Oh no you didn't

Vous croyez que l'affaire Chomsky-Guardian est épuisée après leur rétractation? Relisez d'abord l'analyse de Chomsky lui-même. Pas mal, non? Et MediaLens qui procède, tel qu'espéré; indispensable je vous dit; je cogite et je répond... :

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that standards collapsed in deference to a clear decision by one or more senior figures on the paper to target Chomsky for a carefully planned attack.

It is surely the case that the intense liberal dislike of one of the world's leading radicals -- someone they perhaps imagined had little power or inclination to defend himself -- played a role in blinding the Guardian editors and journalists to their folly.

This bias is exactly reversed when the Guardian interviews powerful figures such as Bill Clinton -- then instinctive support for fellow 'liberals' and keen awareness of their ability to hit back with real force combine to produce fawning hagiography, as we have discussed elsewhere.

The Guardian's bold as brass smear and subsequent pained retraction inevitably call to mind an insightful comment made about Chomsky in, ironically, the Guardian itself. As we have once again seen, it is an observation that can of course be broadened to mainstream journalism:

"His boldness and clarity infuriates opponents -- academe is crowded with critics who have made twerps of themselves taking him on." (Birthdays, The Guardian, December 7, 1996)