
Still Manufacturing Consent: An Interview with Noam Chomsky - zachguo
https://fair.org/home/still-manufacturing-consent-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky/
======
thundergolfer
Among people familiar with the book, "Has the propaganda model been
invalidated by the social media media giants?" is a regular question.
Chomsky's initial reply is most of what needs to be said. Information
production is a vital part of the media industry and the landscape of
information producers by volume is more or less the same as it was back then —
dominated by state institutions and corporations. It was so interesting to
read that section in _Manufacturing Consent_ ; the hard numbers really helped
get a proper sense of the scale imbalances in information production.

The marking out of the symbiotic relationship between reliable information
producers and journalists is also vital to understanding the media system. A
reliable, centralised stream of new information content is the life blood of
journalism organisations, with a strong emphasis on _reliable_ and
_centralised_. This particular need that journalists have sees them often
becoming dependent on state institutions and corporations at the expense of
minority groups and labor. An example being the journalists 'on the beat' that
used to hang out around the local courthouse because that's where the 'feeding
trough' is. Or the reports so nicely formatted and condensed produced by the
state departments such that journos merely have to copy-paste the information
straight into their papers. Easy-peasy.

Fascinating book.

~~~
rstuart4133
> the landscape of information producers by volume is more or less the same as
> it was back then

It's not quite the same. Before fact checking anything took an impossible
amount of time and not a few resources - a very good library for a start. Now,
or even a decade ago it suddenly became possible for everyone.

I vividly remember when the Iraq was announced, and you could see the
"information producers" in full swing. I was amazed when my local radio
station announcer, well known for his resistance for being bullshitted asked
someone he was interviewing in a disbelieving voice if they didn't agree Iraq
had weapons of mass destruction.

The point being that by then I had already done my own homework (we were going
to war, my fellow citizens were going to be killed and I wanted to know why),
and knew full well Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The reports and
opinions of the UN weapons inspectors was easily available on the internet,
along with numerous dumbed down pieces from the mass media. Anyone willing to
waste a few hours could easily get past the propaganda smokescreen. Yet this
news interviewer who up until then I assumed to be a master of his craft had
been pulled in hook, line and sinker.

It changed the message in Chomsky's books from an interesting theoretical
discussion to distressingly real. But it also created another puzzle: why
didn't the Internet fix it? Why didn't people immediately put this bullshit
filter to good use?

I still don't know the answer. There have now been numerous studies into the
phenomenon of people continuing to loudly defend bullshit despite the facts
being easily available in just about anywhere you look (cue: climate change).
Apparently it has to do with people preferring to signal they are part of a
particular tribe over acting in their best interest. Or something. I guess
I'll never understand, as they aren't people like me.

~~~
thundergolfer
Not that I disagree with what you've said, but I put "producers by volume" in
there. Thus talking about fact-checking isn't really a counterpoint.

Did changes in fact-checking change the proportion of information produced by
state and corporate actors?

------
A4ET8a8uTh0
I find it beyond fascinating that Chomsky is effectively barred from appearing
on any news network. His perspective is that dangerous to the status quo and,
amusingly, supports his points about media control.

~~~
littlestymaar
Is he actually “barred”? Or he just don't go there? I remind him talking[1]
about TV and radio, and how it was structurally[2] impossible to hold non-
mainstream views there, so he wasn't really interested going.

[1] in _On Anarchism_.

[2] he said it was because the mandatory _conciseness_ when talking live.

~~~
hindsightbias
He used to appear on PBS news shows in decades past. News Hour is now the
epitome of “there are only two sides”.

Chomsky can be seen on RT every now and then.

Of course, today’s woke equate RT as only propaganda while they consume
whatever media they watch without question.

[https://rtd.rt.com/shows/conversation-with/chomsky-correa-
ta...](https://rtd.rt.com/shows/conversation-with/chomsky-correa-talk-us/)

~~~
WizardAustralis
He also appears on Democracy Now! occasionally. That it takes a listner/viewer
funded station to get this stuff out is interesting.

RT can be propaganda in intent but I do like that they are at least showing a
very different point of view to the majority of mass media. That Chris Hedge
gets a weekly program would never happen on most other networks nowadays.

Watch it, take it in but don't take it too seriously. Treat it as stuff to be
contemplated in its context.

~~~
solaarphunk
The questions that RT talking heads ask are so laced with Kremlin engineered
bias that it makes Fox News look borderline academic.

~~~
zo1
If you only see certain points in "western" media, then it could be easy to
think that all other points are "Kremlin engineered bias". How about instead
you just look at the points themselves and what the speaker says, and make
your own conclusions whilst having a bit of an open mind.

------
denzil_correa
Here's a nice 1h documentary on "Engineering Consent" focusing on Edward
Bernays (pioneer of PR and propaganda).

[https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/071470-000-A/propaganda-
engine...](https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/071470-000-A/propaganda-engineering-
consent/)

~~~
mistrial9
"cannot be viewed from your current location" (California?)

A (related?) four-part video series on this topic is called 'Century of the
Self' and might be found out there somewhere

~~~
hnick
I highly recommend this, I found it on YouTube easily last time. It seemed to
be a recording of the TV screen but picture quality wasn't too important for
the subject.

------
tsimionescu
Of all of Chomsky's positions that I have read, the propaganda model is the
hardest to doubt - it seems almost unassailable. Are there any convincing
criticisms of it?

~~~
hash872
It's been about 15 years since I read Manufacturing Consent, but- the weak
version of his thesis is fine, sure. An NBCUniversal media property, say, is
probably not going to report critically on something that NBCUniversal has a
financial stake in.

The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple,
though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and
the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical
interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the
military or the US government. This, um, doesn't track reality.

While it's easy for me to just dismiss this obviously incorrect hypothesis as
'dumb' (which it is), I think on a deeper level Chomsky is influenced by Marx
who was influenced by other 18-19th century philosophers like Hegel. Who used
extremely, overly broad handwavey concepts like Elites or The Powerful as part
of their totally academic, abstract, philosophical explanation for How Society
Works. As someone who read a bunch of Chomsky books when I was 20 years old-
part of his worldview is that nothing happens by accident, but every major
moment in history is part of a Hegelian Battle Between Forces (like elites vs.
the working class or something). It's still a childishly unrealistic way of
looking at how society actually functions, but it comes from a super super
abstract philosopher's worldview where he can handwave Big Business/the
Military/the Government as one unit with identical interests. If that makes
sense at all. Sort of reminds me of ancient philosophers theorizing about how
physics or medicine works without conducting any empirical tests whatsoever

~~~
nerdponx
_The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple,
though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and
the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical
interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the
military or the US government. This, um, doesn 't track reality._

Is that really his thesis?

It seems to me that it's more about how _incentives for all these
organizations are aligned_ towards those same interests. Only the very "top"
of the power pyramid needs to be deliberately trying to manufacture consent;
everyone else falls into line because of the incentives set up by those one
level of power above.

~~~
hash872
But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support
'those at the top'. Empirical observation over abstract philosophizing,
please. Society is much more complex & interesting than Chomsky imagines, with
many more nuances. Even the actual federal government and military have many
competing factions with different interests, different goals, etc.

It's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level
of analysis. I don't think it's particularly deep or interesting, and I read a
great deal of Chomsky back in the day

~~~
Supermancho
> (there are) incentives for all these organizations are aligned towards those
> same interests.

> But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support
> 'those at the top'.

That isn't the same thing. I'm not sure how you connect these. This is better
illustrated in specific countries, where the incentives are fierce and
immediate. You still see dissent there too, but that's not relevant to the
point ("I don't see it all the time so it's not true", missing the point).

~~~
hash872
The thesis of the book is that mass media acts or editorializes on behalf of
the powerful in society- not just that their 'incentives are aligned'. The
book is about the specific actions that media companies supposedly take. So,
pointing out all of the times that mass media has acted orthogonally to
powerful interests in society (publishing the Pentagon Papers, publishing the
Snowden revelations, the current run of publishing ultra-critical pieces about
tech companies, etc.) would be relevant counter-examples.

Zooming out slightly, handwaving everyone who's wealthy or powerful in the US
into 'elites' that are sort of one fused organic unit with identical interests
is just bad, sloppy thinking, sorry. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the
military, Fortune 500 corporations, Hollywood, New York/DC-media companies,
Ivy League universities- they're all 'elites' and they are competing, at times
hostile power centers to each other. I don't take any analysis that smushes
them into 'elites' or 'the 1%' or whatever seriously. (For example, the 'mass
media' that Chomsky handwaves- a more precise description would be New York/DC
media moguls- is actively hostile to Silicon Valley these days. Many of these
power centers actively compete. His categories are absurdly broad)

~~~
ehmish
Currently the elites are fighting and not one united front against the non-
elites (the rise of tech created a new elite group that wasn't dependent on
the existing elites to exist), bit that doesn't mean one side won't either
eventually win, or broker a truce in order to go on managing the masses for
corporate gain.

~~~
tsimionescu
But even now, how are the elites not united in most goals? Are the new tech
elite pro workers rights? Are they for radical action to stop global warming?
Are they anti-monopoly? Are they pro corporate taxation? Are they anti-
interventionist?

There may be in-fighting between the elites, but that does not mean that these
groups are not still aligned on most broad topics. Teh same has always been
true for democrats VS Republicans. They do care who gets to be in power, and
will fight tooth-and-nail for that, but neither will do anything that would
hurt the elites in general.

------
mc32
Manufactured consent can be similar to fabrication. But, it cuts both ways.
People think of this manufacture as big gov or big biz pushing their agenda
trough their lapdog media. But the same process happens with social causes.
Let’s say vegetarianism or the anti-fur movement (very few people would
disagree with the latter), but this took manufactured consent to achieve. The
same with environmental and social causes. People don’t just wake up and
change their minds. These opinions are filtered down to them.

~~~
justin66
> Let’s say vegetarianism or the anti-fur movement (very few people would
> disagree with the latter), but this took manufactured consent to achieve.

The concept of "consent" as it's used in _Manufacturing Consent_ does not
apply to those movements at all. It means more than "some people agree with
_x_ because of information that was presented to them."

~~~
mc32
I think it does. These movements start out small but have vocal sympathizers
who have some kind of gravitas via popularity or due to some other
characteristic people grant some “authority”. Then media carry water for it,
etc.

The mechanism is exactly the same. If the media didn’t carry the message and
others wouldn’t grab in to that, it wouldn’t happen.

Why aren’t social causes not as prevalent in China? Because the media is
controlled. Lots of feminists in CN lament that they are not allowed to
influence people. And it’s true. The gov will not allow subversion of their
power no matter how just a cause is. It will only happen on their terms.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's a very unusual view that equates a spontaneous shift towards
vegetarianism in the face of corporate lobbying and advertising on behalf of
the meat industries with an institutional refusal to question Israel's nuclear
arsenal.

~~~
mc32
Except that shift isn’t spontaneous. Someone has to propose it, someone has to
promote it, someone has to popularize it, etc.

Manufacturing consent isn’t by default bad. Manufacturing convent to built
pubic transit, manufacturing consent to have people vaccinated, etc., in the
face of other interests is still manufacturing consent.

~~~
pytester
>Except that shift isn’t spontaneous. Someone has to propose it, someone has
to promote it, someone has to popularize it, etc.

The mechanism is different though. We didn't just wake up one day and start
hearing multiple coherent media voices that vegetarianism is the way forward.
We did have precisely that for the Iraq war.

~~~
mc32
It’s just slower. But there is an interest and there is a promoter, people
selling books, talking on air, in movies, talked about by teachers, elevated
by kids’s shows, etc. It’s more diffuse and immersive, thus, it’s even more
effective because people rarely notice it. It has parallels to refined state
propaganda.

Iraq war-like talk basically is the poorman’s version of ideal propaganda.

~~~
pytester
It's not just slower and there is no "promoter" that is filtering down news in
the same way with talking points dictated to media. There is a wide variety of
views being spread in a far more grass roots fashion.

"Propaganda" isn't just an attempt to convince somebody of something. Writing
a book advancing a viewpoint isn't automatically propaganda.

------
schalab
I love how people are worried about the far right in these comments but not on
the impact of propaganda on themselves.

This recent Kurds vs Turkey is an example of this.

The left usually hates war. Why? If you break down to the lowest level, it
looks like the current left is mainly dominated by the maternal instinct. In
every issue they divide the world into child vs predator. And they always come
down on the side protecting the weak child.

You can see this across a number of social, economic and geo poilitical
issues.

In terms of war, they look at it as America's selfish predatory instincts
preying upon innocent parties in the middle east leading to countless lives
lost of the weak.

So how do you get people who think like this to support war?

Simple. Invent a weak, childlike ally in the middle of the war zone, who are
being attacked by a notorious hateful predator, and we would be abandoning
them if we dont put our troops in harms way.

So, you rebrand the american troop presence as honorable protection rather
than predatory intervention. Thats all it takes to manufacture consent.

~~~
shantly
I'm (USA) left on just about any position you care to mention, and am worried
more by the Kurd/Turkey thing's apparent ineptness and failure to fit any
foreign policy plan whatsoever. Bumbling incompetence is less appealing to me
than either well-executed, cold realpolitik, or failed but well-meaning
attempts at actual moral leadership. It's about as bad as it gets, short of
outright evil for evil's sake.

I also don't think it'd be inconsistent to oppose going into various wars in
the Middle East, while also opposing recklessly withdrawing once we'd stuck
our noses in already.

~~~
nitwit005
Yep, the lack of any plan is usually the issue. Often it's not even clear
there is a goal.

The New York Times was recently criticizing Trump on the basis of him having
reduced US influence due to his recent actions. I was a bit confused by that
claim, as I wasn't sure what we needed the influence for. The previous stated
goal was "defeating ISIS", which largely already happened. I have no real idea
what the current goal was supposed to be.

~~~
shantly
Oh, yeah, to be clear I think that, given public information (you never know
what secret crap's going on, same for Trump's moves, so we have to work with
what we know), intervening in Syria to begin with—by which I mean encouraging
and supplying the rebels, not the later anti-ISIS actions—was a massive
humanitarian and geopolitical disaster, possibly a bigger blunder than (though
related to) the invasion of Iraq, even, and I think that shouldn't have been
too hard to predict from the start, not just an obvious-in-hindsight thing.
It's a big part of why I don't hold Obama's (or Hillary's) actions on foreign
policy in very high regard, to put it mildly.

------
bhntr3
This article is from June. I've generally been a bit skeptical of Noam
Chomsky's politics but this interaction seems prophetic given the current
situation in Syria and makes me think that I should give "Manufacturing
Consent" some attention:

>But as Patrick Cockburn pointed out in the Independent, what is happening in
Afrin is about the same.

> AM: Happening where, sorry?

> NC: Afrin. Turkish forces and their allies are carrying out the attack in a
> mostly Kurdish area. Patrick Cockburn has covered it, but almost nobody
> else.

Doing some research on it, the articles I read in the Washington Post
([https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/11/who-are-
kurd...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/11/who-are-kurds-why-is-
turkey-attacking-them/)) said that the Turkish offensive was "days old" while
the Independent article Chomsky references
([https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-afrin-crisis-
turk...](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-afrin-crisis-turkish-
forces-civilians-deaths-eastern-ghouta-assad-a8247206.html)) attributes a
death toll of 220 to Turkey in March 2018.

------
k1m
The 1992 documentary film based on Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent
book is also worth watching
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE)

------
sudoaza
How is it that this guy still has no Nobel Prize?

~~~
cyborgx7
Because of political bias. Just look at the introduction of the (fake) Nobel
Prize for economics. It exists purely to legitimize a neoliberal economic
ideology. Awarding Chomsky a Nobel Prize would undermine that goal.

~~~
taffer
The idea that awarding a prize to the most respected scientists in a
particular field is solely for the purpose of advancing an ideology is in
itself extremely anti-intellectual and biased. Have you even looked at the
work of the scientists who received the prize?

~~~
jhbadger
It's hardly "anti-intellectual" to note that unlike the actual prizes funded
by Nobel over a century ago, the economics "Nobel" was created by the Swedish
Central Bank only 50 years ago. That's not exactly an unbiased source. If
there was no chemistry prize and Dow Chemical or Bayer stepped in to create
one, it wouldn't be anywhere as respected as the actual Chemistry Nobel, would
it?

~~~
taffer
The anti-intellectual part was to claim that the awarding of prizes to
prominent scientists only served to promote a certain ideology. It is like
saying that the Nobel Prize for Medicine would exist only to promote orthodox
medicine.

> If there was no chemistry prize and Dow Chemical or Bayer stepped in to
> create one, it wouldn't be anywhere as respected as the actual Chemistry
> Nobel, would it?

The Nobel Prize was created by the owner of a Swedish chemical and weapons
company. I don't see what's so great about it.

And as for the Swedish Central Bank, I think Paul Krugman hit the nail on the
head: _Oh, and cue the usual complaints that this isn’t a “real” Nobel. Hey,
this is just a prize given by a bunch of Swedes, as opposed to the other
prizes, which are given out by, um, bunches of Swedes._

~~~
hedvig
I think its still fair to say that economics is not a science the way medicine
is.

~~~
morningseagulls
>I think its still fair to say that economics is not a science the way
medicine is.

Which is very unfortunate, because like medicine, the practice of economics
has the power to influence decisions and affect lives.

------
freeflight
I consider myself a rather well-informed person, but this is the first time
I've read about Harris Media involvement in the last German election and I'm
German. All I can remember is indeed the "Russian interference" and how the
AfD is supposedly financed out of Russia.

But that Bloomberg Businessweek article [0] unearths some scary details:

“We took that 300,000 (AfD likes), and Facebook created a model of them and
used their lookalike audiences to find the closest 1 percent of German people
to match that audience,”

That "1 percent" sounds extremely familiar, particularly in a far-right
context [1] It makes me wonder who originally came up with that concept, was
it Harris Media or was it the idea of their client, the AfD?

[0] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the-
germa...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the-german-far-
right-finds-friends-through-facebook)

[1]
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Prozent_f%C3%BCr_unser_Lan...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Prozent_f%C3%BCr_unser_Land)

~~~
spangry
Why do you find this story scary? It seems like a sensible way for a political
party to get votes: profile your current supporters, find other people who fit
that profile, convince those people to vote for you too.

As for Russian interference, the article you linked to says this: "The Russian
meddling that German state security had been anticipating apparently never
materialized. Instead, the foreign influence came from America."

~~~
tempguy9999
> It seems like a sensible way for a political party to get votes

Democracy was about educated voters, I thought. If you find this acceptable,
we're on different planets. Perhaps ask a German about slippery political
slopes? Or live long enough and find yourself in the middle of one.

> the article you linked to says this: "The Russian meddling that German state
> security had been anticipating apparently never materialized. Instead, the
> foreign influence came from America."

It also says "While the Russian episode involved ads bought under false
identities by people with Kremlin ties" which you must have seen if you'd
searched for 'russia'. How this statement links with the one you found, I
don't know.

~~~
spangry
If you read the sentence before the one you very selectively quoted, or even
just completed the very sentence you quoted, it becomes clear the sentence is
talking about the US presidential election, not the German one: "That’s a
paltry sum for Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, who finds himself in the
greatest crisis of his career over the company’s role in Russia’s meddling
with the U.S. election. While the Russian episode involved ads bought under
false identities by people with Kremlin ties, the AfD campaign was completely
different—the party literally walked through Facebook’s front door and
introduced itself, a strategy Harris Media intends to repeat."

~~~
tempguy9999
I messed up, thanks for catching it. My mistake. Upvoted.

------
codeulike
Noam Chomsky is 91. Holy crap.

My favourite Chomsky thing is the very short shrift he gives to conspiracy
theorists.

e.g. Rethinking Camelot, his book about JFK - [https://zcomm.org/wp-
content/uploads/zbooks/htdocs/chomsky/r...](https://zcomm.org/wp-
content/uploads/zbooks/htdocs/chomsky/rc/rc-contents.html) \- the thesis being
that JFK was really no different to any other president at that time - the
idea he was radical being a kindof post-hoc reconstruction - and hence there
was absolutely no reason for anyone to want to bump him off.

 _A methodological point is perhaps worth mention. Suppose that we were to
concoct a theory about historical events at random, while permitting ourselves
to assume arbitrary forms of deceit and falsification. Then in the vast
documentary record, we are sure to find scattered hints and other debris that
could be made to conform to the theory, while counter-evidence is nullified.
By that method, one can "prove" virtually anything. For example, we can prove
that JFK never intended to withdraw any troops, citing the elusiveness of NSAM
263 and his unwillingness to commit himself to the withdrawal recommended by
his war managers. Or we can prove that the attempt to assassinate Reagan was
carried out by dark forces (Alexander Haig, the CIA, etc.). After all, Reagan
had backed away from using US forces directly in Central America (unlike JFK
in Vietnam); he was cozying up to the Chicoms; he had already given
intimations of the anti-nuclear passion that led him to offer to give away the
store at Rejkjavik and to join forces with the arch-fiend Gorbachev, whose
perestroika was a transparent plot to entrap us; his associates were planning
off-the-shelf international operations, bypassing intelligence and the
Pentagon. Obviously, he has to go. Or suppose there had been an attempt to
assassinate LBJ in late 1964, when he was refusing the call of the military to
stand up to the Commies in Vietnam, pursuing Great Society and civil rights
programs with a zeal well beyond Kennedy, and about to defeat a real
alternative, Barry Goldwater. Nothing is easier than to construct a high-level
conspiracy to get rid of this "radical reformer." The task is only facilitated
by a search for nuances and variations of phrasing in the mountains of
documents, usually committee jobs put together hastily with many compromises.

This is not the way to learn about the world._

~~~
zzzcpan
These days people can call you a conspiracy theorist for the very things
Chomsky stands behind.

~~~
seamyb88
You can get easily downvoted on HN for saying the very things Chomsky stands
behind. Happens me all the time.

~~~
cambalache
Yep, for all the love of entrepreneurship and social justice, this site can be
very conformist and pro-establishment,especially in economic/international
matters.

That by the way this is my conspiracy theory, somehow in the last 20 years or
so the focus of social movements changed from socio-economic and international
inequalities, to gender-sexual orientation. Pretty convenient for the people
in power. A me-too is 100 times easier to manage and even get advantage from
compared to an occupy wall street.

You now see companies from P&G to Disney getting in the diverity wagon (purely
for advertising reasons). For sure you wont see them advocating for better
wages,work conditions or tax rules.

------
yakovsi
Genuine question, why does he say NYT and WaPo present "center to far right
opinion"? C'mon. How NYT is far right?

~~~
nickik
Because he is a full on Communist. Its not that hard to understand.

~~~
fit2rule
By what measure is he, or indeed anyone really, a "full on Communist"? I have
always believed there have never been any real ones.

~~~
everybodyknows
Sure there were -- thousands died fighting Franco, in Spain. See George
Orwell's _Homage to Catalonia_ , or Whitaker Chambers' _Witness_.

------
dls2016
It's funny/sad that there's even a term for when reporters venture outside of
the confines of their pen: investigative journalism.

~~~
josho
The thesis of Manufacturing Consent is that even investigative journalism
doesn't venture outside of certain acceptable norms.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
Would be great if the video was available.

------
Shivetya
I do find it interesting that while he talks about frameworks from within
media conveys the story they present, a property of the government they work
and live under, he seems overly concerned with large corporations having too
much power of influence.

Well, sorry, but the same has been true about governments for too long. For
too long they controlled the message and some of them are doing their damn
best to not lose that control. Whether but authoritarian methods as used in
China to coercion of public opinion in Western countries that government needs
to step in and protect people from the message they don't control and therefor
is not true.

This is not to say that very large organizations like Facebook or Google are
not a concern but to highlight the hypocrisy that does not call out the
various governments who are worse regardless of what method they use to
control speech and money

~~~
streb-lo
Dictatorships notwithstanding, in a real democracy, voters are the check on
that power. The problem is that, in the USA, money has been allowed to become
directly correlated with voter share and the tail wags the dog.

~~~
dnautics
> money has been allowed to become directly correlated with voter share

This is demonstrably false, most vividly exemplified by the current president
who raised far less than his competitor. In the United States, when there is a
race with no incumbents, the winner is anticorrelated with the one who raised
the most.

~~~
streb-lo
Money buys far more than campaign and PAC ads.

Money buys newspapers, TV stations, etc. The fact that it can also buy
unlimited amounts of direct advertising is just plain gross.

~~~
8note
calling into TV news shows also gets you unlimited direct advertising, which
Trump showed is highly effective

------
MarkMc
I'd agree that Noam Chomsky's linguistic contribution is of the highest order,
but I'm not so sure about his political analysis. Here are his comments in
1977 regarding the reported genocide in Cambodia [1]: "We do not pretend to
know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments;
rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through
to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence
available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or
ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that
Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the
Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or
scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."

And on the veracity of reports about horrific slaughter made by Cambodian
refugees: "Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien
forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters
wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and
caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or
Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian
revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take
into account."

Did Chomsky show poor judgement by discounting such refugee reports? Was the
evidence of genocide really so muddy in 1977 that you could not 'know where
the truth lies'?

[1]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20131207072650/http://www.abc.ne...](https://web.archive.org/web/20131207072650/http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html)

[2] [https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-Incognita-Chomsky-and-
the-...](https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-Incognita-Chomsky-and-the-myth-of-
instant-expertise-514661)

~~~
Synaesthesia
He says his statements made in 1977 were qualified, and the best he had with
the scholarship available. Since then he’s criticized the Cambodian Khmer
Rouge as genocidal. It’s a forgivable mistake considering his political &
historical output, which is very significant.

------
tony12356
哈哈233333

------
YeGoblynQueenne
>> Note: The day after this interview took place, the Sun, Britain’s largest
newspaper by circulation, ran with the front-page headline, “Putin’s Puppet:
Corbyn Refuses to Blast Russia on Spy Attack,” as the leader of the Labour
Party did not unreservedly endorse sanctions on Russia.

I've noticed this sort of thing and it just doesn't make sense. The UK press
(not just the tabloids) loves to present Corby as simultaneously a "Red" and a
"Putin's puppet". How does that work? Putin is not a communist. He's probably
as far as it's possible to be from being a communist without being a
Stalinist.

Corby is clearly a leftie, so what's his affiliation to Putin supposed to be?
Why is the British press _still_ associating Russia to communism? They missed
the memo in 1989?

(Ask me for refs on the press calling Corby a commie if you are curious).

~~~
Synaesthesia
It’s Russiaphobia gone mad. Yeah just like when Trump withdrew troops from
northern Syria and gave the ok to Turkey to invade, the media in the US said
it would please Syria and Russia (!)

Like, why would Syria and their ally be happy about a loss of Syrian
territory?

~~~
pavlov
Imagine you're a tinpot dictator. A corner of your country is home to a
stubborn group of people who were there before you ever appointed yourself
President for life. They feel no allegiance to you and would like to create an
independent nation-state. Unfortunately for you, they're supported by the
world's most powerful military.

One day the commander-in-chief of that powerful military decides to pull out
his troops so that his friend — another tinpot dictator like you — can invade
the land of those stubborn people. You find this development quite pleasing
because the stubborn ones you've long been hoping to wipe out have lost their
only ally, and you'd much rather fight your neighbor dictator than the world's
most powerful military. Besides, an old friend of yours has promised to lend a
hand there as soon as the powerful military is out of the picture.

~~~
Synaesthesia
Right now the Syrian army is saving the Kurds from the Turks. Syrians and
Kurds have historically gotten along much better than the Turks, who have
savagely attacked the Kurds in their own country and are now doing so in
Syria.

------
edoo
The latest CNN veritas videos are eye opening. Chomsky is still dead on as far
as I can tell.

~~~
ianleeclark
It's deeply disturbing anyone would still give credence to Veritas or O'keefe
after nearly decades of selective editing and outright false allegations. How
quickly we've forgotten their WaPo scandal.

~~~
swebs
It was hidden camera footage from a whistle blower who worked at CNN.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4)

~~~
ianleeclark
Oh, it was camera footage, so we can automatically trust it despite the fact
that the project doing it is inherently untrustworthy:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-
approa...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-
the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-
part-of-undercover-sting-
operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html) and
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-
dont...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont-see-in-
okeefe-video-may-be-as-important-as-what-you-
do/2017/06/28/dcb67446-5b7c-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html)

Deep fakes are going to rock your world.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
_(deleted my original comment, because I think this thread is a more suitable
place to reply)_

> _Oh, it was camera footage, so we can automatically trust it despite the
> fact that the project doing it is inherently untrustworthy_.

Agree.

I was interested in fringe politics as a social phenomenon and I've been
following it for a year or two.

I now see CNN as a media outlet largely serving their interest groups. But see
RT, Project Veritas, etc., as "second-order propaganda" serving their
respective interest groups by selectively "exposing" targets for their
political utility, not because they care about truth, it's half-truth, half-
falsehoold. Meanwhile, the accusations of the mainstream media are made
against them, not because they care about truth, but because their existence
damaged the mainstream's own interest. It's all biases vs. biases all the way
down.

If someone spends enough time and effort while maintaining rationality, it's
possible to extract a great deal of useful information from the sum of all
these propaganda. I think it's what open-source intelligence is largely about.

But I don't want to waste time doing this. Nowadays, I view many things in
politics as mere talking points without make judgements, and get most of my
news from Hacker News (which is, of course, heavily biased towards the Silicon
Valley).

> _Deep fakes are going to rock your world._

Definitely.

I think most (internet-savvy) people will eventually learn it and ignore
things like that.

In _Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG_ (second season of the TV animation),
one group of politicians for their personal interests within the government,
has launched a conspiracy to intensify a military conflict (against the
refugee uprising) that involves nuclear weapon. The protagonists from Section
9, a national security agency that operates independent from the executive,
saw the truth from the satellite footage, had the following dialogue.

> "How do we stop it? Can we post the video footage online?"

> "No. Video footage nowadays is seen as completely unreliable to this day."

Since most video footage "exposure" themselves are propaganda or hoaxes.

Released in 2000s, it portrayed and predicted our world remarkably well, and
it'll give you a lot of inspirations of what would the future society look
like.

~~~
starfallg
>> "No. Video footage nowadays is seen as completely unreliable to this day."

>Since most video footage "exposure" themselves are propaganda or hoaxes.

>Released in 2000s, it portrayed and predicted our world remarkably well, and
it'll give you a lot of inspirations of what would the future society look
like.

I think the current situation is a bit more severe than what was portrayed
there. It's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing.
All evidence is interpreted through the eyes of tribalism first and foremost,
while truth is relegated to the back, because how information is disseminated
now exploits our natural behavioural patterns in a negative way. That is the
core of the rot in our great age of "(dis)information".

~~~
segfaultbuserr
Great comment.

> _It 's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing._

Why not both? It's a mixed bag.

Unreliability can be one problem. For example, "quoting one's words" is a
common type of political videos on YouTube, they're mainly a few-second or
few-minute of video segments that quote someone's words, and makes a point
about it. Some of these videos are mostly reliable, but some other videos
intentionally remove the relevant context and mislead the viewers to draw
another conclusion. Because of the existence of misleading videos, my first
response to any of them is distrust until it's proven reliable. The same
principle applies to expressing a statement of something by a politician - is
it true or is it misleading rhetoric?

This is why fact-checking becomes more and more popular. But the issue of
reliability is greater than objective facts, you can fact-check data but you
cannot fact-check the framing or context. As technology marches on, the issue
of unreliability will become greater, e.g. DeepFake.

Unconvincing can be another issue. For example, some activists have been
warned us about mass surveillance for a decade based on reliable evidence.

Both work together.

~~~
jonhohle
When the fact checkers have the same bias as the original authors, what point
is there? Without penalty of perjury or some other penalty the loudest voices
will control the “facts”.

~~~
segfaultbuserr
Yes. I've read your US gun range footage comment.

Perhaps a potential solution would be: full freedom of speech, but less
freedom of the press, e.g. you can post whatever you want online until someone
sues you, just like today, but media outlets should not be allowed to do the
same without facing consequences.

