Noam Chowsky

[Theodore Kurita]

Have any of you read any of his literature?

What do you think about the guy as a whole?

I just finished rereading his book Manufacturing Consent and I think it was an excellent book.

His latest edition of the book updates the models and provides, in my opinion, some of the the best Arguments that the media has a right wing bias.

Excellent reading material.

[Skeptic]

I can't choose, because it's a little of both: his books on linguistics show he is a genius in that field, while his books on politics show he is a conspiracy-theory nut in that field.

Sadly, Chomsky shows the all-too-common case of a man who achieve prominence in one field (linguistics) thinking this means he understands everything else as well. Sometimes this disease is known as "Nobelitis", for obvious reasons.

BTW, I presume you mean "Noam ChoMsky"...

[Troll]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I can't choose, because it's a little of both: his books on linguistics show he is a genius in that field, while his books on politics show he is a conspiracy-theory nut in that field.

Sadly, Chomsky shows the all-too-common case of a man who achieve prominence in one field (linguistics) thinking this means he understands everything else as well. Sometimes this disease is known as "Nobelitis", for obvious reasons.

BTW, I presume you mean "Noam ChoMsky"...

I couldn't find the words I wanted, and don't need to thanks to your post

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Have any of you read any of his literature?

What do you think about the guy as a whole?

I just finished rereading his book Manufacturing Consent and I think it was an excellent book.

His latest edition of the book updates the models and provides, in my opinion, some of the the best Arguments that the media has a right wing bias.

Excellent reading material.

Media has one bias, ratings.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Media has one bias, ratings.

Actually, I think media has one primary bias, profit. Ratings are a mechanism for generating profits.

It is my opinion that the bias towards profit produces right-wing bias on some issues.

My opinon of Chomsky: Some interesting points, all of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

There was this impression I got from reading his books, that everyone from the President down to the local police are actively (and consciously) involved in keeping the population in submission.

A conspiracy of that size just doesn't work.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Skeptic
while his books on politics show he is a conspiracy-theory nut in that field.

Perhaps you can offer up a few examples.

Sadly, Chomsky shows the all-too-common case of a man who achieve prominence in one field (linguistics) thinking this means he understands everything else as well. Sometimes this disease is known as "Nobelitis", for obvious reasons.

This is such an incredibly stupid and common accusation. First of all, Chomsky does not fashion himself as an unquestionable authority in the political sphere (or linguistics for that matter).

Second, it's not as though Chomsky is like Sagan, the skeptic who famously strayed from his specialty and predicted doom and gloom from the burning of Iraqi oil wells in the first gulf war. Chomsky has been politically active since childhood, and if anything the fame and recognition he achieved in linguistics is mindlessly used as a cudgel to say he should "stick with what he knows," as if one needs formal academic credentials, which many of the people making this criticism ironically lack (not that it matters).

Media has one bias, ratings.

:rolleyes:

No, the media has a profit bias, and profits are correlated with ratings. The networks, to take a simple example, covet the younger 18-31 demographic over 55+.

I see things are getting back to normal on this idiotic board. More Arab racism, Cleopatra with her characteristically moronic threads on anti-Semitism, and NTW filling in the gaps.

[Nasarius]

Anyone who did a split EP (http://thebrpage.tierranet.com/disco/others/new_world_order.html) with Bad Religion protesting the first Gulf War is okay by me :)

[a_unique_person]

Media is owned by people with a bias. Murdoch is notorious for editorial interference. I regularly read one of his papers to get the latest right wing line. One of the most hilarious, if it wasn't so tragic, was the picture of one of the militia of an Afgani warlord marching to battle carrying a grenade launcher with the caption "A Northern Alliance Freedom Fighter moves to attack", (or words to that effect.)

Muslim, drug growing soldier of fortune one day, peace loving freedom fighter the next. Orwell would be chuckling in his grave.

As to Chomsky, he is a genius. I do not agree with all he says by any means, but he is an original thinker who should be respected. I noted that Diezel once said he is considered a nutcase in the US. Over here in Austalia, his books are carried by all the quality book shops.

[Cleopatra]

It's an undeniable fact that Noam Chomsky is a genius. He is a man that has demonstrated what a brain that works in full capacity can do.

I totally agree with him with the way he views modern Zionism since he is one of the few people that exercise legitimate and fair handed criticism to Israel. I confess that my views regarding the role of USA in the Middle Eastern conflict have been strongly influenced by him. It's for the interest of the Jewish people around the world to listen to smart people talking, even if at the end they decide to disagree with them.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

There was this impression I got from reading his books, that everyone from the President down to the local police are actively (and consciously) involved in keeping the population in submission.

A conspiracy of that size just doesn't work.

I read this book about medieval history.

I got the impression that everyone from the King down to the local officials were actively (and consciously) involved in keeping the populace in submission.

A conspiracy of that size just doesn't work.

I also read this book about the first half of this century in the USA, Enlgand and Australia.

I got the impression that everyone from heads of state down to men in the street were actively (and consciously) involved in keeping women in submission.

A conspiracy of that size just doesn't work either. Anyone who says these things happened is a conspiracy nut.

[BillyTK]

I just find it really funny that people think there's some sort of discrete cut-off between Stoamin' Noam's work in linguistics and his stuff on politics. Makes me wonder if such people actually have a clue as to what his work is about.

[JamesM]

I don't know about the rest of his stuff, but Chomsky's model of the media that he put forward with Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent can certainly be understood without recourse to conspiracy theory.

[Mercutio]

I don't like his linguistics work. But then, since he is a genius, he never had to actually understand the behavioral stuff he was attacking. I wonder if he even read it.

I am embarrassed to admit it, but I was so turned off by his linguistics stuff that I haven't really paid attention to anything else he has done. Perhaps I'd be very impressed. We may never know...:p

[Cleopatra]

I was wondering what you think of Chomsky, Mercutio. Although I wasn't really wondering ;)

[rikzilla]

Noam "The Evil US Will Kill A Million Afghani's" Chomsky??

Oh, he's a genius! Just like the rain man. Unfortunately he has no sense of his own limitations...which are profound.

-z

[Thanz]

I haven't read any of his books, but I did see the movie version of Manufacturing Consent several years ago. From what I recall, he specifically denied that he was asserting some sort of smoky backroom conspiracy. I did find the contrast between the events in Vietnam and the media coverage and the events in East Timor and the (lack of) media coverage to be striking.

[Luciana]

I watched his lecture in my university. Being a language school, and the topic being linguistics, why oh why did we have to listen to his political rants from start to finish??? He can't talk about anything else these days.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


I read this book about medieval history.

I got the impression that everyone from the King down to the local officials were actively (and consciously) involved in keeping the populace in submission.

A conspiracy of that size just doesn't work.

I also read this book about the first half of this century in the USA, Enlgand and Australia.

I got the impression that everyone from heads of state down to men in the street were actively (and consciously) involved in keeping women in submission.

A conspiracy of that size just doesn't work either. Anyone who says these things happened is a conspiracy nut.

Point taken...

I don't know where my Chomsky books are, so I'll have to go on my admittedly faulty memory. But, I got the impression from reading the book was that all authority figures had certain right-wing ideologies that they acted on....and that action was required to keep the conspiracy afloat.... else the population would get wind of these nefarious plots and throw the bums out.

It just seemed implausible to me.

Even in your counter examples, there exist people from inside the "system" who chose not to believe in the core values, and there existed people who did not actively participate in the "system", yet the "system" persisted for long periods of time.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Have any of you read any of his literature?

What do you think about the guy as a whole?

I voted "conspiracy nutcase," but I just think he's a weed.

My main interest in him is the linguistics. This politics stuff is fun for having heated discussions that don't amount to anything, but linguistics is real. Chomsky almost singlehandedly set linguistics back two to three decades. He did some interesting pioneering work that was good for the time, but the cult he deliberately wound around himself (which seems to be his real talent) has made it difficult to publish anything else. If it weren't for Chomsky, we would probably have some significant machine understanding of language now, probably based on the Fillmore deep cases and HPSG.

As for his politics, look up some of his earlier political books and count the times he turned out to be flat-out wrong. He is, however, a master at persuasion, umbrage-encrusted backpedalling, and giving the verisimilitude of genius. Yet it was sickening how fast he forced his 9/11 book into an e-book; the first copy of The Nation I saw after 9/11 had an ad for it.

[c0rbin]

I like the language instict stuff, but haven't read anything else.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I have not read any of his books in full, but what I have read from him has been debunked enough for me to rationally posit a high degree of equally distributed errors, and hence reject him.


For example Chomsky obviously holds to the Noble Savage myth, as I realized when he opened up one his books (who's name I cannot recall) with statements about Indian tribes knowing of no warfare or crime.

I suppose he deserves a more in depth criticism, but I personally don't have time for radicals like Chomsky, who's only knowledge I have is that of making exagerations, and extraordinary claims that get debunked or are at odds with many credible authors I have read.

[hgc]

I used to be a Noam Chomsky fan, then I saw "Manufacturing Consent," some years ago. It was nothing but him patting himself on the back and doing hatchet jobs on his opponents. I looked into him a little more, and realized that though he had much of value to say, he was too orthodox and one-sided in his politics to be considered reliable.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Mercutio;"
I don't like his linguistics work. But then, since he is a genius, he never had to actually understand the behavioral stuff he was attacking. I wonder if he even read it."
Huh really? Most consider his work a part of the foundation of understanding the mechanism of language development as it pertains to the cognitive process and in turn is used for AI. I'm not a linguistics expert by any means but I have worked in AI. I only know his work peripherally. Do take exception to particular principles he espouses or object to his line of reasoning in general? .

Rik: "Unfortunately he has no sense of his own limitations...which are profound."
See you and he have much in common =)
So let me see if I have the sentiments of Chomsky's critics here correctly, He's an expert in one field and not in politics therefore he should refrain from proffering an opinion in same?
Hmm if that was the case across the board ( no pun intended) then this forum would be empty.

[Troll]

So let me see if I have the sentiments of Chomsky's critics here correctly, He's an expert in one field and not in politics therefore he should refrain from proffering an opinion in same?
Hmm if that was the case across the board ( no pun intended) then this forum would be empty.

No, he was an expert in one field and intelligent in his works in tat arena but that does not mean his intelligence transfers over to other fields so he's not to be taken as an expert in them as well. At least that's what this critic of him believes.

Just like I may ask Greenspan for financial advice, but I sure as hell would rather ask Bill Gates for vomputer advice. Okay bad analogy as Gates wouldn't be bad to ask for financial advice. but I think you get what I mean

[sackett]

My father in law, the late Charles F. Hockett, said it all:

Chomsky's a lunk, and I ain't buyin' it.
He made his own bunk, now let him lie in it.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by Troll


No, he was an expert in one field and intelligent in his works in tat arena but that does not mean his intelligence transfers over to other fields so he's not to be taken as an expert in them as well. At least that's what this critic of him believes.



That's not my understanding, perhaps I was incorrect.
I read many variations of " He should stick with what he knows", meaning that a man with a genius lable has less right to express opinion ( however right or wrong ) on things politic , then the normal folks on this forum who represent ( most of the time ) a level of discorse and invective more demonstritive of recess at Our Lady of Perpetual Strife H.S. then an intellictually driven interchange of ideas.

edit to add: the general tenor of the thread ( aside from being accusatory) of the experts view is a worthy standard.
If I want legal advice, I go to a Lawyer, if I want moral advivice , I go to a priest. I would not seek out Einstein's opinion on hair styles nor Mr. Moore's or Mr.Limbaug's opinion on politics....I think You get my point

[Cain]

I think the phrase -- now verging on cliche -- "all heat and no light" is appropriate here.

Perhaps someone can now produce a specific example (out of so many to choose from). Although, if I may impose, can we restrict ourselves to his most well-known and accessible works on the media...?

Dialecticalmaterialist writes:
For example Chomsky obviously holds to the Noble Savage myth, as I realized when he opened up one his books (who's name I cannot recall) with statements about Indian tribes knowing of no warfare or crime.

I'm almost always skeptical of an assertion that follows from the words "obviously" or "clearly". Yes, Chomsky has been strongly influenced by Rousseau, but on the issue of human nature he tends toward agnosticism. He believes in a benevolent disposition and natural commitment to freedom, but maintains that humans are far too complex to make bold claims. He also characterized his work in linguistics as "Pre-Galilean".

[Theodore Kurita]

Yeah, I tried to change the thread title to Noam Chomsky after I created this thread.

Anywho...

Excellent thread so far.

His works in linguistics is fascinating.

He does make really good arguments in Manufacturing Consent. The arguments he makes in his books are really good arguments.


The "Noble Savage" argument is still not gone yet.


From what I have discerned of him politically here is what I have so far on him.

He is an Anarcho-Communist, which means that....

He believes the best mode, and the most peaceful mode of production for humanity is for there to be no authority, and for all of us to be working in small communes for the greater good of society.

Not a bad idea, but, Anarcho-Communism is not a feasible type of government in this point of time.

Some capitalistic elements have to remain in society, and people must have representation, in order for society to work.


That is why I believe in Democratic Socialism is a good answer to both sides.

Anywho, back on Noam Chomsky.

As for linguistics... I don't know what to make of his theories at the moment.

So far, they seem extremely plausible.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The Anarcho-Capitalist system will never work. Many thinkers like Pinker and Diamond point out why.

Basically all that would happen is smaller government within the hegemony would form, and begin to dominate.

Also because of human nature. We naturally look after self-interest and are succeptible to nepotism.

For this reason any society without a government would turn simply into a de facto arrangment of social darwinist corporations and dynasties.

Also the fact is in any society built on the principle of reciprocal altruism, where altruistic and moralistic instincts evolve, there will always be a group of default cheaters to varying degrees. Without some organized authority that can detect and punish them, they will begin to proliferate more and more, becoming a larger part of the society. Or in the meantime, wreaking havoc.


Lastly, there is the issue of market mechanisms which simply cannot be controlled by a central body.

Basically the whole notion goes against human nature, and as such can only come about by mass repression. Given no government, cruel and xenophobic [i]de facto[i/] kin based/tribal arrangments become the norm. These groups are very cruel, violent and more then willing to pollute.

The only way Chomsky can get around this is if he presumes everyone, and I mean virtually everyone is born good and is corrupted later on by intensive, irregular means.

Something contradicted by the evidence.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000B3718-5941-1F03-BA6A80A84189EEDF&catID=2

[corplinx]

I am afraid the while he is a gifted linguistics instructors that perhaps ivory tower syndrome of working in american academia has turned him into a nutjob.

Simply put, Chomsky passes the BT crackpot test.

There are tons of movies distributed in bittorrents. Very few of them are documentaries/nonfiction. 99 percent of the non-Imax stuff is documentaries by crackpots. They are accompanied by endorsements like "find out whats really behind _____". In that sort of forum, chomsky's speeches (audio) and his videos are indistinguishable from such classics as:

CIA Exposed
The Fifth State
Collapse of Darwinism
The New World Order (audio/mp3/mustlisten!)
Art Bell shows

So along with these (and usually some Zionist conspiracy flicks) you usually see Manufacturing Consent (and if there is a forum its accompanied by a message like "the truth they dont want you to hear!!!!").

The american right have been beset by new world order black helicoptor crackpots for so long that I think the left must assume that being a crackpot must be mutually exclusive with being a leftist.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
As for linguistics... I don't know what to make of his theories at the moment.

So far, they seem extremely plausible.

That's the problem. They look good on paper, but when you try to apply them to real language, they don't quite work.

It's instructive to note that the only aspects of Chomsky's work that are still used in practice are the parts that weren't really original to him; mostly phrase-structured grammars, which were informally taught as "sentence parsing" going back a couple of hundred years. The transformational grammar is little more than a neat toy, as is affix hopping. The basic hypothesis behind the idea that this is the way humans work, that there is a deep structure that is transformed via TG into a surface structure, is totally unsupported by any evidence. It should have gone into the "nice idea, shame about the reality" box a long time ago.

Instead, the best evidence I've seen shows that language is a very approximate process and highly semantically driven. A decent approximation to some underlying structure would, I think, take the form of Fillmore's deep cases, which contains semantic information. specifically, the roles that objects play in an expression. Instead of surface cases like nominative, accusative, dative, ablative, etc. there are deep cases such as agent, patient, instrument, and so on. The process of turning this into a surface structure seems to be knowledge-based and heuristic with a lot of feedback; an utterance is filled in until it conveys the information that is desired according to the rules of the language. That is, the process requires thought and checking at every step and is not just a simple transformation from one structure to another.

[Cain]

Originally posted by corplinx
I am afraid the while he is a gifted linguistics instructors that perhaps ivory tower syndrome of working in american academia has turned him into a nutjob.

Simply put, Chomsky passes the BT crackpot test.

There are tons of movies distributed in bittorrents. Very few of them are documentaries/nonfiction. 99 percent of the non-Imax stuff is documentaries by crackpots. They are accompanied by endorsements like "find out whats really behind _____". In that sort of forum, chomsky's speeches (audio) and his videos are indistinguishable from such classics as:

CIA Exposed
The Fifth State
Collapse of Darwinism
The New World Order (audio/mp3/mustlisten!)
Art Bell shows

So along with these (and usually some Zionist conspiracy flicks) you usually see Manufacturing Consent (and if there is a forum its accompanied by a message like "the truth they dont want you to hear!!!!").

The american right have been beset by new world order black helicoptor crackpots for so long that I think the left must assume that being a crackpot must be mutually exclusive with being a leftist.

I have been remiss in putting up this week's GDFM (terrible cough), but it's a post like this that compels me to overcome illness in the interests of the greater good.

It's quite interesting that no one has yet actually said anything substantive about _Manufacturing Consent_.

[Cleopatra]

The fact that Chomsky introduced new theories and he tried to make us see things from a new perspective isn't what makes him exceptional.

Chomsky is exceptional because whether he is right or not he sees things universaly. He can't separate his thoeries on psychology or linguistics from his political stand. This is really rare.

All of us--ok-- some of us are whining that intellectuals live in their ivory tower and they do not interfere in the public affairs. Well, Chomsky took the risk to interfere in the public affairs, in my opinion he made mistakes in the way he handled things and Media but if he didn't make those mistakes he wouldn't be Chomsky.

Also, I have to tell you that to the eyes of many Europeans , Chomsky is the living proof that a thing as "American Intelligentia" exists. Please, don't take this last remark as a flame bait.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also, I have to tell you that to the eyes of many Europeans , Chomsky is the living proof that a thing as "American Intelligentia" exists. Please, don't take this last remark as a flame bait.

Cool, I should become an anti-capitalist socialist who is critical of Israel so that Europe will think I am an intellectual too.

Malachi151 is probably a god in europe.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain

It's quite interesting that no one has yet actually said anything substantive about _Manufacturing Consent_.

How about this. To me, the manufactured consent _seems_ to have substance in regards to the onslaught of Bosnia stories by the Turner networks. However, I was largely apathetic at the time about politics in general. However, I got the impression from the media that Gulf I was about oil, I got the impression that Clinton's actions in Iraq were scandal misdirection, I got the impression that the current Iraq action was a rogue operation done without international consent.

Where is the manufactured consent?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by corplinx
Malachi151 is probably a god in europe.

LOL Malachi would be definetely elected in the EuroParliament with the Eurocommunists.The vaguest a political speech is the better for the eurocommunists :)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


LOL Malachi would be definetely elected in the EuroParliament with the Eurocommunists.The vaguest a political speech is the better for the eurocommunists :)
Sarcasm - love it! :)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Sarcasm - love it! :)

Nope, that was a good-hearted joke :)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by specious_reasons

I don't know where my Chomsky books are, so I'll have to go on my admittedly faulty memory. But, I got the impression from reading the book was that all authority figures had certain right-wing ideologies that they acted on....and that action was required to keep the conspiracy afloat.... else the population would get wind of these nefarious plots and throw the bums out.

It just seemed implausible to me.


Without commenting either way on whether Chomsky's views are true, I stand by the point that your argument for rejecting them doesn't work.

In the Middle Ages, wouldn't it be correct(ish) to say that all authority figures had certain conservative ideologies that they acted on, and that action was required to keep the conspiracy afloat or else the population would rise up in, I don't know, a peasant's revolt or a French Revolution?

Since history is replete with societies that repressed their underclasses or repressed subject foreigners, systematically and at a grass roots level, it seems bizarre to say that it's inconceivable that it might be happening today because people aren't like that.


Even in your counter examples, there exist people from inside the "system" who chose not to believe in the core values, and there existed people who did not actively participate in the "system", yet the "system" persisted for long periods of time.

Like Chomsky, you mean? Or the various other reformers and whistleblowers in the modern world? In spite of whom the system persists (if you believe in Chomsky's claims, anyway).

I'm sure you get the point. These arguments do not discredit Chomsky's position. Other arguments might, of course.

Is it really inconceivable that, as some lefties argue, the WTO and the USA might oppress and exploit third world nations in more or less the way that England exploited India, America and its other colonies? It might be wrong, or half-wrong, but it certainly strikes me as something that could happen based on history and human nature.

[phildonnia]

Is it not possible that he is both a genius and a conspiracy nutcase? .. And that I have read his books? .. And that planet X is somehow involved?

[specious_reasons]

Sorry, Kevin. My primary criticism of Chomsky is not that the political systems he describes are horribly inaccurate (there are plenty of others on this board for that), it's that the extremity of the position he holds.

It's easy for people to dismiss him as a crackpot.

Man, I really wish I could find the book. It would make this a more valuable discussion.

The conclusion I drew from reading Chomsky was that he believes that all authority figures were acting in strict adherence to certain ideologies. I, personally, found it more reasonable to assume that instead requiring everyone to adhere to the ideology, that "those in power" could simply tweak the "system" to make it more favorable to them.

In other words, tweak the "system" so that desired behavior is positively reinforced,and other behavior is negatively reinforced.

The other criticism is that I don't think it's required that such tweaking and positive reinforcement needs to be part of a master plan. We don't need grand conspiracy theories when simple greed works just fine to produce the same result.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Since history is replete with societies that repressed their underclasses or repressed subject foreigners, systematically and at a grass roots level, it seems bizarre to say that it's inconceivable that it might be happening today because people aren't like that.

There are a lot of negatives in that sentence. I'll just say that conspiracies of that order are

1) Implausible, because people are stupid.
2) Unnecessary, because people are stupid.

To expand, conspiracy theories require people who are doing the conspiring to get along. But people are stupid, and people are piggy. Everyone's looking out for Number One.

They also assume that the conspired-against have no complicity. But they're stupid and piggy, too.

Concerning this, there are two basic views of humanity, the George Orwell version and the Rod Searling version. I find the Rod Searling version much more convincing. Do not underestimate the ability of people to paint themselves into a corner of their own volition.

[Cain]

Originally posted by corplinx


How about this. To me, the manufactured consent _seems_ to have substance in regards to the onslaught of Bosnia stories by the Turner networks. However, I was largely apathetic at the time about politics in general. However, I got the impression from the media that Gulf I was about oil, I got the impression that Clinton's actions in Iraq were scandal misdirection, I got the impression that the current Iraq action was a rogue operation done without international consent.

Where is the manufactured consent?

Then you don't understand anything about Chomsky's critique of the media. It deals more with the agreed assumptions and framework in which issues are dealt with (and what's *not* dealt with at all). He also believes that the manufacturing of consent does not mean getting the entire population to believe the same thing. There are segments, and he distinguishes between, broadly speaking, the top 20% of the population -- professionals, relatively affluent, college educated, leaders of the community -- and the bottom 80% (Joe six-pack in the documentary).

Polls consistently showed that 50% of the U.S. population believes Saddam is involved in 9/11, despite any evidence. Does that mean the media consciously linked Saddam to the Sept. atrocities?

The first post outlines the methodology of comparing similar atrocities: by formal enemies versus those committed by client states.

Now again -- for what, the fourth time -- can someone -- anyone -- produce anything specific (particularly on the topic of the media) where Chomsky's views can appropriately be characterized -- and glibly dismissed -- as mere conspiracy theorizing?

Bunch of f*cking monkeys.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by corplinx


How about this. To me, the manufactured consent _seems_ to have substance in regards to the onslaught of Bosnia stories by the Turner networks. However, I was largely apathetic at the time about politics in general. However, I got the impression from the media that Gulf I was about oil, I got the impression that Clinton's actions in Iraq were scandal misdirection, I got the impression that the current Iraq action was a rogue operation done without international consent.

Where is the manufactured consent?

For cripes sake, have you read his da**ed books or not...

Sheesh.

Here is a link to a place where you can get your own copy of Manufacturing Consent. From there, criticize the evidence he presents all you want after reading it.

Book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375714499/qid=1071703319//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-1745360-8586417?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

DVD:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005Y726/qid=1071703319//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl74/002-1745360-8586417?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846



Here is a link that has all of the books written by him:


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/39RSV3YNOAPYT/qid=1071703319/sr=5-2/ref=sr_5_2/002-1745360-858641

[corplinx]

Here is another question, if I read manufacturing consent will I become and elitist who goes around cursing with astericks censoring their words claiming others "dont get it"? ;)

Seriously, I will head to the kook section of the bittorrent sites and get manufacturing consent and check it out.

[Troll]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel


That's not my understanding, perhaps I was incorrect.
I read many variations of " He should stick with what he knows", meaning that a man with a genius lable has less right to express opinion ( however right or wrong ) on things politic , then the normal folks on this forum who represent ( most of the time ) a level of discorse and invective more demonstritive of recess at Our Lady of Perpetual Strife H.S. then an intellictually driven interchange of ideas.

edit to add: the general tenor of the thread ( aside from being accusatory) of the experts view is a worthy standard.
If I want legal advice, I go to a Lawyer, if I want moral advivice , I go to a priest. I would not seek out Einstein's opinion on hair styles nor Mr. Moore's or Mr.Limbaug's opinion on politics....I think You get my point

Perhaps that's not your understanding from the other's posts, but I, as a critic made myself known as to why. I've not seen much of anything concerning his life or actions ( I do hold actions in higher regard than mere words) in the political arena. I mean no offense, but he may as well be Sean Penn or Bruce Willis when it comes to speaking with authority on the subject.

[corplinx]

Alright, so I have downloaded and started up "manufacturing consent". It starts out with a kooky looking logo for something called "necessary illusions". My Art Bell radar is going off bigtime.

After a brief montage I see "part one" followed by "thought control in a democratic soceity". Ughhhh. This has woo written all over it, I hope it isn't what it appears to be.

[corplinx]

This is great, it starts out setting up Chomsky. "we are talking with well-known intellectual Noam Chomsky".

This is the same sort of tactic Richard Hoagland uses in immediately setting up a fallacy of authority for the marks in the crowd.

Alright, I am editing to add that the next bit sets him up as "the most important intellectual alive".

[corplinx]

Great, I haven't even cleared 10 minutes yet and Chomsky has already setup criticism of himself as proof that he is right (the part where he talks about the NYT criticism of himself).

[corplinx]

Great, more lauding of Chomsky himself and even showing him in a room with Jean Piaget but with no telling of why he was there or what for. I guess I'm supposed to be impressed by this connection and assume Piaget would support Chomsky's views?

[corplinx]

Yet another reference to Chomsky as an "intellectual" by someone else in the film. This guy seems like a cheap martial arts instructor who gives himself the title "master". Master isn't a job or a role, so when someone presents themselves as a master its hard to dispute that they aren't (versus a title like black belt). However, it gives you a preconception of what that person is like.

the martial arts "master" you would imagine is highly skilled at martial arts

the "intellectual" you imagine is some form of prolific genius

The nice thing about such vague titles is that even if the person fits the title, there is no metric to gauge if they are good at it.

In other words, if the media distorts the news in a predictable way, make a list of 100 predictions and lets see what your score is instead of building up for 30 minutes of your boring movie with acclaim for yourself and talking about the elites controlling the masses.

[corplinx]

At 25 minutes in we get the gyst of this, the elites are trying to marginalize Joe Twelve-Pack through propaganda!

The presentation of this is very us vs. them by the way. If it weren't for 20 minutes of credentials he would sound just like another crackpot on Art Bell.

Seriously, the black helicopter guys believe this same stuff except they aren't socialists.

[corplinx]

Okay, I couldn't take the part about his humble roots and fast forwarded to a part where he is talking "elites". And..... jeez folks, this is your hero?

[corplinx]

at 2:37 in the movie, they go through a stack of "philosopher all star cards"

chomsky is the last card after they thumb past voltaire, martin luther king, ghandi, rousseau, etc

2:40
Chomsky
"the driving force of modern industrialized society is material gain"
"its long been understood that a society based on this principle will destroy itself in time"

THE MAN IS A GENIUS!!!!

[corplinx]

Did I mention they show a media connection chart just like kooks love to do? Then they list the big corporations that own the majority of the mass media. Now, this is the sort of propaganda he pretends to be against. If you look at economic theory there is nothing spectacular at about the ownership rates and the number of companies at the time this movie was made.



Alright, I am sick of this garbage. If you want to pretend to be an intellectual like Chomsky and believe you are in on something Joe-Sixpack isn't aware of and that people like me don't get it, thats fine. All it means is that you are as self-delusional as the kooks who believe in the New World Order, the Rothschild's, the World Bank, the Trilateral Commission, and other conspiracies except since your theory is from a socialist MIT "intellectual" that means you can't be just like those other marks out there.

Get a life people.

[corplinx]

One more thing, I watched some more of the video. This guy is really slick. Unlike other kooks, he knows where to draw the line. Most conspiracies center around a group or groups. Freemasons, Jews, Bilderbergs, Rotary Club, whatever. Chomsky is smart enough to basically espouse such a cabal theory without actually saying enough to pin it to him. He talks about "elites" this, "elites that", and he leads you by the nose to cabal theory but stops short of making it so easy to dismiss him like you would a New World Order kook.

Indeed, Chomsky may not be an intellectual but he is certainly smarter than the average crackpot. I get the feeling he isn't really a crackpot himself from watching him but merely espouses these points of view in the hope of encouraging a revolt against western capitalism. I get the feeling he really wants to supplant it with socialism/marxism under his anarcho-stupidbuzzword label and just sees these theories and the willing marks as a means to an end.

Its sorta like a faith healer. If the healing is baloney, when is he doing it? For the money. In chomsky's case, he wants a quasi-marxist state (he may steer clear of that label but if it looks like a duck and quacks like duck.......).

Perhaps I am wrong about him not believing this crap himself, but that makes him just another mark. And of course, we all know he is an intellectual from the number of times he is referred to as such.

[Cleopatra]

This turned out to be one of the most pleasant and smart threads I have ever read in this forum...

[Cain]

At 10:46 you're 25 minutes into the film.

Then you fast forward "over his childhood" and by 10:58 you're, what, 2 and a half hours into the film?

This is something kooks and woo-woos do. That is, not paying attention.

Over the course of ten posts, all of which are rather stupid, you never once submit any type of criticism on the content of the film.

This is something kooks and woo-woos do.

The rest of it is just really bad ad hominem. I believe in the film, an interviewer repeats that oft-quoted line from the NYTIMES -- "arguably the most important intellectual alive..." -- and Chomsky corrects him to include the next sentence.

You then offer this mischaracterization:

Great, I haven't even cleared 10 minutes yet and Chomsky has already setup criticism of himself as proof that he is right (the part where he talks about the NYT criticism of himself).

Oh, Chomksy does this? Why don't you go into greater detail as to how or where this is said or implied?

This is something kooks and woo-woos do.

This is great, it starts out setting up Chomsky. "we are talking with well-known intellectual Noam Chomsky".

This is the same sort of tactic Richard Hoagland uses in immediately setting up a fallacy of authority for the marks in the crowd.

There's one small problem: Chomsky *is* a well-known intellectual. He's also apparently widely misunderstood.

Did I mention they show a media connection chart just like kooks love to do? Then they list the big corporations that own the majority of the mass media.

Omigod- they show a connection chart. We all know THAT tactic is used by the kooks. And listing the big corporations. Nope, they can't fool you.

Now, this is the sort of propaganda he pretends to be against. If you look at economic theory there is nothing spectacular at about the ownership rates and the number of companies at the time this movie was made.

Interesting. Well, actually, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. Anyway, if they updated the film today, that list would be much, much smaller. The issue of corporate ownership (in contemporary America) was first really emphasized by media critic Ben Bagdikian in _The Media Monopoly_.

Its sorta like a faith healer. If the healing is baloney, when is he doing it? For the money. In chomsky's case, he wants a quasi-marxist state (he may steer clear of that label but if it looks like a duck and quacks like duck.......).

http://www.micruscorp.com/images/headache.jpg

[corplinx]

If anyone wants to see the Manufactuing Consent video, pm me and I will send you a link. Warning: this video is more boring than "My Dinner with Andre"

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain

At 10:46 you're 25 minutes into the film. Ntw,

The rest of it is just really bad ad hominem. I believe in the film, an interviewer repeats that oft-quoted line from the NYTIMES -- "arguably the most important intellectual alive..." -- and Chomsky corrects him to include the next sentence.


Oh no, puddin got his feewins hurt that I brushed off his widdle idol.

I did watch the first 25 minutes straight. Personally, they could have lopped it off to make it shorter. From the later parts I am viewing, the first half hour doesn't seem to set up the rest. If they wanted to introduce Chomsky, I am sure a 5 minute segment would have been fine. I watched the video for the ideas, but I had to go through 30 minutes of brainwashing first to get there.

As for the NYT quote, he explains that the quote is orignally from the times but then goes on to say that the review is critical of him and quotes another sentence. He then explains this sort of criticism away as punishment for him revealing the truth about the media.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain

Interesting. Well, actually, I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. Anyway, if they updated the film today, that list would be much, much smaller.

Yes, because the elites are conglomerating even further to strangle out voices of dissent like Noam Chomsky! Muhahaha. See, see, its proof Chomsky is right!

[Cain]

Oh no, puddin got his feewins hurt that I brushed off his widdle idol.

Yes, you have collected such seering criticisms that I've never ever heard before.

As for the NYT quote, he explains that the quote is orignally from the times but then goes on to say that the review is critical of him and quotes another sentence. He then explains this sort of criticism away as punishment for him revealing the truth about the media.

Here's a suggestion. Instead of taking the time to compose (I use the word loosely) a dozen idiotic posts, why don't you quote the entire the exhcange if you find it particularly damning.

Yes, because the elites are conglomerating even further to strangle out voices of dissent like Noam Chomsky! Muhahaha. See, see, its proof Chomsky is right!

Who says that? Shouldn't this thread be re-titled "Corplinx debates reality"?

Or maybe -- just maybe -- people oppose massive conglomeration of news and information because it threatens democracy by limiting view points. Oh, but others bent on implementing a "quasi-marxist state" like William Safire and the NRA (though they don't say so) also oppose media concentration.

You're basically a Goddamn ****ing Moron.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by corplinx
Okay, I couldn't take the part about his humble roots and fast forwarded to a part where he is talking "elites". And..... jeez folks, this is your hero?

Who are you talking to? Who said Chomsky was their hero?

So, after around a dozen posts, your most profound criticisms are:

It says Chomsky is an intellectual too many times and he uses some ownership charts (which you do not and most likely cannot dispute as to accuracy).

Oh ya, you shot him right down. :rolleyes:

All you did was make me want to see Manufacturing Consent, because you look like such a moron in trying to make it look bad.

Your actual criticism in regards to what Chomsky says is basically zero, which says a lot about you, really.

Adam

[JamesM]

Some of you may find the following Media Lens (http://www.medialens.org) exchanges, involving Johann Hari and Noam Chomsky interesting:

Media Friendly Bombs - Part 1: Western Benevolence, Johann Hari And "Us" (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/031119_Western_Benevolence.HTM)
Johann Hari responds - Part 1 (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/031203_Johann_Hari_1.HTM)
Noam Chomsky responds to Johann Hari (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2003/031204_Johann_Hari_2.HTM)

The rest of you may find it really, really, annoying. But it does touch on several forum favourites: Iraq, military intervention, the media, the alleged hypocrisy of the left and Noam Chomsky.

Media Lens are big fans of the Manufacturing Consent model of media control. If you want to get an idea of how it works - with not a conspiracy theory in sight - I highly recommend checking out a few of their media alerts, although it's focused entirely on the liberal/left mainstream British papers, which you may find a little parochial if you're not from the UK.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain


Or maybe -- just maybe -- people oppose massive conglomeration of news and information because it threatens democracy by limiting view points.


Rubbish, point out any metric on news coverage that proves your point. One scrap of evidence that the media reads off the same page consistently.

Look, I was having fun with Chomsky's steaming turd of a video but if you want to get nasty I'll steer it back to you.

Show me the evidence that conglomeration has limited the viewpoints available.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


Your actual criticism in regards to what Chomsky says is basically zero, which says a lot about you, really.

Adam

Chomsky says what every black helicoptor website I've seen says about the media. That the corporate media is beholden to elites and tries to oppress the masses through distortion.

The only difference I see is that Chomsky is a collegiate socialist and the NWO kooks are your pro-gun free market types.

[Cain]

When a media company buys up a lot of other news comapnies, they can fire more people and centralize the production of information and then other radio and television stations and newspapers run those stories. Look at what Gannett-Rider has done in the past, or what Clear Channel is doing right now. Why do you think the NRA opposed the recent FCC ruling?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Cain
When a media company buys up a lot of other news comapnies, they can fire more people and centralize the production of information and then other radio and television stations and newspapers run those stories. Look at what Gannett-Rider has done in the past, or what Clear Channel is doing right now. Why do you think the NRA opposed the recent FCC ruling?

Look, frankly media conglomeration scares me as much as the next guy. Its a very sinister sounding thing. However, I have no trouble finding alternative viewpoints including Chomsky's own.

There seem to be two camps on bias in the media. Group A believes the media is biased because of who reports the news. Group B believes the media is biased because of the owners. I think both positions are too generalized to apply to the media as a whole and work better anecdotaly.

[TillEulenspiegel]

CAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quotes by corpselinx (sic) :

Show me the evidence that conglomeration has limited the viewpoints available.

The only difference I see is that Chomsky is a collegiate socialist and the NWO kooks are your pro-gun free market types.

Look, frankly media conglomeration scares me as much as the next guy.

O! man, tell me You take nominations for your fukhed o' the month ( altho you should consider an anal ...err anual award)

[digitalmcq]

Alright, I haven't read the entire thread so I'm sorry if someone else already said this:

Chomsky neither produced nor endorsed the film 'Manufacturing Consent'. According to interviews, he has never even seen the movie. If you're going to criticize someone then you need to criticize the Canadian Broadcasting Company.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by digitalmcq
Alright, I haven't read the entire thread so I'm sorry if someone else already said this:

Chomsky neither produced nor endorsed the film 'Manufacturing Consent'. According to interviews, he has never even seen the movie. If you're going to criticize someone then you need to criticize the Canadian Broadcasting Company.

The video said it was a "necessary illusions production" at the beginning. I assumed that had something to do with him since he has a book of similar name.

My bad if he is totally unconnected to the film.

[corplinx]

By the way, the main reason I goofed on the video was just to be jackass. I am helping seed the bittorrent of the file so that other people can download it. 5 people on the forum asked me for the download link so maybe they can add their 2 cents when they see it.

[Cain]

Alright, I haven't read the entire thread so I'm sorry if someone else already said this:

Chomsky neither produced nor endorsed the film 'Manufacturing Consent'. According to interviews, he has never even seen the movie. If you're going to criticize someone then you need to criticize the Canadian Broadcasting Company.

I utterly failed to mention this, even though it was stored away somewhere in my brain. Also, many people forget that Ed Herman is the lead author on _Manufacturing Consent_ and he has other books on the media. Chomsky discusses the media quite extensively, but I think it's an extension of his critique of U.S. foreign policy.

There seem to be two camps on bias in the media. Group A believes the media is biased because of who reports the news. Group B believes the media is biased because of the owners. I think both positions are too generalized to apply to the media as a whole and work better anecdotaly.

The propaganda model outlined in _MC_ consists of five "filters". I won't run down the line (because I'm tired and sick... and sick n' tired), but one of them is corporate ownership. I believe Chomsky has said Herman felt more strongly of the two about this. Another one is "experts", where they come from, who they are etc. Jeff Greenfield's interview in the documentary is important here. The last filter was communism, and Chomsky said he objected to that as well, but now the justification for military intervention, the narrative we understand world affairs, is in the context of a war on terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism.


O! man, tell me You take nominations for your fukhed o' the month ( altho you should consider an anal ...err anual award)

I should.

[Theodore Kurita]

Bumped for obvious reasons.

The sig flame war among others