Quote:
|
The debate issue is whether or not Chomsky is offering a viewpoint, a filter on the events of the day. The answer is an unequivocal "yes." Footnotes don't change that much.
|
Where exactly was it written that this was the context of the debate? IMO, the question is more around the type of debate that Chomsky and Limbaugh engage. That is why I think it is more appropriate to compare Limbaugh and Moore, Fraser Institute and Chomsky.
It is a little presumptuous on your part (which is of course, the norm, in a medium like this
) to think my 'politics' colour my opinion in this area. As I noted, I
generally disagree with Chomsky's positions and conclusions, but his methodology, IMO, couldn't be more different than Limbaugh's. My opinion in this is coloured, definitely, but more by my profession and training than political leanings.
The key difference, IMO, between Chomsky and Limbaugh is that I can see clearly Chomsky's belief, 'evidence' for his position, and logically how he interpreted what he presented. In other words, a measured and logical progression similar to what I would expect in a right wing position paper that I also often read. Where Chomsky fails with me is that he jumps to far with what the evidence shows - if he stopped at illustrating that a corporate media, even with no inherent political bias, will naturally gravitate towards certain stories, positions and ultimately influence a society in a certain direction, I would no doubt agree. If you want to read something less politically motivated but quite enlightening, IMO, you should look into "A Mathemetician Reads the Newspaper" by John Allen Paulos.