A Chomsky moment

[Cowperson]

One of our favourite recurring debate points on the off-topic board, Noam Chomsky, rears his rear-end once more in this interesting and blessedly short dissertation in the Globe & Mail, the author employing Freud to make his case on the mystique of Chomsky.

“But,” sputtered Graz, “The New York Times, the network news ...” Lynn shook her head. “Those are elite media. They never reach most people.” It was a Chomsky moment.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../BNStory/Front/

Cowperson

[transplant99]

What a bizzare quote on the surface..

"elite" media DOESNT reach most people? What?

Interesting story though...and one that makes you truly understand that "most" people understand just perfectly what they are seeing...and the extremists on BOTH sides dont want that. They only want you to 'believe' that what the cameras are catching is a spin from the other side.

Humorous if nothing else.

[Cowperson]

A new TIME Magazine poll shows President Bush taking a large lead on John Kerry in the middle of the Republican convention, 52% to 41%, which makes this quote from the article kind of amusing:

It's an underlying premise of his (Chomsky's) work that you ... just tell all the facts to the people. The way ideology works today is much more mysterious. ... There's an active refusal to know. ... The question isn't of any real link between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime. ... Both Saddam and al-Qaeda hate the U.S. That's enough of a link. You cannot really help by making factual refutations. The key factor is not that people are duped — there's an active will not to know.”

Is he right? Is it logical to assume that if people listened to the "facts" on GW Bush that they would logically not vote for him? Or is that also true of John Kerry?

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Just a list of the lies and "damn lies" told at the RNC.

Lies, Damn Lies!!!

In it the author goes into detail about Cheney's records on these defense issues, and how Dick actually voted WITH Kerry in those spots during Miller's speech the other night. It's not that he was against defense, just more of the things he felt the US didn't need more of.

Stunning to me that Kerry has fallen so far back. It is apparent the slander is working. The rest of the world moans in anticipation.

Arnie told a hum dinger as well. Apparently some Austrians are really upset at him for that.

Arnie, Arnie, Arnie

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Sep 4 2004, 04:50 PM
Just a list of the lies and "damn lies" told at the RNC.

Lies, Damn Lies!!!

In it the author goes into detail about Cheney's records on these defense issues, and how Dick actually voted WITH Kerry in those spots during Miller's speech the other night. It's not that he was against defense, just more of the things he felt the US didn't need more of.

Stunning to me that Kerry has fallen so far back. It is apparent the slander is working. The rest of the world moans in anticipation.

It's ironic that in a thread about filtered versus unfiltered news, spin versus the facts, that you would attempt to make a point by presenting a filtered link that makes a clear attempt to spin the ball in a certain direction.

How can anyone - including Chomsky who clearly has a bias - present the "facts" without a spin? Is it possible?

How would you re-write the link you presented? Would it reduce your argument if you had to take out lines referring to Zell Miller like: "Clearly not a bright man . . . " and "His stumbled rantings in the interviews afterward, on CNN and MSNBC, brought to mind the flat-Earthers . . . ."

It shouldn't be that difficult actually, to get the point across based on facts alone. That is, if there is a point to be made. If there isn't, then you need the other stuff.

Cowperson

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Lies, and damn lies could have worked just as well. Or it could just be the way one reads it. Not many ways to interpret a three word sentence in terms of cadence and structure. Is it LIES,DAMN LIES or is Lies & Damn Lies. I was actually going for the latter.

Likewise, Arnie, Arnie, Arnie could either be a cheer or scolding.

True neutrality cannot be acheived when writing or reflecting on op-ed pieces about someone's speech from the GOP convention. Just reporting what transpired would be irresponsible parroting. How is it that when someone challenges the facts of what someone says it somehow denegrates the value of what is written.

To me it doesn't. If Arnie said there were tanks where he grew up and there wasn't, I call that responsible journalism. Just reprinting falsehoods that way (poor Arnie, he had all those Nazi's around him) makes them fact. Especially if you are a reporter - pandering can only get you so far. One of the tenets of journalism is to get to the facts behind an issue, not to report things without investigation.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Sep 5 2004, 07:10 AM
Lies, and damn lies could have worked just as well. Or it could just be the way one reads it. Not many ways to interpret a three word sentence in terms of cadence and structure. Is it LIES,DAMN LIES or is Lies & Damn Lies. I was actually going for the latter.

Likewise, Arnie, Arnie, Arnie could either be a cheer or scolding.

True neutrality cannot be acheived when writing or reflecting on op-ed pieces about someone's speech from the GOP convention. Just reporting what transpired would be irresponsible parroting. How is it that when someone challenges the facts of what someone says it somehow denegrates the value of what is written.

To me it doesn't. If Arnie said there were tanks where he grew up and there wasn't, I call that responsible journalism. Just reprinting falsehoods that way (poor Arnie, he had all those Nazi's around him) makes them fact. Especially if you are a reporter - pandering can only get you so far. One of the tenets of journalism is to get to the facts behind an issue, not to report things without investigation.

The Arnie link you provided is pure fact. He says he saw tanks and saw first hand the effects of communist oppression. A little hard to do unless he thinks the Brits are commies. He was caught red-handed with that one. Presumeably, Chomsky would be delighted since no spin was necessary. The facts did the talking.

I was referring to your other link. Virtually all of the article is the opinion of the author. We can agree or disagree on whether he makes valid points but his dispute is mostly arbitrary opinion that is open for debate versus facts.

It's a fact that GW Bush said Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat. Its a fact no WMD has been found in Iraq.

Is it a fact that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat? Well . . . . try and throw that into the mix as "fact" and suddenly the Bush team will be all over you about "capabilities" and "a program ready to be renewed at a moment's notice," etc, etc.

What's fact and what's spin? Pretty much anything beyond WMD not being found, including GW Bush's economic record, his performance on health care issues, etc, provokes massive debate because "facts" can be spun a lot of different ways.

Cowperson

[Displaced Flames fan]

How could Cheney vote with Kerry on anything when Cheney has never been a Senator and Kerry never a member of the House?

Just asking.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Sep 5 2004, 02:03 PM
How could Cheney vote with Kerry on anything when Cheney has never been a Senator and Kerry never a member of the House?

Just asking.

And that's a "fact!!"

Chomsky would pat you - yes, even you!! - on the back for that one Displaced.

Cowperson

[Looger]

my german's very rusty, in fact i'd go as far to say that if it wasn't spelled like it sounded i wouldn't be able to read it at all.

but the msn link, the original, arnie's story does not say their car was in styria, indeed not even in austria for sure.

the context leads us to believe that because he mentioned soviet occupation of PART of austria, that the story automatically happened there.

can anyone that read the link from that story tell me what the pre-spun edition was...?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Looger@Sep 6 2004, 02:23 AM
my german's very rusty, in fact i'd go as far to say that if it wasn't spelled like it sounded i wouldn't be able to read it at all.

but the msn link, the original, arnie's story does not say their car was in styria, indeed not even in austria for sure.

the context leads us to believe that because he mentioned soviet occupation of PART of austria, that the story automatically happened there.

can anyone that read the link from that story tell me what the pre-spun edition was...?

Good point Looger.

From the text of Schwarzenagger's speech:

I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector.

In the objection printed in English in the Slate article, an Austrian official says:

"It's a fact -- as a child he could not have seen a Soviet tank in Styria,"

Schwarzenagger may have been accurate after all. He doesn't talk about seeing tanks in his hometown. He talks of seeing them elsewhere in Austria.

Cowperson

[Looger]

those wacky austrians!

i have GOT to check that place out someday.

[Looger]

actually i am really waiting for the re-election campaign...

wait for it...




U'LL BE BACK!

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Sep 5 2004, 11:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Sep 5 2004, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-TheCommodoreAfro@Sep 5 2004, 07:10 AM
Lies, and damn lies could have worked just as well. Or it could just be the way one reads it. Not many ways to interpret a three word sentence in terms of cadence and structure. Is it LIES,DAMN LIES or is Lies & Damn Lies. I was actually going for the latter.

Likewise, Arnie, Arnie, Arnie could either be a cheer or scolding.

True neutrality cannot be acheived when writing or reflecting on op-ed pieces about someone's speech from the GOP convention. Just reporting what transpired would be irresponsible parroting. How is it that when someone challenges the facts of what someone says it somehow denegrates the value of what is written.

To me it doesn't. If Arnie said there were tanks where he grew up and there wasn't, I call that responsible journalism. Just reprinting falsehoods that way (poor Arnie, he had all those Nazi's around him) makes them fact. Especially if you are a reporter - pandering can only get you so far. One of the tenets of journalism is to get to the facts behind an issue, not to report things without investigation.

The Arnie link you provided is pure fact. He says he saw tanks and saw first hand the effects of communist oppression. A little hard to do unless he thinks the Brits are commies. He was caught red-handed with that one. Presumeably, Chomsky would be delighted since no spin was necessary. The facts did the talking.

I was referring to your other link. Virtually all of the article is the opinion of the author. We can agree or disagree on whether he makes valid points but his dispute is mostly arbitrary opinion that is open for debate versus facts.

It's a fact that GW Bush said Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat. Its a fact no WMD has been found in Iraq.

Is it a fact that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat? Well . . . . try and throw that into the mix as "fact" and suddenly the Bush team will be all over you about "capabilities" and "a program ready to be renewed at a moment's notice," etc, etc.

What's fact and what's spin? Pretty much anything beyond WMD not being found, including GW Bush's economic record, his performance on health care issues, etc, provokes massive debate because "facts" can be spun a lot of different ways.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
We'll leave it there I think. Spin or no spin, certain folks can get it. I think there are a whole lot of people out there that don't get that idea, and can't distinguish between "op-ed" and fact. And a lot of them will turn up in November to vote.

Part of me wants newspapers and media to be labelled like a can of creamed corn or a box of Kraft Dinner..... Then again, folks will continue to ignore it.