
The N.Y. Times’ Support of U.S.-Backed Coups in Latin America - jules-jules
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/your-complete-guide-to-the-n-y-times-support-of-u-s-backed-coups-in-latin-america/
======
diego_moita
There's a lot of click bait going on in here. A coup in Venezuela wouldn't
disrupt a democratic order because there is no democratic order in Venezuela.

The article assumes that Maduro is a legitimate President. That is simply not
true, there is solid evidence of plenty of fraud on the last election, the
rule of the law is long gone in there, the justice courts are puppets of the
regime, the legislative is silenced by force.

What is at stake here is just whether the military keep supporting the
caudillo Maduro or not. Democracy is out of this game already.

~~~
dj_gitmo
American citizens rely on the government and the press to determine if the
election in a foreign country were legitimate. They do not speak the language
in the country and do not have cultural ties to this country.

Do you think that the average American can accurately asses who is the proper
president of Venezuela using only the word of the government and the press?

We know the current administration is packed with ideologues; many of whom are
veterans of the Latin American "Dirty Wars" of the 1980s. I don't think we can
trust the government on this one.

The "click bait" article, which is actually well cited, makes the case that
the press is almost always in favor of regime-change in Latin America.

So I will ask again, do you think that US Americans are knowledgeable enough
about Latin America to know what is best for Latin America?

~~~
diego_moita
> do you think that US Americans are knowledgeable enough about Latin America
> to know what is best for Latin America?

I don't know, I am Latin American (from Brazil), not US American.

~~~
dj_gitmo
I'm in the US and it is difficult to find media here that is critical of US
intervention in Latin America. It's not a question that people need to engage
with at all if they don't want to. It's a small story.

The current administration has nefarious intentions for Venezuela. They want
to turn it into a more compliant, Banana Republic.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic)

------
JamesBarney
Summary : America has done a lot of terrible things in South America.(agreed)

They tried to depose a lot of legitimate leaders. (agreed)

A couple of times the nytimes argued it was the right thing to do when it
probably wasn't. (I'll take their word for it.)

But none of the article argues that Maduro is a legitimate leader. And I don't
know if I buy the argument that because we tried to depose a lot of legitimate
leaders in the past with illegitimate ones we should now support an
illegitimate leader instead of the legitimate one.

~~~
dj_gitmo
The question that matters is: Should the US intervene.

Let's run down a list of the recent US interventions.

Russian Election of 1996: The US helped rig Russia's election in 1996.
Electing Yeltsin for a second term is what brought in Putin and basically
killed Russian democracy. [https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-
in-1996-russian-el...](https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-meddling-
in-1996-russian-elections-in-support-of-boris-yeltsin/5568288)

Iraq: 600,000 dead so far.

Libya: It was supposed to turn into a thriving democracy but instead it's now
a thriving slave market. [https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-
auctions...](https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-
auctions/index.html)

Yemen: Largest humanitarian crisis in the world.

The list goes on and on. Things don't get better when the US intervenes. Let
Venezuela decide it's own fate.

------
jules-jules
Posted here mainly in light of the NYTimes article "Want to Stop Fake News?
Pay for the Real Thing" that was recently posted here on HN. [1]

Also, let's not forget the NYTimes cheered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and
journalists who merely questioned the Iraq War lost their job at the NYTimes,
the Dixie Chicks got blacklisted, etc.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19050102](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19050102)

~~~
ilaksh
Too much truth in this thread so it was flagged. The HN readership and staff
do not want their own bubbles popped.

~~~
jules-jules
It's ridiculous, that post got 253 points and some 429 mostly uncritical
comments. The HN crowd should know better than to uncritically trust the MSM,
be it the NYTimes, CNN, or others.

------
whatshisface
Why do papers collaborate with the government in this way? I don't see what
they would have to gain, it's not like they're getting paid.

~~~
JamesBarney
I don't think the nytimes is trying to back the governments opinion. One the
author is cherry picking times when the nytimes supported the government. But
I'm sure someone else could find plenty of times when they didn't.

Secondly when they made the wrong call, I bet at least part of the reason was
2002 was a less connected time, and there was more trust in government. So if
a bunch of government offficials tell the journalist Chavez is a terrible
regime. And you happen to know a handful of anti Chavez individuals in
Venezuela the journalist could easily make the wrong call.

------
factorhack
Media bias. Fake news.

From Chile: Allende was declared unconstitutional by the congress. The CIA
came into play because the KGB and the Cubans were working here. There was
inflation of more than 400%, the communists expropriated and introduced
weapons, the country was in ruins and near a civil war.

On Venezuela: The Cubans have there: armed force, agents and intelligence.
Besides that it is a Narco State. The economy = people are literally dying of
hunger.

------
factorhack
Media bias. Desde Chile: Allende fue declarado inconstitucional por el
congreso. La CIA entró en juego porque aquí estaba trabajando la KGB y los
Cubanos. Había inflación sobre el 400%, los comunistas expropiaron e
introdujeron armas, el país estaba en ruinas y al borde de una guerra civil.

Sobre Venezuela: Los Cubanos tienen ahí fuerza armada, agentes e inteligencia.
Además de que es un Narco Estado. La economía = las personas literalmente se
están muriendo de hambre.

------
dj_gitmo
Establishment media organizations in the Anglo world are so reluctant to
criticize of the Government line on anything related to foreign policy. It
seems like it would be so easy and risk-free in the current era especially.

They're either ignorant of the history of US interference in Latin America, or
they're ideologues acting in bad faith. I imaging there is also a strong
pressure to go-along to get-along that weeds out anyone who would properly
push back.

I recommend The Gray Zone Project for a counters-establishment perspective.
Like all journalism, you need to know how to read it, but it really does cover
foreign policy in a way that NYT cannot.
[https://grayzoneproject.com/](https://grayzoneproject.com/) If you prefer
something more tabloid-y I recommend The Canary. They even have US and UK
editions. [https://www.thecanary.co/us/](https://www.thecanary.co/us/)

~~~
jcranmer
> Establishment media organizations in the Anglo world are so reluctant to
> criticize of the Government line on anything related to foreign policy.

How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized the
current president's foreign policy on _deep breath_ Syria, Russia, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia,
most of our allies, etc?

Even before our current president plumbed unheard of depths in foreign policy
idiocies, I've long seen criticism of foreign policy. The drone assassination
program was a big one. The virtues of the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan was
certainly a spirited debate.

~~~
dj_gitmo
I'm not really talking about the current administration. I'm talking about the
US government's overall policy of overseas intervention that goes back
decades. The press often criticize the government for not intervening, or for
exiting an intervention. You're not going to see anyone on the pages of the
NYT say that the US shouldn't be intervening in other countries, period.

> How did you miss the fact that virtually every US newspaper has criticized
> the current president's foreign policy on deep breath Syria, Russia, Iraq,
> Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Canada, South Korea, Russia,
> most of our allies, etc?

> Syria

The press criticized the administration for deciding to leave. Even though the
Syrian civil war is basically over and the regime won. Obama was criticized
for not "doing enough" even though the Syrian Civil War was the largest CIA
operation in decades and the opposition was overwhelmingly made up of
sectarian death-squads. Don't take my word for it, read what the NYT's Thomas
Friedman said in 2017. He argues we should allow ISIS to continue existing so
that it might take down the Assad regime.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-
figh...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/opinion/why-is-trump-fighting-
isis-in-syria.html)

> Russia

The liberal press has been criticized the decision not to ramp up a new cold-
war with Russia. They attack anyone who opposes more sanctions.

> Iraq

The press uncritically promoted the invasion of Iraq and only turned against
it when it started going bad.

> Afghanistan

If the any administration decided to pull out they would be criticized.

How about the West's role in Yemen? You didn't hear anything about that in the
Anglo press until recently even though the UN was calling it the worst
humanitarian disaster in the world.

I'm not saying the establishment press is always wrong. They serve an
important purpose, but on foreign policy in particular their coverage ranges
from good(leaving the Iran deal is bad) to awful(uncritical support for Syrian
opposition), and sometimes it's just propaganda.

~~~
tptacek
If you go look for _any example_ of _any op-ed_ in _any publication_ taking
_any side_ in a foreign policy controversy, you will find it. It is not
reasonable to then take that example and extrapolate it to "the press" or even
"the liberal press".

~~~
detcader
This is why Chomsky et al also look at access to administration leaks and
special interviews, the patterns of career TV "analysts" that get brought on
to "analyze" a current event, and the way language, structure, and frequency
of print news stories paint a picture. I doubt anyone is presenting "# of op-
eds" as some sort of quantitative signifier and is unaware of the shades of
gray between op-eds and news stories.

