« Nikkogen | Main | Graboid.com »

May 09, 2007

Help re: John Pilger

Quick, quick, what do I need to know about John Pilger's recent output? Any pointers to recent articles?

I might   chance to ask the odd question this evening. So, what?

Tim adds: Well, that was a waste of time and effort. Should know better than to try and go up against someone with rather more experience of such things. Still wasn't the first and won't be the last time I've made a fool of myself.

Anyway, one interesting note. He's putting himself forward as something of an expert upon Latin America and change and economic development. And he's never heard of Hernando de Soto?

That's a bit of a lacunae in the old research isn't it?

May 9, 2007 in Idiotarians | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Help re: John Pilger:



Posted by: Martin | May 9, 2007 5:03:05 PM

Oh, maybe something about how he thinks Iraq was all about oil? No wait, you tried that and made an idiot of yourself.

I suppose your admission of ignorance is progress. Maybe you could ask him for some pointers on geopolitics? Or failing that, elementary reading skills?

Posted by: StuartA | May 9, 2007 5:29:38 PM

Why not just call him an 'idiotarian' if that's the level you're pitching the debate at.

Or, you know, ask him why he's always whining about Iraqi kids with birth defects and other such trivia.

Posted by: Justin | May 9, 2007 6:14:56 PM

You could ask whether he bothers to do any fact-checking when he lifts things from conspiracy web sites. He interpreted a comment about what the former US UN representative John Bolton thought as being a quote from Bolton himself. See story here: http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1176397584.html

New Statesman carried a correction the week later. As seems to be common practice, most Web versions of Pilger's original article have now been edited. OK, anyone can make a mistake (but isn't Pilger supposed to be a real journalist's journalist - what's he doing lifting stuff without checking or attribution from dodgy web sites?). However, his edited versions still claim Bolton believes this, they just remove the direct quotes. In fact, since in the original article Bolton seems to have said nothing like the words attributed to him, this is now a deliberate fabrication. Here for example http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=433

Posted by: Erasmus | May 9, 2007 6:56:07 PM

Sorry - too late by the look of it.

Posted by: Erasmus | May 9, 2007 7:22:49 PM

"lacunae" is plural, old bean.

Posted by: The Pedant's Apprentice | May 9, 2007 7:48:03 PM