Guardian slammed for 'wildly inaccurate coverage' in open letter signed by 28 academics, journalists

[Judi Lynn]

Guardian slammed for ‘wildly inaccurate coverage’ in open letter signed by 28 academics, journalists and activists

JULY 27TH, 2018 PETER BOLTON

In an open letter, 28 academics, journalists and activists have slammed the Guardian for its “wildly inaccurate coverage of Nicaragua”. And for one human rights lawyer who signed the letter, this forms part of “the greatest misinformation campaign” he has ever witnessed.

Political tensions in Nicaragua
As The Canary has previously reported, Nicaragua has been convulsed by protests against the government of President Daniel Ortega since April. The demonstrations began over a government proposal to partially reform the country’s social security system, which was met with public outcry from across the political spectrum. The government withdrew the plans, but by then the mobilization had morphed into a broader movement calling for either Ortega’s resignation or the calling of early elections, which are currently scheduled for 2021. Opponents of the government claim that Ortega’s government has become increasingly “authoritarian” and that he has been attempting to establish a political dynasty. But others, including award-winning journalist Max Blumenthal, have argued that public unrest has been cynically seized upon by upper-class and Washington-backed opponents of Ortega, who have long held the objective of forcing him from office.

Either way, the protests have become increasingly violent and confrontational, and have in turn been met with a robust response from state forces which are attempting to contain the upheaval. Street battles have ensued between opposing sides. But while there have certainly been recorded incidents of violence on the part of both pro- and anti-government factions, most of the Western press has focused almost exclusively on the opposition’s stance (that the government’s response to rioting has been disproportionate, if not outright repressive) without giving sufficient attention to incidents of violence on the part of the opposition.

“Wildly inaccurate coverage” from the Guardian
An open letter on Max Blumenthal’s Grayzone website has now called the Guardian out for consistently placing the blame for Nicaragua’s violence primarily on the Ortega government. The letter – which has 28 signatories from across the worlds of journalism, political activism and academia – states that:

despite plentiful evidence of opposition violence, almost all your 17 reports since mid-April blame Daniel Ortega’s government for the majority of deaths that have occurred

More:
https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-analysis/2018/07/27/guardian-slammed-for-wildly-inaccurate-coverage-in-open-letter-signed-by-28-academics-journalists-and-activists/

Editorials and other articles:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016212004

[Fred Sanders]

1. The Western corporate media hates any semblance of socialism, isn't the evidence overwhelming?

Profit over people is the universal mantra, and of course the violence has been sponsored by capitalist interests...it is a long playing broken record in Latin America.

[GatoGordo]

2. Violence is being sponsored by the Capitalist interests?

You have a source for that wild boast?

Perhaps the "capitalist interests" are the old people, the poor, the students, the campesinos and the small business owners who started these protests against Ortega?

[Fred Sanders]

4. The source is the article just above!

[Judi Lynn]

5. I thought the same thing, as in, "didn't it even read the OP article?" Good grief. n/t

[GatoGordo]

6. The Canary? That is your objective news source?

Why not just get Sputnik to source your information?

[Judi Lynn]

7. What do you see in the article which is incorrect?

How is it credible to compare this source with "Sputnik?"

Where is the disinformation?

How on earth can you attempt to smear this publication?

I have been horrified at seeing your sources, but stopped reading your posts altogether, usually, unless I think someone sensible has taken the time to respond to them.

We all know the values between hard right sources and sane sources are universes apart.

As always, intelligent people will start investigating personally any information which seems suspect, or incredibly stupid, and laughably bogus. Once that has been determined, there is no interest in continuing to read information which isn't worthwhile. Most of us are too busy.

[GatoGordo]

8. Oh... our mistake. Max Blumenthal's Grayzone then? (Its hard to tell the difference!)

Since Max hasn't had a single harsh thing to say about Russia EVER, and can't help but pile accolades upon Syria and North Korea.

Our mistake for thinking any of your news sources were the least bit non-objective.

{{{rolleyes}}}

[Fred Sanders]

9. Judi, your last paragraph kind of sums it up for me in Latin American RW comedic propaganda.

As if folks have amnesia about Western colonialism and political interference...and Iran/contra, for starters.

[Judi Lynn]

3. The structure was in place continually since 1954, when PR was installed as a permanent feature

of all mass perception molding surrounding all foreign policy by the pro-business, pro-military establishment.

I know you're well aware, it's clear from your grasp of the things which seem to elude trolls in every instance, that we have never been without an official position on all relationships with every leader dependant upon his/her willingness to put US political interests before the well-being of his/her country's ordinary citizens.

The leaders who don't play ball become targets in every instance. A lot of them meet with tragic ends, over time.

The fact that record-keeping is becoming more reliable now will aid real democracy in the long run, even though it seems to take forever for the people to outlast the powerful grifters who always manage to cheat their way into controlling the weaponry and legal mechanisms needed to suppress dissent at the roots in every day life by staging extravagant rituals of horrific violence against real or imagined dissidents.

It was all polished and ready to roll by 1954, Guatemala, as we know, and by the time US President Eisenhower dared to warn the US public about the military/industrial monster which had been created in his farewell speech, it was really already too late for anything but "divine intervention" to change the course of history, as it has seen for so long.

For those who have never heard, or bothered to learn about how things go since 1954, please see the model lowered into place with the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, and its tools employed continually with only the slightest tweaks and temporary alterations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

So glad to see your comments. Anyone who dares to speak the truth is bound to take a desperate attempted beating from right-wing troll interests who infest every message board created for sane, aware, informed, awakened, decent citizens.