New York Times disgracing itself anew

Just prior to his toppling in early 2014, Yanukovych’s approval ratings stood at 20%. Less than a month ago, Poroshenko’s popularity ratings were once more recorded at less than half that at 9%, making this ranking a “world low” for a government leader.

Due to further non-existent reporting, first world populations are likely unaware of these statistics. Neither are they fully in tune to the atrocious mess the Ukraine is in today, which can largely be traced to the “pro-democracy Revolution”.

However, regarding oil rich Venezuela, major press outlets have been quick to express concerns for the lack of “freedom and democracy” in the South American country. A New York Times editorial, from 3 April 2019, bemoaned how “it is terrible to witness the suffering of a nation [Venezuela]” as its people hover “on the edge of starvation” while “it certainly would be a great relief for Venezuela to be rid of the leader [Nicolas Maduro] who inherited a broken country”.

One can presume it would be a great relief too for Western oil manufacturers, if they could place their hands on Venezuela’s vast reserves. The New York Times editorial then outlines the potential of “a military intervention” but quickly concludes that “in a country bigger than Texas” it “would be ugly”, not to mention a violation of the UN Charter. Instead, “The reality is that Mr. Trump has no real option but to wait” as “It is hard to conceive that Mr. Maduro will hang on indefinitely”.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.