March 11, 2019
On February 22, a US aid truck caught on fire when it was trying to burst through the Venezuelan border with mystery boxes of nails and wire.
Everyone in the American government and media accused the Venezuelan government of purposefully setting trucks on fire.
On February 25, the Daily Stormer exposed this as a complete hoax, posting the video showing that the aid truck was actually burned up by a ricocheting molotov cocktail thrown by a pro-US protester.
Two weeks later, the New York Times is finally admitting it was a hoax.
The @nytimes has also just released their analysis of the events on the Venezuelan border, focusing on the allegations of the aid truck being burned, a claimed cited by @VP Mike Pence, among others. https://t.co/g9LWNgG8gb
— Bellingcat (@bellingcat) March 10, 2019
They claim they found “unreleased footage” and figured it out based on that.
They even say they believed it because it fit their narrative!
The narrative seemed to fit Venezuela’s authoritarian rule: Security forces, on the order of President Nicolás Maduro, had torched a convoy of humanitarian aid as millions in his country were suffering from illness and hunger.
Vice President Mike Pence wrote that “the tyrant in Caracas danced” as his henchmen “burned food & medicine.” The State Department released a video saying Mr. Maduro had ordered the trucks burned. And Venezuela’s opposition held up the images of the burning aid, reproduced on dozens of news sites and television screens throughout Latin America, as evidence of Mr. Maduro’s cruelty.
But there is a problem: The opposition itself, not Mr. Maduro’s men, appears to have set the cargo alight accidentally.
Unpublished footage obtained by The New York Times and previously released tapes — including footage released by the Colombian government, which has blamed Mr. Maduro for the fire — allowed for a reconstruction of the incident. It suggests that a Molotov cocktail thrown by an antigovernment protester was the most likely trigger for the blaze.
Well, I don’t know if they had footage different than the footage I found on Max Blumenthal’s Twitter – they don’t show it in the article.
I assume there were a lot of people holding up cellphone cameras, as there are all the time now across the entire planet, but what difference does it make?
The clip we saw was obvious.
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) February 24, 2019
Why would it take the biggest newspaper on earth two weeks longer than it takes me to draw this conclusion?
Well, although it is tempting to say “because I’m a much better journalist than these kikes,” the actual reason is presumably that this is atrocity propaganda.
They attempted to refuse to respond after Blumenthal, me and others pointed out this problem with their reporting, then they come out two weeks later, after it’s already in everyone’s mind that Maduro is burning food trucks, and say “oh sorry, my bad.”
Even if people see the retraction, it doesn’t matter. Their brains have already registered the fake information in their mental database of impressions of Maduro, and that can’t be removed.
And their impression of the media isn’t altered by the retraction – in fact, that increases trust in the media, them being willing to admit they were wrong.
They act like it took them two weeks because they were doing such serious research into the topic.
They needed time to produce this diagram:
Another probably more interesting thing about this development is the way it exposes the absolute degree to which the New York Times writes the narrative for the rest of the media.
Any individual outlet could have come to the conclusion that the narrative being ran with was obviously wrong. I did that. Any of them could have.
But none of them did. Not that I’m aware of. I assume RT and The Intercept, but those aren’t really “mainstream.”
Then the NYT drops their piece, and hours later…
Have you ever heard of “Operation Mockingbird“?
It was an alleged CIA operation purportedly beginning in the 1950s to plant people in the media to spread narratives. The reason it was called “Mockingbird” is that it would only take a few top voices in the media to spread a message, and if the message was properly constructed, everyone else in the media would just copy it.
Now, there is no need to do that – because you have the New York Times, deeply linked to US and Israeli intelligence, and all of the other outlets willingly just copy whatever they say as if it were the word of God.