3 ms·

Again, nobody is claiming that Waxman had a story that "proved" Weinstein was a sexual predator. But she does claim to have a story that was much more significa

Again, nobody is claiming that Waxman had a story that "proved" Weinstein was a sexual predator. But she does claim to have a story that was much more significant than the one that ran, and for you to say that didn't exist is simply your word versus hers. You have your reasons for believing that she's lying, including that "she would not have the easiest time" convincing her bosses to fund a trip, that her editor claimed not to remember a conversation, that she injected Damon and Crowe into the story to add drama, etc. I do not find these reasons at all persuasive enough to conclude that she is lying. But it doesn't matter, because it's speculation on both of our parts anyway. If you're trying to use this particular instance to in any way judge Chomsky's book, then you're at a loss. At one extreme, Waxman made up her entire story and I was duped, in which case the conclusion is merely that this is not an example of an advertiser manipulating the media, and says nothing of Chomsky's evidence. At the other extreme, Waxman was telling the truth and Weinstein's role as an advertiser did allow him to get the story gutted. In that case, it's still insufficient to prove Chomsky's thesis. Which it was never meant to do in the first place, as it was merely presented as an illustrative example. A pointless discussion either way. You could probably read the relevant parts of Chomsky's book in the time we've spent here going back and forth on Waxman's believability.

danso 9y ago
Just to be clear, I don't accuse Waxman of being a liar. She has a good reputation as a reporter and editor. Her recollection may be biased, but that's not malicious dishonesty. She has the same limits of memory and perspective as every other human being, her story should not be taken at face value, nor is it an all-for-nothing proposition in which her being fuzzy on one detail invalidates her entire story. The same applies to all the other players and witnesses. I agree that is futile for me to apply this topic to a book I haven't read, though I did just get a copy and have had time to skim things. I'm not sure what to argue against. I think Chomsky is absolutely right to point out that American news outlets focus on American issues from an American perspective, and that news outlets, being for-profit companies, live-and-die by advertisers. It's not at all a coincidence -- nor does it require a conspiracy -- that a news outlet's focus and coverage reflect that of its staff and publishers. You get a college-educated mostly white staff, you'll get a lot of stories that are relevant/understandable by that demographic, which may be an OK thing if that's the news outlet's entire readership, even as it skimps on a greater moral mission to represent society's minority. That's a valid critique, and the underlying incentives would seem to produce results that showed a consistent adherence to maintaining the status quo. I don't believe that Chomsky is the first to point this out (nor the first to do so in an empirical way), but if he's spreading the news about the realities of the news business, that's worthy enough work. But skimming down to things in which Chomsky attempts to point out their fit in his model is less convincing. He acknowledges the "shining moments' of journalism, such as reporting the My Lai Massacre and Watergate. Chomksy says in the conclusion: > In short, the very examples offered in praise of the media for their independence, or criticism of their excessive zeal, illustrate exactly the opposite. Contrary to the usual image of an "adversary press" boldly attacking a pitiful executive giant, the media's lack of interest, investigative zeal, and basic news reporting on the accumulating illegalities of the executive branch have regularly permitted and even encouraged ever larger violations of law But the media's action on My Lai and Watergate don't really seem to demonstrate the "exactly the opposite" of an adversarial media. The exact opposite would seem to be a media that doesn't report on these things at all. But the fact is that they did and Chomsky's explanation seems to boil down to: - The media didn't act as fast as it could (e.g. it didn't cover the My Lai massacre the day of or after it happened) - The supposed scandals weren't even that big of a deal, e.g. My Lai was just one of many atrocities committed by the U.S. The Watergate break-in was nothing compared to what the FBI was doing to the Socialist Workers party. - And the media didn't go far enough in its investigative reporting, e.g. if the media really cared about My Lai, then military officers higher than a Lieutenant would have been court-martialed. I think there is value in critiquing the lesser-celebrated details of media action/inaction, including lionized narratives of media's finest moments. But as something that purports to point out how media/government/industry complicity can explain all or even most of media's self-interested behavior? Chomsky's arguments seem virtually unfalsifiable. There is no possible unselfish/noble/independent media action that could not be waved away with his logic. But his logic is inherently self-defeating. My Lai and Watergate weren't a big deal, and the media were slow as fuck to finally cover them...OK, then that leaves completely explained why news outlets wasted considerable resources on stories that were not only inherently hostile to the U.S. government, but boring and stupid and not even significant compared to all the shit that was really happening. That argument is pretty airtight!
- csallen 9y ago
  > I think Chomsky is absolutely right to point out that American news outlets focus on American issues from an American perspective… If by "American perspective" you mean that the news is complicit in spreading propaganda on behalf of advertisers and sources like the government, then sure, I agree. That's what Chomsky means. But I don't think you mean that, because that is not the American perspective. Most Americans do not believe that they're being propagandized to the extent that they are, and would take issue with it if they knew the facts. If what the news reported was a simple extension of Americans' natural positions and perspectives, then there'd be no need for the propaganda in the first place. For example, most Americans do not believe that the Vietnam war was an invasion, because it is instead reported as aiding an ally during a civil war. If we began reporting on Vietnam as an invasion and highlighting the relevant facts that made that case, do you think the natural American perspective would remain unchanged? I don't. It didn't take the German people long to feel shame for their actions in the second world war. I think you're letting journalists off the hook here. > But the media's action on My Lai and Watergate don't really seem to demonstrate the "exactly the opposite" of an adversarial media. The exact opposite would seem to be a media that doesn't report on these things at all. That's an extreme standard. You're taking Chomsky's words "exact opposite" as literally as possible, when they are clearly meant to be hyperbole. He's not saying the machine is 100% effective. This isn't 1984. But it's still bad if it's even much less than that. The media didn't cover My Lai the day after? It occurred in March 1968 and didn't gain extensive media coverage until a year and a half later in November 1969, despite extensive efforts by numerous people to publicize the story. By that time, there were already massive demonstrations in Washington and media attention was focused on antiwar protest. The cat was out of the bag, and needed to be reigned in. Chomsky argues, convincingly, that massacres like in My Lai weren't particularly out of place, but in fact were part of a larger strategy that made such events more routine and normal than they ever should have been. In public scandal cases like these, the defense's strategy is always "scapegoat," and so you would expect the other atrocities and overall strategy to be downplayed while My Lai is highlighted and treated as exceptional, and some peon's head is offered up on a plate. And that's exactly what happened. Rule #1 in every playbook is to offer a sacrificial lamb to the masses before they start demanding that more important heads roll. This is basic stuff. You see it in every company in crisis mode. What makes it nefarious here is that the media is complicit. The facts aren't difficult to dig up, and the American people by and large expect news outlets to report on this stuff accurately. But they don't. They systematically filter out the stories, the facts, and even the journalists who push the wrong buttons and ask the wrong questions at inconvenient times. It's not 100% fail proof. But it's systemic.

danso 9y ago

Just to be clear, I don't accuse Waxman of being a liar. She has a good reputation as a reporter and editor. Her recollection may be biased, but that's not malicious dishonesty. She has the same limits of memory and perspective as every other human being, her story should not be taken at face value, nor is it an all-for-nothing proposition in which her being fuzzy on one detail invalidates her entire story. The same applies to all the other players and witnesses. I agree that is futile for me to apply this topic to a book I haven't read, though I did just get a copy and have had time to skim things. I'm not sure what to argue against. I think Chomsky is absolutely right to point out that American news outlets focus on American issues from an American perspective, and that news outlets, being for-profit companies, live-and-die by advertisers. It's not at all a coincidence -- nor does it require a conspiracy -- that a news outlet's focus and coverage reflect that of its staff and publishers. You get a college-educated mostly white staff, you'll get a lot of stories that are relevant/understandable by that demographic, which may be an OK thing if that's the news outlet's entire readership, even as it skimps on a greater moral mission to represent society's minority. That's a valid critique, and the underlying incentives would seem to produce results that showed a consistent adherence to maintaining the status quo. I don't believe that Chomsky is the first to point this out (nor the first to do so in an empirical way), but if he's spreading the news about the realities of the news business, that's worthy enough work. But skimming down to things in which Chomsky attempts to point out their fit in his model is less convincing. He acknowledges the "shining moments' of journalism, such as reporting the My Lai Massacre and Watergate. Chomksy says in the conclusion: > In short, the very examples offered in praise of the media for their independence, or criticism of their excessive zeal, illustrate exactly the opposite. Contrary to the usual image of an "adversary press" boldly attacking a pitiful executive giant, the media's lack of interest, investigative zeal, and basic news reporting on the accumulating illegalities of the executive branch have regularly permitted and even encouraged ever larger violations of law But the media's action on My Lai and Watergate don't really seem to demonstrate the "exactly the opposite" of an adversarial media. The exact opposite would seem to be a media that doesn't report on these things at all. But the fact is that they did and Chomsky's explanation seems to boil down to: - The media didn't act as fast as it could (e.g. it didn't cover the My Lai massacre the day of or after it happened) - The supposed scandals weren't even that big of a deal, e.g. My Lai was just one of many atrocities committed by the U.S. The Watergate break-in was nothing compared to what the FBI was doing to the Socialist Workers party. - And the media didn't go far enough in its investigative reporting, e.g. if the media really cared about My Lai, then military officers higher than a Lieutenant would have been court-martialed. I think there is value in critiquing the lesser-celebrated details of media action/inaction, including lionized narratives of media's finest moments. But as something that purports to point out how media/government/industry complicity can explain all or even most of media's self-interested behavior? Chomsky's arguments seem virtually unfalsifiable. There is no possible unselfish/noble/independent media action that could not be waved away with his logic. But his logic is inherently self-defeating. My Lai and Watergate weren't a big deal, and the media were slow as fuck to finally cover them...OK, then that leaves completely explained why news outlets wasted considerable resources on stories that were not only inherently hostile to the U.S. government, but boring and stupid and not even significant compared to all the shit that was really happening. That argument is pretty airtight!

csallen 9y ago
> I think Chomsky is absolutely right to point out that American news outlets focus on American issues from an American perspective… If by "American perspective" you mean that the news is complicit in spreading propaganda on behalf of advertisers and sources like the government, then sure, I agree. That's what Chomsky means. But I don't think you mean that, because that is not the American perspective. Most Americans do not believe that they're being propagandized to the extent that they are, and would take issue with it if they knew the facts. If what the news reported was a simple extension of Americans' natural positions and perspectives, then there'd be no need for the propaganda in the first place. For example, most Americans do not believe that the Vietnam war was an invasion, because it is instead reported as aiding an ally during a civil war. If we began reporting on Vietnam as an invasion and highlighting the relevant facts that made that case, do you think the natural American perspective would remain unchanged? I don't. It didn't take the German people long to feel shame for their actions in the second world war. I think you're letting journalists off the hook here. > But the media's action on My Lai and Watergate don't really seem to demonstrate the "exactly the opposite" of an adversarial media. The exact opposite would seem to be a media that doesn't report on these things at all. That's an extreme standard. You're taking Chomsky's words "exact opposite" as literally as possible, when they are clearly meant to be hyperbole. He's not saying the machine is 100% effective. This isn't 1984. But it's still bad if it's even much less than that. The media didn't cover My Lai the day after? It occurred in March 1968 and didn't gain extensive media coverage until a year and a half later in November 1969, despite extensive efforts by numerous people to publicize the story. By that time, there were already massive demonstrations in Washington and media attention was focused on antiwar protest. The cat was out of the bag, and needed to be reigned in. Chomsky argues, convincingly, that massacres like in My Lai weren't particularly out of place, but in fact were part of a larger strategy that made such events more routine and normal than they ever should have been. In public scandal cases like these, the defense's strategy is always "scapegoat," and so you would expect the other atrocities and overall strategy to be downplayed while My Lai is highlighted and treated as exceptional, and some peon's head is offered up on a plate. And that's exactly what happened. Rule #1 in every playbook is to offer a sacrificial lamb to the masses before they start demanding that more important heads roll. This is basic stuff. You see it in every company in crisis mode. What makes it nefarious here is that the media is complicit. The facts aren't difficult to dig up, and the American people by and large expect news outlets to report on this stuff accurately. But they don't. They systematically filter out the stories, the facts, and even the journalists who push the wrong buttons and ask the wrong questions at inconvenient times. It's not 100% fail proof. But it's systemic.