It seems that VHeadline gets its share of nasties, like most reports that disturb people's pat view of the world. I wish I could remember which journalist's article it was I was reading a while back (so I could point you to it) which said he (the journalist) writes columns both pro-conservative and pro-liberal. He said the main difference between right-wing responders and left-wing ones is that, when the lefties had complaints about what he wrote, they typically sent well-reasoned arguments pointing out where they thought he was wrong and offering another view. And when right-wingers wrote, he said they overwhelming tended to be simply hateful diatribes calling him names.
Anyway, today, VHeadline is offering a small sampling of mail received regarding the controversial article, and offering a response. I think I'll just put most of it here. But, the original is here if you want to look at other reader comments.
As expected, VHeadline.com's World Exclusive (Tuesday) on the Bush 2 administration's plans to again attempt a regime shift in Venezuela, brought a flurry of emails from readers around the world ranging from intelligent responses to the more assinine. Supposedly rational individuals, perhaps ... but frustrated by their own capacity to comprehend what is really going on, some surrender to basic instincts to attack the messenger rather than the true nature of the message itself:
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:10:22 -0800Editor's note: Apart from the reader's obvious intent to insult, the issue is easily explained by the fact that the vast majority of whistle-blowers to the media do so at very great risk to their jobs if not their lives. When a source gives information to any journalist, s/he is relying on given assurances that his/her identity will not be revealed. This, of course, puts a greater level of requirement of verification on the reporter who must check, and check again, the given information through a variety of independent sources which are not always available to the general reader, but which are mostly founded on the reporter's own confidential contacts with (shall we simply say) people who are in a position to know and verify. To take upon one's shoulders the burden of third party verification, knowing the inevitable pitfalls, is not something that a journalist takes lightly and it is not without risks to the reporter him/herself as many colleagues around the world have experienced to their physical cost, myself included.
From: E. Smith psmith45@cox.net
To: Editor@VHeadline.com
Subject: CIA OPERATIVES
You state that your sources must remain confidential, but have been "verified" ... by who you idiot.
As for WHISC, why not just call the Venezuelan instructors who work there full time or the MULTIPLE Venezuelan students who are there.
You guys are SO out of touch with reality.
Get a life and joint a commune. Freak.
E. Smith
psmith45@cox.net
Dallas, Texas
As regards yesterday's report, yes, we do have the information from well-founded sources, and we did responsibly check the information with other sources before taking the decision to go ahead with publication. We did not take the decision lightly and we certainly did not do it on the basis of any paranoid conspiratorial theory or with intent to propagate any kind of urban legend ... we could have printed more details but, instead, confined out report to details which were confirmed also by multiple confidential sources.
E. Smith's email does, however, point to some degree of knowledge on his/her part inasmuch as s/he invited to contact "Venezuelan instructors" and "MULTIPLE Venezuelan Students" at the US Army's terrorist school at Fort Benning...
As for being "out of touch with reality"... VHeadline.com reporters are living with REALITY 24/7, make no mistake about it!
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:17:13 -0500Editor's note: Sheila, we're doing our job, which is to inform as speedily and accurately as possible about what affects Venezuela and Venezuelans to an English-speaking readership. While we agree that the Bush 2 administration's illegal actions against Venezuela's sovereignty should be exposed and restrained, it is essentially a job for the good citizens of the United States of America to show the current incumbent at the White House where he should go. Unfortunately, the US Constitution does not (as far as we know) contemplate a democratic mechanism by which its President can be subjected to a revocatory referendum, but it might be an idea for its legislators to consider a Constitutional Amendment, perhaps to follow Venezuela's example in subject matter of democracy.
To: Editor@VHeadline.com
From: Sheila Lowbeer slowbeer@bestweb.net
Subject: HANDS OFF VENEZUELA
The article headlined "Bush2 . .but WHEN!" came to a mailing list I'm on.
Can't something be done to widely expose and restrain interference of the Bush administration in Venezuela?
Thanx, Sheila
slowbeer@bestweb.net
Ossining, NY
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:28:09 -0800Editor's Note: One really must give Mr/Mrs/Ms E. Smith credit for tenacity and holding a thought for a whole 78 minutes on his/her second missal/missile of the evening. We give no credence to propaganda moves, and that is why we simply refer to international diplomatic protocol which allows that a "US Army Major" would be accorded protocol privilege if requested. Without digging too deeply into the mechanics of it, the US Major to whom Smith refers was "alleged" to be a US Major involved in the April 11, 2002 coup d'etat. Whether or not he was involved in the coup d'etat is without question, it is however clear that his government requested his return and, under the terms of the Geneva Convention, the request was honored. Simple.
From: E. Smith psmith45@cox.net
To: Editor@VHeadline.com
Subject: USA COUP
Ah yes, Lopez Hidalgo "says" he captured a guy who "says" he was a US Major ... who was then conveniently extradited to the US instead of being brought to justice in Venezuela.
So Venezuela suspected this guy of being involved in a coup, but since he was "wanted" in the US, Venezuela ... just to be friendly to the US ... sent him home.
Yeah, right. Could you show me again how this justifies the headline "confirms" US involvement.
I always thought "proof" was something like a video of somebody doing something, a confession, you know, crazy stuff like that.
Do you guys really believe the garbage you print, or do you just exist for entertainment value?
E. Smith
psmith45@cox.net
Dallas, Texas
VHeadline.com does not need to justify itself for reporting allegations made by one party or another; nor does it need to justify the actions of the Venezuelan government or Washington D.C.'s for that matter. VHeadline.com is an independent e-publication honoring democracy, constitutionality and the rule of law. Does anyone object to that?
As for video proof? We understand that the Venezuelan government is in possession of audio-visual and electronic evidence to substantiate the involvement of what it simply describes as a "foreign power" in Venezuela's domestic political-economic affairs. Of course, we would wish that the Venezuelan government would put that evidence into the public domain but we also respect the fact that governments, for their own particular reasons, do not necessarily wish to expose the extent of their surveillance and counter-espionage capabilities the enemy. Would you?
Do we believe the "garbage" we print? Well, yes, of course we do, although "garbage" is in the eye of the beholder, much in the same way as we could perhaps have consigned Mr/Mrs/Ms E. Smith's double-whammy to the recycle bin rather than to let him/her vent her spleen in electronic print as we have just done!
Previous Venezuela posts
More on Venezuela
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. There may be some delay before your comment is published. It all depends on how much time M has in the day. But please comment!