In another rare 'real journalism' short crisis, the New York Times decided to reveal the truth about the trucks with 'humanitarian aid' on the Colombia-Venezuela border, that were set on fire.
As The Intercept reported:
On February 24, CNN told the world what we all now know is an absolute lie: that “a CNN team saw incendiary devices from police on the Venezuelan side of the border ignite the trucks,” though it generously added that “the network’s journalists are unsure if the trucks were burned on purpose.”
Other media outlets endorsed the lie while at least avoiding what CNN did by personally vouching for it. “Humanitarian aid destined for Venezuela was set on fire, seemingly by troops loyal to Mr Maduro,” The Telegraph claimed. The BBC uncritically printed: “There have also been reports of several aid trucks being burned – something Mr Guaidó said was a violation of the Geneva Convention.”
That lie – supported by incredibly powerful video images – changed everything. Ever since, that Maduro burned trucks filled with humanitarian aid was repeated over and over as proven fact on U.S. news outlets. Immediately after it was claimed, politicians who had been silent on the issue of Venezuela or even reluctant to support regime change began issuing statements now supportive of it. U.S. news stars and think tank luminaries who lack even a single critical brain cell when it comes to war-provoking claims from U.S. officials took a leading role in beating the war drums without spending even a single second to ask whether what they were being told were true.
But on Saturday night, the New York Times published a detailed video and accompanying article proving that this entire story was a lie. The humanitarian trucks were not set on fire by Maduro’s forces. They were set on fire by anti-Maduro protesters who threw a molotov cocktail that hit one of the trucks. And the NYT’s video traces how the lie spread: from U.S. officials who baselessly announced that Maduro burned them to media outlets that mindlessly repeated the lie.
Such rare 'real journalism' crises in the US corporate media are very suspicious and should trouble us about the real intentions behind them. Recall that the New York Times supported almost every imperialist regime change operation by the US against undesirable governments.
Recall also that such a rare crisis hit CNN a few months ago when suddenly decided to report the Saudi war crimes in Yemen with the support of the US. It turned out that the motive behind this extraordinary moment was probably to exercise pressure on the current Saudi regime in order to re-boost a plan for the rapid privatization of the Aramco, the state-owned oil company, as well as the neoliberalization of the entire Saudi economy.
So, what happened now and the New York Times decided to tell the truth about the burning trucks in Venezuela? A possible explanation could be related with the failure of the rather 'sloppy' propaganda.
From the first moment, independent journalists (many Americans among them), as well as other networks opposite to the Western propaganda, mentioned the fact that the burning trucks was rather another typical CIA-type false flag operation in order to justify a US intervention.
When they saw that the propaganda had little effect on public opinion, the New York Times decided to play the card of 'real journalism'.
Therefore, on the one hand, the New York Times attempted to regain some - already lost - credibility. On the other, the Times tried to convince the public that the anti-Maduro protester who threw the molotov cocktail on the trucks was acting alone, therefore, he couldn't be part of a false flag operation.
Whatever the truth, there is a moment in the New York Times video which actually destroys (rather accidentally) the Western narrative of the 'dictator Maduro'. At the beginning of the video you can clearly observe the security forces approaching the anti-Maduro protesters with the guns down and the hands up, saying (according to the translation), "Let's cease, let's cease, let's cease. Let's cease the violence. Let's cease the violence. Let's put out this fire first." Now, compare this with the treatment of the Yellow Vests by the French security forces and decide by yourself where there is more democracy and where there is more dictatorship.