5 ms·

>> Chomsky and Herman examined mass media coverage of U.S. enemies vs friends That is not exactly how Wikipedia discuss the Pol Pot and Chomsky subject? (Also

by berntb 10y ago

>> Chomsky and Herman examined mass media coverage of U.S. enemies vs friends That is not exactly how Wikipedia discuss the Pol Pot and Chomsky subject? (Also, a later quote by Chomsky, at the end of that discussion of him, notes that Pol Pot's atrocities were "I think it would be hard to find any example of a comparable outrage and outpouring of fury." which directly contradicts comparing with East Timor. But sure, during the Cold War lots of dictators that was needed got off easy for human rights violations.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chomsky_and_Herman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide_denial#Chom...

abalone 10y ago
You misunderstand. That directly supports the comparison with East Timor. When enemies commit atrocities there is outrage and fury in the mass media, and when friends commit similar atrocities there is silence and downplaying. Also, the Wikipedia article does not support the claim that Chomsky offered "support for Pol Pot".
- berntb 10y ago
  What?! This is the early international reaction of Pol Pot criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#International_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#Internation... Chomsky, according to the w-pedia link I gave in the GP, criticize that and call it probable anti communist propaganda. And then they write supportive/neutrally of communist Pol Pot defenders.
  - Synaesthesia 10y ago
    He wrote that with the information he could get at the time. Later when the evidence of the genocide was better known, he criticised the US government for its recognition and support of the DK government. https://chomsky.info/199903__/ https://chomsky.info/199903__/ The US recognized the expelled DK as the official government of Cambodia, because of its “continuity” with the Pol Pot regime, the State Department explained.
    - berntb 10y ago
      According to w-pedia, Chomsky wrongly dismissed the eye witnesses as an anti communist propaganda conspiracy... And evaluated as more trustworthy the supporters of dogma/regimes that already before the "Killing Fields" had a history of mass murderers. If you dismiss whatever you want as a conspiracy, you can motivate any conclusion. (Here: "Country X used propaganda in a war, I'll assume they do exactly the same amount of propaganda when not in a war.")
  - bildung 10y ago
    Mind the context: The Vietnam invastion of the U.S. happend just then, with massive atrocities committed by the U.S. (2 million civilians were killed in North Vietnam alone, Agent Orange killed an additional 400000 after the war ended). At that time, that was hardly mentionened in the press, or, if mentioned, framed as a necessary price to pay to archieve freedom. In 1969, Nixon also dropped over 100.000 tons of bombs over Laos and Cambodia (Operations MENU and Freedom Deal), killing many thousands of civilians. Even now, 40 years later, the English Wikipedia entry for the Vietnam War and the casualities portrays a completely different image than e.g. the German entry (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzte https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzt...). The english entry downplays the U.S. atrocities and e.g. doesn't mention the Agent Orange aftermath. The majority of pictures in the U.S. entry show Viet Cong victims, despite the fact that the U.S. killed way more civilians. Of course Chomsky and Herman, being aware of that, were sceptical about the Pol Pot press coverage in 1977. And, according to your link, they reverted their scepticism when the facts became clearer, calling it the "great act of genocide in the modern period".
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Context is very important in understanding commentary written in the 1970s. In today's world, people on various parts of the political spectrum are writing things about various Middle Eastern actors which they are sure to regret in future. I have a certain degree of sympathy for someone like Hildebrand - the coauthor of a book heavily dependent on Khmer Rouge sources which one of Chomsky's more controversial articles on Cambodia praised - who subsequently admitted that he'd been guilty of "intellectual arrogance" in being too quick to assume based on his Vietnam experiences that popular media accounts were fabrications and Southeast Asian leftist groups were relatively honest about the situation. I have somewhat less for Chomsky, who switched from insisting that Cambodian refugee reports were unreliable, casualties owed more to US bombing than the Khmer Rouge and that nitpicking over mainstream estimates of death tolls was entirely appropriate if they were out by a "factor of 1000" to accusing the CIA of Cambodian genocide denial (by deliberately misrepresenting a report which actually attributes 1.2-1.8m deaths to "the savagery of that regime") almost as soon as Cambodia was successfully invaded by North Vietnam, and who continues insist to his commentary in the 1970s was entirely balanced and justifiable.

by berntb 10y ago

abalone 10y ago

You misunderstand. That directly supports the comparison with East Timor. When enemies commit atrocities there is outrage and fury in the mass media, and when friends commit similar atrocities there is silence and downplaying. Also, the Wikipedia article does not support the claim that Chomsky offered "support for Pol Pot".

berntb 10y ago
What?! This is the early international reaction of Pol Pot criticism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#International_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide#Internation... Chomsky, according to the w-pedia link I gave in the GP, criticize that and call it probable anti communist propaganda. And then they write supportive/neutrally of communist Pol Pot defenders.
- Synaesthesia 10y ago
  He wrote that with the information he could get at the time. Later when the evidence of the genocide was better known, he criticised the US government for its recognition and support of the DK government. https://chomsky.info/199903__/ https://chomsky.info/199903__/ The US recognized the expelled DK as the official government of Cambodia, because of its “continuity” with the Pol Pot regime, the State Department explained.
  - berntb 10y ago
    According to w-pedia, Chomsky wrongly dismissed the eye witnesses as an anti communist propaganda conspiracy... And evaluated as more trustworthy the supporters of dogma/regimes that already before the "Killing Fields" had a history of mass murderers. If you dismiss whatever you want as a conspiracy, you can motivate any conclusion. (Here: "Country X used propaganda in a war, I'll assume they do exactly the same amount of propaganda when not in a war.")
- bildung 10y ago
  Mind the context: The Vietnam invastion of the U.S. happend just then, with massive atrocities committed by the U.S. (2 million civilians were killed in North Vietnam alone, Agent Orange killed an additional 400000 after the war ended). At that time, that was hardly mentionened in the press, or, if mentioned, framed as a necessary price to pay to archieve freedom. In 1969, Nixon also dropped over 100.000 tons of bombs over Laos and Cambodia (Operations MENU and Freedom Deal), killing many thousands of civilians. Even now, 40 years later, the English Wikipedia entry for the Vietnam War and the casualities portrays a completely different image than e.g. the German entry (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzte https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamkrieg#Tote_und_Verletzt...). The english entry downplays the U.S. atrocities and e.g. doesn't mention the Agent Orange aftermath. The majority of pictures in the U.S. entry show Viet Cong victims, despite the fact that the U.S. killed way more civilians. Of course Chomsky and Herman, being aware of that, were sceptical about the Pol Pot press coverage in 1977. And, according to your link, they reverted their scepticism when the facts became clearer, calling it the "great act of genocide in the modern period".
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Context is very important in understanding commentary written in the 1970s. In today's world, people on various parts of the political spectrum are writing things about various Middle Eastern actors which they are sure to regret in future. I have a certain degree of sympathy for someone like Hildebrand - the coauthor of a book heavily dependent on Khmer Rouge sources which one of Chomsky's more controversial articles on Cambodia praised - who subsequently admitted that he'd been guilty of "intellectual arrogance" in being too quick to assume based on his Vietnam experiences that popular media accounts were fabrications and Southeast Asian leftist groups were relatively honest about the situation. I have somewhat less for Chomsky, who switched from insisting that Cambodian refugee reports were unreliable, casualties owed more to US bombing than the Khmer Rouge and that nitpicking over mainstream estimates of death tolls was entirely appropriate if they were out by a "factor of 1000" to accusing the CIA of Cambodian genocide denial (by deliberately misrepresenting a report which actually attributes 1.2-1.8m deaths to "the savagery of that regime") almost as soon as Cambodia was successfully invaded by North Vietnam, and who continues insist to his commentary in the 1970s was entirely balanced and justifiable.