The Myth of the Liberal Media

[trancepriest]

http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/200...=2&theme=1

Online documentary about how our news is sculpted to present a certain viewpoint of events around the world.
Featuring Noam Chomsky, Edwin Herman and Justin Lewis.
60 min.

[web_norah]

Noam Chomsky rocks


anyone ever read any of his books?

[trancepriest]

http://www.chomsky.info/

The official Noam Chomsky website.

[slamminshaun]

Originally Posted by web_norah

Noam Chomsky rocks


anyone ever read any of his books?

Nope, but I'd be open to hearing what he has to say about things.

[trancepriest]

Originally Posted by Slammin'

[quote author=web_norah link=board=6;threadid=10690;start=0#msg122388 date=1104525725]
Noam Chomsky rocks


anyone ever read any of his books?

Nope, but I'd be open to hearing what he has to say about things.
[/quote]

He says alot here. Also if you go to his website you'll see the audio and video section. And if you watch the documentary that I linked to... The Myth of the Liberal Media.. you'll hear alot of his opinions.
http://67.15.90.110/article.pl?sid=04/11/26/1936241

[slamminshaun]

Summarize "myth of the liberal media" for me, because i have too much going on until next week to actually sit and watch a full documentary. Based on the title, it sounds like he's saying the media really isn't liberal at all, that's its just a myth. If that's the case, I'm probably not going to watch it at all because I think the consensus is that the media is overwhelmingly liberal. I always listen to liberals that have intelligent points of view, while I may not agree with them. Michael Moore is an example of a guy I won't even waste my time on.

[trancepriest]

Originally Posted by Slammin'

Summarize "myth of the liberal media" for me, because i have too much going on until next week to actually sit and watch a full documentary. Based on the title, it sounds like he's saying the media really isn't liberal at all, that's its just a myth. If that's the case, I'm probably not going to watch it at all because I think the consensus is that the media is overwhelmingly liberal. I always listen to liberals that have intelligent points of view, while I may not agree with them. Michael Moore is an example of a guy I won't even waste my time on.

Are you really busy until next week or have you just adapted a culture of looking busy. And if your that busy... how does someone become that busy... are you on a military operation that takes 20 hours out of your day.. and you only have 4 to sleep.. are you in the woods now? Perhaps you work 100 hours a week and you have 12 kids. And if your really that busy.. how comes you have time to check posts on cooljunkie?

[slamminshaun]

LOL... :P

Here's my schedule from until Monday....
4:47 - 6pm, burning cd's for my gig tonight (can't run too many operations at once or the cd's won't burn properly..typing text is different)
6-8pm Dinner at Carrabba's with wife
9pm - report to Club Jax in Jupiter
9:30 - 4am make money, go home, go to sleep
Saturday Wife and me not working, going to Orlando
Sunday 12 - 4, work at contractor's office offering mortgages to their clients
5- 7 going to dinner with her parents (would much rather watch the documentary :P)
7-10 going to see The Aviator at local theatre
11pm, (censored)

Monday morning...report to bank where I work 9 - 4, but can't really watch a documentary at work

Cmon pal, summarize for a brother.... 8)

[saintjohn]

I was once a regular Chomsky reader, back when I subscribed to Progressive magazine. Although his writing wasn't always coherent, it was usually entertaining - if one could abide his knee-jerk anti-Americanism.

I lost all patience for his work on September 12, 2001, however, when his first response to the mass murder of innocent Americans was to worry about how the consequences of the terrorist attacks might affect Palestinians, and to claim that Bill Clinton was far worse than bin Laden:

On the Bombings

The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton's bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the US blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it). Not to speak of much worse cases, which easily come to mind. But that this was a horrendous crime is not in doubt. The primary victims, as usual, were working people: janitors, secretaries, firemen, etc. It is likely to prove to be a crushing blow to Palestinians and other poor and oppressed people. It is also likely to lead to harsh security controls, with many possible ramifications for undermining civil liberties and internal freedom.

http://www.zmag.org/chomnote.htm

It's worth remembering that when Chomsky wrote this, the World Trade Center was still burning, and the estimated death toll was in the tens of thousands.

So, yeah, Chomsky "rocks" - in a demented, blame-America-first-and-buy-my-over-priced-pamphlets kinda way.

[trancepriest]

Well to me Chomsky makes some pretty clear statements.. if September 11th cost us 3000 lives.. how many lives will it cost the rest of the world for us to feel safe?

If Vietnam cost us 58,000 lives.. how many Vietnamese were we going to kill before we knew we couldn't win their hearts and minds... 3 million?

The world as a right to fear a superpower unprecedented in history... running around scared.. wielding its hegemony with a new doctrine of preemptive attacks on anyone (without nuclear power) that it feels threatened by. Chomsky speaks the truth. This nation is in a state of power... equivocal or greater than the Roman Empire... how we use that power in a modern technological age should be carefully analyzed. With a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.. it seems we're already going down the wrong road of anti-civilization but then again the Roman Empire wasn't civilized.

If we adopt a doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against potential threats such as Iran or North Korea.. shouldn't those countries adopt the same doctrines that we use and try to atack us in a most effective way? If I'm a leader of a country without nuclear weapons... shouldn't the lesson that I get from the Iraq war be.. nations without nuclear weapons.. face direct military domination by the U.S.... after all would we invade North Korea? Would we invade strong nations that can do great harm to us?

If grievances breed terrorist.. isn't the most effective way to fight terrorism is to reduce the grievances? Isn't Iraq now much of a bigger grievance than the Israeli-Palestine situation... doesn't that create new terrorist?

Also from your Chomsky quote...you didn't look at the truth of the statement.. instead you turned it into an emotional response. You used the emotional context of 9/11 as your sole argument against Chomsky. Well 9/11 is branded now... I can't really blame you... your not the only one using it. With that stated.. your argument was pretty incoherent from a logical standpoint... but very effective on a emotional level.

Of course no credence should be put on destroying half of a poor nations pharmaceutical supplies and the resulting deaths from the very lack of those pharmaceutical products.... especially in a post 9/11 world.