Noam Chomsky -- Saying What Media Don't Want Us to Hear

[Mark Pavlick]

>
>From: "Norman Solomon" <mediabeat at igc.org>
>To: <mediabeat at igc.org>
>Subject: Noam Chomsky -- Saying What Media Don't Want Us to Hear
>Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:03:05 -0800
>
>
>NOAM CHOMSKY -- SAYING WHAT MEDIA DON'T WANT US TO HEAR
>
>By Norman Solomon   /   Creators Syndicate
>
>
>      "If liberty means anything at all," George Orwell wrote, "it means the
>right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
>
>      From all indications, the gatekeepers for big media in the United
>States don't want to hear what Noam Chomsky has to say -- and they'd prefer
>that we not hear him either.
>
>      Mainstream journalists in other nations often interview Chomsky. Based
>at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he's a world-renowned analyst
>of propaganda and global politics. But the chances are slim that you'll ever
>find him on a large network here at home.
>
>      Chomsky is ill-suited to providing soundbites -- and that's not just a
>matter of style. A few snappy words are sufficient when they harmonize with
>the conventional wisdom in a matter of seconds. It takes longer to
>intelligibly present a very different assessment of political realities.
>
>      No one disputes that Chomsky revolutionized the study of language more
>than 40 years ago. The rich and powerful have no quarrel with his work as
>the world's most significant linguist. But as a political analyst, he's
>pretty much persona non grata at big U.S. networks and influential dailies.
>
>      Meanwhile, overflow audiences of thousands are routine when Chomsky
>speaks on college campuses and elsewhere in the United States. For many
>years now, community radio stations across North America have featured his
>speeches and interviews on political subjects. Progressive magazines publish
>his articles.
>
>      But at major media outlets, most editors seem far more interested in
>facile putdowns of Chomsky than in allowing space for his own words. Media
>attacks on him are especially vitriolic in times of international crisis and
>war.
>
>      Since Sept. 11, the distortions have been predictable: Although he's an
>unequivocal opponent of terrorism in all its forms, Chomsky is portrayed as
>an apologist for terrorism. Although he's a consistent advocate of human
>rights for all, Chomsky is accused of singling out the U.S. government for
>blame.
>
>      To some extent, Chomsky seems to bring the media salvos on himself.
>Even when the brickbats are flying, the guy just won't keep his head down.
>He speaks bluntly when the Pentagon terrorizes faraway civilians in the name
>of fighting terrorism. And he points out that citizens of the most powerful
>country on Earth have special opportunities and responsibilities to work
>against deadly policies implemented in their names with their tax dollars.
>
>      Chomsky's latest book, titled "9-11," is now arriving in bookstores. It
>'s a collection of interviews, serving as a badly needed corrective to news
>coverage of the present-day "war on terrorism."
>
>      The book will be very useful in the months to come. Yet "9-11" just
>scratches the surface. For those who want more depth, many superb Chomsky
>books are available -- including the classic study "Manufacturing Consent"
>(co-authored with Edward S. Herman), "Profit Over People" and "The New
>Military Humanism," as well as volumes of interviews conducted by David
>Barsamian.
>
>      In "9-11," Chomsky speaks without evasion: "We should recognize that in
>much of the world the U.S. is regarded as a leading terrorist state, and
>with good reason." Chomsky cites many examples of U.S. actions that resulted
>in the killing of several million civilians during the past few decades. A
>partial list of nations where those deaths have occurred includes Vietnam,
>Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, East Timor, Sudan, Iraq,
>Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.
>
>      All in the past? Chomsky rips into the scam of wiping the U.S.
>government's slate clean. "If we choose, we can live in a world of
>comforting illusion," he said. "Or we can look at recent history, at the
>institutional structures that remain essentially unchanged, at the plans
>that are being announced -- and answer the questions accordingly. I know of
>no reason to suppose that there has been a sudden change in long-standing
>motivations or policy goals, apart from tactical adjustments to changing
>circumstances."
>
>      Chomsky added wryly: "We should also remember that one exalted task of
>intellectuals is to proclaim every few years that we have 'changed course,'
>the past is behind us and can be forgotten as we march on towards a glorious
>future. That is a highly convenient stance, though hardly an admirable or
>sensible one."
>
>      For those whose window on the world is mostly confined to mainstream
>U.S. media, some of Chomsky's statements may seem odd or absolutely wrong.
>But you can't make an informed judgment based on a few quotes. Read a couple
>of Chomsky's books and decide for yourself.
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media." His
>syndicated column focuses on media and politics.

--