Some of that is a bit snarky on my part. But the following (from his original posting) struck me as things Mr. Chomsky has himself been a part of at least w/r/t this subject and others:
"It's not so much the control of what we think, but the control of what we think about. When our governments want to sell us a course of action, they do it by making sure it's the only thing on the agenda, the only thing everyone's talking about. ... With the ground thus prepared, governments are happy if you then "use the democratic process" to agree or disagree — for, after all, their intention is to mobilise enough headlines and conversation to make the whole thing seem real and urgent." IT isn't all that difficult to see my point, assuming you substitute 'governments' for academia. As an example, I'll cite the speaking engagements, lectures and other presentations, where Chomsky seems to dwell only on a few key subjects -- usually, the war (both on Terror, and Iraq), the crisis(es) in Latin America, and our general ineffectual stance on foreign policy.[1] I've attended or listened to enough of these things (thank you Democracy! Now), as well as read much of his works (both linguistics oriented and other), to know that in addition to truly understanding how the process of propaganda and influence works, he has also capitalized on that knowledge for his own interests. I can't say its entirely Chomsky's doing though. More often, a group of academics or others wish to steer what we're talking and thinking about to a specific idea, and Chomsky is good at providing eloquent and thoughtful affirmations of what they already believe, not to mention,assuring that the room will be PACKED with folks eager to hear that message. Although I admit that the majority of this _does_ apply more obviously to governmental institutions, I fail to see how it should be limited to them. As Suresh noted, the EFF and other causes on both the left and right also partake in prop-agenda. I hold that Mr. Chomsky's power and force as an icon in academic and political circles also gives him that same power. "The more emotional the debate, the better. Emotion creates reality, reality demands action. " Indeed. [1] http://www.chomsky.info/talks.htm On 8/17/07, Thaths <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/17/07, Lawnun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or Noam Chomsky, for that matter. > > Explain how. > > Thaths > > > > > On 8/17/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > The EFF and moveon.org fit that bill almost as much as the right > wingers > > > do. > > > In fact just about any political action propaganda does. > > > > > > suresh > > > > > > Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I am not so sure it is confined to the west, but this is an > > > > interesting take on journalism as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://edstrong.blog-city.com/noam_chomsky_how_propaganda_works_in_the_west.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Homer: He has all the money in the world, but there's one thing he can't > buy. > Marge: What's that? > Homer: (pause) A dinosaur. > -- Homer J. Simpson > Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without > Borders > >
