this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
47 points (86.2% liked)
World News
32290 readers
681 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Quoting something that AP says without substantiation is not actually a good citation. It's not like Maduro appointed the judges.
I'll quote them again for you:
The high court’s ruling certifying the results contradicts the findings of experts from the United Nations and the Carter Center who were invited to observe the election and which both determined the results announced by authorities lacked credibility.
Just becuse Maduro is a socialist doesn't mean he's not a piece of shit who lost the election. Dictator's play both sides of the political spectrum.
Does the article say that Maduro appointed the judges? Thus far I only see a claim that it's packed with Maduro loyalists... which is pretty far from an unbiased framing
Ahhh yes, AP is known for being very biased...unlike the bastion of fair news sources that is "the peoples dispatch"
I believe this is the "whataboutism" that liberals love to cry about so much (more properly, you're deflecting to a completely different topic)
Mudoro doesn't need to appoint the judges for them to be or become loyalists. Did trump appoint any of his enablers in the house or Senate?
Trump doesn't have even a double-digit number of loyalists in the Senate and proportionately probably about the same in the House. This is a relevant detail because his enablers in Congress are overwhelmingly party loyalists who will drop him like a sack of potatoes the moment it becomes more expedient to. The reason that matters is that it was mainly the Republican Party that got all those Congresspeople elected, not Trump, even in the races where Trump endorsed them, so the relative locus of power is the Republican Party (and really it's the donor class, but we don't need to get into that).
All this to say that AP's simplistic and unsubstantiated flattening of Venezuelan politics to "There's one guy in charge of everything, his lockstep minions, and the brave rightists fighting them" is below you to believe.
https://swprs.org/the-propaganda-multiplier/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/swiss-policy-research/
MBFC is just some zionists blog site, it has no connection with journalistic integrity.
I could create a site called "world's official bias and impartiality meter", and do my own rankings.
https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-83-the-unchecked-conservative-ideology-of-us-medias-fact-check-verticals
I can do it too. MBFC is a hack website that equivocates between centrism and lack of bias. See this arbitrarily picked page for an example. See that graphic, the very first thing beneath the title? It's giving the game away right there, with a left-right spectrum where the center is "least biased". What about a centrist bias? Doesn't exist, and the closer you get to centrist, the less "biased" you are.
I’m tempted to just laugh at mbfc being used as a gotcha, but I’m still bummed that it got this much cultural inertia behind it. It’s sort of like quoting an uncited Wikipedia article at someone to prove you’re right.
World has a stupid bot for it now and ignores anyone that points out it's flaws
I’m not talking about OP’s article, I’m talking about yours.
Maduro isn't a socialist, Chavists aren't socialists and he's openly a Chavist (i.e. a follower in the tradition of Hugo Chavez, who was a great progressive but not really a socialist).
I don't give a shit what the Carter Center has to say about any of America's enemies, and they provide no means to evaluate the substance of the claim by "experts from the UN" (which is different from a report by the UN or an official committee of the UN).
And, again, Maduro did not appoint the judges; he doesn't even have the power to.
Maybe most pertinently: Do you not remember last election cycle, when all the neoliberal news outlets were joined together in their outrage over the NED and friends saying Maduro stole the election, only for that claim to "just turn out" to be pulled from thin air? Do we need to do this every six years when a US-backed reactionary loses?
Maybe it's just me but it seems the synchronization of public opinion on reddit / lemmy with Empire seems to be getting worse. (EDIT: It seems to be getting more "convincing")
Like there was some opposition from the "progressives" and "leftists" about the Juan Guaidó sham and you could argue about it without getting downvoted into oblivion, but now very few dare to talk about the latest attempt to capture Venezuela's oil.
Lemmy.world is crazy. It's almost the same downvote "philosophy" than Redfit and the instance has a huge userbase.
Would take a piece of shit that serves the people over a piece of shit that would loot, plunder, and sell national assets to capitalists 100/100 times.
He has shat the bed for his country and the people are paying the price. Maybe let the people decide the leader of their country?
That seems to be what they're figuring out. The right wing candidate didn't even submit their voting tallies to the Supreme Court or participate in any of the investigations while everyone else did (including other anti-Maduro candidates). What are they supposed to use to determine popular will? Screenshot of papers printed in Machado's basement?
I wouldn't be surprised if some shenanigans happened until they publish their results by polling location, but until then all we have to go on is uncooperative opposition and US-based think tanks (the country that's tried to coup Venezuela basically every other year since Chavez).
US sanctions fucked over the country, so unless you think "being disliked by the US" is a grave sin, this isn't an accurate framing
The people that are legit scraping by with nothing?
Wonder who’s sanctions put them in that position.