Noam Chomsky - The Political Economy of the Mass Media - Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 кві 2011
- In the event that this video is temporarily not available through Google Video, you may access the program through this weblink:
www.pdxjustice.org/#Chomsky15M...
"Voices from the Archive" lecture by Noam Chomsky, March 15, 1989 - "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" - Part 1 - Recorded at the Memorial Union Theater on the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison, Wisconsin.
pdxjustice Media Productions
Producer, Editor: William Seaman
Camera, Sound: Steve Braker
Camera, Sound: Rosemary Bodolay
Valuable content for the world to see.
It is really infuriating how Time-Warner decides what it is that people should see and read, or has the power to destroy books from other publishers. And even worse is that the American people do not know and do not care.
+justgivemethetruth -- People do not wish to govern themselves they wish to be taken care of. Only maniacs would prefer freedom over slavery.
John Mulligan -- Ridiculous and foolish? Explain.
John Mulligan -- I should've clarified. In regards to the first statement by ...truth: Not completely out of vice, rather form the system we live in, there's a natural repulsion to "freedom's" true essence. That one is in charge of everything in one's life. When our society holds individual pleasure over social responsibility, we would choose to have others make decisions for us (the mall and supermarket gives us everything and politicians (in theory) commit the policies that we would prefer, we don't have to look and read and vote on every law), leaving us with the sole purpose to accumulate money and use that money. Add to that every and more news story that we would all have to take action on is odious. To be truly free then, we would need to sack on a mountian of troubles and leave away out leisure and fill our time with true independence: no boss or politician to grind the sausage we see behind seemingly clear and polished crystal. Who would forsake their leisure to take all that on? It's unpleasent, and a perpetual task of unpleasentness. Only a maniac would choose to be Sysphus. Disregarding the connotations of "freedom" and "slavery" if picked to choose, the rational choice (rational i use with the sense of the benefits outweigh the costs), we would choose slavery.
Though not legal property, the system we live in treats us as objects, person does not mean person, it means a corpse with a social security number or tax i.d. And uses us as objects, is my justification to the word - slavery.
+Rainbow Bubbles You hit the nail on the head. To have freedom, we would have to be willing to risk everything including what we've come to know as true. That probably sounds much too strenuous and unnecessary to the general populous.
youre wrong on one account though. Your assumption of what freedom entails... not true. You see we were put in slavery by conscious effort. Had people followed the orginal tenants of good conduct with other human beings, humanity would have progressed much further. Our sense of security in slavery is instilled, not actual security. And our fear of freedom is also instilled. In truth, left to our own devices, we would probably see much cooperation and resourcefulness, and an ability to use our freedom to generate REAL security for ourselves, being effectively TRULY independent. But this is hidden and as you have shown people fall for the propaganda
Now, I already wrote to the great and benevolent Dr. Noam Chomsky (and yes, my question was a "Linguistics Question" - because I know he is probably wanting to answer one of those letters once in a while, after all, he is located in the "Linguistics Department", not "Political/Sociology Department") - and I have actually framed his signature on my office wall, that I will always cherish, but there is only one request I have of him: To call the masses: "Proles" or "Useless Eaters" LOL!!! ROFLMAO!
Starts at 01:50
oh. my. god. he is so young there... its only 24 years ago...
31 😉
Love the FF7 scale at the start
15:36 Historical Engineering - Frederic L. Paxson
love how he smashed the rushdie affair out of the water at the beginning
funny how you never see reasonable thought out replies like this on pages without noam chomskys name lol
he rules
brilliant. anyone watching this should recommend/link it to all their friends.
i think, respectfully, you did misunderstand. the point is not about himself or rushdie; he's not drawing a parallel between himself and rushdie. rather, he's drawing a parallel between different systems that engage in various thought control measures. that's what the lecture is about. the potential consequences to himself and rushdie are not the point-- the goals of thought control and its success in the US is the point. your thoughts?
God damn it
lol who was the executive that saw his book and did they put out a public statement about it?
chomsky starts at 1:51
PLEASE HELP WITH THIS QUESTION!!!
define and evaluate two key approaches to the study of media the first 'political economy' and the second 'Birmingham school' approach. try to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the two approaches. give exampls of studies or ways of applying approaches to media texts in your report
Did you ever get that report from anybody?
Intellectual badassery... the best type of badassery.
goodluck
The most awkward lecture introduction ever.
It's a little disappointing to hear Mr Chomsky buy into the emotionally potent simplification/ rhetoric regarding the so called democratic revolution in English history, he doesn't mention the name Cromwell but is attracted to the notion of his fight for a then unknown form of democracy.. Cromwell was so full of hatred for his perceived lessers that he slaughtered 618,000 of them on the island of Ireland when the population was 1.4million. It wasnt for love of fellow that this "simplified" view of a democratic push in English history. The marvel of English propaganda is that the majority in England are to this day blissfully unaware of the full extent of English atrocities in their next door neighbours.
Change the Agenda.
Thanks for posting this! I respect Chomsky enormously but I do find the point he makes about Rushdie very strange; when he lists the differences between his case and Rushdie's surely he ought to point out the fact that he (and Herman) were never actually under a death sentence? I'm sure he's right that some of the outrage about Rushdie was hypocritical, but to imply that the cases are parallel or that his is worse seems to me to be almost flippant. Or have I misunderstood what he is saying?
#BoycottMSNBC #EndorseAndrewYang
So now a professor of linguistics is going to talk about economics and politics... What could go wrong? :)
Politics is a perfect example of obfusication in the form of words and politics is all about money and power so what better commentator to analyse the smokescreening pervasive in todays world. This person rarely misses the big picture.
When Paul writes about Peter, we learn more about Paul than Peter. We know all we need to know about you--in just a few words.
I don't know about the "western controlled world", but I know about the USSR, where i'm from, and testify against it, it was, and russia mostly still, a dungeon.
if the soviet union was a dungeon then most of the western controlled world (africa, south america, asia) was a torture chamber
Noam did all of this because he felt a deep need to contribute to the fight against human hypocrisy and social disintegration. He really does not like going outside of his true joy of linguistics. But as the old boy once said, "does being a linguist mean that I'm not human?" We must all be political economists and sociologists. Because human problems are social, not technological. Moral, not political. Why is it that an atheist has to lecture so-called Christians about holding the same standards to ourselves as we do for others. I relate more to this distant person than to my own family, sadly. But I never stop, and I never give up. I do delete my comments a lot though.
He is certainly a genius in linguistics, Extremely intelligent and well spoken. I have read and listened to a number of his lectures and speeches. Why is he so anti-American and anti-Israel? He blames all of the problems in the world on those 2 nations, while totally ignoring radical islam. islamists are on one side or the other of 90% of all violent confrontations on the Earth today.
Because radical Islam, atrocious as it is, isn't the hegemonic power of the world today.
Everybody knows that terrorism is bad, he doesn't need to 'punch down' at the terrorists. There isn't much to say about them.
The United States on the other hand, is both insanely powerful and incredibly influential in international media. There's a lot to say, and a need to 'punch up' to say it
Communista
The Propaganda model also works perfectly for truth surrounding Vaccine Information.....
An "intellectual"? Noam couldn't run a lemonade stand.He has lived in the isolated bubble of acedemia his whole life and could not compete in the arena of reality. As for you, it sounds as if your mangina could use some ointment.
Good day.