Noam Chomsky on "Charlie Rose" (2003)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 бер 2013
- Professor Chomsky appears on the PBS program, Charlie Rose, to discuss a variety of topics: Democracy, Iraq, US/Israeli relations, American Imperialism, and more. Promoting his book "Hegemony or Survival". They also touch on linguistics, Edward Said, and the pros and cons of the internet.
"I'm not trying to persuade you. here's what I think, and I think if you investigate, this is what you'll find". truer words ne'er spoken.
Basically Noam Chomsky is the Chuck Norris of the intellectuals...
"Not too far from it", Thank goodness he's still going strong 11 years later. We love you Noam Chomsky!
NGE Fan "Internet free and open..." It's not free. Nothing is free. That's a truly stupid thing to say.
joepeeler34 Chomsky's opinion on the internet, I think you might have misunderstood him
philosophynow.org/issues/107/Noam_Chomsky_on_Institutional_Stupidity
I have watched Chomsky in many interviews and what I find with people that oppose his views is that often times they are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending the issues to the depth that Chomsky does. He Simply goes beyond their level of understanding or their willingness to dig to a level that reveals a truth they would rather not look at.
BuddhaNature I agree generally with your comment. But can you please explain to me why he says that freedom of speech is not in the constitution or the bill of rights? (39:55)
IMHO what he means is that freedom of expression is not guaranteed in that as the old saying goes, " you can't yell fire in a crowded theater", unless of course there is actually a fire.
Another words freedom of speech as restrictions, it is not guaranteed to protect you in all circumstances, especially where people might be physically harmed from your actions.
If anyone else would like to give their own opinion on this I would like see it, please jump in.
Noam is the only one I've heard that challenges the premises of our society. Such as that America is a democracy. It's not even close to being a democracy.
Many interviewers and most of the public hear words but don't question whether it accurately represents reality
Noam is a linguist. The perfect person to break through the crap
I like Charlie Rose but the extent of his ignorance of the real world becomes sharply defined when he converses with Chomsky.
why i actually hate CR. good riddance
I admired Charlie Rose's style of dialogue / interview was one of the best. That was a myth. I am glad I watch him trying to dialogue and reason with Noam Chomsky.
Rose walks a fine line between being fully engaged and completely disengaged at the same time. It's a peculiar tick for a guy who makes a living interviewing people.
Chomsky here was brilliant. What an astonishing mind he has..
Kaloyan Stoyanov I agree that he's brilliant but can you please explain why he says freedom of speech is not in the constitution?(39:55) Am I missing something here?
Kaloyan Stoyanov thank you!
I saw this interview in 2003 and thought the same thing at the time. Rose really doesn't seem interested in Chomsky's more controversial answers, instead he seems focused on asking perfunctory questions. Rose seems unable to absorb Chomsky's more important comments. On the other hand, Chomsky stands in good company here - a few years before this, he interviewed the eminent evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould and Rose seemed incapable of understanding the greater concepts he put forward.
Oh I should watch the Gould interview, didn't know there was one
@@DinoDudeDillon If you can find the Gould one, I'd recommend it. It's quite funny to see Rose fail to comprehend the professor's analogies.
charlie rose should invite noam chomsky back for another interview after reading these comments and watching this video!
Why at 9:32 does Rose interrupt Chomsky midway through an answer to a question that is likely the central thought of Chomsky's life?
+TwelfthRoot2 The truth is worse: It seems that Chomsky's response was edited short; presumably because it was felt by the producers that it would go over the heads of the general public.
+Nicholas Fox I bet you're correct. I was so interested in what he was about to say, and then he wasn't even given the opportunity to actually answer. Ironic, given that he wasn't talking about politics.
Yes, there's an edit there. I had to watch it twice to catch it. It seemed like a mental lapse at first.
TwelfthRoot2, he was probably going to reveal how Rose was harassing women.
because he sucked and/or he wanted to hear himself instead of the interviewed
What does Charlie Rose ask at @11.05? I can't make it out despite having spoken English as my first language for about 30 years.
Charlie's friend didn't meet anyone in Iraq against the war in 2003?? Ha! What a joke. His friend was probably Cheney.
We were also close to getting a true populist this year. And now we're getting a corporate hawk
This is why Chomsky isn’t invited on mainstream media anymore, or re-invited with Charlie Rose. Chomsky pointing out the change that people have and can make, makes elite shudder.
Chomsky on mainstream television?! How could tptb let this through?
I CAN'T BELIEVE he asks him about the central remaining question in linguistics...and then Interrupts him...how did Charlie Rose actually make a career out of this????
It seems to have been an edit. Nice editing. We never got to hear Chomsky's "personal obsession" apparently because they thought it was boring.
Rose said he would have Chomsky on the program in the future. Did he? Because I can not find anything.
Didn't that conservative William Buckley or whatever say the same thing after Chomsky schooled him on history? Buckley said he would invite him back but never did. Rose might have done the same thing.
Patrik M he was on the show again in 2011. Charlie was out and had a guest host interview him.
LOL! yes he did. Chomsky was going to say something very interesting and he was just cut off. Not the first time Charlie Rose does this.
They cut him off on that "mega-question" part right? We'll never learn about linguistics that way, Charlie Rose.
these types of interviews are kind of "casual interrogations".; plus there are time constraints; time constraints are one reason the Chomster does not appear on TV shows. It generally takes time to a constructive interview, and it's hard to fit it around commercial breaks.
I usually like to watch Charlie Rose but this is a horrible interview. C.R asks questions before Nom Chomsky has a chance to respond and its on to another question. There was also a Tug-A-War on behalf of C.R that was due to his lack of listening and having to prove his "Rightness". It is better to have full responses, regardless of the "Time Factor" then to have a series of disjointed and unanswered questions. Did C.R have a Part Two with N.C?
I agree with you... but I am sure for Charlie Rose, just like it is for most media personalities, keeping his job is more important than telling the truth or agreeing with the truth. If you were paid a few millions to be a media personality would you sacrifice it? You may-- like many brave people in this country, but not all can be expected to be that brave and courageous. Look what has happened to "Hope and Change" President Obama!
Can anyone point me to things Chomsky has written about what he is saying ~ minute 45:00? The stuff about international policies that restrict governments like Brazil's from taking the political actions they want?
Sorry for being five years too late here. But there is a lecture he gave at Clark University in September of 1994 (I looked, available on UA-cam in two parts). In the lecture (in part two on the youtube upload I believe) a student asks Chomsky about availability of capital on the international market. Chomsky describes how Nixon jettisoned Bretton Woods in early 70's, and how that produced a global environment in which investment capital is locked up in speculative markets. Then recommends some scholarship about it from Susan Strange (who was an LSE economist and wrote the book 'Casino Capitalism'). That's probably a good starting place.
Ol charlie asks the questions but doesn't want to hear the answers when he disagrees. You can hear him shuffle papers around with impatience. I picture him closing his eyes, putting fingers in his ears and going "la la la, i can't hear you".
I think Charlie was better than BBC. When Noam said he is talking about country he stopped talking and allowed Noam to continue.
Charlie was tested because Noam started to criticize persons on whom Charlie business lie. But to have Noam on interview requires guts.
yeah, Charlie really struggled here...shows what happens when even a master is simply out of his depth
This is 8 years too late, but Charlie Rose sucks.
Chomsky must be a robot or something. How is it possible to have so much information in your head?
47:52 *even more below, rather
We have to give Charlie Rose credit for inviting Chomsky when Chomsky being unofficially banned from mainstream media. CR will be out of a job if he tried to be too lenient to intellectuals such as Chomsky who tell only the truth under any circumstances since media hate the truth. Don’t think that PBS is immune to the reach of the corporate Octopus and CR cannot pretend to be agreeing with Chomsky for fear of losing his job annoying his corporate bosses.
So Chomsky and Edward Said were close friends. What a shocker. As for Rose, he’d be close friends with Ted Bundy if he thought it would add to his sense of cool.
Charlie took a long cold shower and punched a wall or two after this interview, AND I'm sure he thought, "I'll never interview this guy again."
Hope you're still twitching from this interview. Ego like yours I'm sure it's still ringing in your ears Chaz Chucky.
Sam Cooke's playing in Charlie's brain. Don't know much about history. Don't know much of biology. Why don't you leave the country you're in Charles Sexual Harassment Rose.
ive never heard anyone say "this country is too white/brown/anything". it also would be a totally racist thing to say.
Norm Chomsky debates are riveting. This put me to sleep.
the interviewer should relax
tim berners lee invented the internet lad
No, he invented the world wide web.
Internet is not equivalent to the world wide web.
When have you seen Chomsky in the mood to be convinced of anything other than what he already thinks?
What a stupid comment. He is asked here to share his views. Who cares about what he DOESN'T think?
@@stevenhines5550 I was referring to his fucked up attitude. Few people give a shit what he thinks.
There's a reason he's been relegated to the back rooms of coffee shops and DemocracyNow.
@@SuperSpeedMonkey Lots of people around the world care a great deal about what he thinks, as he's probably the most influential intellectual alive. The reason media conglomerates don't put him on tv often is obvious. He speaks too much truth, exposes them and harms their business.
nomnom chomsky
Intrusive interviewer, shut up Chris. Let him answer
Is this a real fear of yours?
You interrupted too much, you misogynist! Don't parade your ignorance by interrupting and thinking you can tell Chomsky anything about the world.
Rose was very fair to chomsky, when your an interviewer you sometimes play devils advocate. Just like the bbc interviewer.
Chomsky is so dismissive and never recedes when he has something to say. This is his only downside I can name, but how's that for a downside? Not bad at all. It's not really a downside, only when genuine people are trying to get in a word. Surely he needs to put up a front against all the people who aren't genuine and want to knock him down.
I thought your comment was very interesting and I appreciate it, but NOPE! Sorry bruh. Just nope. To be honest I'd need to write a book to answer you respectively. I'll have to play that role of ignorance for now...
Actually, I'll give more insight to my response... With years of experience and the intellectual motor functions of a professor (answering questions to his students) he still handled himself COMPLETELY unbiased . Again, he's ridiculously experienced and everything he says is backed backed backed, He sniffs out claims that aren't backed before they even finish, and saves time! That's how he is revered as a human representing humans both in thought and emotion.*this is not a book, sorry internet*
Pat Joyce I think that's the perfect explanation for what goes on with him.
+Sage Mantis He murders them before they know they're dead.