::sigh::
RR, this has nothing to do with Chomskian theorizing. Chomsky's thesis is that the popular media only reports that which fits the dominant ideology. Your cited case is another matter entirely: corporate influence upon its subsidiary news programs. I have no argument against that, it is obvious.
But when it comes to politics, has everyone forgotten Woodward and Bernstein except me? During the Vietnam war, the press was particularly sceptical of the government line, and this was the precise period which Chomsky wrote of the Cambodian killing fields as being of dubious authenticity. Chomsky's reasoning is typical of the methodology of the intelligensia of the time, which is blatant in its romanticising of the Cambodian revolution, namely, theory comes first, then comes support. Even today, Chomsky is adamant in his position of "scepticism" about the Cambodian massacre, against all evidence, and still insists he was on the money. |
