The awesome power of the Chomskyites

I'm currently reading What We Say Goes, a collection of interviews with Noam Chomsky.  A few months back I saw a review of it and almost coughed up a hairball when I hit this part:

People who hold a particular view of the mainstream media seem to find it inconceivable that I might actually, as Alice told the March Hare, mean what I write and write what I mean.

And for this, I blame Noam Chomsky. Not that everyone who holds a nasty opinion of the media has read his work or understands its subtleties. But he has given the caricature of the lying journalist so much academic legitimacy that arguing against it seems almost pointless. It's a given now, so much so that he can get away with speculating about what other people think.

This damages Chomsky's authority. The book isn't so much a conversation as a sermon to the converted. The title of the book, What We Say Goes, is a piece of dramatic irony: the "we" is meant to refer to the United States, but it could just as easily refer to Chomsky and his followers.

I'll bet you're thinking just what I'm thinking: how did she find out?  When I was initiated into the Chomskyite Cabal I was told that the hand of influence was always wielded with the deepest subtlety, lest the sheep understand that their reality is but an artifact of the Great One's design.  But apparently one of the unwashed has penetrated the sacred mysteries and uncovered our awesome power.  This could throw a real monkey wrench into our ongoing project to redefine "terrorism" as "anything the United States does," which before this revelation I think all of us would agree was destined for even greater success than the "all journalists are big fat liars" project.  Oh well—we may have to wait a few more years on that one now, but since what we say goes, it's only a matter of time.

I haven't gotten far enough into the book to give a review yet.  So far it's as informed and informative as you'd suspect, though familiar ground if you've followed Chomsky's output over the past few years.  For anyone who needs it, my recommendation for the best single Chomsky book to read would be Understanding Power (whose excellent online footnotes exceed the size of the book itself).  It covers a broad range of material, and very accessibly, since it's a collection of transcripts of Q&A sessions and so the conversational format prevents Chomsky from hitting the depths of inscrutability he sometimes reaches in his own writings.  It's also easy to read in short stretches, and as an extra added bonus, this is one of the few times I know of that you'll hear Chomsky use any of the seven words you can't say on television.

Comments

[Save the Oocytes]

Hey, it couldn't be without the help of the Cabal that, for instance, Jon Schwarz gets fourteen hundred hits daily. I bet you never thought of that, did you?

[John Caruso]

Are you kidding? That one was one of my own projects. I've personally sent at least two people to Jon's site.

[Thomas Daulton]

Milk came out of my nose when I read this one:

It's a given now, so much so that he [Chomsky] can get away with speculating about what other people think.

Oh, yeah, because journalists for national publications never, ever, ever under any circumstances print speculation about what politicians or business leaders are thinking. Particularly not, for example, during primary election season.

this is one of the few times I know of that you'll hear Chomsky use any of the seven words you can't say on television

Chomsky says "tits" ?? Okay, I'll read it right away!

[SteveB]

So Chomsky's main point is that journalists are liars? Who knew?

I thought his view of journalists was that most sincerely believe the pro-government talking points they spew, because that's their natural function under our system.

Chomsky's critique of the media is systemic, not personal. It's not: "Journalists are part of an evil conspiracy." More like: "We live under a system that produces journalists who believe and report the "proper" things."

But your reviewer doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb, so maybe they missed that part.

[John Caruso]

SteveB: Yeah, she's completely off the rails in how she interprets what he's written (particularly amusing in light of her implication that she "understands its subtleties"). But she clearly takes it very personally—the title of her review was "Chomsky, don't insult me".

In my experience it's the overwhelming rule and not the exception that Chomsky's critics (like, say, Thomas Ricks) caricature what he says, so she's typical in that regard.