That ending captures it: "I'm sure you believe everything that you're saying, but I'm saying if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
100% correct. This is SUCH a powerful illustration of how Manufacturing Consent and the propaganda model of media works in practice. I hope people who get this will share this video and shorter clips of it FAR and WIDE, because once you see it and understand it, you'll notice that it's happening all day, every day on every mainstream platform.
@@therealBAR even worse Brian, I think it happens in most work places not just the media. Employers might entertain 1 or 2 of the ideas an inquisitive employee may hold, but will make absolutely sure of it that his or her progress and influence is curtailed. Imho I think there’s more agreement in favour of the elite and privileged here in the British press than there is in the USA.
Agreed. That last sentence is a brilliant 'mic drop' but you need to listen closely to the whole segment to really get it. The problem is the cognitive dissonance that gets in the way. Most reporters own minds would automatically tune out the message rather than feel the discomfort such a devastating truth* should cause. * You were trained for obedience, conformity and subservience from early childhood and those are exactly the qualities you were hired for. Please note - this is true of most wage-slaves today, not just reporters. Anyone who speaks truth to power can expect to have a hard time. (EG look up Daniel Eisenberg, Gary Webb, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Reality Winner)
I'm starting to get scared he really is aging a lot recently although he seems to be just as active as he always was imo! Can somebody just invent immortality already so we don't have to lose such a great contributor to society
He's a US national treasure. 😀 I've said on CZcams comments before that maybe Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald might be able to occupy certain spaces of the vacuum left, when Chomsky eventually departs from us.
I have the same opinion. This Man knows so much about identifying the historical, philosophical, moral, etical and political causes of the actual state of the World, particulary of the USA. He's whitout doubt one of the best philosophes of our time.
@@futureskeletons66669 Of course there's nothing in the mainstream media that would ever prompt one to even begin to know about him. It's all by outside channels that one starts to hear about him.
Chomsky is Brilliant. I am from Mumbai, India. As a victim of private healthcare fraud, in a country like India, where people think extremely hierarchically, exploit cheap labour, don't care about truth etc etc, I see it all over the place. Recently, Gautam Adani, India's Richest Man (World Top 10) bought stakes in NDTV, a Left Wing News Outlet that would speak the Truth. Very progressive channel. Not anymore, I guess ...
And yet a "free press" is considered a crucial, foundational pillar of "democracy." The BIG LIE, which the media is responsible for propagating, is that the U.S., the U.K., Canada, etc. are actually democracies wherein elected leaders represent all the people (rather than just the rich) and have the consent of all of the governed. Gilens & Page proved this was bullsh!t in 2014.
I mean there is valid criticism of him especially when the subject is socialism but when he critiques socio economic systems then yes, he does a great job.
It's so irritating too me how British journalists feel they can interrupt somebody in the middle of an answer to a question that they asked; and run their mouth over their interviewee. I used to do that too, when I was 7...
*"...British Journalists..."* The guy is doing his job in a very professional manner, of course, if you're an American, then perhaps you're not used to journalists being interrogative.
Actually it is well known that journalists not only self-censure themselves, but also get censured plainly by their boss, the editor above them. If you don't like the word "censorship", call it "selection". When a journalist decides to cover, especially if extensively through investigation & so on, he needs approval, funds etc. Well if you want to investigate how a big corporation crushes unions, someone will tell gently first that it's a touchy subject, that will likely be a very long project with very few info filtering etc... but if you want to force your way somehow, then you'll see the stick. You might make a piece and it cannot be published because someone above you doesn't like it. There are plenty of interrelations between the journalistic field and both the political & economic field. They all know each other, they belong to the same social class, go to the same events, share the same values etc. This is what sociology reveals. So they talk to each other too, and they care for each other even more.
@@RobertFairweatherMusic Nope. I was speaking of censorship. As in I write a piece that somebody is bound not to like, and the piece hence does not get published. I wrote my comment 3 years ago, and the situation has only gotten worse since then. The main reason of this worsening is the fact that big capital is buying more and more newspapers, magazines and even television channels. When the owner of the newspaper you work for goes by the name of Bernard Arnault, aka Mr. First Fortune in Europe for multiple years, do you dare write about the scandals related to his Group? If you happen to have this very bad idea, does your boss let you? Can you go to work the next day as usual, as if nothing happened? We call that censorship and/or self-censorship, which yields the same results.
This is such an interesting interaction. Chomsky dismantles the media propaganda pipeline with such calmness, while interviewer is gasping for breath, questioning his existence.
I'm not actually sure if that's a sentence diagram or not. Regardless, Chomsky's political criticisms are so detailed... probably made much easier with his greater knowledge of language structures that he has when compared to probably all- or nearly all- peoples.
I'm laughing my ass off. That journalist is being schooled the hard way. But I must give credit where credit is due, the journalist is genuinely trying to understand by challenging Chomsky. He is not affraid to confront the master and the master teaches him. I like it. I like it a lot.
Yes. He was rattled by this and tried to win the argument by making increasingly fatuous points which only served to reinforce Chomsky's position further.
kalistalev it's interesting that this was or rather started out as an interview but when Chomsky began to calmly poke holes into the facade of his reality you could see the cognitive dissonance play on the journalist face and body language then it becomes an argument, however one the interviewer could not win because he was not prepared to think of himself or his profession as anything less than noble.
Yeah..he's a good guy and all..he just doesn't Question what he's been taught nor why...and he doesn't grasp Chomsky's propoganda model fully yet..but I bet he does by now...given his curiosity. Bahaha that remark about the actual circulated slogan: The NY times- The establishment's left.
Manufacturing the culture in which people grow up in is probably the most subtle and all pervasive method of propaganda. Aldous Huxley described this in Brave New World, written in the early 1930,s.
4:25 Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news-things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals. www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/
Scandinavian countries are a good example of this model. And education focus on Obedience, very well hide propaganda by the private companies that support their governments meanwhile citizens have a great salary to spend a lot of money on "wellbeing "
My confusion listening to chomsky talk about this (haven’t seen alot of his work yet) is that this controlling of views seems more like a necessary pragmatic approach to communication. Meaning people wont make arguments using presuppositions other because there will only be conflict because if the presuppositions (The reading between the lines) isnt clear every argument will fly ontop of everyones head. If everyone got to make arguments using their own presuppositions without forming them to fit something recognisable and gripable for the culture at large no one will understand what they’re saying. Although i may be getting this completely wrong. To me it seems very messy complex issues that are difficult to explain using such broad language without examples.
Good comment. Controlling people’s views is absolutely necessary for mass modern society to function. Chompsky is right but he is only able to give away the game because he is not a player. To see through it, you must be content to wheedle at the margins with the satisfaction of being honest. The real players understand the game too but they are in the arena and will keep on playing it no matter how insincere.
How do we know who is committed and who is propagandist? Media consumption among large sections of people is not really healthy. The corporate media does not need to work too hard to dish out misinformation. We have an disinterested audience. A Greek philosopher once said, people get the government they deserve, that statement has big implication. Now the same can be said about media too, people get the media they deserve.
The only problem with this is it's impossible to refute. If I don't agree with it, I'm an example of it, I've internalised the prejudices. You get a similar response when you criticise standpoint epistemology.
Not true at all; if the media reflects the facts and reflects them evenly across different situations (e.g. countries that are our allies versus ones that aren't, if we're using the example of reporting on geopolitical events, wars, etc), by 'evenly' here I mean without hypocrisy, then the media can be said to be in some senses a fair reflection of reality. And we can use news sources and compare them to each other, as well as other sources, as Chomsky and Herman do in Manufacturing Consent, to determine whether or not this is true. There are also other things that can be looked at, for example who funds the media, what events even become news stories at all, etc, that can be used to draw conclusions and establish patterns. Chomsky doesn't just say things are this way; he has investigated it and people are free to do so for themselves too. It just takes a lot of work and dedication, which is part of the reason that propaganda is so effective in the first place - getting to the truth of it yourself takes a lot of extra steps.
A great example of how Chomsky is so far beyond the intellectual ability of the interviewer. He is literally taking this guy to the proverbial cleaners and the guy simply doesn't get it.
A replier below calls Noam Chomsky "the Master". That says it all. Virtually every other reply after this video displays obscene and loyal sycophancy toward the *Master*. Chomsky is the most conspiratorial and Manichean theorist I know. (Basically, "Manichean" = Literally everything about Western capitalism is Evil. All else is Good.) Sure, he knows his detail and his history. And he adds lots of meandering footnotes to everything he says. That impresses non-academics especially. (He blinds his critics and questioners with verbiage and often irrelevant data.) However, all that stuff is fed through Chomsky's Manichean and conspiratorial lens. He's essentially preaching to his own political tribe. Hence, the embarrassing and copious words of praise from his many loyal disciples both here and elsewhere. Most - not all! - of Chomsky's groupies are white males under the age of 25. Often, they're also middle-class students who're impressed by his very-long answers and statements, which they take to be important detail and "theory". (Oddly, Chomsky has spoken out against what he's called "theory".) That detail is really Chomsky's predictable ideological gloss on the facts and the data. It's also important how important the Marxist notion of "false consciousness" is to Chomsky's entire work, and to almost everything he says. (That is especially the case in this video.) This doesn't mean that he uses the precise term "false consciousness". Then again, neither did Marx. Instead, he uses synonyms or euphemism's such as "manufacturing consent", the "propaganda system", etc. (Yes, I'm aware that Chomsky has offered some very mild criticisms of Marx, Lenin, etc.)
Best example I remember of U.S. propaganda in the media was at the beginning of the War on Terror of U.S. going into Iraqi. Day 1: "Invasion of Iraq" Day 2: 'War on Iraq' Day 3: 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
if this was a film it’d be a toddler trying to pull on mum’s hair while she is cleaning him while on the phone with the kindergarten and with the other hand patiently and lovingly stopping the little shit from succeeding
by perceptionarily insinuating a perceptonary inapplicable inasscoiable metrics or attributes that has / hav no envolvmnet to or with and that this thing in its stat has no envolved envolvment to with to wht or to and that factor has no envolved is not envolved has no relevancy or relation is a non existant non componant of function processes functon
a good, a recent, example Manufacturing consent ...... the Vaccine ,....... instead of questioning the Pharma Industry's narrative .... Noam Chomsky argued that those who remain unvaccinated should be segregated, saying that obtaining food after they had "the decency to remove themselves from the community" was "their problem."
Noteworthy statement: the media is actually very right wing in the UK, laws exist against media bias on televised broadcasts but the newspapers are quite right wing, which explains Mars' statement in comparison to Chomsky's liberal one (based on american media)
It starts out as if the guy read Manufacturing Consent and is just setting up Chomsky to explain. But he's actually just the embodiment of everything Chomsky and Herman discuss, right down to the delusional self-serving conception of himself. Chomsky all but laughs at the guy as he starts reciting the programming.
@@payasoinfeliz Maybe you're an ant compared to me. Because you don't know me. But I know you enough to know how much you can judge someone that you don't even know. You're incapable.
"The press is relatively right wing," to which Chomsky disagrees. Here he agrees with the right that the press is mostly liberal. That is the first time I have heard Chomsky make a claim that agrees with the data. He often is at odds with historical analysis, but again he is not a cookie-cutter socialist or atheist or environmentalist. He is a libertarian socialist which works out historically to be a Shangi-La filled win married bachelors and square circles. An expert in linguistics, but treated by the press as an expert in everything. Chomsky was treated in the 1960s through the 1990s much the same way the press and Internet treats Jordon Peterson, although they would have significantly different views. My point is that we should defrock these priests of making stuff up and look toward the real experts in the various fields of knowledge and shed our reliance on popular cranks. By which I mean so-called "Intellectuals."
where's the conspiracy? the whole point of manufacturing consent or hegemony as gramsci called it is precisely that it's NOT a conspiracy, it's a natural result of the system
2:42 in Chomsky gives us vintage Chomsky inference where he claims that the big corporations in America told Washington to call the war in Vietnam off. This is a couple square inches of Reynolds wrap away from wearing a tin-foil hat! Yet interviewers let him get away with such unverified claims. One almost expects Chomsky to off-handedly reference Catcher in The Rye as his favorite book, and further that he can't tell you why. The movie Conspiracy Theory painted Mel Gibson's character as more cogent. But the press has treated him like a god perhaps because he is seen to do much more damage to free market economics and be a friend to socialism than the damage he does to the leftist mass media outlets. Calling a socialist a capitalist after all makes capitalism look evil. So the NYT allows the inference as its message intersects with their own polemic.
That ending captures it: "I'm sure you believe everything that you're saying, but I'm saying if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
That is what the young people call getting pwned.
Prescient in so far as his interviewer, a young Andrew Marr, has virtually built his entire career in evidencing that point
100% correct. This is SUCH a powerful illustration of how Manufacturing Consent and the propaganda model of media works in practice. I hope people who get this will share this video and shorter clips of it FAR and WIDE, because once you see it and understand it, you'll notice that it's happening all day, every day on every mainstream platform.
@@therealBAR even worse Brian, I think it happens in most work places not just the media. Employers might entertain 1 or 2 of the ideas an inquisitive employee may hold, but will make absolutely sure of it that his or her progress and influence is curtailed. Imho I think there’s more agreement in favour of the elite and privileged here in the British press than there is in the USA.
Check mate!
“The system selects for obedience and subordination.”
Chomsky threw the poor guy into an existential crisis
''... but, if you believed different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting...'
Devastating. I'd have a tough time getting to sleep that night.
jones1351 do explain more
Agreed. That last sentence is a brilliant 'mic drop' but you need to listen closely to the whole segment to really get it. The problem is the cognitive dissonance that gets in the way. Most reporters own minds would automatically tune out the message rather than feel the discomfort such a devastating truth* should cause.
* You were trained for obedience, conformity and subservience from early childhood and those are exactly the qualities you were hired for. Please note - this is true of most wage-slaves today, not just reporters. Anyone who speaks truth to power can expect to have a hard time. (EG look up Daniel Eisenberg, Gary Webb, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Reality Winner)
CUT TO: The reporter tossing and turning in bed while the echo of Chomsky voice repeats over and over "...if you believed something different..."
The interviewer is pissed but knows he has to reevaluate his whole existence. Chomsky dropping bombs of knowledge
@Scott's Precious Little Account yeah, he’s based
it's Andrew Marr : quite well known
The interviewer definitely comes off as very defensive here. Meanwhile, Noam C is very relaxed, as he usually is. Not once raising his voice.
glad that I am alive during the time when Dr. Chomsky is still alive.
Amen
I'm starting to get scared he really is aging a lot recently although he seems to be just as active as he always was imo! Can somebody just invent immortality already so we don't have to lose such a great contributor to society
why? you can still read Plato
He's a US national treasure. 😀 I've said on CZcams comments before that maybe Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald might be able to occupy certain spaces of the vacuum left, when Chomsky eventually departs from us.
I have the same opinion. This Man knows so much about identifying the historical, philosophical, moral, etical and political causes of the actual state of the World, particulary of the USA. He's whitout doubt one of the best philosophes of our time.
I remember watching the seminal docu film "Manufacturing Consent" in 1993ish. I was blown away, I devoured a couple Chomsky books soon after.
Sort of similar story. I got into Chomsky's work through Bill Hicks.
@@futureskeletons66669 Of course there's nothing in the mainstream media that would ever prompt one to even begin to know about him. It's all by outside channels that one starts to hear about him.
Chomsky is Brilliant. I am from Mumbai, India. As a victim of private healthcare fraud, in a country like India, where people think extremely hierarchically, exploit cheap labour, don't care about truth etc etc, I see it all over the place. Recently, Gautam Adani, India's Richest Man (World Top 10) bought stakes in NDTV, a Left Wing News Outlet that would speak the Truth. Very progressive channel. Not anymore, I guess ...
How did they taste?
@@jenemyk8831 A little spicy.
That last exchange: mic drop.
Boom!
"...a necessary technique to overcome the danger of democracy..."
And yet a "free press" is considered a crucial, foundational pillar of "democracy."
The BIG LIE, which the media is responsible for propagating, is that the U.S., the U.K., Canada, etc. are actually democracies wherein elected leaders represent all the people (rather than just the rich) and have the consent of all of the governed. Gilens & Page proved this was bullsh!t in 2014.
@@heatheromeara5115 haha..free press my ass. They are owned by the corporate masters.
@@DerekSpeareDSD exactly. Both the "free press" and "democracy" are illusions - fictions - lies.
Social media and undergrounds are the alternatives
I don’t know why I used to criticize Chomsky. The modern world has made it all so obvious. I can’t believe how much my opinions have changed.
Thought reveals enlightenment.
I mean there is valid criticism of him especially when the subject is socialism but when he critiques socio economic systems then yes, he does a great job.
why? what is the valid criticism on the subject of socialism with regards to chomsky? @@eidorianeagle5806
@eidorianeagle5806 what are the critiques with regards to socialism?
those who criticize this man are either not mature, ignorant, or are part of the problem
It's so irritating too me how British journalists feel they can interrupt somebody in the middle of an answer to a question that they asked; and run their mouth over their interviewee.
I used to do that too, when I was 7...
*"...British Journalists..."* The guy is doing his job in a very professional manner, of course, if you're an American, then perhaps you're not used to journalists being interrogative.
If you try to think with your own head and start asking questions, you will be branded 'a bad apple' in most companies...
Actually it is well known that journalists not only self-censure themselves, but also get censured plainly by their boss, the editor above them. If you don't like the word "censorship", call it "selection". When a journalist decides to cover, especially if extensively through investigation & so on, he needs approval, funds etc. Well if you want to investigate how a big corporation crushes unions, someone will tell gently first that it's a touchy subject, that will likely be a very long project with very few info filtering etc... but if you want to force your way somehow, then you'll see the stick. You might make a piece and it cannot be published because someone above you doesn't like it. There are plenty of interrelations between the journalistic field and both the political & economic field. They all know each other, they belong to the same social class, go to the same events, share the same values etc. This is what sociology reveals. So they talk to each other too, and they care for each other even more.
You're conflating 'censorship' with 'editing'. Goof.
@@RobertFairweatherMusic Nope. I was speaking of censorship. As in I write a piece that somebody is bound not to like, and the piece hence does not get published.
I wrote my comment 3 years ago, and the situation has only gotten worse since then. The main reason of this worsening is the fact that big capital is buying more and more newspapers, magazines and even television channels. When the owner of the newspaper you work for goes by the name of Bernard Arnault, aka Mr. First Fortune in Europe for multiple years, do you dare write about the scandals related to his Group? If you happen to have this very bad idea, does your boss let you? Can you go to work the next day as usual, as if nothing happened? We call that censorship and/or self-censorship, which yields the same results.
@@PappyMandarine:
Yeah, but you spelled it "censURE," dumbass.
editing without censorship would be just checking for accuracy, relevance etc. - not wether it would benefit anyone @@RobertFairweatherMusic
I couldnt put it better. Great comment.
This is such an interesting interaction. Chomsky dismantles the media propaganda pipeline with such calmness, while interviewer is gasping for breath, questioning his existence.
Glad that I’m alive in a time where captions are available because this man is so soft spoken and mutters so much.
The sentence diagram in the background is epic.
I'm not actually sure if that's a sentence diagram or not. Regardless, Chomsky's political criticisms are so detailed... probably made much easier with his greater knowledge of language structures that he has when compared to probably all- or nearly all- peoples.
Actually I think it is a sentence diagram tree.
That last line was deep.
I'm laughing my ass off. That journalist is being schooled the hard way. But I must give credit where credit is due, the journalist is genuinely trying to understand by challenging Chomsky. He is not affraid to confront the master and the master teaches him. I like it. I like it a lot.
The journalist is acting very professional.
Andrew Marr
He’s not being schooled, he’s being a journalist.
That's how I interpreted it as well
The interviewer needed to let him speak!
What did I just listen to, this is probably the most articulate castigation of journalism.
that jounalist sat in a room by himself for 6 hours after this interview😂😂
Norm tried hard not to destroy this guy. 😎
Fascinating dialogue always by mr chumsky blessings my fine sir
Chumsky 😭😭😭
😂
Sneaky sharp little bit at the end haha
BURNNN!!!!
Yes. He was rattled by this and tried to win the argument by making increasingly fatuous points which only served to reinforce Chomsky's position further.
damn
kalistalev it's interesting that this was or rather started out as an interview but when Chomsky began to calmly poke holes into the facade of his reality you could see the cognitive dissonance play on the journalist face and body language then it becomes an argument, however one the interviewer could not win because he was not prepared to think of himself or his profession as anything less than noble.
Yeah..he's a good guy and all..he just doesn't Question what he's been taught nor why...and he doesn't grasp Chomsky's propoganda model fully yet..but I bet he does by now...given his curiosity. Bahaha that remark about the actual circulated slogan: The NY times- The establishment's left.
larry david is gonna play him in the upcoming movie....so excited
Simply brilliant.
I enjoy watching and listening to Noam. He actually helps me to stay sane. The government must be terrified by his knowledge.
They aren't. They know they are in control and that most people are clueless or disorganized.
@@GM-yb5yg Took the words out of my mouth. Well said.
Not at all.
@@GM-yb5yg they know one man can’t do much and that they have total control
If powerful people were terrified of him he would be dead
Manufacturing the culture in which people grow up in is probably the most subtle and all pervasive method of propaganda. Aldous Huxley described this in Brave New World, written in the early 1930,s.
Unfortunately people read 1984 more
yet both brave new world and 1984 are both happening. probably more brave new world than 1984.
anyone know what journalists he talked about around 5:50 ?
I wish there were a proper citation for this clip, it is clearly much older than 2014.
Obedience and subordination
Shoutout to chomsky
does anyone know the name of the media channel that hosted this interview?
I need it for documentation
Most likely the BBC, Andrew Marr worked for them for the longest time.
"a very self serving view"- devastating
I LOL'ed at that. What a burn.
Yeah I caught that too I had to look up the word even I already knew it's similar to "convenient". He's good. He's the Mayweather of a Communication.
Handing it to Marr, absolutely fabulous. Marr remains a scribe for power at the BBC.
When is this from? 1980s?
4:25 Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news-things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-freedom-of-the-press/
"I would call the press relatively liberal." Wow, he really does see all doesn't he. By far my favorite American public intellectual.
Possibly the greatest mind alive
Too be fair, this has drastically changed in the last 10 years. Murdoch has created right wing media monopolies in Australia and the UK.
@@TheHumpjbear If you think the media in the UK are "right wing" you're deluded beyond help. Good lord 🤣💀
@MotownShaker how do you see it?
@@saskk2290 woke
just think about what happened to julian assange for doing true journalism !
Scandinavian countries are a good example of this model. And education focus on Obedience, very well hide propaganda by the private companies that support their governments meanwhile citizens have a great salary to spend a lot of money on "wellbeing "
My confusion listening to chomsky talk about this (haven’t seen alot of his work yet) is that this controlling of views seems more like a necessary pragmatic approach to communication. Meaning people wont make arguments using presuppositions other because there will only be conflict because if the presuppositions (The reading between the lines) isnt clear every argument will fly ontop of everyones head. If everyone got to make arguments using their own presuppositions without forming them to fit something recognisable and gripable for the culture at large no one will understand what they’re saying. Although i may be getting this completely wrong. To me it seems very messy complex issues that are difficult to explain using such broad language without examples.
Good comment. Controlling people’s views is absolutely necessary for mass modern society to function. Chompsky is right but he is only able to give away the game because he is not a player. To see through it, you must be content to wheedle at the margins with the satisfaction of being honest. The real players understand the game too but they are in the arena and will keep on playing it no matter how insincere.
Source: czcams.com/video/GjENnyQupow/video.html
How do we know who is committed and who is propagandist?
Media consumption among large sections of people is not really healthy. The corporate media does not need to work too hard to dish out misinformation. We have an disinterested audience.
A Greek philosopher once said, people get the government they deserve, that statement has big implication.
Now the same can be said about media too, people get the media they deserve.
I like you ,you say the truth
The only problem with this is it's impossible to refute. If I don't agree with it, I'm an example of it, I've internalised the prejudices. You get a similar response when you criticise standpoint epistemology.
Not true at all; if the media reflects the facts and reflects them evenly across different situations (e.g. countries that are our allies versus ones that aren't, if we're using the example of reporting on geopolitical events, wars, etc), by 'evenly' here I mean without hypocrisy, then the media can be said to be in some senses a fair reflection of reality. And we can use news sources and compare them to each other, as well as other sources, as Chomsky and Herman do in Manufacturing Consent, to determine whether or not this is true. There are also other things that can be looked at, for example who funds the media, what events even become news stories at all, etc, that can be used to draw conclusions and establish patterns. Chomsky doesn't just say things are this way; he has investigated it and people are free to do so for themselves too. It just takes a lot of work and dedication, which is part of the reason that propaganda is so effective in the first place - getting to the truth of it yourself takes a lot of extra steps.
straight up insults the guy
Old Noam was so great. Now, he's not so much.
You are the man. Big time.
Wow that was an honest conversation. Both sides !
I don't make a habit of quoting the Bible, but the John 8:7 comes to mind.
lol banger ending line
Genius!
Since antiquity, writers have brownnosed their way into the annals/anals of history.
Jesus how young is Andrew Marr here
Thinking the right things for decades now.
A great example of how Chomsky is so far beyond the intellectual ability of the interviewer. He is literally taking this guy to the proverbial cleaners and the guy simply doesn't get it.
5:00
2:05
Delicious
A replier below calls Noam Chomsky "the Master". That says it all. Virtually every other reply after this video displays obscene and loyal sycophancy toward the *Master*. Chomsky is the most conspiratorial and Manichean theorist I know. (Basically, "Manichean" = Literally everything about Western capitalism is Evil. All else is Good.) Sure, he knows his detail and his history. And he adds lots of meandering footnotes to everything he says. That impresses non-academics especially. (He blinds his critics and questioners with verbiage and often irrelevant data.) However, all that stuff is fed through Chomsky's Manichean and conspiratorial lens. He's essentially preaching to his own political tribe. Hence, the embarrassing and copious words of praise from his many loyal disciples both here and elsewhere.
Most - not all! - of Chomsky's groupies are white males under the age of 25. Often, they're also middle-class students who're impressed by his very-long answers and statements, which they take to be important detail and "theory". (Oddly, Chomsky has spoken out against what he's called "theory".) That detail is really Chomsky's predictable ideological gloss on the facts and the data. It's also important how important the Marxist notion of "false consciousness" is to Chomsky's entire work, and to almost everything he says. (That is especially the case in this video.) This doesn't mean that he uses the precise term "false consciousness". Then again, neither did Marx. Instead, he uses synonyms or euphemism's such as "manufacturing consent", the "propaganda system", etc. (Yes, I'm aware that Chomsky has offered some very mild criticisms of Marx, Lenin, etc.)
How he laughs at 5:45
Best example I remember of U.S. propaganda in the media was at the beginning of the War on Terror of U.S. going into Iraqi.
Day 1: "Invasion of Iraq"
Day 2: 'War on Iraq'
Day 3: 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'.
Journalist had the need to feel attacked
Andrew Marr looking like a little boy.
And sounding like one in comparison to his " head master " Chomsky 🤣
'I know some of the best journalists and they agree with me, but d,on't ask me what their names are'. How is anyone supposed to take that seriously?
Naom chomsky is a genius.he just calmly lays out the truth about us empire in a brillant way
if this was a film it’d be a toddler trying to pull on mum’s hair while she is cleaning him while on the phone with the kindergarten and with the other hand patiently and lovingly stopping the little shit from succeeding
I think this is called running rings around your interviewer. Marr just doesn’t get it. We do.
by perceptionarily insinuating a perceptonary inapplicable inasscoiable metrics or attributes that has / hav no envolvmnet to or with and that this thing in its stat has no envolved envolvment to with to wht or to and that factor has no envolved is not envolved has no relevancy or relation is a non existant non componant of function processes functon
How come they have not bumped him off.
We really have been normalized
Noam would have everyone believe Jesus was crucified for oil.
Speaking of propaganda..
Your loss.
🌈
Who put this material in your CZcams feed? Please, don’t tell me it was whatever ‘algorithm’ 🙄😃 Is this anti- propaganda propaganda?
Chomsky is always good stuff
I love Professor Chomsky.
I would prosecute everyone associated with the Vietnam war
even the north vietnamese side or are you hypocrite?
That's assuming the law and the courts are there to prosecute the elites. They're not. It's their law, their courts. Not ours.
a good, a recent, example Manufacturing consent ...... the Vaccine ,....... instead of questioning the Pharma Industry's narrative .... Noam Chomsky argued that those who remain unvaccinated should be segregated, saying that obtaining food after they had "the decency to remove themselves from the community" was "their problem."
Noteworthy statement: the media is actually very right wing in the UK, laws exist against media bias on televised broadcasts but the newspapers are quite right wing, which explains Mars' statement in comparison to Chomsky's liberal one (based on american media)
😂😂😂😂. Say it how it is noam .🌎💚🌍
It starts out as if the guy read Manufacturing Consent and is just setting up Chomsky to explain. But he's actually just the embodiment of everything Chomsky and Herman discuss, right down to the delusional self-serving conception of himself. Chomsky all but laughs at the guy as he starts reciting the programming.
it's sad to see this man become senile and succumb to propaganda of big pharma in this last two years... :/
Just get vaccinated already idiot.
THIS! SO MUCH THIS!
you are an ant compared to him, even if he were 120yrs old, he would have a better grasp on things.
@@payasoinfeliz Maybe you're an ant compared to me. Because you don't know me. But I know you enough to know how much you can judge someone that you don't even know. You're incapable.
"The press is relatively right wing," to which Chomsky disagrees. Here he agrees with the right that the press is mostly liberal. That is the first time I have heard Chomsky make a claim that agrees with the data. He often is at odds with historical analysis, but again he is not a cookie-cutter socialist or atheist or environmentalist. He is a libertarian socialist which works out historically to be a Shangi-La filled win married bachelors and square circles. An expert in linguistics, but treated by the press as an expert in everything. Chomsky was treated in the 1960s through the 1990s much the same way the press and Internet treats Jordon Peterson, although they would have significantly different views.
My point is that we should defrock these priests of making stuff up and look toward the real experts in the various fields of knowledge and shed our reliance on popular cranks. By which I mean so-called "Intellectuals."
You sound like a propagandist, vague statements appealing to emotion. Where is your refutation of Chimsky's ideas?
Sure. Sounds great. When do we start?
Comment of the jealous.
Chomsky isn't real expert? Lol. He's more than that. He's outside of the system.
Sorry, but he makes horribly false conclusions from shaky premises. Nothing more than mealy mouthed conspiracy garbage.🤷♂️
where's the conspiracy? the whole point of manufacturing consent or hegemony as gramsci called it is precisely that it's NOT a conspiracy, it's a natural result of the system
2:42 in Chomsky gives us vintage Chomsky inference where he claims that the big corporations in America told Washington to call the war in Vietnam off. This is a couple square inches of Reynolds wrap away from wearing a tin-foil hat! Yet interviewers let him get away with such unverified claims. One almost expects Chomsky to off-handedly reference Catcher in The Rye as his favorite book, and further that he can't tell you why. The movie Conspiracy Theory painted Mel Gibson's character as more cogent. But the press has treated him like a god perhaps because he is seen to do much more damage to free market economics and be a friend to socialism than the damage he does to the leftist mass media outlets. Calling a socialist a capitalist after all makes capitalism look evil. So the NYT allows the inference as its message intersects with their own polemic.
On what planet and in what century has the press treated Chomsky like a god?
Is that Andrew Marr?!
Everybody wants to be special and this demagogue is no exception