Typical distorted Times debate by its own rules.
by Stephen Lendman
The New York Times debated it. Nine views were presented. Mark Weisbrot co-directs the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He's fair-minded and forthright.
He was outnumbered eight to one. Times style debates avoid evenhanded exchanges.
Debates are an ancient tradition. Genuine ones air views freely. Beliefs are challenged. Truths are sought.
Critical thinking is stimulated. Opinions are formed. Conclusions are reached through free and open dialogue and discussion.
Debates should involve opposing sides given full opportunity to air views and challenge others. New York Times editors changed the rules.
News and views are filtered. One-sided ones are prioritized. Government and corporate ones matter most. Truth is largely suppressed. Dissent is marginalized.
Consent is manufactured short of full and accurate disclosure. Readers aren't told what they most need to know.
On January 3, The Times headlined "The Future of Venezuela," saying:
Chavez's health raises questions. His January 10 inauguration approaches. He'll not likely be well enough to attend. Postponement can delay swearing in for later.
Key is whether he's well enough to serve or for how long. If "he steps down or dies, what will become of Venezuela," asked The Times? "Will Chavismo survive?"
"What sorts of social, economic and political issues must the next president confront? Would the nation's contentious relationship with the United States improve?"