and post garbage here to accuse the man without backing it up honestly. Welcome to ignore egg head.

[Robb]

13. Careful

you might hurt my feelings. On the internet, even. :D

I don't know your background with Hugo, but I must say you're taking it rather personally. I think I made it clear attributing a quote to the man is inappropriate here. But it is equally dishonest to suggest that on a tightly-run media ship like Chavez has, he had no idea what's being published. The word I'm dancing around is "tacit."

Although Hugo being Hugo, more likely with a wink than a nod. I expect he's rather enjoying the dust-up.

[JVS]

7. But the running dog lackeys of the plutocratic class find it fun to repeat such bullshit

[Irish_shark]

8. Agree. Here's the title of a thread on the subject, in the Political Video forum

"Hugo Chavez accuses U.S. of using weapon to cause Haiti quake "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=426368&mesg_id=426368

That's false.

[laughingliberal]

32. +1 nt

[sabrina 1]

9. Thanks, that story was debunked in a long thread

where the usual Chavez haters jumped on the story without doing any research.

What's strange is that not so long ago, it would have been difficult to find a Chavez hater on the 'left' in this country. The Rightwingnuts of course hate anyone who manages to get our from under U.S. influence as they believe the entire world couldn't exist if it weren't for the U.S. military.

But when it started on the left, who are usually far more informed, and the same ignorant talking points began to appear on Democratic boards, it raised questions about exactly who these people are for me.

Venezuela is a free country who elected someone they appear to be satisfied with. What possible interest could the 'left' have in assisting the effort to bring down a democratically elected president in another country? It simply isn't our business.

[leveymg]

19. That thread was locked after the OP couldn't post a solid source for the rumour.

There's a real disinformation campaign at work against Chavez. But, why is that not one bit surprising?

[timeforpeace]

10. You're preaching to the choir. Chavez is tres chic around here.

[polly7]

29. I've never seen anyone refer to him as tres chic.

Lots of posts with information on the progress he's brought to the very poor in Venezuela using their own oil and standing up to large multinationals ...... if that makes him bad ..... well, I think people should get used to it as supplies dwindle. Nations will start taking care of their own, they've stopped believing all the BS like the values of capitalism gone wild, 'free' trade agreements that benefit the haves while crippling the have nots, etc. Chavez may have a big mouth, but he speaks many truths.

[laughingliberal]

34. I suspect that fact about him helping the poor of his country has a lot to do with the vitriol

against Chavez. Perfectly congruous with RW politics but surprising here. OTOH, I guess we have a few supporters of oligarchy here, too.

[sabrina 1]

31. The truth is tres chic around here. Sorry to disappoint

those who prefer propaganda from wacko, rightwing sites. But c'est la vie on a 'left' board. That's what distinguishes us from the right, where anything goes as far as attacking South American leaders who have dared to declare they can take care of their own resources and people without the puppet governments favored by the U.S. That's a real slap in the face to rightwing xenophobes. Sad to see it spread over here, as I've said before.

[madrchsod]

12. please do not confuse people with the truth...

[underpants]

16. Okay I fell for it- I posted on this earlier today

my bad

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7552954

[bemildred]

27. Bravo, an honest man.

:applause:

[naaman fletcher]

33. Why are you so concerned over what Chavez says?

Don't we have enough to be concerned about here?

[Irish_shark]

35. About what Chavez says? Or about people lying about what he says?

There's a big difference. disinformation is bad.