Re: POLITICS Chomsky (was: Endless debates)

[Guest guest]

Gene wrote:

<<<<<Hmmm - I'd say that your contention that this is not " anything close to

it "

is flagrantly false. What do you mean by " often " ? How are they presented?>>>>>

I haven't watched Fox News in a long time, but there was a period of time

during which I watched it fairly regularly, and my impression was that

alternative viewpoints, meaning view points that are outside the bounds of those

held by

the anchors and commentators of the news themselves, were given time at least

weekly, and sometimes daily when the " hot news " at the moment warranted it.

For example, anti-war, black power, anti-imperialist, etc.

They were presented by the people advocating them. They were primarily

presented on the interview analysis shows like O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and

Colmes.

____

Gene wrote:

I went back and read the original post, and yes - I'd say that the implication

was that Fox news gave a fair representation of progressive viewpoints - at

least in most commonly accepted usages of 'fair'.

______

writes:

Ok, but that's not what I meant, and I don't think I said anything to

indicate that really. It was a passing comment, not evidence presented in an

argument about the " fairness and balance " of Fox News.

_____

initially wrote:

> In the other section of my email, where I commented on the accessibility of

> alternative viewpoints, I didn't mention cable news or television, but

listed

> the internet and bookstores.

_____

Gene responded:

<<<<I'm not sure why you're saying this, as I didn't comment on this

section.>>>>

____

presently writes:

Because if it were taken into account when you read the email in its

entirety, it would help to clarify that I didn't consider Fox News to be among

the

sources where alternative viewpoints were readily available and easily

accessible.

_____

Gene wrote:

However, I think that the point that you were responding to wasn't really

that someone educåted as to what exactly some of these alternative

viewpoints might be, and how to find them, would have difficulty locating

them. I find them rather easily at this point also. That's really

irrelevant.

_____

writes:

I don't think you have to be educated about what the viewpoints are at all.

If you, for example, want to know more about arguments against the war in

Iraq, for example, or about what the anti-war movement believes, having heard

about it vaguely on Fox News or CNN, you could Google " anti-war " and come up

with

lots of sources of information providing the viewpoints that you weren't aware

of, or familar with, against the war.

_____

Gene wrote:

The point is that for the great majority of Americans, who get

their news from corporate sources like network news and newspapers, these

alternative viewpoints don't even exist, or are simply regarded as crazy.

______

writes:

I agree to a large extent. I'm sure that if radical view points had broader

exposure, more people would believe them than currently do, but I also think

that there are tendencies within people that are either inborn or volitional,

but not acculturated, to have a general anti-authoritarian or pro-authoritarian

viewpoint. People with anti-authoritarian tendencies will naturally pursue

radical viewpoints, and can do so freely and without inhibition by using the

internet, and, to a very large extent, book stores.

People with pro-authoritarian tendencies (which there are probably many more

of) probably wouldn't believe in anti-authoritarian views unless those with

authority came out and said, " By the authority vested in us, we declare our

authority to be self-evidently illegitimate. "

Chris

[Guest guest]

Whatever you say

> Gene wrote:

> <<<<<Hmmm - I'd say that your contention that this is not " anything close to

> it "

> is flagrantly false. What do you mean by " often " ? How are they presented?>>>>>

> I haven't watched Fox News in a long time, but there was a period of time

> during which I watched it fairly regularly, and my impression was that

> alternative viewpoints, meaning view points that are outside the bounds of

> those held by

> the anchors and commentators of the news themselves, were given time at least

> weekly, and sometimes daily when the " hot news " at the moment warranted it.

> For example, anti-war, black power, anti-imperialist, etc.

>

> They were presented by the people advocating them. They were primarily

> presented on the interview analysis shows like O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and

> Colmes.

> ____

>

> Gene wrote:

> I went back and read the original post, and yes - I'd say that the implication

> was that Fox news gave a fair representation of progressive viewpoints - at

> least in most commonly accepted usages of 'fair'.

> ______

>

> writes:

>

> Ok, but that's not what I meant, and I don't think I said anything to

> indicate that really. It was a passing comment, not evidence presented in an

> argument about the " fairness and balance " of Fox News.

> _____

>

>

> initially wrote:

>> In the other section of my email, where I commented on the accessibility of

>> alternative viewpoints, I didn't mention cable news or television, but

> listed

>> the internet and bookstores.

> _____

>

> Gene responded:

> <<<<I'm not sure why you're saying this, as I didn't comment on this

> section.>>>>

> ____

>

> presently writes:

>

> Because if it were taken into account when you read the email in its

> entirety, it would help to clarify that I didn't consider Fox News to be among

> the

> sources where alternative viewpoints were readily available and easily

> accessible.

> _____

>

> Gene wrote:

> However, I think that the point that you were responding to wasn't really

> that someone educåted as to what exactly some of these alternative

> viewpoints might be, and how to find them, would have difficulty locating

> them. I find them rather easily at this point also. That's really

> irrelevant.

> _____

>

> writes:

>

> I don't think you have to be educated about what the viewpoints are at all.

> If you, for example, want to know more about arguments against the war in

> Iraq, for example, or about what the anti-war movement believes, having heard

> about it vaguely on Fox News or CNN, you could Google " anti-war " and come up

> with

> lots of sources of information providing the viewpoints that you weren't aware

> of, or familar with, against the war.

> _____

>

> Gene wrote:

> The point is that for the great majority of Americans, who get

> their news from corporate sources like network news and newspapers, these

> alternative viewpoints don't even exist, or are simply regarded as crazy.

> ______

>

> writes:

>

> I agree to a large extent. I'm sure that if radical view points had broader

> exposure, more people would believe them than currently do, but I also think

> that there are tendencies within people that are either inborn or volitional,

> but not acculturated, to have a general anti-authoritarian or

> pro-authoritarian

> viewpoint. People with anti-authoritarian tendencies will naturally pursue

> radical viewpoints, and can do so freely and without inhibition by using the

> internet, and, to a very large extent, book stores.

>

> People with pro-authoritarian tendencies (which there are probably many more

> of) probably wouldn't believe in anti-authoritarian views unless those with

> authority came out and said, " By the authority vested in us, we declare our

> authority to be self-evidently illegitimate. "

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

writes:

I agree to a large extent. I'm sure that if radical view points had

broader

exposure, more people would believe them than currently do, but I also

think

that there are tendencies within people that are either inborn or

volitional,

but not acculturated, to have a general anti-authoritarian or

pro-authoritarian

viewpoint. People with anti-authoritarian tendencies will naturally

pursue

radical viewpoints, and can do so freely and without inhibition by

using the

internet, and, to a very large extent, book stores.

People with pro-authoritarian tendencies (which there are probably many

more

of) probably wouldn't believe in anti-authoritarian views unless those

with

authority came out and said, " By the authority vested in us, we declare

our

authority to be self-evidently illegitimate. "

Jim responds:

I think the appellation 'radical' to describe a view implies some

inherent character to the view. I prefer the term 'dissent' to radical

in this instance. Views always occur in a context and those contexts

change. You seem to imply that what are now views of dissent against

the current administration policy are inherently radical. Given a

different leadership with a different agenda they would not be radical

at all but what many in the polity consider to be sensible and decent.

writes:

I don't think you have to be educated about what the viewpoints are at

all.

If you, for example, want to know more about arguments against the war

in

Iraq, for example, or about what the anti-war movement believes, having

heard

about it vaguely on Fox News or CNN, you could Google " anti-war " and

come up with

lots of sources of information providing the viewpoints that you

weren't aware

of, or familar with, against the war.

More of my opinion:

Well of course you can look around real hard and find any opinion on

anything. What is important is the diversity of opinions in the mass

media at large. The mass media sets the tone and frames the general

debate. The phenomena that outright lies like the 'swift boat veterans

for truth' can gain " traction " and legitimacy for a time in the mass

media is a clear sign of the pathology at hand.

The reasons for this pathology are varied and complex. They go from

the outright propaganda agenda that is FOX news to the infotainment,

cheap to produce, non confrontational dribble that is so much the rest

of it. And of course there is the corporate agenda that we WAP people

know so well. There is little serious journalism to be had in these

venues.

It is sad that US citizens are some of the most ignorant and poorly

informed people in the world. It is shocking to travel abroad and see

the difference. What is crucial is that we are charged with electing

those whose hands are on the levers of such awesome power and

frightening lethality. The consequences of our elections are global.

The rest of the world cringes as November approaches. That such a

criminal, corrupt, and so blatantly failed regime gets a pass with this

media and a relatively soft gloves treatment is empirical evidence of

the failure of the mass media to accurately report the facts of this

administrations policies and their consequences.

Those radical terrorist who were the founding founders knew well the

value of dissenting opinions in a healthy democracy. They established

that endangered clause for free speech, the first amendment. For

awhile the FCC had regulations that required equal time for opposing

opinions in broadcasts. It was known as the fairness doctrine.

Reagan put the axe to that one which gave birth to the dominance of

hate talk radio that has done so much to coarsen and dumb down our

political discourse in the past fifteen years.

So it's true you can use the wonderful resources of books and the

internet to search out valuable information to help with making a more

informed opinion about the state of things. Thank goodness. But

that's not really the issue. The issue is the massive bullhorn of

deception and propaganda that has become so much worse in the mass

media and does so much to shape public opinion. Such has always been

the case but now it has gotten so much worse.

jo

[Guest guest]

Jim wrote:

<<<<I think the appellation 'radical' to describe a view implies some

inherent character to the view. I prefer the term 'dissent' to radical

in this instance. Views always occur in a context and those contexts

change. You seem to imply that what are now views of dissent against

the current administration policy are inherently radical. Given a

different leadership with a different agenda they would not be radical

at all but what many in the polity consider to be sensible and decent.>>>>>

________

~~~~~~~> writes:

If you are talking about " anti-war, " I agree, but Chomsky's political views

are definitely " radical, " and my own views are also " radical, " although

fundamentally dissimilar to Chomky's in several ways.

_______

Jim wrote:

<<<<<Well of course you can look around real hard and find any opinion on

anything. What is important is the diversity of opinions in the mass

media at large. The mass media sets the tone and frames the general

debate. The phenomena that outright lies like the 'swift boat veterans

for truth' can gain " traction " and legitimacy for a time in the mass

media is a clear sign of the pathology at hand.>>>>

______

~~~~~~> writes:

I'm not following the story you're talking about, but I agree that mostly the

media is generally narrow in view, and often distorts matters. This is

particularly true on foreign policy, where the media mostly functions as

cheerleaders for " our team, " which I think is basically an innate part of human

psychology. Most people have a need to identify with some group, and tend to

think in

terms of " us " and " them. " I don't think that if Chomsky had a weekly tv

show, it would be all that successful for this reason... because the

cheerleading

is what most people probably want to hear.

Anyway, I think the internet may change the landscape dramatically, and

already is to a large extent. Information is much less centralized than it was,

and I think the trend will continue. But there are different types of people,

and some people choose to give more credence to socially legitimated sources,

regardless of the merit of the arguments.

_____

Jim wrote:

<<<<Those radical terrorist who were the founding founders knew well the

value of dissenting opinions in a healthy democracy.>>>>

_____

~~~~~> writes:

I don't think the founding fathers had any interest in establishing a

" healthy democracy. " They thought " democracy " was vile, and sought to establish

a

government in 1787 that would curb the " excess of democracy " that was the source

of the " evils we have been suffering " to counter the tendencies of the

unenlightened masses.

According to some accounts, the Federalists shut out debate about the

Constitution by buying newspapers that had promised to publish debates between

Federalists and anti-Federalists, and then published only Federalist accounts.

I

don't know if any of the big names involved with the Constitution were involved

in these plots, but the general movement wasn't exactly characterized by free

flow of information for a democratic society!0

______

Jim wrote:

<<< They established that endangered clause for free speech, the first

amendment. For

awhile the FCC had regulations that required equal time for opposing

opinions in broadcasts. It was known as the fairness doctrine.

Reagan put the axe to that one which gave birth to the dominance of

hate talk radio that has done so much to coarsen and dumb down our

political discourse in the past fifteen years.>>>

_____

~~~~> writes:

It would seem the First Ammendment would allow people who own radio stations

to publish whatever type of dumb political discourse they want, and that FCC

regulations on what media owners are allowed to publish would clearly be

abridging the freedom of speech of the media.

______

Chris