Persistence of Vision

Front Page| | Many Angry Gerbils| | Links| | Email Us| |Search| | Board Rules|

Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by David Traynier on November 3, 2009, 17:46:12

This isn't as all round enjoyable as Chomsky's trouncing of Tim Sebastian in 2003 but it's still enjoyable enough. Stephen Sackur barely allows him to string a couple of sentences together at first, which is irritating, but Chomsky asserts himself later on. The feebleness of Sackur's questioning becomes very apparent later on.

What I find mystifying, given the aeons of time available on News 24, is why they insist on restricting purportedly serious interviews to 25 minutes.

Available on the iPlayer until November 2010.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by Michael Hardiman on November 4, 2009, 9:56:37, in reply to "Chomsky on HARDTalk"

It's available on youtube already for anyone who isn't in the UK, for some reason they don't allow foreigners to access their audio content.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by finn mccool on November 4, 2009, 10:12:33, in reply to "Chomsky on HARDTalk"

The immorality of journalists is one thing, but their relentless stupidity really is too much to take.

You can see the practical connection with ethics and intelligence at work there. Sackur the intellectual person is almost entirely the product of the conventional wisdom of his peers, an important part of which is not being able to face certain facts of the world, and the striking thing to realise here is how this basic lack of integrity leads to such widespread degeneracy of the intellect. You can see the gears inside Sackur's skull turn very slowly as he tries to manage the few airy abstractions that have forever taken the place any substantial thoughts. He thinks he has chosen the safe, reasonable path, but in fact he has merely ruined his brain.

Primus - Shake Hands with Beef:

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by Michael Hardiman on November 4, 2009, 16:20:42, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

There was one particularly good example of this towards the end when he persisted with the idea of Chomsky as an irrational critic of the US, Chomsky interrupted him to add some detail or other and Sakur said that he didn't want to go into details but preferred to explore the notion generally. Like Tim Sebastian before him the idea of including anything factual was abhorrent because he is in the business of propagating some kind of populist mythology about people that must be characterised in a certain way. I can't remember verbatim but it ran something like this.

Sakur - Why do you say the US is a criminal state?
Chomsky - lists US crimes over 5 decades
Sakur - Yes but I don't want to go into details, I want to know why you are so against the US.

I could have scripted that interview before I saw it. I sometimes wonder why Chomsky is such a glutton for punishment because as we all know from experience, talking to someone who isn't listening to you is a depressing and frusrating task.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by David Traynier on November 4, 2009, 17:18:41, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

Michael, I think Chomsky would answer your final point by saying that, in situations like his interview with Sackur, he's not talking to the interviewer but the audience. If I recall correctly, Chomsky has said in so many words that he is not especially interested in talking to fellow 'intellectual' or 'speaking truth to power'. Power already knows the truth or is uninterested by it.

Every so often, Chomsky may encounter a mainstream journalist who is interested real dialogue (I've seen and heard instances) but, for the majority of cases, I suspect he sees the interview as simply a platform to get certain facts and thoughts out to people.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by David Bracewell on November 4, 2009, 17:43:54, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

My impression was that Sackur was somewhat open to Chomsky.

With Sebastian, there was a sort of unrelenting kneejerk hostility. Sebastian came off far worse than Sackur.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by Michael Hardiman on November 4, 2009, 17:49:31, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

Bracewell! How are you? Nice to see you(r name) again.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by David Bracewell on November 4, 2009, 18:06:56, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

V good thanks Michael Hardiman. Are you still in Brazil?

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by Michael Hardiman on November 4, 2009, 18:27:09, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

I'm beginning to wnder if I'll ever escape mate.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by finn mccool on November 4, 2009, 18:14:58, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

Sackur is stupid and boorish, clearly has no culture, no feel for intelligence or good taste or basic manners. So what if Tim Sebastian came off worse? Did he too ask Chomsky how he could possibly be so negative about America when his parents would have been murdered by Nazis had they not moved there, like much of Chomsky's family that stayed was? Somewhat open? He's a gaping asshole with nothing positive to contribute. I'm not granting him any points for being mild-mannered.

Watch Sackur with Gore Vidal. He's an idiot with no sense of how low he stands. I'd prefer kneejerk hostility.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKilMhR-X48

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by ALP on November 4, 2009, 19:27:09, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

Yeah, he comes across as a complete no-class idiot in the Vidal interview (which I hadn't seen before - thanks for posting). I thought he was clueless and ignorant as a reporter too.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by David Bracewell on November 4, 2009, 21:07:22, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

Vidal seems to be in his wheelchair and Sackur towers above him. I'da got myself a child's chair at that point because it looks awful.

Sackur wants to come off as both urbane and affable, but it just seems like he's practicing charm torture against his grandad - in a locked room, after killing his parents. And tying up and stuffing his grand ma in the walkin closet.

It's funny how he defends McCain with what appears to be his only moment of real passion.

Sebastian came off worse in the Chomsky interview because he was. 'So what..' has nothing to do with anything. I thought Sackur gave Chomsky some room.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by finn mccool on November 4, 2009, 21:19:32, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

Fine. Go marry him if you like him so much, mister low-standards Sackur-lover. He'll be completely awful in every way but he'll give you some room.

Re: "he'll give you some room"

Posted by Raoul Djukanovic on November 4, 2009, 21:27:20, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

I was on assignment in Nicaragua, far from my base in Washington DC. I watched the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on a flickering TV. And then I called my wife back home. She was tearful and distraught. Our kids had been rushed out of school in an emergency drill. It felt, she said, like war had broken out.

"God this is awful," I said with feeling. "I know," she replied, "there may be thousands dead".

"I don't mean that", I snapped. "I'm talking about me. I'm missing the biggest story of my life."

Every so often my wife reminds me of that shameful sentiment. But she doesn't need to. I haven't forgotten it.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4448051.stm

Re: "he'll give you some room"

Posted by finn mccool on November 4, 2009, 21:47:25, in reply to "Re: "he'll give you some room""

If you're interested, I'm starting a website called the Rude Media Lens, 'correcting for people's low standards and general lack of taste'.

'Dear mister Sackur, you are clearly an imbecile of the highest order, no argument necessary. Suggested action...'

Attaboy

Posted by Raoul Djukanovic on November 4, 2009, 21:56:12, in reply to "Re: "he'll give you some room""

Do you take contributions? How about self-incriminating guest alerts?

If so I suggest calling it Media Glans, "shining through the corporate coat of smegma"

Re: Attaboy

Posted by finn mccool on November 4, 2009, 22:13:51, in reply to "Attaboy"

It'll be called Media Beacon, 'Towering above YOU'.

All I ask from my contributors is a healthy disgust for philistinism and a facility with Latin quotations that are obscure enough to require actual linguistic compentence to understand. Also, everyone's name will be Dandy, such as Dandy McCool, Dandy Djukanovic, Grand Dandy Challinor, Dandy Sau.

Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk

Posted by David Bracewell on November 4, 2009, 21:57:14, in reply to "Re: Chomsky on HARDTalk"

I'm not sure marriage is the answer.

«Back to thread

[ Persistence of Vision ]