Quote:
Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 2 2004, 09:06 PM
There are, however, two glaring omissions from their analysis: the role of journalists and the preferences of media audiences. Nowhere do the authors explain how journalists and other news producers come to believe they are exercising their freedom to report the world as they see it. Chomsky and Herman simply assert these people have been duped into seeing the world through a pro-capitalist ideological lens.
Nor do they attempt any analysis of why millions of ordinary people exercise their free choice every day to buy newspapers and tune in to radio and television programs. Chomsky and Herman fail to explain why readers and viewers so willingly accept the world-view of capitalist media proprietors. They provide no explanation for the tastes of media audiences.
This view of both journalists and audiences as easily-led, ideological dupes of the powerful is not just a fantasy of Chomsky and Herman’s own making. It is also a stance that reveals an arrogant and patronising contempt for everyone who does not share their politics. The disdain inherent in this outlook was revealed during an exchange between Chomsky and a questioner at a conference in 1989 (reproduced in Chomsky, Understanding Power, 2002):
Man: The only poll I’ve seen about journalists is that they are basically narcissistic and left of center. Chomsky: Look, what people call “left of center” doesn’t mean anything—it means they’re conventional liberals and conventional liberals are very state-oriented, and usually dedicated to private power.
In short, Chomsky believes that only he and those who share his radical perspective have the ability to rise above the illusions that keep everyone else slaves of the system. Only he can see things as they really are.
Sounds like a battle that is waged on this very forum daily!!!
Great read though...meticulous and eloquent. Good foot-notes to back up his writings as well. Interesting.
|
I'm not sure if I'd describe one (1) footnote as 'Good footnotes'. Also, simply picking out small pieces of Chomsky's writing without context is the same thing as Chomsky himself has been accused of. The difference is that this author uses only Chomsky's work to decry him. Chomsky uses the world and the state-actors in it as his sources.
Also, he's definitely biased. The man favours peace, equality, and responsible government. Don't ever think that he doesn't have an agenda, he does. And that's it.
No one replied to my earlier comment, if Chomsky is lying/misrepresenting his points, why? What does he have to gain? He doesn't exacly live a lavish lifestyle, and basically spends every second of every day tucked away at a computer, reading and writing.