<P> I disagree.....viewership is NOT the issue when it comes to access to cable news..whta matters is finding advertisres that will permit Chomsky on repeatedly.  My god, can Chomsky be any worse than Charlie Rose, Charles Grodin, Chris Matthews, that stuff is just as hard to listen to for their own reasons.  Television is subsidized by advertisers and governed by the advertisers perceptions of what is good for business.  Chomsky's anti-corporate message does unsurprisingly poorly with corporate advertisers.  Thus, networks will not want to put him on the air because they will hear calls from the advertisers saying something like "hey, why did you put my spot (for which I paid $$) during the time you had that commie on? Do that again and I pull my ads."  Who doesn't want condom ads on tv?  other advertisers because they do not want to be anywhere near it or be associated with it. <P>Chomsky's style is not going to lead people to cheer, but that is not what stops his assent into the tv heavens.  It is his politics, plain and simple. <P>  <B><I>R <rhisiart@earthlink.net></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2716.2200" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>for years, cool and unmodulated worked very well in TV.   take a look at ed sullivan's and dave garroway's styles, for example.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>it's only since the right wing has put all the screamers on radio and TV that things have changed a bit.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>people like chomsky aren't designed to make it in popular TV.   he's too dry, too intellectual, too "controversial" (a word the right wing has redefined to mean unpleasant), makes people think, etc.     that's the obstacle.    the passivity of the american people is an enormous hurdle to overcome.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>besides how many working people, after getting home from their second job, having a couple of beers, and landing dog tired in their easy chairs, want to listen to chomsky?    or anything else that demands energy.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>the system sucks.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080>R</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT color=#000080></FONT> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=dhenwood@panix.com href="mailto:dhenwood@panix.com">Doug Henwood</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com">lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> </DIV> <DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, June 05, 2002 5:30 PM</DIV> <DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: fast/slow thinkers</DIV></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV>jean-christophe helary wrote:<BR><BR>>would tv work for chomsky eventually ?<BR><BR>It'd be hard. Either TV would have to change or he would. His style <BR>is too cool and unmodulated for TV - most people would flip the <BR>channel. How could he compete with Behind the Music?<BR><BR>Doug<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><p><br><hr size=1><b>Do You Yahoo!?</b><br> <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/welcome/*http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/fc/en/spl">Sign-up for Video Highlights</a> of 2002 FIFA World Cup