Chomsky on media/Pol Pot

Brett Knowlton brettk at unica-usa.com
Wed Oct 7 08:06:10 PDT 1998


Brad,

I don't see anything particularly wrong with Chomsky's argument here, especially since he is mainly talking about the media institutions in the US and not specific individuals. He's trying to highlight the hypocrisy of the mainstream media, which is eager to point out and condemn atrocities committed by our ideological enemies, yet extremely slow and reluctant to report similar crimes in our sphere of influence.

In fact, and I agree with Chomsky here also, Chomsky argues that the media should be MORE concerned with atrocities perpetrated by our government or one of its allies on the grounds that mobilizing public opinion against such actions might actually help to put an end to such nastiness. Failure to do so places some of the blame on our shoulders. We have no such influence over our enemies, and are not responsible for their actions.

Incidentally, I have to disagree with your point about condemnations always being welcome. Usually this is true, but not always. It can still be context dependent. To take an easy example, suppose you are a reporter in Germany in early 1939. You get some dirt, maybe big time dirt, on a bunch of Jewish individuals or a Jewish group. The question is, should you publish the material in the German press when you know that the story will only add to the anti-Jewish climate Germany?

Getting back to Chomsky, consistently reporting the bad deeds of one group and ignoring those of another is a form of propaganda. This is what Chomsky is trying to point out and criticize.

Brett

At 01:45 AM 10/7/98 -0700, you wrote:
>RE:
>>the most extreme accusations were
>>adopted and proclaimed with a great
>>show of indignation over Communist
>>atrocities, the integrity of which
>>can be measured by comparison to the
>>reaction to phase I of the genocide
>>and U.S. responsibility for it;
>
>Can I say that there is something really weird about claiming that person
>x's condemnation of genocide y lacks "integrity" because person x did not
>sufficiently condemn genocide z?
>
>Genocide is a bad thing, no matter who it is done by, no matter where, no
>matter when. Condemnations of acts of genocide are always welcome. They
>never lack "integrity."
>
>Those who condemn the Nazi slaughter of Jews do not lack "integrity" if
>they have not sufficiently condemned the slaughter of the Australian
>aborigines. Those who condemn Israeli policy in the occupied territories of
>the West Bank and Gaza lack "integrity" because they have spent
>insufficient time condemning the failure of the PLO to remove those clauses
>of its charter calling for the abolition of Israel...
>
>Brad DeLong



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list