Noam Chomsky

Back to Irma's Home page

Irma's research on Noam Chomsky:

My point of interest

After analyzing Is a tall man happy, an animated documentary by Michael Gondry based on his conversation with Noam Chomsky, I wanted to research the theory professor Chomsky has on the manipulation in the media. To get an overview of his point of view I'll try to summarize several fragments of lectures and interviews on him.

Analyzing video: Propaganda terms of the media and what they mean

Fragment of a lecture of 9 min 41 sec.

Chomsky claims that every term has two meanings :

- official meaning

- technical meaning

He gives several examples :

Democracy

The official meaning is the ability of the public taking part and running around affairs, or something. (note Irma : He assumes  we know what he means by this logical term)

The technical meaning is that it's only a democracy when it's run by the business class, a specially a United States business class.

Peace Proces

The dictionary meaning is that it's a process trying to work towards peace. The technical meaning is whatever the US is advocating at a particular moment. By the fact of having a peace process the US is always working towards peace, no matter what they do, this makes every country who is not supporting them is then against peace.

Chomsky refers to someone who, inspired by one of his lectures, researched all the articles from the NY TIMES Newspaper over the last ten years, claiming that from 900 references from the peace process that not in even one article that the US opposing the peace process. Chomsky finds this quite remarkable because this was the period that the US undermine diplomatic discussions with for example the middle east. The newspaper never mentions that the US blocks the peace process.

On another example comes from an article on the front of the NY Times of the day of the lecture in march 1990. The headline of the front pages said 'US envoy urges Hondurans to let the contras stay' This gives the reader the impression that it seems to be in the spirit of the peace agreement but on the second page, where the article continues, it says 'on its face the second proposal to keep the contras in place would seem to be inconsistent with the spirit of the regional agreement which calls for their relocation but administration officials say there is now consistency ' Chomsky tells us the 1987 peace agreement, wich the US succeeded in undermining and destroying, is quite explicit. It says 'that the one indispensable element is obtaining peace in the region is the end of any form of support, logistical, military, propaganda, etc. for irregular forces, like the countries. So it does not seem to be inconsistent with the spirit it is flatly inconsistent with the words. Chomsky thinks the US, with the support of the media tries to undermine the peace agreement. In this lecture Chomsky names several examples relevant in the period of 1990 to underline his statement that the media helps to establish the power of the government,  this is remarkable because there is no force behind it. This is willing subservience not completed subservience, this flows by the logic of institutions.

Analyzing video: Noam Chomsky on Propaganda - The Big Idea - Interview with Andrew Marr BBC

The program starts with an introduction to the subject of propaganda in the media. It takes the viewer back to George Orwell theory of Big Brother in his book 1984, Orwell's nightmare where propaganda rules and thoughts are controlled. The interviewer assumes in his intro that the public sees Orwell's theory as a connection to the cold war period. Nowadays the western democracy is based on freedom of thought and expressions, the media sees himself as free. Orwell's theory seems bizarre, but not to Noam Chomsky. The program introduces Chomsky with a summary:

He thinks the image of a truth seeking media is a shame. He works for Boston university for over 30 years. He devoted his life to question state power.He virtually invented modern linguistics (moderne taalwetenschappen) He was heavily involved in anti-war activities in the 60's.He championed a brand of anarchism,stateless society, becoming deeply hostile to established power and privilege. In recent years he refined his Propaganda model of media, where he claims that mass media brainwash under freedom. When they present facts the context obscures their real meaning. For example, the invasion of east Timor by the Indonesian army caused indescribable slaughter. Hundreds of thousands died, this was mainly ignored by the western media, Chomsky argues it's because the US was selling arms to the aggressors. But the wars where the US was directly involved was treated different, the Gulf war, for example, got much more attention.

After this introduction, the interviewer asked Chomsky to explain what his "propaganda module" is. He explains that the term propaganda was often used to advocate as a necessary technique to overcome the danger of democracy. The institutional structure of the media is quite straightforward, the main players (NY Times, Washington Post, etc) have a product and a market. Their market is advertisers, other businesses and they are selling privileged audiences to these businesses. Chomsky refers to George Orwell's essay Literary Censorship where he points out two reasons why unpopular ideas can be silenced without force. The first reason is that the press is owned by wealthy men, the second reason is that journalists have a self-filtering system. This starts already in kindergarten, the educational system teaches you that there are certain things you can't say.

The BBC journalist Andrew Marr takes this statement quite personal, it suggests that he is self-censoring, Chomsky claims that people with behavioral problems don't get to certain positions. The journalist, broad up in post-watergate film period, believes that journalism is a crusading craft, knowing many colleagues with a difficult personality. Chomsky thinks the journalist has a very self-serving view claiming he stands up against power, but thinks he would not have this position if he had different opinions.

There is a big tension in the room as the interview turns more into a debate where several examples come across like Vietnam, The Gulf War, Watergate. The journalist loses the discussion by the leg of knowledge. For my personal research, I won't go into the details of the war examples, that is not relevant for my development.

Chomsky does make an interesting point/warning which is relevant in today's media broadcasting: if the focus of the news is more on the personal life of politicians, reach for your pocket and see who is pulling on your wallet. It usually means something else is happening, meaning this is a distraction.

The last point section of the interview is about Chomsky's point of view on the internet, the internet, an elite product, has liberating potential but also repressive potential. This battle is similar to the period during the upcoming of radio and tv.