Sunday, February 06, 2011

Romero does Eva Golinger

One does not really know what to make up of the latest piece by NYT correspondent Simon Romero in Caracas.  After all, does someone like Eva Golinger deserve a full piece in the New York Times?  Well, I suppose that as an odd rarity, a US (former?) citizen who has some access to Chavez, she would draw some morbid interest by US Times readers.

Although certainly not flattering, the piece is not outright critical of Eva Golinger and one can sense that Mr. Romero worked hard at refraining from questioning the intellectual abilities of Ms. Golinger, something that this blogger never refrained from.  It seems that Eva was not pleased after all.  If she certainly could not resist from posting an article of the Times on her in her blog (heck, who can blame her on that!), she thought twice and decided to also post a "disclaimer", an odd choice of words as "addenda" or "correction" would have been more suited.

Anyway, even though I think that Eva did not deserve the honor of such an article she is clearly implied to be a mercenary for all her claims of nobility and disinterest.  That she had to state so in her blog shows that it was indeed the case.  However, where I strongly disagree is that Simon Romero claims that her blog is widely read.  If that is the case then it elicits little reactions from her readers.  Let's see if she gets more feedback now, at least enough to match the feedback seen in any English language opposition blog.

7 comments:

  1. Charly9:35 AM

    I particularly love the :"I have 100% editorial discretion". That is an oddity in the Chavista system, paradise of the "pensamiento unico". She probably means that she gets to choose the printing fonts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Charly

    Of course she has 100% discretion! They know she will praise Chavez to high heavens while silencing anyone who dares criticize him....

    The poor creature, she really has no clue....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Gollinger fills along-established role in Stalinist politics, that of the English-language apologist.

    Gollingers's direct predecessor,
    Anna Louise Strong, was a journalist, an enthusiast of the Chinese Revolution. She knew Mao and Chou-en-Lai personally, and they eventually funded her weekly blog-before-its-time, "Letters from China."

    Reading these "independent" newsletters fifty years later, the lies and propaganda are shamefully evident.

    She, too, had books published in many languages, as the party press needed her falsifications to mask their disastrous rule.

    Her wikipedia biography doesn't mention the fact that she spent six years in jail for "espionage"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Daniel

    " poor creature she has no clue?"

    It would be impossible after all these years and happenings for her to have no clue if her IQ is above 80 which I am sure it is.Gollinger is a very clued in fame and money whore.


    It's important to expose her, and important to dedicate articles to that end.People need more exposure to this world of sociopaths who prey on trends without principles in order to obtain personal benefits.She does not fit well with the title" Una Loca Internacional".She is neither crazy, nor intellectually deficient.I am sure her IQ is average.

    You can see that her wits are intact when she answers the question of if she thinks that using the public media to criticize particular political parties is valid or not, when she replied:

    "I don’t think it’s a question of validity,” she said. “It’s the reality of the situation.”

    This response requires a certain cunning that does not describe or define a " poor creature".

    ReplyDelete
  5. firepigette

    maybe, but denile ain't only a river in egypt.

    i think this people develop a way to believe in their own crap, to become deliberately clueless, otherwise they could not survive 12 years....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Charly7:02 PM

    ""I don’t think it’s a question of validity,” she said. “It’s the reality of the situation.”

    I love that one. The major difference between officialdom (or should it be officialdoom?)and opposition is that the oppos are using their hard won money to attack the gov. and not public funds to pay pigs such as Mario Silva.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Daniel,

    I also admit that you might be right as it is sometimes so hard to tell.In fact everyday I ask myself," are they that stupid or are they lying?

    I simply boggles the mind.

    ReplyDelete

Comments policy:

1) Comments are moderated after the third day of publication. It may take up to a day or two for your note to appear then.

2) Your post will appear if you follow the following rules. I will be ruthless in erasing any comment that do not follow these rules, as well as those who replied to that off rule comment.

3)COMMENT RULES:
Do not be repetitive.
Do not bring grudges and fights from other blogs here (this is the strictest rule).
This is an anti Chavez blog, with more than 95% anti Chavez readers that have made up their minds long ago. Thus trying to prove us wrong is considered a troll. Still, you are welcome as a chavista to post,> in particular if you want to explain us coherently as to why chavismo does this or that. We are still waiting for that to happen once.
Insults and put downs are frowned upon and I will be sole judge on whether to publish them.

Followers