Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (7827)	5/11/1999 1:13:00 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

PK, stick to the issue... You asked me to stop demonizing Chomsky and provide some real criticism, that I did. And now you try to veer off on a tangent? Well lets pull us back to topic. What do you think about Chomsky's treatment of Cambodia? This must be his most notorious political escapade. Shall we discuss Chomsky's distortions of facts to suit his ends? What do you think about a man who distorts reports coming out of Cambodia about massive massacres, in typical Chomsky fashion, by never denying it but misquoting the Economist and other reputable magazines and saying that at most only several thousand were killed? A man who disavowed any atrocities on the part of the Khmer Rouge, until the Vietnamese themselves invaded Cambodia because Pol Pot was mad, and then said that maybe some of the reports were true, but it was all the fault of the US that it happened! In typical fashion, misdirection, disinformation, distortion and skirting around the facts, and always, when his Leftist friends fail, it was the devil (the US) that made them do it. Outside his field of linguistics, Chomsky has no credibility with me, and it is indicative that the New York Review of Books has long ago stopped reviewing him. If he didnt have his credentials, he would be seen for what he may very well be: a crank.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (7827)	5/11/1999 2:22:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 17770

PK--- First, the media is notoriously adversarial. According to Chomsky, it reflects the domination of the corporate elite, yet organizations such as the Media Research Center have documented anti- corporate bias in major news programs such as "60 Minutes". Even in foreign policy, it has been shown that since the Vietnam War the media is prone to take a skeptical view of the use of force, and of friction in our relations with other countries. Famously, Peter Arnett, of CNN, was roundly criticized for his soft- ball interview with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, and later admitted that he was trying to affect U.S. policy, but he met with a great deal of approval within his profession. Besides all of this, there are diverse sources of information available, in print and radio especially, that may represent various ideological stances. It is not a conspiracy that keeps them out of the hands of readers, but the free market in ideas. While it is true enough that there is a consensus among most who function on the upper- echelons of journalism on some issues, such as free- trade, there are many disagreements, especially in the op- ed section of the news paper. It is inevitable that there will be judgments about what is within the legitimate parameters of debate, and what is just fruity, but the prestige of Chomsky demonstrates that even when one is widely considered to be over- the- top, one can find a way to disseminate one's views.....