/lit/ - Literature

manufacture of consent. and leave it at that.

Keeping it that way.

something on linguistics. i consider myself to be progressive but chomsky's a disgrace.

Read Howard Zinn instead. Or Chomsk'ys linguistic work.

>>420990
Reading Zinn instead.

Hegemony or Survival.

>Chomsky
Avoid, or approach with caution. His political stuff is complete bullshit.

>>421022
>Historian
>Reading Zinn
lolwut?

Manufacturing Consent was interesting.

I haven't read any of his linguistic stuff.

Ruppert Murdoch-educated retards ITT

>>421013
In my experience, people who call themselves progressives are pretentious faggots who read in Starbucks to look smart.

>>421047
Do you ask them "Why are you reading?"

Political Economy of Human Rights, Hegemony or Survival
>>420998
>>421013
>>421028
butthurt Dems and crazy Jingoists

>>421070

>>421070
>butthurt Dems and crazy Jingoists
is that how middle class guevara fanboy teens call everybody else?

I consider myself a huge liberal, and I liked Zinn and Chomsky in high school, but I can't even make it through a chapter of chomsky anymore without wanting to throw the book across the room. It's hardly even connected to reality. I hate that phrase 'blame america first crowd', but holy shit, Chomsky blames -everything- on the US. While pretty much flat out assuming that all the rest of the world wants is to represent their poor farmers and peasants and live in peace. Which would be swell, but any small knowledge of history, let alone current events would tell you that that's obviously doubtful.

Plus he says that the entire reason for the media in the US is to feed the innocent working class propaganda. When the reality, as most network executives are happy to admit, is to make money. If Fox News thought they'd get a cozier deal backing the communist party, they'd probably do it.

Zinn isn't AS bad, but he's still damned simplistic. He views every historical conflict as the rich vs. the poor, with clearly delineated lines showing exactly who that is. Which in some cases is true, but most of the time is just woefully oversimplistic.

>>421047

Then quit going to Starbucks faggot.

>>421116
So, basicly, they're doing the same as American mainstream media and press?

that sounds fine to me. mao taught to do and teach the exact opposite of the reactionaries.

>>421123
I didn't phrase that super well. Chomsky basically thinks that all political arguments are -purposefully- pitched in a very narrow slice of opinions, which claims to be liberal <--> conservative, but is actually just The Man <--> The Man. Somehow all the government and business leaders get together, decide what's all in their best interest, and then send a memo down to all their journalists saying these are the opinions we want to write about. Or at least, will fire anybody who writes something standing up to 'The Man'. Honestly he's a little vague about the particulars.

What's much closer to reality is that writers are on a deadline, and it's a hell of a lot easier to write a story 'Obama says kittens good, but Republicans say puppies better'. It's got nothing to do with keeping hamsters out of the media, it's just lazy writers who need to hit their deadline and get on with their jobs.

Same deal with hard-hitting investigative journalism. Chomsky thinks The Man is blocking journalists. The truth is that while it IS important, it rarely gets good ratings, and is way more expensive.

tl;dr: Chomsky says the media wants to make you stupid. In reality, the media just does good business - which is stories for stupid people.

"Seeds of Change" - John Joseph Adams
"Siddhartha" - Hermann Hesse
"Bless Me,Ultima" - Rudolfo A. Anaya
"Beyond Evolution" - Dr. Michael J. Fox
"Cry, The Beloved Country" - Alan Paton

to name a few..

"Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with this.

You know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laughter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on."

I DON'T WATCH SPORTS SO I'M A FREE THINKER. x400 pages

>>421184
Can you think of a sane reason for us to watch sports instead of, you know, actually doing something productive on our own?

>>421184
sorry I'm samefagging a lot here, but that's my whole problem with Chomsky. Anything he disapproves of is stuff that's being forced on the working man, who would rise up for equality _if only he knew better_. He seems thinks of himself as a defender of the proletariat, yet with an overweening sense of superiority over whose interests he claims to defend.

>>421196
Sure, cuz it's fun.
And you're on 4chan, so don't even try to play the 'more productive use of our time' card.

>>421201
I think his point is, Why do we find so much fun in the success or failures of others when we have no influence on the result? It's group think obedience at its height.

>>421211

surely appreciating the training and athleticism of the participants in said sporting events/competitions is nothing worth mentioning

>>421218

Most people support the teams of their city, not whoever the best athletes are. Pretty much nobody hopes the "best" team will win--they want their own team to win. Skill only matters as much as it amplifies the stakes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI

You might enjoy this, if you're curious about Chomsky's worldview. It's chomsky debating Buckley. I've never much liked William F. Buckley's opinions, but it's hard to not feel like he had a hell of a lot more class than Chomsky.

>>421232
oh yess I'm so going to watch this now

>>421225
there are different levels of athleticism among professionals. that doesn't mean the cleveland browns are shitty athletes, it just means they're not the best in the league.

if anyone could walk off the streets and do what they do, it wouldn't be worth watching

>>421241

I'm not sure how what you are saying is a counterpoint to what I've said

>>421211
But how does rooting for a sports team = group obedience? Not to mention all those sports which aren't even typically linked to home cities, like boxing or tennis, etc.

>>421247
it's a counterpoint as much as yours was to my initial statement. yeah, people are biased in the teams they cheer for, and i don't even know why this is being discussed. most people watch simply to be entertained, though i don't think that's a bad thing. there are things to appreciate in sports is all i was saying

>>421257

If it were truly about the athleticism, people would appreciate good play over their own team winning. When "we" outdo "them", that's the biggest part of the entertainment.

>>421032
given that you lot are mostly incapable of following academic history Zinn is fine, and superior to most of your other textbooks. Given that the OP is trolling with Chomsky I'm not exactly going to suggest Dubofsky

>>421268

that would be why i said that most people watch for very basic reasons. groupthink, entertainment, a reason to congregate with friends. i just don't see why it's a big issue. intelligent, free-thinking people watch sports too

>>421268
Huh? Most people I know aren't really rooting for a specific team. That's just the hardcore fans, who take their team losing as some sort of personal loss.

>>421272

I didn't say it was a big deal, just that athleticism wasn't the main draw

>>421273

What strange, foreign world do you live in? I would like to visit. I've never known anyone to watch sports without at least a nominal interest in a specific team.

Except during the Olympics, but even then they are the minority

>>421274
well then i agree. ultimately i was commenting on the passage about sports/indoctrination and how it's ridiculous

>>421268
By default I'll usually root for my home team, but I'm also usually happier seeing the other team win in an amazing, entertaining play, than a boring game where my team wins.

Anyway, weren't we talking about Chomsky or something?

>>421098
hardmode: post source and citation for his support for those regimes
protip: you can't

>>421107
the guy calling himself a progressive and Chomsky a disgrace is the butthurt Democrat, no doubt still believes in Obamas Hope & Change
The other two are just plain crazy nationalists who froth at the mouth when someone criticizes the USA

>>421158
>The Man
is a term from CIA-funded faux socialisms like that of the black panther's movement. Quote my beloved jewish bolshevik on the usage of the term before you throw your accusations. Else I daresay your highschooler self didn't understand shit of what it read.

>>421116
Sure is talking points here.
Where does Chomsky 'blame America'?
His criticism is leveled at the elites in charge, nothing to do with some abstract entity you have named America

>>421116
>Plus he says that the entire reason for the media in the US is to feed the innocent working class propaganda. When the reality, as most network executives are happy to admit, is to make money.
You read Chomsky but you're entirely ignorant of the Propaganda Model which lucidly explains the spin they present on news comes entirely from their profit motive.

>>421232
nothing classier than threatening to punch someone in the mouth

>>421287
>no doubt still believes in Obamas Hope & Change
i don't care for your presidents, i'm not even living there, but still he is a better alternative than was palin. chomsky is still a disgrace to the workingman's movement. he makes us look foolish and immature by writing for foolish and immature teens. same goes to howard zinn.
you don't have a left in the usa but still you've got a great deal of cultural influence over the world; thus you'll see folks in china and colombia reading zinn and chomsky, instead of, say, hobsbawm and sraffa. it's a shame they'll get their opinion about the left movement from blithering fools.

>>421158
that is the exact opposite of what Chomsky says, you are making up and attributing to him a Cabal theory.
You sir are lying.

When /new/ and /lit/ collide!

Did the Conservatives start bellowing about LIBRULS and College Hippies yet? I didn't read this gay-ass thread.

>>421293
>You read Chomsky but you're entirely ignorant of the Propaganda Model which lucidly explains the spin they present on news comes entirely from their profit motive.
no way! but what about the non-bourgeois press? you wouldn't say the Rheinische Zeitung had a "profit motive"(yuck!) in 1848, would you?

>>421311
media today =/= media 160 years ago

>>421306
not yet, they have posted that stupid cartoon panel though and there is a guy pretending to be a 'former Chomsky devotee' making up a lot of shit.

>>421306
i'd prefer a "conservative" over a "college hippie" anytime. being a trade unionist i have to deal with the latter far too often, sadly.

>>421301
Hobsbawm is a waste of time. Thomson, Hill, Rowbotham, Johnson-Forrest. Zinn is perfectly adequate for non-specialist sep undergrads. Chinese students would be better served reading the debates within eastern europe in the 1970s.

>>421320
oh, i see. so karl marx was wrong but today we have full-fledged bourgeois dictatorship, right?
so no Rheinische Zeitung would exist, and if it would it would spout Reactionary Socialism as does Democracy Now, am I right?

>>421322
and what does the college hippie do to a union?

>>421284
ho chi minh: in the interview posted in this very fucking thread. Also, "I don't accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this -- and I think we should -- we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified."

China - "I do think that China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.

Indeed, a recent article in the China Quarterly -- which is hardly a pro-Red Chinese journal -- compares Chinese and Russian communization to the very great credit of the Chinese communization, precisely for these reasons, pointing out that its greater success in achieving a relatively livable and to some extent just society was correlated with the fact that these methods involved much less terror. "

>>421325
Thompson damn this 12 key pad.

>>421328
the existence of Democracy Now is proof that the media isn't biased and the bias doesn't come from a need to make money?
Thats it, thats your evidence?

>>421158

haha you've never read Manufacturing Consent

>Chinese students would be better served reading the debates within eastern europe in the 1970s.
that debates? or those between the minesweeper's hatchets and the demostrators in Tbilisi? Maybe you're talking of the quite productive dialectic process between Leonid Brezhnev and Hafizullah Amin?

>>421330
No interview with Minh has been posted in this thread. Its not that bogus Radio Hanoi thing is it?
As for your quote, first of all NLF was the South Vietnamese resistence to the South American-style dictatorship the USA tried imposing, Dihm and his crew, and resting the South American-style counter insurgency they were carrying out. Thats nothing to do with the North.
Now how about comparing it to the compared to Philippines? Marcos was pretty hardcore you know, you'd prefer they live under that?

"mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step." =/= Mao
Also "much less terror"

Chomsky, 1977, "Distortions at Fourth Hand"

"Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing."

Manufacturing Content also argues that the Khmer Rouge prolly 'only' killed 200,000 people, and that the vast amount of the deaths were actually the fault of the US earlier in the decade.

>>421346
>Diem and his crew
d'oh

The NLF was supplied, trained and even provided with manpower by the North Vietnamese state and military. They were also the spiritual successor to the Viet-Minh which Ho Chi Minh founded and led.

To say there's no connection is a little goofy.

>>421346
Chomsky's never had any problems with specifically defending Ho Chi Minh and the 'excesses' of the North. As he is perfectly happy to do in the interview with Buckley that's been posted.

>>421306
lolbutthurt

>>421347
>"Space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, but such journals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the London Economist, the Melbourne Journal of Politics, and others elsewhere, have provided analyses by highly qualified specialists who have studied the full range of evidence available, and who concluded that executions have numbered at most in the thousands; that these were localized in areas of limited Khmer Rouge influence and unusual peasant discontent, where brutal revenge killings were aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from the American destruction and killing."
>Manufacturing Content also argues that the Khmer Rouge prolly 'only' killed 200,000 people, and that the vast amount of the deaths were actually the fault of the US earlier in the decade.
Prove those sources wrong.
The only source for the 2 million claim is a translation of a review of a French book. When Chomsky and Edward Herman got a hold of a copy of the book they found it had no such claims, it had to seperate figures: one for the the death toll of the American bombing and another for the aftermath which included the Khmer, these had been conflated.
And that is correct about the bombing American, "everything that flies on everything that moves" - Henry Kissinger ordering it, is responsible for some 500,000-800,000 or more deaths so how the hell can we criticize someone else?
And their main point in analysising Cambodia was to point out that while nothing could be done about it plenty could be done about a similar atrocity going on in the same region: East Timor. And nothing was ever done.
And at no time in any of this have I seen support for Khmer Rouge which was supposed to be he whole point wasn't it?
You don't even criticize or try to prove him wrong, you just trot out some seemingly shocking statements with the implication of how dare he say such things and its plainly wrong because hey this is the USA we're talking about.
You are a Commissar.

>>421343
As you'd know, the Czechoslovak movement emerged from within the CP itself, simultaneous to a movement within the lower levels of the TUs. Hungary in 1956 emerged from the CP and the lower levels of the TUs...

The discussions which occured on the Adriatic on how to transform state socialism from within were fairly free ranging.

I'd recommend you start with Bill Lomax's Hungary 1956.

I'm reading Zinn now. It turns out the USA partook in WW1 to gain monopolies in european markets conquering their ressources and labour YEAH!

itt:

ppl that haven't read/understood chomsky troll those that have, believing that by doing so they put forward the correct world view

>>421351
You forgot to slash your D. Here, have a slashed D: Ð, don't like Eth, have African D: Ɖ

>>420990
>Turn to the Castro picture. In this case the picture, though clipped, is real. As the editors surely know, at least if those who located the picture did 2 minutes of research, the others in the picture (apart from my wife) were, like me, participants in the annual meeting of an international society of Latin American scholars, with a few others from abroad. This annual meeting happened to be in Havana. Like all others, I was in a group that met with Castro. End of second story.

Here's a picture of Jesse Vetura and Fidel Castro. Since they're in the same picture as one another, Ventura obviously supports the regime and condones all its actions.

>>421362
>The discussions which occured on the Adriatic
What discussion? Tito's SEXUAL REVOLUTION or Hoxha's CULTURAL REVOLUTION? I'm LIVING ON THE ADRIATIC, you can safely be specific now.

>>421365
Sorry, already read Chomsky, already decided he's intellectually dishonest. Now if you'd like to actually make a rebuttal against any of the many attacks made against him in this thread, feel free.

There is no such thing as intellectual honesty, there are only class interests YEAH

>>421371
I already have.

why would you even waste your on reading a Jewish bolshevik, /lit/? I thought you were white.

and heres a Chomsky addressing a class at West Point Military Academy, I cant even begin to imagine what this is supposed to imply for his or their politics

video for those of you interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpOYllLuoE

>>421384
transcript: http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060420.htm

>>421369
/Praxis/, here's your citation doi:10.1016/0039-3592(78)90031-5 and you can go fuck yourself. Which genocide were you a participant in during the 1990s?

>>421384
That West Point is a potential breeding ground for South American style "left" dictators to take over the United States?

>>415343

confirmed linguisticsfag

>>421384
I'm not quite sure what Chomsky's complaint about the media is, when he's allowed to speak at fucking West Point.

>>421392
thats at least better than the School of the Americas
teaching Central & South American officers and units in 'counter-insurgency' which means our terrorism against them, torture, assassination, etc

The sheer size, concentrated ownership, immense owner wealth, and profit-seeking imperative of the dominant media corporations could hardly yield any other result. It was not always thus. In the early nineteenth century, a radical British press had emerged which addressed the concerns of workers. But excessive stamp duties, designed to restrict newspaper ownership to the 'respectable' wealthy, began to change the face of the press. Nevertheless there remained a degree of diversity. In postwar Britain, radical or worker-friendly newspapers such as the Daily Herald, News Chronicle, Sunday Citizen (all since failed or absorbed into other publications) and the Daily Mirror (at least until the late 1970s) regularly published articles questioning the capitalist system.

Herman and Chomsky argue that since mainstream media outlets are either large corporations or part of conglomerates (e.g. Westinghouse or General Electric), the information presented to the public will be biased with respect to these interests. Such conglomerates frequently extend beyond traditional media fields, and thus have extensive financial interests that may be endangered when certain information is widely publicized. According to this reasoning, news items that most endanger the corporate financial interests of those who own the media will face the greatest bias and censorship.

It then follows that if to maximize profit means sacrificing news objectivity, then the news sources that ultimately survive must be fundamentally biased, with regard to news in which they have a conflict of interest.

>>421397

Nice failure of a roll, you stupid kike.

The second filter of the propaganda model is advertising. Most newspapers have to attract and maintain a high proportion of advertising in order to cover the costs of production; without it, they would have to increase the price of their newspaper. There is fierce competition throughout the media to attract advertisers; a newspaper which gets less advertising than its competitors is put at a serious disadvantage. Lack of success in raising advertising revenue was another factor in the demise of the 'people's newspapers' of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The product is composed of the affluent readers who buy the newspaper — who also comprise the educated decision-making sector of the population — while the audience includes the businesses that pay to advertise their goods. According to this filter, the news itself is nothing more than "filler" to get privileged readers to see the advertisements which makes up the real content, and will thus take whatever form is most conducive to attracting educated decision-makers. Stories that conflict with their "buying mood", it is argued, will tend to be marginalized or excluded, along with information that presents a picture of the world that collides with advertisers' interests. The theory argues that the people buying the newspaper are themselves the product which is sold to the businesses that buy advertising space; the news itself has only a marginal role as the product.

The third of Herman and Chomsky's five filters relates to the sourcing of mass media news: "The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest." Even large media corporations such as the BBC cannot afford to place reporters everywhere. They therefore concentrate their resources where major news stories are likely to happen: the White House, the Pentagon, 10 Downing Street, and other centralised news "terminals". Although British newspapers may occasionally complain about the "spin-doctoring" of New Labour, for example, they are in fact highly dependent upon the pronouncements of "the Prime Minister's personal spokesperson" for government-related news. Business corporations and trade organisations are also trusted sources of stories considered newsworthy. Editors and journalists who offend these powerful news sources, perhaps by questioning the veracity or bias of the furnished material, can be threatened with the denial of access to their media life-blood - fresh news.[3] Thus, the media become reluctant to run articles that will harm corporate interests that provide them with the resources that the media depend upon.

This relationship also gives rise to a "moral division of labor", in which "officials have and give the facts," and "reporters merely get them". Journalists are then supposed to adopt an uncritical attitude that makes it possible for them to accept corporate values without experiencing cognitive dissonance.

>>421403

Counter-Insurgency worked great in Nam when it was just the Marines training the South to fight the Congs on equal terms. Only after the Army took over and turned it into a "real war" that shit got stupid.

The fourth filter is 'flak', described by Herman and Chomsky as 'negative responses to a media statement or [TV or radio] program. It may take the form of letters, telegrams, phone calls, petitions, law-suits, speeches and Bills before Congress, and other modes of complaint, threat and punitive action'. Business organisations regularly come together to form flak machines. Perhaps one of the most well-known of these is the US-based Global Climate Coalition (GCC) - comprising fossil fuel and automobile companies such as Exxon, Texaco and Ford. The GCC was started up by Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations companies, to rubbish the credibility of climate scientists and 'scare stories' about global warming (see Chapter 4). Another example would be the reaction to news of the El Mozote Massacre.

For Chomsky and Herman "flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program. The term "flak" has been used to describe what Chomsky and Herman see as targeted efforts to discredit organizations or individuals who disagree with or cast doubt on the prevailing assumptions which Chomsky and Herman view as favorable to established power (e.g., "The Establishment"). Unlike the first three "filtering" mechanisms — which are derived from analysis of market mechanisms — flak is characterized by concerted and intentional efforts to manage public information.

The fifth and final news filter that Herman and Chomsky identified was 'anti-communism'. Manufacturing Consent was written during the Cold War. A more apt version of this filter is the customary western identification of 'the enemy' or an 'evil dictator' - Colonel Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, or Slobodan Milosevic (recall the British tabloid headlines of 'Smash Saddam!' and 'Clobba Slobba!'. The same extends to mainstream reporting of environmentalists as 'eco-terrorists'. The Sunday Times ran a series of articles in 1999 accusing activists from the non-violent direct action group Reclaim The Streets of stocking up on CS gas and stun guns.

Anti-ideologies exploit public fear and hatred of groups that pose a potential threat, either real, exaggerated, or imagined. Communism once posed the primary threat according to the model. Communism and socialism were portrayed by their detractors as endangering freedoms of speech, movement, the press, etc. They argue that such a portrayal was often used as a means to silence voices critical of elite interests.

"I don't accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this -- and I think we should -- we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified."

Meanwhile he refers to any attacks by exile groups against Castro as "American terrorism", whether or not the US even knew about it.

Face it, the guy's got a massive double standard.

well I hope that explains the Propaganda Model, I was too lazy to go to the book so just copypasted the wikipedia page which for some reason gives it a British spin which is a little odd and somewhat inappropriate since its focus was the American media

>>421414
>how do a Phoenix Program

so his propaganda model is what the teach in PR drowned in social moralism and conspiracy theorist rhetoric?

>>421414
those so-called military advisors were Special Forces carrying out combat operations and aiding the Vietnamese Army round up villages for transfer to "strategic hamlets"

>>421419
>Meanwhile he refers to any attacks by exile groups against Castro as "American terrorism", whether or not the US even knew about it.
Who trained and organized them? Who did that and then declared they were not involved with them with a wink & a nudge? Who has never taken criminal action against them? Who allows Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles to live in comfortable retirement in Miami?

>>421432
>conspiracy
its conspiracy to suggest a corporation seeks to make a profit?

>>421414

CIDG keepin' it real, dawg.

what was it that Noam Chomsky said about eating pussy?

>>421460
he said thats the lamest meme in history

>>421464

its not a MEME

Chomsky answering questions from reddit users:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke6YXjaZ9HY

>>421432
Pretty much. It's really not the theory that's so unreasonable, it's how he applies it. Most of it's just a pretty common sense description of attracting advertising. But it makes some huge assumptions, like thinking that everyone with power has the same interests to defend, or that since many businesses adapt the same strategy, they're therefore organizing their efforts together. He also completely fails to have any explanation for the many cases in which mainstream media has blown apart cases of the government or huge industries being dishonest.

For instance, the publication and massive success of Unsafe at Any Speed, in which GM's president was forced to appear before a senate subcommittee and pretty much got raked over the coals.

There's plenty of other examples too, which Nader usually just brushes off. I'd discuss some others, but honestly it's way past time for me to go to sleep.

>>421488
where does he say organize it all together? You're back to accusing Cabal

Wait, so...
Industry owns media, in order to make money.
Media wants advertisers, in order to make money.
Advertisers wants lots of viewers, in order to make money.
Viewers give money to advertisers who choose media that backs the US.
Chomsky blames industry and government.

>trollface.jpg

>>421488
Yes car companies dont much like for their safety record exposed, but the problem with you example is that the rest of the elites dont much care for driving unsafe cars and will have something done about it.
If unsafe practices will effect them too, there will be action.
If it effects only people in a third-world shit hole or the poor of America, guess what?

>>421503
>media include content that attract viewers to advertisements
>this content will not contradict the medias and the advertisers politics, or interrupt the viewers purchasing mood

>>421494
Because he almost always describes the interests of the US government and major industries as a monolithic collective.

I just don't agree with the idea that you can argue that the media is a tool of indoctrination, and then say 'oh, but it indoctrinates you to a lot of different and often competing ideologies'. Indoctrination absolutely implies some type of conscious message.

>>421494
>>421503
>>421536

Strangely enough when we're discussing social justice and production meeting needs, the market is assumed to act with consciousness.

>OP: Never read Chomsky. What would /lit/ suggest?
>100 posts of angry arguing over America being evil

Whether or not anything else is resolved by this thread, I think we've scared OP off of chomsky for good.

>>421536
they are

>>421541
Yeah in economic theory markets are definitely described that way, although it's more of a useful description rather than a literal explanation. But Chomsky doesn't write from an economics background, and his writings don't treat it like a symptom of a capitalist market. He always describes it very much as a top-down imposition of values upon the lower class.

>>421536
>'oh, but it indoctrinates you to a lot of different and often competing ideologies'
the seeming difference is based on class.
Who reads technical journals?
Who reads the major prestige papers & who reads the business press?
Who reads the general and local papers?
Who reads supermarket tabloids?
Different sort of people read these, and it is largely divdided on class.
The people reading the Wall Street Journal are generally the people in charge of running the show and need a reasonably lucid framework to operate with

>>421569
and better still, who advertises in those press? You want your product to be seen by certain demographics.

>>421536
>competing ideologies
You mean the Less Extreme Faction and he More Extreme Faction of the Business Party? They're not that different.

>>421577
It's past your bedtime Nader.

Going to sleep this time for real. As usual, even though I think you're totally wrong and stupid, I appreciate that /lit/ can at least have an actual debate with back and forth, instead of just instantaneous Hitler analogies and personal insults.

Oh, you're ugly too.

>>421601

>>421390
>Which genocide were you a participant in during the 1990s?
What genocide? why are you speaking of the chetniks? you must have confused me with someone!

Here I brought you another piece of hollow 20th century communist newspeak semantics:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u04833087401j521/
Have a great wank over that, pinko-communist progressive! Leave all those prejudices to the red bourgeoisie and the reactionary fascist pigs. Doctors say that semen are rejunivating, wank your way to the world revolution.

>>421608
indeed, this user's style reminds me of maein kampf

>>421952
The American right, always coherent.

>Which genocide were you a participant in during the 1990s?

I supplied machetes to the Hutu. I made a shitton on money on those primates butchering each other. Living in a mansion build on death and despair is priceless!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP3gUuMaA7Q

>>421986
si, c'est magnifique être sympathique

>>421983
>The American right, always coherent.
So now I am an American, not just a genocidal chentnik, eh? ah, leftwing, what has one to study to be as coherent as you?

Here is another piece of obsolete nonsense you can shed a nostalgic tear about as a sERIOUS modern day leftist:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2492266

Your project didn't make it to the 90s. Those horrible stalinist realpoliticians were your only beacon of hope. They failed - you fail. Now your opinion isn't worth more than that of a language mongling bourgeois feminist.

ha! where have all those college student gone?

I suggest you to avoid Chomsky.

>>422014
EZLN.

>>422023
like the black plague one should add!

>>422026
PKK, PLFP, NK etc etc
the revolution lives and flourishes!

this board is a fine example of what's wrong with the left and chomsky is the epitome of what's wrong with the left.

there is no left left!

>pokey_chik.jpg
is that a lo?

>>421503

>Industry owns media, in order to make money.
>Media wants advertisers, in order to make money.
>Advertisers wants lots of viewers, in order to make money.
>Viewers give money to advertisers who choose media that backs the US.

There are some important factors that I know for a fact other critics make of the US media state. I don't know if Chomsky makes them but other media critics such as Bagdakin and McChesney do:

>Industry lobbies Government to vote for policy in their interest
>People vote on policy using information from the media
>Since media information is controlled by what is profitable, people vote for media interests

THEN we get to:

>Chomsky blames industry and government.

Here is a chart I made to show how this works. The lines on the chart show influence and cash flow. Notice how we as a public are divorced from news events that we need to vote on policy. Also, there are citations in case anyone wants to check my sources.

I know this isn't quite /lit/ but this board is the closest that I can talk about nonfiction.