Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: e adesso, povero Chomsky?

ora che il demonio non c'e' piu', contro chi si scatenera' la caccia?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/17/nick-cohen-democracy-murdoch-mladic/print
Decline and fall of the puppetmasters
Although Chomskyan self-delusion has all too often blighted public
life, the downfall of Ratko Mladic and Rupert Murdoch gives cause for
optimism
    Nick Cohen
Thousands gathered in Srebrenica last Tuesday to mark the 16th
anniversary of the massacre by Ratko Mladic's death squads of 8,000
Bosniak Muslims, the worst war crime seen in Europe since 1945.
Genocide always produces furious debate and the 1995 mass murder was
contested not only by the Serbian killers anxious to escape justice,
but by what most people call "leftwing" intellectuals – although
"occidentalist" or "west-hating" are more precise terms.
Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali, the late Harold Pinter and Arundhati Roy
defended a cranky writer called Diana Johnstone. She had decided that
"massive deception and self-deception by media and politicians" had
conned the naive public into believing that the west had intervened in
the Balkans to save Bosnian lives rather than to expand the borders of
the American empire. Srebrenica did not justify Nato's decision to
increase its air strikes against Serbian targets. "Insofar as Muslims
were actually executed" – and Johnstone thought that the Serbs had
killed only 199 – "such crimes bear all the signs of spontaneous acts
of revenge rather than a project of 'genocide'."
After the editor of a leftish Swedish magazine gave Johnstone a
platform, its staff and board upheld the best traditions of the left
by revolting. In response, in an open letter to the publication,
Chomsky et al scolded the Swedish journalists for their impertinence.
They did not confine themselves to asserting that Johnstone had a
right to express her opinions, but acclaimed her writing as
"outstanding work, dissenting from the mainstream view but doing so by
an appeal to fact and reason."
I drag up memories of this shabby affair because Chomsky is the co-
author of the "propaganda model" of journalism, a theory endorsed by a
surprisingly large and disparate group. Chomsky thought that corrupt
journalists follow the agenda of their rich owners and corporate
advertisers and brainwash the population into believing the lies of
the political and commercial elites. The squalor of the mass graves of
Srebrenica ought to have discredited him for good.
Because his idée fixe compelled him to believe that the lackeys of
American imperialism were inventing stories of Serb atrocities to
justify the expansion of western power, he sided with the apologists
for as long as he could. Not directly, but by the sly and unmanly
means of puffing up the reputation of an author who put "genocide" in
scare quotes and announced that no organised slaughter had taken
place.
The belief that the media manipulate the masses appeals to the far
left because its supporters must explain why they can never win or
come close to winning a democratic election. Rather than accept that
electorates reject them because their ideas are false or foolish, they
decide that corporate puppetmasters jerk the strings of citizens and
induce them to vote against their "real" interests.
Trotskyists are not the only dupes of the fantasy. Conservatives are
as convinced that sinister media manipulators frustrate them. The Mail
and the Telegraph's assaults on BBC bias are an equally self-serving
attempt to avoid facing their own inadequacies. If it were not for the
propaganda of liberal broadcasters, the British would respect the
sanctity of marriage, go to church, renounce the welfare state and
demand the privatisation of schools and hospitals. Nor are liberals
immune from Chomskyan self-delusion. How many times have they
maintained that the "tabloids" force governments to be tough on crime
and illegal immigration and failed to acknowledge that a majority of
the electorate has never supported the lenient treatment of offenders
or mass immigration?
Everywhere, the disappointed and the outraged insist that a media
conspiracy has turned the heads of stupid voters. Instead of trying to
win arguments in open contests, they bleat that the match is fixed.
I am not pretending that media bias does not exist. I am simply saying
that the evidence that partisan newspapers and broadcasters do any
more than preach to the converted is weak, to put it mildly. Weighted
by circulation, 74.8% of the press backed the Tories at the last
election, but just 36.1% voted for David Cameron. Only 13.3% of the
press supported Brown, but 29% of the electorate voted Labour. Except
in dictatorial states, and maybe Berlusconi's Italy, the internet-
connected citizen has too many sources of information for
propagandists to control. The only escape for believers in the
propaganda model is to say that it does not matter if Labour or the
Tories win elections because their policies are identical. After the
experience of Cameron and Clegg in power, no serious person can
believe that now.
Chomsky's most dedicated followers are, however, our politicians and
police officers. Convinced that Murdoch had the ability to choose the
government of this country, they have allowed his News Corporation to
subvert the civil law controlling media competition and ownership, and
challenge the first principle of the criminal law that the police must
treat all suspects equally. Their own actions made Murdoch's supremacy
a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more he used his influence over
politicians to expand his conglomerate, the more powerful he seemed.
To put the same thought another way, the political class created a god
and then dropped to its knees to worship him. The immorality of the
News Corp, as much as its control of four newspapers and BSkyB,
explains why so many believed it could brainwash the British. An
unscrupulous newspaper proprietor has an advantage no other CEO
possesses. Murdoch's News of the World and Sun, and to a lesser extent
his Sunday Times, could implicitly threaten to blackmail any
politician, civil servant or journalist who crossed their master. If
ministers had been with a prostitute or regulators had had affairs,
they would think twice about taking on an organisation that may have
details of their indiscretion in its files.
Murdoch seemed untouchable. But democracies are tougher than they
look. After the Srebrenica massacre, Nato finally found the political
will to put an end to Serb aggression. Contrary to the predictions of
pessimists, it turned Mladic from a triumphant warlord into the
haggard figure we see answering for his crimes in the Hague. After the
hacking scandal, Murdoch is no longer the puppetmaster who determines
the fate of nations but just a tired old man – who isn't even a tired
old Englishman. Like Mladic, he's there for the taking.


Schifo
-- 
Io non gufo l'Inter. Le spacco le corna.

 a self-fulfilling prophecy
LOL. Non è Murdoch che è colpevole di aver creato una Stasi privata, è
colpa dei politici....che pajassi.

 la Stasi di Murdoch
Aha. La Stasi non era comunista?


Perdonalo, è completamente cretino e ha passato il sabato a farsi seghe.



usata a difesa di uno stato comunista, è un baluardo necessario. Usata
a difesa di un porco fascista, è da galera

amaryllide ha scritto:

Insomma, «noi uccidiamo solo per motivi buoni» [cit.] E te la prendi
con i mezzi del sionismo. E' il fine, la autodeterinazione del popolo
ebraico, quello che ti fa incazzare