Noam Chomsky's Role as a Media & Political Commentator

Noam Chomsky is a zeolot. He may be a brilliant linguist but he is by no means a revered poltical scientist, note he releases popular novels on the subject, not academic papers. The only reason he is so massivly popular is because of his extreme views.He in no way represents a political or intelectual consensus on the issues he speaks out about. And if you are attempting to claim he sees some sort of parrallel in the level of control over speech - straight from the horses mouth "In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations" In the same quote he continues to say it has the most free speech too (something that is beyond contention in many ways). Clearly this indicates that not even he believes there is a similiar level of control in the media.

He is an activist when it comes to politics, he himself admits that. More he is a radical activist. People seem to think that because he is also an accomplished academic (in a different field) means his arguments bear much more authority.

Yes, Arab and Iranian media is far more controlled than Western media. They make no efforts to hide it, merely justify it in various ways.

Again, you can make vague references to books you have read that "prove" media is controled in the West to a massive degree, but Im afraid that is far far from actually proving anything of the sort, much less drawing a comparison between the two.


Way to keep the thread on topic anyway . . .

RichieC wrote: »

Haha, like anyone in their right mind would listen to professional nobody Paul Bogdanor...

why he lowered himself to this guys level I'll never know, but here's his reply: http://jim.com/ChomskyReply.htm

What a comprehensive rebuke. He 'lowered' himself because he's trying to cover his tripe from being exposed. If it was so absurd then why would he even bother? Fraud

http://jim.com/chomsdis.htm

geeman wrote: »

Pros: For me, He offers hope.

Why?

His family lived through the holocaust and know the difference between right and wrong.

What a very odd thing to say.

Technically every Jew alive today has/had family who 'lived through the holocaust' - and a large percentage of them have family who were directly affected by the holocaust.

'Knowing the difference between right and wrong' - well you've lost me on this part.


I'll just point out to you that there are millions of Jews across the world, who hold an infinite amount of different views on different subjects (you know, like every other human on the planet). I don't understand the need for this 'Look at this Jew, he's a good'un!' tone to your post.

Alot of people treat Jews like some untouchable, mysterious, single-minded organisation - they are like any other person ffs.

So please take your rate-a-Jew shit elsewhere.

Channel Zero wrote: »

There's more here



Yawn.

Just look at the type of people who are criticising him. Neocon shills like Horowitz and Islamophobic militant athiest zealots like Sam Harris. What does that tell you?

Ad hominem much?

Channel Zero wrote: »

There's more here



Yawn.

Just look at the type of people who are criticising him. Neocon shills like Horowitz and Islamophobic militant athiest zealots like Sam Harris. What does that tell you?

It's funny because Chomsky is their counterpart on the other side of the spectrum, every bit as entrenced in his views. Also, it doesn't mater in the slightest who is criticizing him as long as they can back up the criticism with facts.

Despite the fact that many of his rebuttals are based on his distorted view of the facts presented, the article is rubbished from the outset when he tries to squirm out of the fact that Chomsky deliberately misleads people to further his agenda.

OK, so the first thing that needs to be kept in mind when addressing Chomsky's 200 supposed lies is this. What is a lie? If someone disagrees with me, does that mean they are lying? Obviously not. What if they rely on a source and that source turns out to be wrong. Is that a lie? I think it's pretty obvious that it is not.

What if someone makes an error? Does that mean they lied? What if they won't admit their error? That's not a lie. It could be a character defect.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Are you serious?



There is dozens more comments like this that you've made if you want?

I didnt ask for a thread in which you and another CTer ignored reems of evidence and links by various people (including me) again and again. But thanks for reminding me why I dont engage with your sort.


I remember very clearly in the exact same thread later linking to a study by which it was found people of South West asian ethnicity (the vast majority of which are pakistani and therefore Muslim) were far more likely to be involved in sexual violence. Indeed, I gave quotes from the head of the Muslim Council in Britain who admitted it was a massive problem. Hence, no doubt why you chose to engage with it elsewhere, and not where your points had already been proved to have no merit.

Nice "selective" quoting btw. Is this how you usually read statements made by other people? Sure explains a whole lot.


You could have tried to argue it had more to do with culture or poverty, instead you chose to ignore it. As you did with every other piece of evidence I brdought up in that thread.

Unfortunatly for you, however, the misogony is so prevalent and so unchallenged in the community that they feel comfortable proudly claiming that rape inside marriage is "impossible". The laws in various Islamic countries reflect this "impossibiity".

I am not looking for the same links again, you will merely ignore it (again) and bring it up (again) in a few months time as though it has not already been dealt with. Given your position on basically everything it seems this is par for course when it comes to you and reality.


Which is why I chose to stop debating with you and still hold that position, on any issue in every thread.

If you want to continue that debate knock yourself out and post in that thread again, everyone who reads it can then easily find the various posts in which I gave the facts and figures which proved my ascertians correct and clearly see that your ascertian - that Islam is a religion of peace - was based on nothing more than you being more comfortable with that position.

Im well aware of the CTer "strategy" of ignoring evidence provided, and asking for it again and again untill the person who is giving the evidence no longer bothers engaging.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Sorry, was referring to the other slightly more famous Sam Harris. The writer.





Which this Bogdanor fellow has failed spectactularly in doing. It's a poor attempt at a hatchet job.
He and God knows how many of his little helpers trawl back through the mountain of material that is Chomsky's published work, speeches, interviews etc for the last half century or so, and they come up with that. Must try harder.



That's your opinion and you're entitled to speculate of course. It seems safe to say you generally don't agree with his views; fair enough.
I'll be treating your "fact" that he deliberately misleads as just your opinion until such time as you provide examples to back that contention up.

Now i'm not saying that Chomsky was never wrong, biased or misinformed on facts and figures, or anything of the sort, but you don't get to be one of the most respected and quoted intellectuals in history without being right and/or credible quite a good bit of the time. And, despite whether people agree with him or not, that's why he has gained such respect from many shades of the political spectrum.
It's mostly the extremists from wherever and establishment interests who have it in for him.
He's despised in all the right places it seems.

My point was not that the ad hominum may or may not be insulting, my point is that it is a basic logical fallacy that proves nothing beyond your dislike.

He is a respected LINGUIST.

His position on politics is popular because he is so radical. He is unchallanged by the vast majority of mainstream thinking not because his thesis is so beyond reproach, but because his work is commercial - not academic.

You will notice to that hollow earth theorists are not the target of massive groups of geologists. This does not lend their theories more credence.

If you want to argue that Western media is massivly controled, start a new thread and make your point. Dont make the point " I Read this book that says it is so!"

SamHarris.

You seem to launch repeated ad Hominems against Mr. Chomsky throughout this thread yet you have provided little evidence to support your sweeping generalisations.

I think perhaps you may be missing the point. It's not that Western Media is controlled and we should be comparing it to Saudi Media which is even more controlled or Pakistani media where journalists routinely lose their lives for asking the wrong questions.

It's simply, that we are not AS free as we think we are. And the media's lack of freedom and honesty plays a big role in the weakness of the ideas of Western democracy.

I too despair at the state of Western democracy and the failure of our media outlets to help us to maintain a true democracy as opposed to the plutocracy/oligarchy into which we seem to have fallen.

It's important and correct to point this out because we should not be trying to compare ourselves to Saudi Arabia because that is not the direction we want to be going. We want and believe in democracy and that is what we must fight to conserve and strengthen and I believe Mr. Chomsky plays a vital role in the same.

It's easy to dismiss him as a radical without actually directly addressing the meat of his arguments and the reasoning by which he arrives at his conclusions. Though I'll confess I have not read the work being discussed in this thread or a LOT of his other writings apart from various articles I'm come across over time.