Max Blumenthal vs CJR, and journalism in general, on Nicaragua

When it comes to the truth about media freedom, media politics and related issues in Nicaragua, if it's Max Blumenthal / Grayzone's framing of the issue vs Columbia Journalism Review, I know which one I'll side with.

First, Max doesn't present the run-up to this whole issue, which CJR does: Daniel Ortega cutting some social benefits. People rioted. That led to crackdowns on the press and the general public as well.

Second, Max doesn't even interview Oswaldo Rivas, the Nicaraguan native who wrote the CJR piece. In fact, Max has NEVER interviewed Oswaldo Rivas, at least not for the Grayzone. He's never even mentioned him. Not.Once.  Let's put it this way? I got ONE hit across the web with both their names, in quotes. And, that was at the wingnut site SOTT, which had Max's blathering, and a picture shot by Rivas for Reuters accompanying it.

Third, Max skews the truth. Nothing Miguel Mora says, even with Max presenting an out-of-context quote, has Mora saying he WANTS a US-backed coup. At least not directly. It can be argued that he says that "solves" it. But, he doesn't call for one. (Max would probably argue back that this is because he'd face arrest again. See below.)

Fourth, Max does admit Mora was an independent journalist, and was arrested. He lumps the Committee to Protect Journalists (which might even free YOUR ass, Max, if you failed to sufficiently kowtow to a dictator) with the U.S. government. Related, he ignores what Human Rights Watch says about Mora's confinement, as mentioned in CJR.

Fifth, Max doesn't tell you about the Ortega regime's criminalization of what it calls fake news.

Sixth, he lies about what the CPJ has said about Assange, when he claims it has been "ignoring the plight" of Assange. CPJ wrote most recently 18 months ago and DOES think he should not be prosecuted. As for whether Assange is a journalist or not? I lean in CPJ's direction, which was not done in a back-of-the-hand or off-the-cuff decision, contra both Max and World Socialists, which Max actually is likely not one of. Maybe Assange was at one time, but, since he started just spewing stuff, he's not. He's a source. Not a journalist. Ed Snowden has said that he, Snowden, is not a journalist, after all.

None of this is new. Max has been called out plenty of times for his misreporting about Nicaragua.

As for Ortega? Like Evo Morales in Bolivia, only successfully in his case, Ortega staged a coup against the Nicaraguan constitution. Yes, one of those Chamorros that Max hates reports on this, but not at National Review; rather, it's at Truthout. And, that happened well before 2018. So, contra left-wingnut sites like SOTT, this has nothing to do with China's plans for a new canal, through Nicaragua, and US imperialist attempts to thwart that. 

The reality about Ortega, per Wiki, is that he's even more thuggish than Morales, and that both have drifted considerably rightward since their first elections. Ortega, being older and in office longer, has done more of this. And no, Max, that's not just the U.S. foreign policy establishment. Per links at Wiki, it's folks like Amnesty International that have expressed concerns about both his skullduggery and his thuggery. So, too, has the Catholic Church, which Ortega has also been attacking since that not-a-coup. (Oh, and Crux is not a wingnut Catholic site, but, since it was started as a Boston Globe project, Max will probably start hurling MSM epithets there, too.)

And, that's enough time wasted on Max.

Well, no, a programming note, so to speak. Ken Silverstein interviews Patrick Hilsman, offering more real truths on Max, Aaron Maté, Ben Norton and other Assad-tankies. (That said, the stenos aren't always wrong, either; Bob Fisk raised questions about Douma, and there and elsewhere, about the White Helmets. That said, he wasn't a suck-up to authoritarians, but he was a good journalist.)