I checked one item in this post against the text (which is here: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/7706-distortions.html
"The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation." The context for the statement is not, as is implied by the extract above, a general denial of mass murder, but a specific claim which NC claims is not adequately documented. Most of the article is in a similar vein -- noting the lack of evidence presented in news accounts. SD does nothing to rebut his argument. Noting that genocide took place is not a rebuttal. NC's conclusion, along similar lines: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable." My conclusion: One should not judge the morality of NC's statements at the time by how well they accord with what is known retrospectively, in light of the reality that the sources on genocide were not trustworthy. Untrustworthy sources can be right on occasion, but it is not smart to depend on them. You would have to show the availability of a fount of information from unbiased sources to conclude that NC ignored evidence he ought not to have ignored. SD's post is unfair. mbs
