Juan Forero and propaganda

Read Forero's article on Hugo Chavez and then ask yourself how the New York Times' editorial standards have dropped so low that they accepted this as news. I'm not a regular NYT basher, (I actually like the newspaper some days), nor am I a fan of the radical anti-Chavez movement, but this was really bad. This article is a bunch of pro-Chavez propaganda with nearly no criticism. It could have come straight off the Chavez propaganda sites.

If they had wanted to avoid the anti-Chavistas, they could have quoted Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, or even John Kerry. No, not a single quote of criticism made it into the story. Nothing about the fact Venezuela's economy tanked several years ago and that poverty is worse under Chavez. Nothing about how he took over the judicial branch and has replaced military officers who disagreed with him. Nothing about Bush's meeting yesterday with the Venezuelan opposition, which was a pretty damn significant news event that made it to the front pages of every major Venezuelan newspaper.

And how the hell does Forero write an article about Chavez this week without noting that he disappeared this weekend? They fronted the pictures of Monday's rally when people we're clamoring to see him to make sure he wasn't dead. Did they really take the pictures and forget to tell Forero what the people were protesting about?

Anyway, the story is that Hugo Chavez just walked a piece of propaganda straight onto the pages of the New York Times and managed to avoid a single bit of criticism. If Bush had done the same thing, I'd be equally pissed off. It's simply not responsible journalism.

UPDATE: Title changed, now that I've calmed down a bit.