To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » David Peterson's Blog » "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

50

David Peterson's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/davidpeterson
Bio: I am an independent writer and researcher based in Chicago. (More)

All Peterson Blogs

Recent Peterson Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts

"Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By David Peterson at Nov 06, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
When I found The Guardian's mock interview with Noam Chomsky on Halloween morning, I forwarded copies of it along to a number of friends, noting that as has been true perhaps forever---and certainly since those days when Satan and his legions first awakened in hell, their limbs all tangled together in a knot (Paradise Lost I, 301-304)
Angel Forms, who lay intrans't Thick as Autumnal Leaves that strow the Brooks In Vallombrosa, where th' Etrurian shades High overarch't imbow'r....
the establishment news media can't touch a subject like Chomsky without resorting to lies, smears---and more lies. And, I added: At least Satan rejected the chance to serve great and indeed ultimate Power. This being a fact for which we all should be eternally grateful. As far as I'm concerned. I just called The Guardian's October 31 interview with Chomsky a mock interview. Indeed. This was what it was. Clearly, in any real interview, The Guardian's readers would have been provided with the interviewer's questions and Chomsky's answers. Instead, The Guardian provided readers with one Emma Brockes's manufactured contexts and serial insults of the very subject with whom she had sat down in his office on the MIT campus and ostensibly interviewed. "How much does the Guardian's hit-and-run job on Chomsky matter?" Alexander Cockburn asks in the November 5/6 issue of CounterPunch. "Enough," he answers, "to warrant detailed inspection. Chomsky's enemies have often opted for these artful onslaughts in which he's set up as somehow an apologist for monstrosity, instead of being properly identified as one of the most methodical and tireless dissectors and denouncers of monstrosity in our era. Their contemptible tactics should be seen for what they are." You can say that again, Brother. Evidently, The Guardian is still fighting ideological turf-battles from several imperial wars ago. Count them: Not Iraq. Not Afghanistan. Not even the protean "War on Terror." But all the way back to the 1990s' wars to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide---the U.S.-led NATO-bloc powers having played the breakup of the former Yugoslavia like a fiddle, with The Guardian tapping its foot, humming right along. Until Halloween, I had thought that only Christopher Hitchens, Snoopy, and the assorted Monkey Boys in the American Congress and New Labour in the U.K. had descended to the comic-strip mode. My mistake. Entirely. At one point in The Guardian's mock interview, Brockes took issue with Chomsky's view of how major institutions operate---including the one for which Brockes herself works, please note well. The exchange may have gone something like this (though it's hard to say, since we are working from Brockes's corrupted text after all):
[Chomsky's] daily news intake is the regular national press and he dips in and out of specialist journals. I imagine he is a fan of the internet, given his low opinion of the mainstream media (to summarise: it is undermined by a "systematic bias in terms of structural economic causes rather than a conspiracy of people". I would argue individual agency overrides this, but get into it with Chomsky and your allocated hour goes up in smoke).
To repeat: "[I]ndividual agency overrides" institutional factors, Brockes counters. You don't suppose, do you, that anyone holding the reins at The Guardian will prove sufficiently honest to apply Brockes's analysis to the dirty hands that Brockes and her editors displayed in this mock interview? Somehow, I doubt it.

"The Greatest Intellectual?” Emma Brockes, The Guardian, October 31, 2005 "Yes, this appeaser was once my hero," Norman Johnson, The Guardian, November 5, 2005 "Smearing Chomsky - The Guardian in the Gutter," MediaLens, November 4, 2005 "Storm Over Brockes' Fakery: Guardian Fabricates Chomsky Quotes in Bid to Smear World's Number One Intellectual," Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch, November 5/6, 2005. [When reading this article, be sure to read the material from Diana Johnstone as well as Phillip Knightley, reproduced within the body of Cockburn's text.] "Kulturkrieg in Journalism: Using Emotion to Silence Analysis. The Origins of the Guardian Attack on Chomsky," Diana Johnstone, CounterPunch, November 14, 2005 Srebrenica And the Politics of War Crimes, Srebrenica Research Group, July, 2005 "Morality's Avenging Angels," Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, ZNet, August 30, 2005 "Srebrenica Revisited: Using War as an Excuse for More War," Diana Johnstone, CounterPunch, October 12, 2005 "The Political Economy of Sham Justice: Carla Del Ponte Addresses Goldman Sachs on Justice and Profits," Edward S. Herman, MRZine, November 6, 2005 "Counting Bodies at the World Tade Center," ZNet , June 14, 2004 "The Srebrenica Massacre," ZNet, July 10, 2005

UPDATE (May 25, 2006):  

"Readers' editor right to publish apology, external review finds," The Guardian (unsigned), May 25, 2006
"External Ombudsman Report," John Willis, May 8, 2006 (as posted to The Guardian, May 25, 2006)
FYA ("For your archives"): In its regular Media Alerts, the outstanding U.K.-based MediaLens group always suggests certain actions that people might take with respect to offensive media practices---and The Guardian's performance this past week has been second to few. Currently, MediaLens suggests writing to The Guardian, and asking it (for example) "to provide the source for Brockes's claim that 'Srebrenica was so not a massacre' in Chomsky's view." MediaLens also posts the following contacts:
Emma Brockes: Emma.Brockes@guardian.co.uk Alan Rusbridger, Editor: Alan.Rusbridger@guardian.co.uk Ian Mayes, Reader's Editor (ombudsman): ian.mayes@guardian.co.uk Seumas Milne, Comment Editor: Seumas.milne@guardian.co.uk Norman Johnson: norman.johnson@guardian.co.uk
Like I said above: Dirty hands. Postscript (November 11): Anyone curious to observe what I was first tempted to call the workings of power and ideology with respect to the wars over the breakup of Yugoslavia, but have decided instead to settle on a vicious-circle-jerk, ought to check out the back-slapping cross-referencing among the following clique, all taking their start from what one of them calls "Emma Brockes's laudably tough-minded interview" with NC: Oliver Kamm --> David R. Adler --> Bill Weinberg --> Oliver Kamm --> --> --> -->. (With other assorted links along the way to Marko Attila Hoare, the lunatic Balkan Witness webite, and even to the granddaddy loonies of them all---the folk behind the so-called Anti-Chomsky Reader.) These guys make the dirty-handed behind the Brockes's smear at The Guardian look impeccably clean. Believe it or not. Postscript (November 13): I'm told that the exchange from which the following little excerpt derives (reproduced in English here) was published in the November 11, 2005 edition of the Croatian journal Globus. The title of the interview was: "Novinar koji ruši ministre - Peter Preston." Can't tell you who the interviewer was. But the interviewee was one Peter Preston: A long-time journalist, editor---and the editor-in-chief at The Guardian until 1995, when he was replaced by its current editor, Alan Rusbridger---and above all, a mucky-muck at the U.K.-based Guardian Media Group.
Question: "In an interview to the last week's Guardian Noam Chomsky stated his opinion about the crime against the Bosniaks in Srebrenica, supporting those who hold that that crime is exaggerated. What do you think of that?" Preston: "I don't agree at all with Chomsky's opinion. I think it's impossible to rewrite history that way. After all, about Srebrenica speak mostly mass graves that were discovered and are still being discovered. I think to deny the crimes like that one in Srebrenica is in vain and wrong, because there is a clear position in the political and intellectual circles about them, to what, I must say, my colleagues from the Guardian have contributed a lot. That position is based on irrefutable facts and known scenes from Srebrenica." Question: "Why does Noam Chomsky has a need to revise those facts?" Preston: "I have to admit I don't know. Perhaps it's his need to be controversial? I think the crime in Srebrenica has become part of planetary humanity, like Nazi crimes in the WWII, and it is really strange to draw the attention to oneself by denying that fact. I think that a much more important public duty would be to point out the fact that those who ordered that crime, Karadzic and Mladic, are still at large."
Clearly, The Guardian's principals---as with so many of its contemporaries elsewhere, in the States especially---remain devoutly wedded to the "irrefutable facts," the "clear position in the political and intellectual circles," and the incantatory power that the term 'Srebrenica' exercises over "planetary humanity, like Nazi crimes in WWII." Indeed. Over all of the planets and the stars, too. Emma Brockes' Halloween-day interview with Noam Chomsky was but an instantiation of this magical realm. I should add, however, that I find it very troubling that some people have been arguing that Norman Johnson's “Yes, this appeaser was once my hero” (The Guardian, November 5) was a satire on Johnson's part, and that the target of this satire, rather than being Chomsky, was what one person described to me as the "Hitchens-Aaronovich clan." Were Johnson's November 5 commentary a satire of the "Hitchens-Aaronovich clan," then why did it make Chomsky look so bad in comparison to the otherwise unnamed Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovich? Why, in other words, if one is satirizing Parties X, Y, and Z, does one's satire skewer Party NC instead? Doesn't make any sense to me. Postscript (November 14): Let's see whether the following weblink works for you---and, if it does, for how long (because in the past it has worked for me for only very short periods of time, but then just as quickly failing):
"War-related Deaths in the 1992–1995 Armed Conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Critique of Previous Estimates and Recent Results," Ewa Tabeau and Jakub Bijak, European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, June, 2005
This happens to be one and the same International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia - Office of the Prosecutor's report that Diana Johnstone cites in her recent piece for CounterPunch ("Kulturkrieg in Journalism," Nov. 14). Of course, I can't vouch for the researchers' methodology. But their numbers are just as Johnstone reports them. What is so interesting, I think, is that here we have a case where the Office of the Prosecutor's own official investigation has reported back to the ICTY a total of 102,622 people killed on all sides during the conflict over Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1995), and the researchers in question, Ewa Tabeau and Jakub Bijak, are employed by the Office of the Prosecutor to provide “expert” testimony before the Tribunal---and yet their dramatically lower estimate of the number of people killed (i.e., one-half that of the hysterical 200,000 figure that has been in circulation for the past 10 - 12 years) aren't reported anywhere. What is more, I pretty much guarantee you that the next time one of the new humanitarian crusaders writes anything about this conflict---he will cite the same old 200,000 - 250,000 figures that have been in circulation for the past decade-plus. No matter what. Postscript (November 17): This morning greeted me with the news (among other items forwarded to me by friends in the U.K.) that The Guardian not only has issued a formal retraction of Emma Brockes's deceitful Halloween-day interview with Noam Chomsky ("The Greatest Intellectual?" Oct. 31)---though in The Guardian's parlance, the retraction takes the form of a correction and a clarification. But, more strikingly, that the editorial mucky-mucks at The Guardian have decided to remove Brockes's mock interview from their website---a fact that you can easily confirm, if you click any of the several links that I have been providing to it over the past 18 days. ("Sorry," The Guardian's website now tells us. "We haven't been able to serve the page you asked for.")
"Corrections and clarifications: The Guardian and Noam Chomsky," as posted to The Guardian, November 17, 2005 "Chomsky Answers Guardian," as posted to ZNet, November 13, 2005
Postscript (November 18): Some of our friends in the Comments section to this particular blog have been exploring the issues of cults, so-called Chomsky-fans and Chomsky-haters, and the like. For some concrete examples of cults as they translate into Chomsky-haters, see:
- FrontPageMag.com - The Anti-Chomsky Reader, Ed. Peter Collier and David Horowitz - Oliver Kamm
Of course, the actual total of cultish institutions and anti-Chomsky figures extend far, far beyond this minor sample. But these individuals and groups don't just feed off attacks on Chomsky. They also affirm certain principles as well. I think teasing these commonly held principles from the lot of them would be a worthwhile exercise to undertake. Here's where The Guardian also comes into play, I think. Notice that The Guardian went after Chomsky over questions about the former Yugoslavia. On every fundamental question about the breakup of Yugoslavia, The Guardian's mucky-mucks and principal reporters (Emma Brockes aside---her "interview" having been the work of a mere mercenary) share the version of history long in the process of codification by the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Namely, that the old Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke apart because the rise of ethnic Serb racists and fascists within the SFRY's political ranks, who sought to build a "Greater Serbia" in its place, and who therefore launched a series of wars of aggression against the ethnic non-Serb populations of the republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and, ultimately, Bosnia and Herzegovina, impelling these republics to defend themselves against the aggressor Serbs, to seek independence from the SFRY, and to seek international aid and protection along the way. If we could ask one of The Guardian's mucky-mucks, or one of the principals employed by the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY, or one of the former secretaries of state or UN ambassadors of the Clinton regime (1993-2000) to provide us with a thumbnail sketch of the breakup of Yugoslavia in 100-words or less, their response would read something like what I just gave you. Institutionally speaking, The Guardian is as wedded to this version of the SFRY's breakup as are the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY and the major policy architects during the Clinton years. Hence the fanaticism betrayed by the Brockes smear. Hence also The Guardian's lame effort to climb back down from it now. Postscript (November 22): First, get a load of these two commentaries:
"Chomsky's Srebrenica Shame - and The Guardian's...," Marko Attila Hoare, The Henry Jackson Society, November 21, 2005 "Chomsky and that 'correction'," Oliver Kamm, November 22, 2005
Now get a load of the rats' nest that helped to spawn them:
The Henry Jackson Society, Cambridge University
As a friend of mine called to my attention earlier today, besides Oliver Kamm, the other signatories to this Jackson Society's Statement of Principles (March 11, 2005) include Richard Dearlove, Denis MacShane, and Jamie Shea. Furthermore, its complete list of "International Patrons" is Bruce Jackson, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Vytautas Landsbergis, Michael McFaul, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Jack Sheehan, and James Woolsey. All in all---a combination of cranks, madmen, and professional assassins whose common thread appears to be the care and nurturing of Great Power. My goodness. Postscript (November 24): Very little in circulation these days on the topic of body-counts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But for two wire-service reports, see below. By the way, it might interest you to know that, to date (Nov. 24), the only mention of Mirsad Tokaca's claims that I've been able to find in the English-language print media was a blurb in the November 24 Irish Times. Based on the November 23 Reuters item that I've reproduced below, the Irish Times's blurb in its totality read as follows:
SARAJEVO - The death toll from the Bosnian war, which ended 10 years ago this week, was half of the widely used figure of about 200,000, a leading Bosnian war crimes researcher has said. "This is still an extremely high figure but there is a big difference now that people cannot irresponsibly use inflated numbers for their political goals," said Mirsad Tokaca, who heads the Sarajevo-based Investigation and Documentation Centre. Mr Tokaca estimated the number of victims at between 100,000 and 150,000 a year ago.
Deutsche Presse-Agentur November 21, 2005, Monday Bosnian war "claimed 100,000 lives" The confirmed death toll in the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia appears to be closer to 100,000 dead than the often- quoted figure of 200,000, a Norwegian news agency reported Monday, quoting the head of the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center (RDC). "In October we had 93,000 names on our lists and the numbers are increasing slightly. But the final tally will likely be around 100,000," Mirsad Tokaca was quoted as saying. The centre was set up in April 2004 "to investigate and gather facts, documents and data on genocide, war crimes and human rights violations, regardless of the ethnic, political, religious, social, or racial affiliation of the victims." It has received funding from among others the Norwegian government. A similar estimate has also been used by population statisticians at the United Nations war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The estimate published by researchers Ewa Tabeau and Jacub Biljak was 102,000. All of the casualties listed by Tokaca and his co-researchers have been identified by name. "Our research suggests that about 70 per cent of those killed were Bosniacs (Bosnian Moslems), 25 per cent of the killed were Bosnian Serbs and 5 per cent were Bosnian Croats," Tokaca said. Tokaca said the number of 250,000 or even 300,000 dead has "never been based on research". Reuters Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:07 PM ET Research halves Bosnia war death toll to 100,000 By Nedim Dervisbegovic SARAJEVO (Reuters) - The death toll from the Bosnian war, which ended 10 years ago this week, was half of the widely used figure of about 200,000, a leading Bosnian war crimes researcher said in an interview on Wednesday. "Let me be clear, this is still an extremely high figure but there is a big difference now that people cannot irresponsibly use inflated numbers for their political goals," said Mirsad Tokaca, who heads the Sarajevo-based Investigation and Documentation Center (IDC). He said work to establish the exact number of Muslims, Serbs and Croats killed in the 1992-95 war should be completed in early 2006. Tokaca estimated the number of victims at between 100,000 and 150,000 a year ago. "We are at 93,000 now and that should rise to 100,000, give or take," said the ethnic Muslim (Bosniak) who has headed the 450,000-euro project funded by the Norwegian government since early 2004. "We should come out with full preliminary results by March after which the number could be changed ... but only slightly," he told Reuters. The ethnic breakdown of the victims of the war, for which the term "ethnic cleansing" was coined to describe large-scale killings and expulsions of members of other ethnic groups, remained unchanged from Tokaca's estimate a year ago. "It is about 70 percent Bosniaks, slightly under 25 percent Serbs, slightly under five percent Croats and about one percent of the others," he said. He said the multi-ethnic team of 12 professionals and several volunteers combed military, civilian, non-governmental and a number of other records and sources throughout Bosnia. The initial, computerized, database included about 300,000 names as many people appeared on several different records listed either as soldiers, police officers or civilians that were killed or missing. Once it has established the full database, which will be made available on the Web, Tokaca's team will produce an analysis with ethnic, regional, age, sex and time breakdown. "I can only say now that it will produce some stunning conclusions but it is too early for me to go into details," said Tokaca, who has investigated war crimes for 13 years and cooperated closely with U.N. investigators. Tokaca has said the project is of invaluable importance for the Balkan country's reconciliation process.
Postscript (December 4):
Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions, Diana Johnstone (Monthly Review Press, 2003) “Diana Johnstone on the Balkan Wars” (book review), Edward S. Herman, Monthly Review, February, 2003 How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity, Michael Mandel (Pluto Press, 2004) “How America Gets Away With Murder” (book review), Edward S. Herman, Z Magazine, July/August, 2004 Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting—Journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia, Peter Brock (Graphics Management Books, 2005)

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (32)

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Sophphilo, Zubub at Dec 24, 2005 06:31 AM
Peterson ridicules what he calls the official version: "Namely, that the old Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke apart because the rise of ethnic Serb racists and fascists within the SFRY's political ranks, who sought to build a “Greater Serbia” in its place, and who therefore launched a series of wars of aggression against the ethnic non-Serb populations of the republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and, ultimately, Bosnia and Herzegovina, impelling these republics to defend themselves against the aggressor Serbs, to seek independence from the SFRY, and to seek international aid and protection along the way." So pray tell, Mr Peterson, what is your alternative version? Will we get a chance to examine and debate it? Or will you rely on the old Stalinist tactic you're so fond of, denouncing people who have the "official" version as a "pack or rats" (e.g. your Nov. 23 posting) without pointing out a single problem with it other than that it doesn't fit your general world view? It's true, it's enough for the little cult-members to get a whiff of Chomsky's political-correct official line to start snapping at the heels of critics, but when will we get to actually debate the substance?

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 24, 2005 20:04 PM
Friends: Very little in circulation these days on the topic of body-counts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. But for two wire-service reports, see below. By the way, it might interest you to know that, to date (Nov. 24), the only mention of Mirsad Tokaca's claims that I've been able to find in the English-language print media was a blurb in the November 24 Irish Times. Based on the November 23 Reuters item that I've reproduced below, the Irish Times's blurb in its totality read as follows:
SARAJEVO - The death toll from the Bosnian war, which ended 10 years ago this week, was half of the widely used figure of about 200,000, a leading Bosnian war crimes researcher has said. "This is still an extremely high figure but there is a big difference now that people cannot irresponsibly use inflated numbers for their political goals," said Mirsad Tokaca, who heads the Sarajevo-based Investigation and Documentation Centre. Mr Tokaca estimated the number of victims at between 100,000 and 150,000 a year ago.
Deutsche Presse-Agentur November 21, 2005, Monday Bosnian war "claimed 100,000 lives" The confirmed death toll in the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia appears to be closer to 100,000 dead than the often- quoted figure of 200,000, a Norwegian news agency reported Monday, quoting the head of the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Center (RDC). "In October we had 93,000 names on our lists and the numbers are increasing slightly. But the final tally will likely be around 100,000," Mirsad Tokaca was quoted as saying. The centre was set up in April 2004 "to investigate and gather facts, documents and data on genocide, war crimes and human rights violations, regardless of the ethnic, political, religious, social, or racial affiliation of the victims." It has received funding from among others the Norwegian government. A similar estimate has also been used by population statisticians at the United Nations war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The estimate published by researchers Ewa Tabeau and Jacub Biljak was 102,000. All of the casualties listed by Tokaca and his co-researchers have been identified by name. "Our research suggests that about 70 per cent of those killed were Bosniacs (Bosnian Moslems), 25 per cent of the killed were Bosnian Serbs and 5 per cent were Bosnian Croats," Tokaca said. Tokaca said the number of 250,000 or even 300,000 dead has "never been based on research". Reuters Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:07 PM ET Research halves Bosnia war death toll to 100,000 By Nedim Dervisbegovic SARAJEVO (Reuters) - The death toll from the Bosnian war, which ended 10 years ago this week, was half of the widely used figure of about 200,000, a leading Bosnian war crimes researcher said in an interview on Wednesday. "Let me be clear, this is still an extremely high figure but there is a big difference now that people cannot irresponsibly use inflated numbers for their political goals," said Mirsad Tokaca, who heads the Sarajevo-based Investigation and Documentation Center (IDC). He said work to establish the exact number of Muslims, Serbs and Croats killed in the 1992-95 war should be completed in early 2006. Tokaca estimated the number of victims at between 100,000 and 150,000 a year ago. "We are at 93,000 now and that should rise to 100,000, give or take," said the ethnic Muslim (Bosniak) who has headed the 450,000-euro project funded by the Norwegian government since early 2004. "We should come out with full preliminary results by March after which the number could be changed ... but only slightly," he told Reuters. The ethnic breakdown of the victims of the war, for which the term "ethnic cleansing" was coined to describe large-scale killings and expulsions of members of other ethnic groups, remained unchanged from Tokaca's estimate a year ago. "It is about 70 percent Bosniaks, slightly under 25 percent Serbs, slightly under five percent Croats and about one percent of the others," he said. He said the multi-ethnic team of 12 professionals and several volunteers combed military, civilian, non-governmental and a number of other records and sources throughout Bosnia. The initial, computerized, database included about 300,000 names as many people appeared on several different records listed either as soldiers, police officers or civilians that were killed or missing. Once it has established the full database, which will be made available on the Web, Tokaca's team will produce an analysis with ethnic, regional, age, sex and time breakdown. "I can only say now that it will produce some stunning conclusions but it is too early for me to go into details," said Tokaca, who has investigated war crimes for 13 years and cooperated closely with U.N. investigators. Tokaca has said the project is of invaluable importance for the Balkan country's reconciliation process.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 24, 2005 00:56 AM
Friends: First, get a load of these two commentaries:
"Chomsky's Srebrenica Shame - and The Guardian's...," Marko Attila Hoare, The Henry Jackson Society, November 21, 2005 "Chomsky and that 'correction'," Oliver Kamm, November 22, 2005
Now get a load of the rats' nest that helped to spawn them:
The Henry Jackson Society, Cambridge University
As a friend of mine called to my attention earlier today, besides Oliver Kamm, the other signatories to this Jackson Society's Statement of Principles (March 11, 2005) include Richard Dearlove, Denis MacShane, and Jamie Shea. Furthermore, its complete list of "International Patrons" is Bruce Jackson, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Vytautas Landsbergis, Michael McFaul, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Jack Sheehan, and James Woolsey. All in all---a combination of cranks, madmen, and professional assassins whose common thread appears to be the care and nurturing of Great Power. My goodness.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 22, 2005 03:47 AM
Friends: Strongly urge you all to take a look at the following:
"The Political Economy of Sham Justice: Carla Del Ponte Addresses Goldman Sachs on Justice and Profits," Edward S. Herman, MRZine, November 6, 2005
Notice paragraph 16 (by my count, anyway), where Herman quotes at length from Carla Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (i.e., the paragraph that opens "The ICTY's double standard is now obvious."). Del Ponte was delivering her outrageously compromised and compromising October 6 addresss before the speculative house of Goldman Sachs - London. In it, she stated that Operation Storm, the Croatian Government's August, 1995 expulsion of maybe 200 - 250,000 ethnic Serbs from the Krajina regions of southern Croatia---ethnic cleansing, by any other name---was “undoubtedly legitimate.” Here are Del Ponte's exact words (see the eighth paragraph of the transcript of her "Address at Goldman Sachs - London"):
These crimes were committed in the course of a military operation, undoubtedly legitimate as such, aimed at re-taking the part of the Croatian territory which was occupied by Serb forces.
The question is, How should we read the Chief Prosecutor's claim that Operation Storm was “undoubtedly legitimate”? My own belief is that here, Del Ponte is reiterating the central propaganda framework on the basis of which the whole political- and military-interventionist apparatus of the Great Powers seized a series of civil wars (i.e., internal), and depicted them instead as international wars (or cross-border and aggressive), thereby legitimating Great Power interference, intervention, and eventual occupation. Were the wars over Yugoslavia civil wars (i.e., conflicts among parties within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia contesting its fate and their place within in), foreign states would have had the duty to observe neutrality towards the belligerents involved. But were these wars international conflicts (e.g., acts of Serbian “aggression” against the other Republics), a whole different set of laws, conventions, and legitimate responsibilities could be invoked. Thus, what was actually contested during the breakup of Yugoslavia, (a) the fate of the old Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and (b) the fates of the peoples who, shorn of their citizenship within the pre-war Federation, suddenly were forced to decide where they were going to live, with what status, and the like, is denied by Del Ponte and the Great Power framework. In her October, 2005 lecture, Del Ponte depicts the ethnic Serb population of the Krajina region of Croatia as occupiers of somebody else's territory. Moreover, she depicts the Croatian-slash-U.S. military operation to drive the ethnic Serb population out of the Krajina as the “re-taking [of] the part of the Croatian territory which was occupied by Serb forces"---in other words, as the re-taking of Croatian territory from Serb invaders. This military operation was “undoubtedly legitimate” because, within the Great Power - Del Ponte - Office of the Prosecutor framework, there wasn't a civil war (or series of civil wars) inside the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, each contesting its fate along with the fate of its constituent nations and republics. Instead there was only a series of cross-border wars of Serb aggression, launched against Yugoslavia's other “nations” out of Belgrade. (Basically, what is laid down ad nauseam in the ICTY's multiple indictments of Slobodan Milosevic et al. for having entered into a “joint criminal enterprise...before 1 August 1991,” the purpose of which, these indictments allege, was the “forcible removal of the majority of the Croat and other non-Serb population from the approximately one-third of the territory of the Republic of Croatia that [Milosevic] planned to become part of a new Serb-dominated state,” including “regions that were referred to by Serb authorities and are hereinafter referred to as the ‘Serbian Autonomous District /Sprska autonomna oblast/ ("SAO") Krajina', the ‘SAO Western Slavonia', and the ‘SAO Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem' (collectively referred to by Serb authorities after 19 December 1991 as the ‘Republic of Serbian Krajina /Republika Srpska krajina/' ('RSK')), and ‘Dubrovnik Republic /Dubrovacka republika/'.” (Here quoting paragraph 6 of the Second Amended Indictment for Croatia, Case No. IT-02-54-T.)) According to this kind of logic, one doubtless could go on to accuse the Yugoslavia People's Army of having been a foreign occupying power inside both the Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia the very date these two republics declared their independence from Yugoslavia, on June 25, 1991; likewise on the basis of the March 1, 1992 referendum in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Alija Izetbegovic's declaration of the Republic's independence from Yugoslavia on March 3. But this kind of thing was precisely what the parties to the conflicts were contesting. And the Great Power's (i.e., the European Community, the separate European states, and the United States) formal recognition of the independence of the Republic of Slovenia, the Republic of Croatia, and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were instances of foreign powers deciding these internal conflicts on the side of one party to the conflict (independence) against the other (the Yugoslav Federation). (Note for the sake of the record that the European Community formally recognized the independence of Slovenia and Croatia as of January 15, 1992; the same E.C. extended its recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina on April 6. The very next day, April 7, the U.S. Government announced its formal recognition of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina all at once.) To sum up: ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte's assertion in October, 2005, that the Croatian Government's August, 1995 Operation Storm was “undoubtedly legitimate,” even if during the course of this military operation, “crimes were committed,” expresses the exact same legal and moral framework that already had been established by the Great Powers over the course of 1991 and early 1992, whereby these powers took the side of those forces within Yugoslavia seeking independence from the Socialist Federal Republic, against the side of those forces seeking to preserve the Socialist Federal Republic---or the idea of single Yugoslav state. Once again, we see the foundational bias of the Great Powers in their handling of the wars over the fate of Yugoslavia. The rights of one side to break away and declare its independence from Yugoslavia were recognized and defended. But not the rights of the other side---neither its right to remain within Yugoslavia nor its right to break away and declare its independence from the newly independent states of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In other words, the basic facts of a civil war---that the wars were over the fate of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, rather than a war of "Greater Serb" aggression launched from Belgrade---were denied from the outset. Imagine how the American Civil War (1861-65) might have played out, had its similar set of contests and claims found foreign powers with sufficient dominance internationally to steer its outcome to their favor. Honest Abe in the dock. Indicted for the joint criminal enterprise that lay behind his launching a war of aggression against the Confederacy. His Yankee rebellion against international norms and human rights practices vanquished.
"Address at Goldman Sachs - London,” Carla Del Ponte, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, October 6, 2005 "The Political Economy of Sham Justice: Carla Del Ponte Addresses Goldman Sachs on Justice and Profits," Edward S. Herman, MRZine, November 6, 2005 Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO, and Western Delusions, Diana Johnstone (Monthly Review Press, 2003) “Diana Johnstone on the Balkan Wars” (book review), Edward S. Herman, Monthly Review, February, 2003 How America Gets Away With Murder: Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity, Michael Mandel (Pluto Press, 2004) “How America Gets Away With Murder” (book review), Edward S. Herman, Z Magazine, July/August, 2004 Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting—Journalism and Tragedy in Yugoslavia, Peter Brock (Graphics Management Books, 2005)

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 19, 2005 08:02 AM
"But if they deliberately inculcate psychopathic followers or, more subtly, if there is something in their advocacy that intrinsically leads to sociopathic and slavish behavior, we might take umbrage with it." You just answered your own question. I mean, it really isn't a coincidence that many people who talk about cults re: Chomsky are people that happen to call him an apologist (at best, supporter at worst) for left-wing atrocities - right or wrong, in their eyes he fills the role of the 'evil leader' . And, of course, the only possible explanation for your obvious respect and political alignment is that he 'brainwashed' you - rational agreement based on a shared interpretation of the facts is ruled out axiomatically. So, we have evil leader with nefarious agenda and brainwashed followers manipulated into agreement = cult. Which is why, Graeme, you are wrong about the "only reason to call a cult is to discredit us" I mean, right or wrong, it is completely psychologically predictable that people of a radically opposed political alignment are going to see you as a brainwashed cult - just like you may see them as brainwashed coporate stooges.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 19, 2005 04:11 AM
"For instance, I'm still not really sure what you're arguing. My question was facetious; i.e., nobody should care, because the answer doesn't matter. I don't think it's important at all. Not sure where that leaves you." I'm saying that I was kind of getting my panties in a bunch over nothing, and trying to force out a justification simply made me see that it is not so important and that calling people "cultish" didn't serve a point. And, admittedly, the word "cult" is a bit much - at worst NC fanboys are no worse than some hardcore fans of some bands. (Despite the testimonials from several heads, for the life of me I could never seem to "get higher" listening to Phish than I did actually getting high).

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 18, 2005 23:10 PM
Joeblog56 et al.: In the United States, the Democratic leadership of the same regime that was able to exploit the wars over the breakup of Yugoslavia to further entrench a role for NATO (and therefore for American Power) on the European continent and beyond after the disintegration of the old Soviet Bloc and even the Soviet Union itself, and that at the same time oversaw the strangulation of the Iraqi population for eight consecutive years, 1993 - 2000, now has taken to publicly condemning the Republican leadership's invasion of Iraq on grounds that it was a "big mistake," because "when they kicked out Saddam, they decided to dismantle the whole authority structure of Iraq," and they "never sent enough troops and didn't have enough troops to control or seal the borders"---all the while insisting that invading Iraq to oust the previous regime also was a "good thing"!!! And in this U.S. media, this is regarded as a critique of the invasion. While on the faux Left in the States, people go weak at the knees.
"Bill Clinton Calls Iraq 'Big Mistake'," Associated Press, November 16, 2005 (as posted to Truthout) "Influential Democratic Hawk Calls for Immediate Iraq Exit," Associated Press, November 17, 2005 (as posted to Truthout)

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 18, 2005 18:28 PM
Friends: For some concrete examples of cults, "Chomsky haters," and the like:
- FrontPageMag.com - The Anti-Chomsky Reader, Ed. Peter Collier and David Horowitz - Oliver Kamm
Of course, the actual total of cultish institutions and anti-Chomsky figures would extend far beyond this minor sample. But these individuals and groups don't just feed off attacks on Chomsky. They also affirm certain principles as well. I think teasing these commonly held principles from the lot of them would be a worthwhile exercise to undertake. Here's where The Guardian also comes into play, I think. Notice that The Guardian went after Chomsky over questions about the former Yugoslavia. On every fundamental question about the breakup of Yugoslavia, The Guardian's mucky-mucks and principal reporters (Emma Brockes aside---her "interview" having been the work of a mere mercenary) share the version of history long in the process of codification by the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Namely, that the old Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke apart because the rise of ethnic Serb racists and fascists within the SFRY's political ranks, who sought to build a "Greater Serbia" in its place, and who therefore launched a series of wars of aggression against the ethnic non-Serb populations of the republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and, ultimately, Bosnia and Herzegovina, impelling these republics to defend themselves against the aggressor Serbs, to seek independence from the SFRY, and to seek international aid and protection along the way. If we could ask one of The Guardian's mucky-mucks, or one of the principals employed by the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY, or one of the former secretaries of state or UN ambassadors of the Clinton regime (1993-2000) to provide us with a thumbnail sketch of the breakup of Yugoslavia in 100-words or less, their response would read something like what I just gave you. Institutionally speaking, The Guardian is as wedded to this version of the SFRY's breakup as are the Office of the Prosecutor at the ICTY and the major policy architects during the Clinton years. Hence the fanaticism betrayed by the Brockes smear. Hence also The Guardian's lame effort to climb back down from it now.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Doctor44, Iand at Nov 18, 2005 15:17 PM
How about the trend of believing things for which there is no evidence, which is shared by all Christians for a start? The main differences between religious beliefs and the delusions of the mentally ill are that the former are socially accepted and not usually really believed by those who profess to believe them. Those who really believe (in their particular version of religion, whether or not in accord with their avowed sacred text) are called fundamentalists and are rightly regarded as completely irrational with respect to their religious beliefs, as opposed to moderates who live in a kind of dual consciousness.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 18, 2005 06:22 AM
"Ayn Rand, Hayek, and especially Reagan" You just earned yourself a right-wing fatwa buddy. No one defames the Gipper and gets away with it.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 17, 2005 10:00 AM
Um Dude, I meant YOUR question was a good one. I started to attempt to say why I thought it was important, but after a few minutes it hit me that it really freaking isn't. And who knows, maybe the fact that I do seem to care might just mean I'm repressing the part of me the agrees with you.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 17, 2005 04:15 AM
"Who cares who his "fans" are or how they act" Actually, that is a very good question.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Gammon101, Bwong at Nov 16, 2005 01:16 AM
"I'd take Saul over "our own" infinitely annoying Ignatieff, newly anti-war or not (our next Prime Minister? God I hope not) any day, but I get your point.." Relax. Igantieff won't have enough time to be our next PM since the next election maybe just weeks away. :) He was somewhere in the list of important intellectuals, way behind Chomsky(37th?) Saul is harmless, just a verbose wind bag. Not that I disagree with him, his points are often so trivial and middle of the road it is difficult to disagree. But he has a real annoying talent to spin a simple insight into hours long lectures and big fat volumes. "Jared Diamond (on a much larger macro scale), whom you seemed rather fond of)." Exactly, Diamond was writing a macro history about the last 13000 years in a few hundred pages, by necessity it has to be an outline. He also made the disclaimer that he was only interesed in mapping out the "big" factors which set societies on different paths, not the proximate causes, which are the specialities of more conventional historians.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 15, 2005 06:30 AM
Friends: FYA ("For your archives"): Let's see whether the following weblink works for you---and, if it does, for how long (because in the past it has worked for me for only a very short period of time, but then just as quickly failing):
"War-related Deaths in the 1992–1995 Armed Conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Critique of Previous Estimates and Recent Results," Ewa Tabeau and Jakub Bijak, European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, June, 2005
This happens to be one and the same International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia - Office of the Prosecutor's report that Diana Johnstone cites in her recent piece for CounterPunch ("Kulturkrieg in Journalism," Nov. 14). Of course, I can't vouch for the researchers' methodology. But their numbers are just as Johnstone reports them. What is so interesting, I think, is that here we have a case where the Office of the Prosecutor's own official investigation has reported back to the ICTY a total of 102,622 people killed on all sides during the conflict over Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992 - 1995), and the researchers in question, Ewa Tabeau and Jakub Bijak, are employed by the Office of the Prosecutor to provide “expert” testimony before the Tribunal---and yet their dramatically lower estimate of the number of people killed (i.e., one-half that of the hysterical 200,000 figure that has been in circulation for the past 10 - 12 years) aren't reported anywhere. What is more, I pretty much guarantee you that the next time one of the new humanitarian crusaders writes anything about this conflict---he will cite the same old 200,000 - 250,000 figures that have been in circulation for the past decade-plus. No matter what.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Gammon101, Bwong at Nov 15, 2005 04:30 AM
"I dont trust him 100% and I think those who do are drooling fanboys." I always read with by BS meter on high alert, whether it's from the "left" or the "right". It just happens my meter bilps a lot more often on the "right" side(well with the exception of Albert I must say). I often disagree with Chomsky but I do find his logical rigor unusual among "social theorists", who in general are a very wishy washy lot. I do "trust him" in the sense that I believe he's honest and has no uterior motives. But motivation is irrelevant to the validity or lack thereof of an argument. Your doctor may be a selfish money grubbing bastard but he can still be right if he diagnoses that you have cancer. You ignore him at your own peril.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Gammon101, Bwong at Nov 15, 2005 04:08 AM
"But if their theory PREDICTS such behavior, as it did in this case.." It doesn't require any model to "predict" someone in the media don't like Chomsky. Anyone with a strong opinion would have detractors, especially someone with a contrarian opinion. I can't see how the PM even explains the said smear job, let alone predicting it. How come only the Guardian undertakes to smear Chomsky? Perhaps ignoring him altogether would be more in keeping with the model? A macro outline like the PM can't explain a specific event like the interview. I definitely agree with Chomsky that most "social theories" are actually pretty trivial and lack intellectual depth. The main points of the "propaganda model" are common sense for anyone with a healthy dose of skepticism and some elementary knowledge of how institutions and business work. Chomsky himself would agree. But Chomsky is a structuralist. His critiques often ignore or downplay human agencies. It a defect he admits openly, though he doesn't consider that a defect. I can understand why Chomsky is popular. Most "public intellectuals" are quite dismal. I'll take Chomsky anyday over idiots like Samuel Huntington, Michael Ignateiff or our own John Ralston Saul,-- what an insufferable windbag that guy is. Agree him or not, Chomsky srikes me as an incredibly decent human being.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 15, 2005 03:56 AM
"You're still not getting it... the whole "argument" of trying to somehow characterize Chomsky "fans" as "cult members" only has one purpose: to try to deligitimize Chomsky." I dont care why other people use the term - their desire to delegitimise Chomsky has nothing to do with the fact that I happen to think that many Chomsky fans are fanboys who always except his "explanations" at face value and never wonder what HIS ulterior motives are. I dont trust him 100% and I think those who do are drooling fanboys. "Chomsky has said that if he got access to the major media he would be doing something wrong." I can say that too. I can also tell people that I don't deserve to be elected king of Earth. Of course I already know I dont have a chance in hell, but maybe someone like you will mistake it for some sort of humility.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 15, 2005 01:56 AM
Friends: Strongly recommend the following:
"Kulturkrieg in Journalism: Using Emotion to Silence Analysis. The Origins of the Guardian Attack on Chomsky," Diana Johnstone, CounterPunch, November 14, 2005

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 15, 2005 00:57 AM
"Especially when said intellectual has a very well documented and defended explanation for why as well as numerous other patterns?" Social Theorists regularly interpret any beavhior as evidence for their pet theories. When your "career" as a public intellectual is intricately linked to a particular theory it becomes very difficult to ever say "actually, this time my theory doesn't apply" , for a variety of economic, social, and personal reasons. Of course it helps when you have a self-reinforcing theory. If Iyou are "unpopular", then it is evidence of the truth of your theory. If you are "popular", it is evidence that your theory has merit. And, no matter what, always claim to be misunderstood - and mischaracterise the nature of the criticsm against you. When they say you have bad-breath, deny having herpes - of course you dont have herpes, so obviously people who say you have bad breath are just haters. See, its easy and profitable.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 14, 2005 22:46 PM
" But relying on that as some kind of "refutation" of Chomsky is blatantly ridiculous, as well as extremely dishonest." I didn't "refute" Chomsky - I merely said the cultist label is not inaccurate for a large number of fanboy douchebags.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Doctor44, Iand at Nov 14, 2005 04:49 AM
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't the purpose of libel laws to prevent dishonest attacks which damage a person's reputation? Brockes very strongly implies that Chomsky denies there ever was a massacre at Srebrenica, which appears to be an attempt to put him in the same category as Holocaust deniers such as David Irving, an international pariah. Johnson accuses Chomsky of being an appeaser of Milosevic. Considering that the Guardian is a mass circulation paper widely seen as respectable and leftist, and that Chomsky's reputation is largely built on his accuracy and struggle for global justice, surely Brockes' and Johnson's fabrications violate any meaningful libel laws. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Chomsky's books do not sell in huge numbers - as far as I know his most popular book sold fewer copies than the daily circulation of the Guardian. While he is well-known in some circles, it would be very surprising if he were a household name anywhere in the world. I think the offending articles are an exercise in myth-making which might just succeed, and once a myth has been established in the popular imagination it can be very persistent. There is the potential for millions of people to not read Chomsky and other important authors who otherwise would have, in a process akin to book burning but more insidious. This is why it is so serious.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 14, 2005 01:31 AM
Friends: I'm told that the exchange from which the following little excerpt derives (reproduced in English here) was published in the November 11, 2005 edition of the Croatian journal Globus. The title of the interview was: "Novinar koji ruši ministre - Peter Preston." Can't tell you who the interviewer was. But the interviewee was one Peter Preston: A long-time journalist, editor---and the editor-in-chief at The Guardian until 1995, when he was replaced by its current editor, Alan Rusbridger---and above all, a mucky-muck at the U.K.-based Guardian Media Group.
Question: "In an interview to the last week's Guardian Noam Chomsky stated his opinion about the crime against the Bosniaks in Srebrenica, supporting those who hold that that crime is exaggerated. What do you think of that?" Preston: "I don't agree at all with Chomsky's opinion. I think it's impossible to rewrite history that way. After all, about Srebrenica speak mostly mass graves that were discovered and are still being discovered. I think to deny the crimes like that one in Srebrenica is in vain and wrong, because there is a clear position in the political and intellectual circles about them, to what, I must say, my colleagues from the Guardian have contributed a lot. That position is based on irrefutable facts and known scenes from Srebrenica." Question: "Why does Noam Chomsky has a need to revise those facts?" Preston: "I have to admit I don't know. Perhaps it's his need to be controversial? I think the crime in Srebrenica has become part of planetary humanity, like Nazi crimes in the WWII, and it is really strange to draw the attention to oneself by denying that fact. I think that a much more important public duty would be to point out the fact that those who ordered that crime, Karadzic and Mladic, are still at large."
Clearly, The Guardian's principals---as with so many of its contemporaries elsewhere, in the States especially---remain devoutly wedded to the "irrefutable facts," the "clear position in the political and intellectual circles," and the incantatory power that the term 'Srebrenica' exercises over "planetary humanity, like Nazi crimes in WWII." Indeed. Over all of the planets and the stars, too. Emma Brockes' Halloween-day interview with Noam Chomsky was but an instantiation of this magical realm. I should add, however, that I find it very troubling that some people have been arguing that Norman Johnson's “Yes, this appeaser was once my hero” (The Guardian, November 5) was a satire on Johnson's part, and that the target of this satire, rather than being Chomsky, was what one person described to me as the "Hitchens-Aaronovich clan." Were Johnson's November 5 commentary a satire of the "Hitchens-Aaronovich clan," then why did it make Chomsky look so bad in comparison to the otherwise unnamed Christopher Hitchens and David Aaronovich? Why, in other words, if one is satirizing Parties X, Y, and Z, does one's satire skewer Party NC instead? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 14, 2005 00:23 AM
"And given your showings regarding argumentation here, I'd hardly say that it's obvious you're dealing with irrational starstruck people..." I never said ALL chomsky fans are cultish weirdos, but acting like the accusation has no merit is blatantly dishonest. most people have no idea who Chomsky is. the reason his books sell so well is because there is a small minority of hardcore fanboys who buy every single one.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Nov 13, 2005 01:14 AM
" I find this rather ironic given their tendency to accuse Chomsky's *admirer's* of doing just that." It takes a cult to know one. You point fingers at them, they point fingers at you, and, frankly, you're both right. The reason Chomsky fans object to the cult label is the same reason Scientologists do - it cuts close to the bone.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Doctor44, Iand at Nov 12, 2005 13:53 PM
I agree that the incident reaffirms Chomsky's take on the media, but it feels more a matter of personal vendetta than unconscious bias to me. To fabricate anyone's attitudes towards war crimes is a violation of the most basic journalistic standards and extremely serious, whether or not the relevant articles are laughable to those who know better. I don't expect a paper which carries advertising to be revolutionary, and differing opinions and misunderstandings are routine, but the truth and its outright fabrication absolutely do matter. I don't think I'm over-reacting in saying that the actions of Emma Brockes, Norman Johnson, and Alan Rusbridger (the editor) are criminal and that they should be fired.

Reply this comment

50

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Peterson, David at Nov 12, 2005 08:13 AM
Friends: Anyone curious to observe what I was first tempted to call the workings of power and ideology with respect to the wars over the breakup of Yugoslavia, but have decided instead to settle on a vicious-circle-jerk, ought to check out the back-slapping cross-referencing among the following clique, all taking their start from what one of them calls "Emma Brockes's laudably tough-minded interview" with NC: Oliver Kamm --> David R. Adler --> Bill Weinberg --> Oliver Kamm --> --> --> -->. (With other assorted links along the way to Marko Attila Hoare, the lunatic Balkan Witness webite, and even to the granddaddy loonies of them all---the folk behind the so-called Anti-Chomsky Reader.) These guys make the dirty-handed behind the Brockes's smear at The Guardian look impeccably clean. Believe it or not.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Gammon101, Bwong at Nov 12, 2005 00:40 AM
I read the "interview". Actually it is not really an interview. It is an editorialized "encounter" with Chomsky. It would be more honest to reflect this in the title. But I think some people are over reacting. You may not like Emma B's opinion, you may think her piece is biased and doesn't present a fair image of Chomsky(which I agree). But it is completely within her right to write that the Guardian has every right to publish it. From the outset it is clearly a subjective account of her meeting with Chomsky. There is no risk in confusing it with investigative journalism. Maybe distasteful, but it's not libel. Robert Fisk editorizes. He is very sarcastic and opininated (shocking by NA standard of "objective" journalism)He has also been accused of "smearing". But we don't question The Independent's journalistic standard for printing Fisk's "one sided" journalism because we agree with him. It's fair to write to the Guardian to point out the inaccuracies but it strikes me as inappropiate to insist that Guardian shouldn't have published the piece (or to insinuate that Emma B be fired) We would be justifiably outraged if Fisk lose his spot at the Independent because readers like Yakov find him offensive and threaten the newspaper with boycott. If we believe in freedom of speech we should be consistent. To my best knowledge Chomsky himself hasn't protested. I know I will be blasted for this.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Doctor44, Iand at Nov 11, 2005 10:07 AM
I've cancelled my sub to the Guardian Weekly and copied an exchange with the editor (apparently) below (read from bottom to top), minus my input. PE: The great thing about being owned by a trust -- the Scott Trust, with no shareholders baying for profits -- is that it lets its editors choose their own material for publication. The analogy with KBR and Halliburton is utterly absurd. No one dictates to me -- on the commercial or editorial side of the Guardian -- what I put in the Weekly. I fondly imagine that our many loyal subscribers trust me to use my judgment about picking the best bits of the Guardian to appear in their weekly digest. But perhaps I need to re-read Manufacturing Consent and recognise that I am just another helpless stooge of capitalism, oiling the wheels of the military-industrial complex. PS I still live in hope that you will reconsider inflicting collective punishment on Guardian Newspapers Ltd for that interview. PPS Noam Chomsky is a subscriber to GW, who, to the best of knowledge, has not cancelled his sub PE: Our subscription department has passed on your note. May I ask why you don't wait until the publication to which you subscribe -- the Guardian Weekly -- prints the Chomsky interview before cancelling? Your decision smacks of guilt by association. Would you end a long-standing friendship if you discovered that your friend's father or brother had done something of which you do not approve? Hoping you will change your mind.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Man, Laughing at Nov 09, 2005 15:32 PM
The funny thing is that by writing all this, Emma B. is actually proving Comsky`s position. If anything, what she wrote was a `tantrum`, it flies in the face of everthing that she (or her editor(s)) is trying to argue.

Reply this comment

Person

By Wilson, Patrick at Nov 07, 2005 02:58 AM
Correction: Emma B. not Diana B. and a unforgivable typo When "it" was.... My apologies.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Wilson, Patrick at Nov 07, 2005 02:30 AM
In the latter days of the Third Reich, a General Weilding was called before Hitler to explain why he shouldn't be shot for retreating in the face of the enemy. When is was determined that General Weilding had not retreated, Hitler assigned him to command the defense of the government district of Berlin. A hopeless assignment. After the meeting, Wielding commented that he would rather have been shot rather than be given such an honor. If I were a aspiring journalist in todays world and my boss gave me the assignment to do a "razor job" on Noam Chomsky, I would reply that I rather be shot. Miss Diana B. is now on metro I'm sure. PW

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "Thick as Autumnal Leaves": The Guardian's Mock Interview with Noam Chomsky

By Cacioppo, Jonas at Nov 07, 2005 00:52 AM
I've read works of Chomsky for the better part of two years, starting with James Peck's "Reader" to the Prof's "Hegemony or Survival" and his collaborative expose, "Manufacturing Consent" - as well as having regularly read his columns, talks and interviews from his official site. So I have some sense of not simply his way of thinking but also his style. And this Guardian interview struck me as odd because it didn't sound like Chomsky was being quoted. Maybe a pseudo-Chomsky, or an invented academic. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out those quotes were indeed fabrications...

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (32)

Loading_border