Media, Politics, Action - Noam Chomsky.pdf - Media - lady_kitty

6AGENDADECEMBER 1998

thought and opinion (especially among the educated

sectors of the public) must be kept strictly in line with

the tenets of the state ideology. But what is this state

ideology, and how would honest discussion of its conse-

quences “lead to action” that might be a “threat to order”?

Free Markets, Democracy & Human Rights

The belief that U.S. power is intrinsically benevolent,

motivated by a desire to do good, underlies mainstream

discussion of U.S. government policy, both foreign and

domestic. From time to time, true believers acknowl-

edge that we do make mistakes, but consider them the

products of good intentions. These assumptions are so

basic that they usually do not need to be explicitly stated,

except in the process of refuting arguments challeng-

ing the dominant way of thinking.

As with his analysis of the role of the media,

Chomsky examines the actual behavior of the U.S.

rather than taking these assumptions on faith. He ar-

gues that we can discern systematic patterns in U.S.

foreign policy that derive from the pursuit of specific

goals deeply rooted in U.S. institutions. Chomsky has

sometimes described these specific goals as the “Fifth

Freedom”, a reference to President Roosevelt’s World

War II-era announcement that the Allies were fighting

for Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of

worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The Fifth Freedom, “ the most important [is] the free-

dom to rob and to exploit ” ( Turning the Tide, p. 47).

Within regions controlled by enemy powers, violations

of the four freedoms bring anguished concern and calls

for action. But within the vast regions controlled by the

U.S., Chomsky argues, “ it is only when the fifth and

fundamental freedom is threatened that a sudden

and short-lived concern for other forms of freedom

manifests itself ” ( Turning the Tide , p. 47).

One of Chomsky’s sources of evidence for this claim

relates to human rights. Conventional wisdom holds that

U.S. foreign policy is dedicated to preserving and ex-

tending human rights around the world. However,

Chomsky and coauthor Edward Herman (an economist

at the University of Pennsylvania) conclude that “ the

deterioration of the human rights climate in some

Free World dependencies [including Brazil, Iran,

Guatemala, and Chile; after US-sponsored coups]

correlates rather closely with an increase in US aid

and support ” ( The Washington Connection and Third

World Fascism , p. 43). These findings build on similar

results from earlier studies by Lars Schoultz, a leading

academic specialist on the relation between human

rights and US foreign policy in Latin America (Schoultz,

Comparative Politics , 1981, cited in Turning the Tide ,

pp. 157-58). One possible explanation of these patterns

is that the U.S. government simply hates human rights.

Chomsky and Herman’s alternative explanation brings

in another factor— the investment climate; related to

tax laws of a country, to the possibility of investor profit,

and to the nature and scale of government controls on

wages and trade unions, among other things. They note

“ For most of the sample countries, US-controlled aid

has been positively related to investment climate and

inversely related to the maintenance of a democratic

order and human rights ” ( The Washington Connec-

tion and Third World Fascism , p. 44). To put it crudely,

countries with governments that are willing and able to

kill union organizers and others who work for the rights

of the poor and oppressed, generally offer the prospect

of more stable profits than countries with governments

concerned about the well-being of their population—

the concern is for the Fifth Freedom, not human rights.

For a glimpse into what U.S. policy planners tell one

another about such things, as opposed to what they tell

us, see the sidebar For Your Leaders’ Eyes Only .

What about the ‘communist threat’, often raised as

an explanation for such policies, when they are at all

acknowledged? Chomsky cites a 1955 study by the

Woodrow Wilson Foundation and the National Plan-

ning Association which concluded that the primary

Noam Chomsky on

Media

Politics

Action

by Aaron Stark

On December 7, 1998, Noam Chomsky will be 70 years

old. Alternately ignored and reviled in much of the

mainstream national discourse, Chomsky’s critiques of

U.S. society address crucial questions of ideology and

power; of propaganda and of the institutional roots of

our society’s ugliest flaws. His prodigious work has

inspired several generations of activists, with its high

regard for evidence and its power to induce both horror

and hope in readers. Much of Chomsky’s work has been

an examination of the role of intellectuals—their rela-

tions with and typical subservience to institutions of

state and private capital. Chomsky’s more hopeful writ-

ings, however, recall old notions of freedom and jus-

tice latent within human nature itself. These different

aspects of Chomsky’s thought are usually not balanced

equally within any particular work. But it’s necessary

to keep them both in mind—horror and shame evoked

by crimes committed in our name, and hope in the pos-

sibility of a society more worthy of the label ‘human’.

Propaganda

in a Free Press

The “Propaganda Model”

Chomsky has helped develop and

defend exhibits several “filters”

preventing sustained dissent from

reaching the public even in a

somewhat democratic society.

Entrance cost into the media market:

Labor newspapers and other grassroots

media once reached large audiences. But

dominant radio and TV licenses have

literally been handed over to corporate

titans, and ‘advertiser strikes’ have made

independent newspapers more costly to the

reader than their corporate competitors.

Result: most global media is consolidated in

the hands of a few mammoth corporations, an

interlocking cartel representing huge

armsmakers—like General Electric (NBC) and

Westinghouse (CBS)—and labor abusers—

like Disney (ABC) [see Reader Action, page

21. And as with most hierarchically-organized

businesses, editors and reporters quickly learn

what will and won’t please the boss.

Corporate Media

Some of Chomsky’s most valuable insights into con-

temporary society come from his analysis of the role of

mass media (major newspapers like the New York Times

and the Washington Post) in a democracy. Some praise

the media for service to the public, for devotion to truth,

and for independence. Some even say the media go too

far in their search for truth—one acclaimed review of

media coverage of the Vietnam War argued that the

media’s alleged anti-government bias effectively lost

the war for the U.S. ( Necessary Illusions , p. 6). But if

like Chomsky one examines the structure of media in-

stitutions and their actual day-to-day performance, a

very different picture emerges. Chomsky finds that with

few exceptions, the mass media confine themselves to

presenting a picture of the world skewed in favor of

wealthy and powerful elites. The debate over policies

and issues appearing in major media is thus narrowly

bounded, with many positions simply unthinkable.

Consider just one of Chomsky’s examples: how the

U.S. media treated the 1990 Nicaraguan elections. Af-

ter years of US-sponsored Contra attacks on “soft tar-

gets” like health centers and schools, after an economic

embargo that had caused millions of dollars in dam-

ages, and after a threat by the US government that all

this would continue if their favored party did not win,

it was clear what the result of the elections would be.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of the mainstream press

discussed these elections as if they were a free expres-

sion of the will of the Nicaraguan people. At the liberal

extreme of the mainstream discussion, Tom Wicker of

the New York Times recognized that the Sandinistas lost

“because the Nicaraguan people were tired of war and

sick of economic deprivation,” but concluded that the

elections were “free and fair” and untainted by coercion.

For details on mechanisms that distort media, see

the bubble Propaganda in a Free Press .

Why is the confinement of discussion within the

bounds of elite ideology necessary? Chomsky attributes

this to the relative freedom of thought and expression

available in Western capitalist democracies: “ Since the

state lacks the capacity to ensure obedience by force,

thought can lead to action and therefore the threat

to order must be excised at the source. ” So typical

Media as profitable businesses:

To make money, major media outlets have to

‘sell’ audiences to advertisers; the more

privileged the audience the better the advertis-

ing rates. Chomsky notes “ It would hardly

come as a surprise if the picture of the

world they present were to reflect the

perspectives and interests of the sellers,

the buyers, and the product ” … the product

being audiences willing and able to spend big.

There are other filters, like the need for a

steady flow of news, which government and

business are happy to provide in the form of

press conferences and “experts”. These

interact with instances of journalistic self-

censorship, and with ‘flak’ directed to-

wards media elements that fall out of line,

to form a sophisticated propaganda

system with little overt censorship, yet

with an effective range of mainstream

opinion and debate as narrow as any

totalitarian system.

Chomsky stresses that this model

is not a ‘conspiracy theory.’

Rather, it is an analysis of the

behavior of the major media

based on their ‘automatic’

institutional structure in the

context of contemporary

capitalism.

DECEMBER 1998AGENDA7

For Your Leaders’ Eyes only ...

Chomsky calls attention

to this 1948 top-secret

report (PPS 23) by

George Kennan, head of

the State Dept Policy

Planning Staff after

World War II.

It emphasizes the

importance of the

Fifth Freedom.

(“50% of the world’s

wealth” refers to

global holdings from

colonialism and

bounty from WWII.)

for what they are, there is a chance that the better parts

of human nature—cooperation, solidarity, compassion;

perhaps reflected somewhere in a shared moral sys-

tem—could come to the fore. (For the record, Chomsky

cautions that his remarks about possible connections

between the linguistic/philosophical sense in which he

speaks of ‘human nature’, and the political sense of his

use of the term, are “speculative and sketchy.”)

There is another assumption lurking here, one that

Chomsky has referred to as an “instinct for freedom”

possibly latent in human nature. Chomsky’s concep-

tion of this instinct is similar to the 19 th -century Rus-

sian anarchist Bakunin’s idea that “liberty … consists

in the full development of all the material, intellectual

and moral powers that are latent in each person; lib-

erty … recognizes no restrictions other than those de-

termined by the laws of our own individual nature…”

(cited in “Notes on Anarchism”, Chomsky’s Introduc-

tion to Daniel Guerin’s Anarchism: From Theory to

Practice , 1970). In Chomsky’s view, this instinct for

freedom has driven struggles for justice throughout his-

tory, and can lead to a more just society today, if social

movements undertake concerted action and education,

including helping people acquire the means of intel-

lectual self-defense.

How does one know, however, that any of these

assumptions are correct? Is it, for Chomsky, simply a

matter of faith? He states “ I don’t have faith that the

truth will prevail if it becomes known, but we have

no alternative to proceeding on that assumption,

whatever its credibility may be. ” His treatment of

the question of human freedom is similar: “ On the is-

sue of human freedom, if you assume that there’s

no hope, you guarantee that there will be no hope. ”

However, if you assume that such a thing as an instinct

for freedom exists, then hope may be justified, and it

may be possible to build a better world. Chomsky

notes,“ That’s your choice. ”

Chomsky’s work in linguistics, philosophy, politi-

cal and social analysis throughout the 70 years of his

life does not leave readers with many comfortable an-

swers or cherished assumptions about the way the world

works. But for those who seriously consider his per-

spective (with a necessary degree of intellectual self-

defense), it is not clear that this is the only way things

can be. Chomsky’s contribution, perhaps, lies not in

an enumeration of exact blueprints for “the” just fu-

ture society, or for “the” final theory of the mind; but

in his elaboration of possibilities that people can—and

should—strive for.

threat of communism was the economic transformation

of the communist powers “ in ways that reduce their

willingness and ability to complement the industrial

economies of the West ” (cited in The Chomsky Reader,

p. 251). So, according to Chomsky, U.S. anti-commu-

nism is not provoked by the real crimes committed by

the governments of the ‘communist’ states, but rather

by their unwillingness to subordinate their economies

to the industrial Western economies. He notes that the

term ‘communism’, when used in U.S. propaganda, is

largely a technical term that has “ little relation to so-

cial, political or economic doctrines but a great deal

to do with a proper understanding of one’s duties

and function in the global system ” as defined by the

U.S. ( On Power and Ideology , p. 10).

Chomsky has taken on another fundamental belief

related to the Fifth Freedom—the idea that the U.S.

government seeks free markets. He repeatedly points

out the importance of military spending to the strength

and structure of the U.S. economy, not primarily for

the benefit of military industry, but as a system of state

intervention in the economy. This intervention,

Chomsky maintains, sustains research and development

in key sectors of the economy, (such as aircraft, elec-

tronics, computers and the internet, and more recently,

biotechnology)—paid for by taxpayer subsidy through

the Pentagon system, including NASA, the Department

of Energy, and other government agencies—until re-

sults of the research become profitable. At this point,

research “spinoffs” begin to produce revenue for pri-

vate corporations. He cites articles from the business

press in the early days after World War II, when this

system of “public subsidy, private profit” was devel-

oped in its current form. The business world then rec-

ognized that advanced industry “cannot satisfactorily

exist in a pure, competitive, unsubsidized, ‘free enter-

prise’ economy,” and that “the government is their only

possible savior” (cited in Powers and Prospects , p.

122). He also notes the hugely protectionist measures

of the U.S. and the other industrial powers that, ac-

cording to the World Bank, reduce the national income

of the Third World by twice the amount of official ‘de-

velopmental assistance’ ( Year 501 , p. 106). Only the

weak, both domestically and internationally, are to be

subjected to free market discipline; the rich profit

through the corporate welfare of Newt Gingrich’s

‘nanny state’ (See Year 501 , Ch. 4, Powers and Pros-

pects , Ch. 5).

What Can Be Done?

It can be unpleasant to learn of crimes committed by

one’s government and to learn of the apologetics of

respected commentators. Reading Chomsky, or listen-

ing to him speak, is often an ordeal. Undergone as a

course in “intellectual self-defense” (see bubble), how-

ever, it can be a helpful means to constructive action.

If Chomsky’s philosophy of the mind and human

nature is near correct (see “Chomsky on Language”

on the next page), there is an innate human nature with

separate subcomponents for language and other aspects

of cognition. Perhaps another part of the human mind

is some fixed system of moral principles (with some

principles being variable, in order to accommodate

cross-cultural differences). Chomsky’s assumption

about the value of intellectual self-defense would seem

to be made sounder if this view can be supported. If

so, one could say that obvious cases of atrocities and

oppression are not opposed just because one is taught

that they are bad, but also because such crimes go

against at least certain aspects of an innate human moral

system. And if the actions of the powerful are revealed

Intellectual Self-Defense

We must adopt towards the power of government, media, schools, universities and other dominant institutions in our society “the same

rational, critical stance that we take towards the institutions of any other power” , even in an ‘enemy state.’ “It’s got to get to the point where

it’s like a reflex to read the first page of the L.A. Times and to count the lies and distortions and to put it into some sort of rational framework.”

Media sources that are somewhat independent from corporate control (often called ‘alternative media’) can help construct this framework, though of course no

source should be embraced uncritically. Challenging the propaganda system is hard work, but can be made easier and more meaningful in cooperation with

social movements, if one minimizes the splendid opportunities for isolation that our ‘society’ provides—each person an atom of consumption alone in

front of the TV or computer screen.

Chomsky sees intellectual self-defense as leading normal people to dissent from and resist state crimes. If people really

knew what corporate capital and their government were up to, both at home and abroad, they would not

stand for it and something would have to change.

Media, Politics, Action - Noam Chomsky.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: