Appalling Guardian hatchet-job on Chomsky

[pilchardman]

Don't give up the day job..

I promise not to, if you try to be less arrogant and condescending.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

You don't think media distortions of historical events should be challenged then?

waste of time doing so in the Guardian , indeed, it is the legitimacy given this publication by many on the Left that allows it (in the time honoured phrase) to more effectively police the paramaters of acceptable political dissent. For the converse of Guardianophilia is that if something Left/radical isn't featured in the Guardian, then it isn't happening/doesn't really matter.

Additionally: I have a long record of challenging media distortions of historical events, including those perpetrated by the Guardian itself.

 

[gurrier]

Well signing a letter which described Diane Johnstone's drivel as an "outstanding work" is a start - if he praised David Irving's blitherings in the same way I'd say likewise

Wow, a one-line regurgitation of the two-word context free quote about a body of work that you clearly know nothing about, combined with a completely ridiculous comparison. That's my mind made up so.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Larry mate, you spend far too much time denouncing people and publications who aren't your enemy.

Emma Brockes on the other hand. Smug trash in a hurry.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Larry mate, you spend far too much time denouncing people and publications who aren't your enemy.

Emma Brockes on the other hand. Smug trash in a hurry.

To be perfectly honest, I do see the Guardian as an enemy.

 

[pilchardman]

I have a long record of challenging media distortions of historical events, including those perpetrated by the Guardian itself.

Did you finally realise?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

To be perfectly honest, I do see the Guardian as an enemy.

Yeah, I know. If that's your standard Laz, you're going to have an awful lot of enemies.

 

[pilchardman]

To be perfectly honest, I do see the Guardian as an enemy.

See. The thing is, so do many people on this thread. But rather than think that might be a possibility, you decided to get their backs up.

 

[dylanredefined]

So what would people recommend to read about chomsky to counter this
interview ?

 

[pilchardman]

So what would people recommend to read about chomsky to counter this
interview ?

Is that to me, or Larry? Or Donna?

 

[catch]

waste of time doing so in the Guardian , indeed, it is the legitimacy given this publication by many on the Left that allows it (in the time honoured phrase) to more effectively police the paramaters of acceptable political dissent. For the converse of Guardianophilia is that if something Left/radical isn't featured in the Guardian, then it isn't happening/doesn't really matter.

Additionally: I have a long record of challenging media distortions of historical events, including those perpetrated by the Guardian itself.

So instead of writing letters to the editor that (if published) will be read by the same people as read the original article, we should simply rant about capitalist newspapers in our own media that almost none of those people will ever see? I think independently produced media is important, but I'm even less interested in reading stuff about the Guardian than I am the Guardian itself.

You've been on this site from some time, I'm surprised you've not spotted the near universal hatred for the Guardian that exists here (at least in P&P).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

, I'm surprised you've not spotted the near universal hatred for the Guardian that exists here (at least in P&P).

A rather important qualification in brackets there.

 

[neilh]

Yeah, I know. If that's your standard Laz, you're going to have an awful lot of enemies.

i dunno, i think the press/mainstream media in general would be high up in a lot of folks lists of enemies, and wouldn't necesarrily mean you were enemies wi most folk; i really dont see where you're getting this from.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

writing letters to the editor that (if published) will be read by the same people as read the original article.

Certain letters will not be published, from those the Guardian deems outside the parameters of acceptable dissent, & in any event even if published will give the paper legitimacy.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

i dunno, i think the press/mainstream media in general would be high up in a lot of folks lists of enemies, and wouldn't necesarrily mean you were enemies wi most folk; i really dont see where you're getting this from.

I think it's a splendid idea to differentiate those who are relentless hostile to you (i.e. your enemies) from those who are sceptical, or indifferent, or sometimes hostile. Because otherwise, y'see, you just end up with pracitcally everybody on the other side of the barricades.

 

[dylanredefined]

Anyone who can suggest something to read other than that interview.
As I said before apart from that interview I know nothing about him

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Anyone who can suggest something to read other than that interview.
As I said before apart from that interview I know nothing about him

He's got a website, hasn't he?

 

[catch]

& in any event even if published will give the paper legitimacy.

How?

Genuine question by the way. I'm aware that there are certain ideological frontiers that they won't go past (quite narrow ones), but that doesn't mean showing their columnists up as being ill-informed twats confers legitimacy.

 

[neilh]

I think it's a splendid idea to differentiate those who are relentless hostile to you (i.e. your enemies) from those who are sceptical, or indifferent, or sometimes hostile. Because otherwise, y'see, you just end up with pracitcally everybody on the other side of the barricades.

sometimes it's the ones who seem not to be enemies who can do the most harm. and i think even with every part of the mainstream media, all government agencies and all big corporations as enemies, you'd still be a long long way from having "practically everybody" on the other side of the barricades.

 

[rednblack]

What gibberish do you prefer?

he's a distributionist

 

[Larry O'Hara]

How?

Genuine question by the way. I'm aware that there are certain ideological frontiers that they won't go past (quite narrow ones), but that doesn't mean showing their columnists up as being ill-informed twats confers legitimacy.

By showing that all radical views get represented, even if only on the letters page. I can think of two Left groups off the top of my head totally Guardian-obssessed--the SWP for one, who even suggested once the paper be picketed because they'd sacked Mark Steel (?), & the RCG, whose leader Yaffe cribs much of his economic analysis from the Guardian & exults over appearances in the letters page for weeks afterwards. Truly pathetic, both of them.

Then of course there is the transmission belt between 'alternative' news outlets & the Guardian, often facilitated by cash, I have heard from reliable sources. Which mightn't matter, except for the fact that when push comes to punch, the Guardian (as in May-Days gone by) sides with the political police against radicals.

 

[siarc]

the guardian is ideologically congruous with adolf hitler
it's infiltrated by the SIS who impregnate its inks with dna mutating amino acids extracted from genetically modified goats and ferrets
its readership, whilst not eating placenta and feta cheese tempura as a sop to their warped multicultural condescensions, consistently have been shown to eat the very babies from whom the placentae were stolen
and they're all cunts

 

[kasheem]

he's a distributionist

Translate: I once asked a question about distributionism.

 

[shandy]

I think it's a splendid idea to differentiate those who are relentless hostile to you (i.e. your enemies) from those who are sceptical, or indifferent, or sometimes hostile. Because otherwise, y'see, you just end up with pracitcally everybody on the other side of the barricades.

As a self-professed left-winger, who do you see as actually on your side??

(Genuine question, not being a snidey cunt.)

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Translate: I once asked a question about distributionism.

was that how its spelt: should be Distributism.

 

[kasheem]

the guardian is ideologically congruous with adolf hitler
it's infiltrated by the SIS who impregnate its inks with dna mutating amino acids extracted from genetically modified goats and ferrets
its readership, whilst not eating placenta and feta cheese tempura as a sop to their warped multicultural condescensions, consistently have been shown to eat the very babies from whom the placentae were stolen
and they're all cunts
Reply With Quote

I don't know what you're talking about but lol.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

the guardian is ideologically congruous with adolf hitler
it's infiltrated by the SIS who impregnate its inks with dna mutating amino acids extracted from genetically modified goats and ferrets
its readership, whilst not eating placenta and feta cheese tempura as a sop to their warped multicultural condescensions, consistently have been shown to eat the very babies from whom the placentae were stolen
and they're all cunts

I think you're confusing it with the Observer aren't you?

 

[pilchardman]

Anyone who can suggest something to read other than that interview.
As I said before apart from that interview I know nothing about him

Dylan, mate. If you're a complete novice, check out the Chomsky Reader. It's old now, but it's got a wide scope of topics. And has an interview at the beginning. Then read Manufacturing Consent, by Herman and Chomsky. It lays out the Propaganda Model, and is worth reading in the context of the US media. Although it can be argued that it doesn't apply so much to the BBC (as indeed Larry mentions above).

 

[kasheem]

The Guardian is OK is you stay away from the 'analysis' and 'commentary' sections.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

The Guardian is OK is you stay away from the 'analysis' and 'commentary' sections.

--and the news/sport/culture sections. The finance pages are a bit dodgy too...