Wowzers. Human Rights Watch Exec Director Kenneth Roth may just be a little bit thin-skinned. You'll remember that before Christmas, 118 professors wrote him a letter pointing out the dozens of factual inaccuracies, bad sourcing and political biases in a recent HRW report on Venezuela. A couple weeks later, Roth came back with an official response that managed to avoid answering any actual questions, but did wrap up on this classy note:
"These new allegations echo those that the Chávez government has itself employed to divert attention from the country's human rights problems. As we document in the report, President Chávez and his supporters routinely seek to deflect criticism by accusing their critics of harboring ulterior political motives."
So there you go, questioning Human Rights Watch is sort of a human rights violation in its own right. But apparently the professors didn't take the warning to heart, because today they sent another letter, explaining that Roth never answered the questions from the first letter, which is exactly what they used to do in the Gulags, probably.
Comments (4)
Holy Crap--it's a Little Professor! Bless you, BoRev. I haven't seen of of those since I was a kid!
Posted by Big Al
|
January 14, 2009 5:38 PM
Posted on January 14, 2009 17:38
What should be under scrutiny are the sources of funding that allows HRW to exist--and the degree to which these funding sources affect their bias.
The fact that Colombia gets treated differently than Colombia and other US clients makes HRW an adjunct to empire.
This should be exposed scrupulously, and assidiously.
Document as though Chomsky is going to grade your work.
The light makes the deathsquad rightwing scurry for the crevices under your kitchen sink.
Posted by Slave Revolt
|
January 14, 2009 6:43 AM
Posted on January 14, 2009 06:43
To an extent, this is how academic-type is supposed to wor,k isn't it?
HRW published some work... others criticised it... HRW responded to the criticisms (not particularly fully) and asked for a further response from their critics... which they got. This sort of batting backwards and forwards should be an opportunity to improve the standard of the original work by increasing input, strengthening weak areas, etc. Unfortunately by the sounds of it HRW aren't willing to accept criticism and simply get offended and entrenched in their original positions; not particularly professional.
Oh, and I had one of those little professor calculators, it was great!
Posted by Lillie Langtry
|
January 14, 2009 6:18 AM
Posted on January 14, 2009 06:18
Need more laughs? Read up on how Roth also feels compelled to defend the resident Pinochetist:
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/letter/3868
I have a feeling he's not gonna get any appy polly loggies.
Posted by QueenBina
|
January 13, 2009 10:27 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 22:27