Those who know me well are aware of my ever-growing dislike for that intellectual guru of anti-Americanism Noam Chomsky. This comes after a few years of serious interest and agreement with his ideas during the "radical" days of my early 20's. Though I never found his writing very appealing - presicent in some ways I guess I was - the Canada Film Board financed hagiography of him (shown in an edited version on CBC television) Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media had a pretty profound effect on me.
My disillusionment with him began sometime around the time I saw a simulcast of an award ceremony he was given by the University of Calgary, and subsequent speech, while atttending the University of Alberta in 1997/98. A group of self-described, wanna-be "radicals"around this time had taken to making, wearing and selling t-shirts that read simply "Read Chomsky" on the front with a quote from him on the back. Though I still thought I agreed with Chomsky the sanctimoniousness of this bothered me with its "St. Chomsky"-ish overtones. The speech itself, excited as I was to almost see him in person, burst my bubble even more; anti-climactic as Dorothy's first glimpse of the Wizard of Oz as he turned out to be not the dramatic speeker the film had made him out to be, but instead a rather befuddled academic who in a rather croaky voice rambled on in seeming smug self-assurance of his own perspicaciousness.
On coming out of the theatre, I was even approached by a reporter for the U of A's student newspaper (that I later wrote a great deal for) asking my opinion of the speech. The spell had not been totally broken, but while saying that I liked it I also made some comments that I think rather irked the Chomskyites on campus to the effect that it had rambled on and not been entirely coherent.
It wasn't until the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, however, that I finally freed myself from the Cult of Chomsky as he, parroting an opinion that had already by this time disgusted me, maintained that it was all the fault of America and that those killed might somehow deserve their fate.
Since then my dislike of the man's opinions has grown evermore. Recently I came across an excellent article online that discusses his disturbingly disingenuous attitudes towards the Khmer Rouge and their rule of Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. It's rather long, but well worth reading as the best analysis of not only how wrong Chomsky was, but how he dishonestly he has dealt with his errors ever since he was proved to be so wrong. Chomsky is, of course, one of the foremost spokespersons again the mainstream media's "propaganda model," but what Bruce Sharp so convincingly shows in this article is how skilfully Chomsky himself propagandizes.
Propaganda is, by its nature, advocacy. The American Heritage dictionary defines propaganda as "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." Chomsky often describes the Western media as propaganda. Yet Chomsky himself is no more objective than the media he criticizes; he merely gives us different propaganda.
Chomsky's supporters frequently point out that he is trying to present the side of the story that is less often seen. But there is no guarantee that these "opposing" viewpoints have any factual merit; Porter and Hildebrand's book [Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution] is a fine example. The value of a theory lies in how it relates to the truth, not in how it relates to other theories. By habitually parroting only the contrarian view, Chomsky creates a skewed, inaccurate version of events. This is a fundamentally flawed approach: It is an approach that is concerned with persuasiveness, and not with the truth. It's the tactic of a lawyer, not a scientist. Chomsky seems to be saying: if the media is wrong, I'll present a view which is diametrically opposed. Imagine a mathematician adopting Chomsky's method: Rather than insuring the accuracy of the calculations, problems would be "solved" by averaging different wrong answers.
Describing the difference between good science and bad, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman stressed the importance of including all available evidence:
"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can -- if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong -- to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it... In summary, the idea is to give ALL of the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."(Feynman, Richard: Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, p. 341).
By contrast, consider the tactics employed by a devoted partisan. The partisan has already decided where her or his sympathies lie; the goal is to convince others to adopt the same position. Toward that end, a partisan will not concede anything, and will not encourage the examination of conflicting points of view. Seen in this light, the first step is to discredit conflicting accounts of any event. Arguments advanced for this purpose need not be consistent. If one reader decides that Barron and Paul are unreliable because they relied on government sources, fine; if another reader decides that Chomsky and Herman are reliable because they relied on government sources, that's fine, too. If one reader believes that the Khmer Rouge averted widespread starvation thanks to their ingenious irrigation projects, that's fine; if another reader believes that there was widespread starvation, but that it was due to the US bombing two years earlier, that's also fine.
Why are so many people persuaded by Chomsky's arguments? In large measure, this is because Chomsky is undeniably brilliant. As propagandists go, he is skillful and persuasive... or at least, persuasive to people whose only knowledge of the topic at hand comes from Chomsky himself.
Chomsky understands a critical axiom of sophistry: it's far better to mislead than to lie. Obfuscation is the propagandist's best friend. A skilled propagandist will not say, "Hildebrand and Porter's book shows that conditions under the Khmer Rouge were fairly good." Better to say that the book presents a "very favorable picture," to praise it as "carefully documented," and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Don't say, "Ponchaud's book presents a false picture of atrocities under the Khmer Rouge." Instead, simply say that this "grisly account" is "careless," and that "its veracity is therefore difficult to assess." And never forget the value of a good disclaimer: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies..."
The whole article can be found at: http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/chomsky.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment