“Shocked” is the most appropriate word to describe my initial reaction when, scouring the New York Times today, a headline caught my eye that began, “Noam Chomsky’s Video Plea to…”
Like all forms of mainstream media, the Times doesn’t pay Chomsky much mind, despite the fact he is one of the most cited authors today, and was the most cited living person for a twelve year stretch, particularly in the realm of United States foreign policy in addition to linguistics. That’s because Chomsky’s body of work in the former field constitutes a voluminous and unyielding assault on the conventional way of thinking about American power and international relations.
In accordance with the propaganda model put forth by him and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky’s opinion is almost never solicited by any “reputable” news organization, including the New York Times. So for that split second when I saw that reporter Robert Mackey’s blog, The Lede, on the Times website was citing Chomsky, I was stunned. But then I read on:
“Noam Chomsky’s Video Plea to
Given that Chomsky is calling on a so-called enemy of
But the most interesting aspect of Mackey’s posting can actually be found in the comments section, where, funnily enough, Chomsky’s (non)exposure in the Times was pointed out by one commenter, Josh in New York, who accurately and respectfully observed,
“It is very rare and unusual for the New York Times to cover the human-rights activism of Professor Chomsky. His books analyzing U.S. foreign policy, for example, are routinely ignored by your publication even when they make the top 20 list and even though Professor Chomsky is, according a NY Times reviewer, ‘arguably the most important intellectual alive’ and among the top 10 most cited of all living authors.
“It seems as long as Chomsky by pleading for release of the American hikers is making the Iranian government look bad the NY Times has no difficulty covering him. So it seems the present coverage in not inconsistent with decades’ long NY Times policy.”
Then came this telling inquiry from Owen in
“Robert [Mackey] - I have submitted two comments, neither of which was posted on this page. They were both on-topic and not abusive. Are there other criteria that they did not satisfy? If you let me know I will conform....”
Mackey responded with a comment of his own,
“There are several other reasons that comments are not posted here, since we make an effort to lightly moderate the discussion, but in this case I chose to call a halt to the off-topic discussion of whether or not The Times coverage of Mr. Chomsky’s work and activism is extensive enough.
“The reason is that this forum is not the place for a general discussion of The Times and most of my attempts to challenge the more outlandish and extreme statements people make here on that subject fail to convince readers whose minds are made up[,] that reporting is a considerably more complex and nuanced job than they realize.”
(I inserted that comma because without it, Mackey’s words have are somewhat confusing. So in that sense, yes, reporting can very nuanced.)
Apparently, asserting that Chomsky is not sufficiently covered by the Times is, ipso facto, evidence that one does not understand the complexities of reporting, whatever that means.
Chomsky’s general exclusion from the pages of the paper has nothing to do with the complexities and nuances of reporting, and everything to do with sourcing. Everyday, the Times runs stories that feature expert sources that are essentially interchangeable with other experts in the same field. In other words, there are innumerable experts whose opinions could be solicited on a given topic. If a reporter needs an expert analysis on the role credit default swaps played in the financial crisis, there are thousands of financial analysts he could call. If the story is about greenhouse gas emissions, there is a plethora of reputable atmospheric scientists who’d be happy to render their opinions. And if the story is about say, the American role in the Middle East “peace process” involving Israel and Palestine, there are plenty of independent experts—ones that are not government officials from any of the above nations—a reporter could call or email. (I have interviewed Chomsky and I assure the media that he responds to emails very promptly and thoughtfully). But on a consistent basis, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media forgo consulting Chomsky who has written many books on the subject, has debated other intellectuals (such as Alan Dershowitz) about it, and is invited to speak around the world.
Notice how Mackey doesn’t elaborate on his odd insinuation that Chomsky is largely absent from the times because of how reporting works. He is saying either (a) Reporters don’t ask for Chomsky’s expertise because reporting is complex—meaning reporting is hard, (which doesn’t make sense), or (b) Reporters don’t ask for Chomsky’s expertise because reporting is complex—meaning there exist editors and advertisers who don’t want the input of a such a subversive voice.
I’m going to go with (b) as the most plausible explanation, which is expounded upon in Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky is absent from television as well, and as to that reason, I will leave you with an invaluable explanation from the man himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment