I suspect they simply didn't look into the facts instead preferring to believe that Chavez is ignorant. Why check facts when you "know" a socialist is obviously dumb enough not to know what authors are dead or alive? It's a cheap way to smear someone and suggest they don't know what they are talking about. It's far easier to do this than actually attempting to refute any of the points Chavez made.
I suspect this is how a lot of the NYT's mistakes happen. Stories that fit preconceived ideas are not bothered with checking if they service the Empire. No need to look into something deeply if you already have the answer you want. They are not quite deliberate but they are not exactly mistakes either. Perhaps there is a word for such errors that occur only because someones ideological blinders prevent them from fact checking an incident they would fact check otherwise?
John Thornton