4 ms·

It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. 50% of private power has more power than relatively powerless groups, and powerful people run

It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. 50% of private power has more power than relatively powerless groups, and powerful people run the country and the economy, so their concerns have more consequence. Even in this framing of "consequential", one can argue about the narrow range of consequences on offer by Democrats and Republicans, and the broad potential consequences of social movements, but I tend to agree with you. However, Chomsky's argument is that this "perfect experiment" of history, Watergate vs. COINTELPRO, reveals that "on the question of principles", Watergate shows that the press "think[s] that powerful people ought to be able to defend themselves", whereas "one tiny part of the COINTELPRO program was itself far more significant in terms of principle than all of Watergate, and if you look at the whole program, it's not even a discussion". This is to help dispel the notion that the press are adversarial, truth-seekers, thumbing their nose at authority. And the purpose of this argument isn't just to deflate the pompous self-esteem of the press, but also helps explain the press' _lack_ of adversarial, truth-seeking reporting on other matters of _extreme_ consequence, such as the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, NAFTA, etc.

AndrewBissell 6y ago
> It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. 50% of private power has more power than relatively powerless groups, and powerful people run the country and the economy, so their concerns have more consequence. But whom amongst those powerful groups would have had any kind of serious stake in whether Nixon or Ford was president? As opposed to whether the Black Panthers continued with their free breakfast and housing programs?
maxerickson 6y ago
Oh, I guess I take it as a given that most media is not engaged in adversarial truth seeking, so it doesn't land as a point. I guess on the other side of it I'm not convinced that the FBI would be effective at disrupting groups. There's lots of other things at play when you are talking about small groups of people with views outside the mainstream (a major one is that the mainstream will concede ideological ground, which can massively deflate a group, but that's the group succeeding…).
- Crye 6y ago
  Fred Hampton and Martin Luther King would probably disagree with this statement.
yrimaxi 6y ago
> It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. The tautology being that important people are important.[1] Applying wishful thinking for the moment, what would America look like today if popular movements in the 60’s had never been infiltrated? What would the civic culture of America look like if regular people were “allowed” to participate in the public sphere without such underhanded tactics from the the government’s side? But I guess all of that is inconsequential, wishful thinking or not. [1] Infer disclaimers. > This is to help dispel the notion that the press are adversarial, truth-seekers, thumbing their nose at authority. And the purpose of this argument isn't just to deflate the pompous self-esteem of the press, but also helps explain the press' _lack_ of adversarial, truth-seeking reporting on other matters of _extreme_ consequence, such as the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, NAFTA, etc. You predictably, given the demographics on this board, think that _the point_ is to stick it to The Man, The Press, or some Important Person, in order to embarass or dress them down.[1] And yet that is just a bonus, and was never the point at all. How many small-venue lectures has this man held, how many letters and emails to people-of-no-consequence has he sent, etc.? All in order to support and connect people working in grassroots movements (he explains this in the same interview). Not in order to, once in a blue moon, land a somewhat mainstream interview in order to tell The Press off to their faces or to combat other Important People of Consequence. [1] Andrew Marr was so “dressed down” that he some years later cheered when GB and the US invaded Iraq—that interview had no impact on his view of the press or his role within it, as the Propaganda Model would have predicted.
- dundarious 6y ago
  I agree with all your points and my post was meant to convey the same logic. I think you misunderstand me. In particular, I mention deflating press self-esteem specifically to say that is _not_ the point. Chomsky is not interested in “epic smackdowns” like the Ben Shapiros or even Hitchenses of the world.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

AndrewBissell 6y ago

> It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. 50% of private power has more power than relatively powerless groups, and powerful people run the country and the economy, so their concerns have more consequence. But whom amongst those powerful groups would have had any kind of serious stake in whether Nixon or Ford was president? As opposed to whether the Black Panthers continued with their free breakfast and housing programs?

maxerickson 6y ago

Oh, I guess I take it as a given that most media is not engaged in adversarial truth seeking, so it doesn't land as a point. I guess on the other side of it I'm not convinced that the FBI would be effective at disrupting groups. There's lots of other things at play when you are talking about small groups of people with views outside the mainstream (a major one is that the mainstream will concede ideological ground, which can massively deflate a group, but that's the group succeeding…).

Crye 6y ago
Fred Hampton and Martin Luther King would probably disagree with this statement.

yrimaxi 6y ago

> It is somewhat tautological that Watergate is more consequential. The tautology being that important people are important.[1] Applying wishful thinking for the moment, what would America look like today if popular movements in the 60’s had never been infiltrated? What would the civic culture of America look like if regular people were “allowed” to participate in the public sphere without such underhanded tactics from the the government’s side? But I guess all of that is inconsequential, wishful thinking or not. [1] Infer disclaimers. > This is to help dispel the notion that the press are adversarial, truth-seekers, thumbing their nose at authority. And the purpose of this argument isn't just to deflate the pompous self-esteem of the press, but also helps explain the press' _lack_ of adversarial, truth-seeking reporting on other matters of _extreme_ consequence, such as the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, NAFTA, etc. You predictably, given the demographics on this board, think that _the point_ is to stick it to The Man, The Press, or some Important Person, in order to embarass or dress them down.[1] And yet that is just a bonus, and was never the point at all. How many small-venue lectures has this man held, how many letters and emails to people-of-no-consequence has he sent, etc.? All in order to support and connect people working in grassroots movements (he explains this in the same interview). Not in order to, once in a blue moon, land a somewhat mainstream interview in order to tell The Press off to their faces or to combat other Important People of Consequence. [1] Andrew Marr was so “dressed down” that he some years later cheered when GB and the US invaded Iraq—that interview had no impact on his view of the press or his role within it, as the Propaganda Model would have predicted.

dundarious 6y ago
I agree with all your points and my post was meant to convey the same logic. I think you misunderstand me. In particular, I mention deflating press self-esteem specifically to say that is _not_ the point. Chomsky is not interested in “epic smackdowns” like the Ben Shapiros or even Hitchenses of the world.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]