Christopher Hitchens and Noam Chomsky (1992)

my two guests represent well my two guests will represent themselves first Noam Chomsky is professor of linguistics at MIT and the author of deterring democracy he's in the studio's of WBUR in Boston professor Chomsky good afternoon afternoon Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for the nation and Washington editor for Harper's Magazine he's here in studio one in Washington Christopher Hitchens good afternoon afternoon when we talk about political discourse in the United States mr. Hitchens what typically are we talking about and I want to confine my remarks at least in the beginning to a broadcast media let me give you a topical example then just to start with Governor Brown California Jerry Brown went on the PBS candidate selection first draft debate and he he attacked the corporate sponsorship of the program he attacked the record of the administration on invisible government the iran-contra connection the little overseas and domestic racketeering he attacked the domination of politics by political action committees and he accused his own party of being complicit with all of this he was running incensed against the Democratic Party - first Chancellor made a shut him up at the time which probably some of you remember I held no particular briefer Governor Brown I was interested though to see he was the only candidate to mention or do any of these things I wanted to see in the Washington Post reported the thing his performance was described as disruptive this is in a news story now naturally the question is disruptive of what or disruptive of whom the answer to that is in the might of the Washington Post that's a stupid question - the consensus which it is our responsibility to guard we are we are the brackets in closing records that define what can and cannot be sensibly said and we're leaning the melia winning in Washington Park yes and this fell unpardonably outside and therefore to intents and purposes and since then that candidate is program do not exist they are not mainstream it's a vulgar example but it's one that comes to hand and you asked me to talk about an electronic instance I had to use a print reinforcement but I say same because I actually when one goes into a magazine store one sees a lot of different public missions that exist out there whether you would find the diversity in the Washington Post that you find actually on the racks of the print media in the United States I think it would be fairly predictable to find a more narrow range of opinions in the Washington Post but that doesn't get them off the hook professor Chomsky Trance key when you when you look at political debate in this country and see mainstream discussion of issues and I hesitate to use even the word mainstream what is it that you see and what do you think is notably absent from that debate well let me also take a topical example in fact one that's a few minutes old I just got into the studio in time to pick up a piece of news two o'clock news and as I put my earphones on there was a discussion of a the UN moves with regard to the alleged libyan involvement in the Lockerbie bombing now that's a good news story and in fact if we had an independent independent media they would immediately raise some obvious coverage of that story is pretty much as it was on the two o'clock news is framed by those with power however independent media would not accept that framing they would ask about the question the more general question so for example the the Lockerbie bombing was an atrocity but it's not the only one the worst error tragedy of this decade was in 1985 an Air India flight that was blown up but I think about 330 people killed that bombing was traced back to terrorists who were trained in a camp for paramilitary mercenaries in Alabama with close ties to US intelligence apparently involved in Central American terrorism and so on edwin meese the who was in Justice Justice Department in fact in a roundabout way confirmed that he went to India nine months later and said something about how yeah we this was sick terrorists trained there apparently he said well we will see that that doesn't happen any longer well there's a case of a major terrorist traceable rec to the united states or take a more recent one the as part of the US a decisive part of the u.s. support for saddam hussein in the iran-iraq war one of the final moves which in fact brought Iran to capitulate was the downing of a a commercial flood Iranian airliner by the US Vance said killing I think at 290 people or so that was regarded unit that's not discussed that's regarded just as an accident the press have moved the NPR and so on turned it that way however that's not the way it was described by others for example by commander David Carlson who was the commander of a nearby vessel who in fact had an article in the Naval Institute proceedings in which he describes how we watched an amazement as the Vinson focused its high-tech missile system on what was obviously a commercial airliner in commercial airspace and shot it down and he says apparently out of it out of a interest in testing its Aegis missile system another let me know let me focus on that for a second you're saying that a and officer on the Vincennes no and near what commander of the nearby the commander of a nearby vessel saw on his radar screen what he believed to be a commercial jet and he watched the command and control of the sands he focus on he says we watch something but I can't renew an exact wording was nothing like we watched in amazement as the commander the Vincennes focused his missus and II his Aegis system on what was obviously a commercial airliner apparently out of a an interest in testing it there's a final act to the test to get on a commercial jet look I'm not no I know it wasn't there that I'm not I'm enabling I'm not counting I just want to be by now the final act of this little drama it was George Bush by George Bush who gave the Legion of Merit Award to the commander of the Vincennes and to the officer replied the officer deck officer in charge of anti-air warfare for meritorious service and the cool you know etc atmosphere and their command during this little stint in the Persian Gulf and which this was the only incident well now I just mentioned at random two cases that might be brought up in a discussion of air terrorism but those are not those are not presented by the system of power of corporate state power and therefore the media do not talk about them they take as their agenda what's provided for them by those in power independent media which were not constrained by the demands of power would of course immediately look at these and numerous other similar cases so would you view that the media in the United States has dropped the ball has become a set of the vested corporate interests as you say or that in some sense Americans choose to narrow their political perspectives and if President Bush says the Libyans are criminals then you know I really don't wanna think too much about it well first of all I would change the tenses there it's not that the media have become it's that they always were in fact in my view they're more open today than they were say thirty years ago and as for what Americans believe well that's a is an interesting question that you can study it for example you can ask the the media often say well we're just responding to what the people want and that's testable there are many cases where popular opinion happens to be dramatically opposed to to the remains you know the establishment opinion let's say corporate government opinion and then we can we can look at those cases and see where the media go and they always invariably in far as I know on crucial cases go against popular opinion and with the corporate media pinyon there's many many examples if you like I can give you a bunch of them but let's let's get a comment from Christopher Hitchens I recall you during the Gulf War I was over in Israel at the time in a fairly celebrated the debate with Charlton Heston whom I suppose is just an expert in in agreeing with President Bush and that was why he was booked on the program at the time but I do recall that you and he debated the war and the morality of the war in some sense and got into a very spirited debate and and I wouldn't want to debate you after seeing that myself and I think he ended up being unable to identify certain fairly elementary countries in the Middle East at the conclusion of the debate but what struck me in watching it on CNN in the midst of the Gulf War story was how little that content that sort of format elicited any interesting information really about the war other than the sort of skill of a debater Christopher Hitchens and the somewhat morally outraged do Finas of one actor Charlton Heston do you think debate on the media elucidates anything well I don't think that it need not or cannot because there is there's no way finally once people are on the air they can be any more than you can constrain me constrained in what they say however the questions that are asked or the topics that are to be addressed are usually pretty narrow on the day you refer to I remember thinking we're just must be that CNN's rolodex that spun round to H that day and they sort of you know decided they'd had hitches in it and though I was allowed to have a go at old Moses himself on this great subject if what struck me was that every single ad break and pause break they would insist to at least one person would come on sometimes to to say we want to stress that mr. Hitler - speaking Italian his personal capacity what you've just seen is merely the ravings of this guy's name again survey that we are not responsible for the Ilia very very important to sort of quarantine or press I cannot allow to say this on the air prophylactic it was so wrapped around me so that as it were it's you know it's the clown hour on CNN this isn't serious at all if it was serious you'd know because it would be Brent Scowcroft that would be real I want to point out Wireless mr. Christopher Hitchens represents only himself up does not represent all people in stretching out for example um if if we stay with that very subject people write to me a lot and say why do we never have known Chomsky on the earth why we don't see and I write back and say well it's because he doesn't fit what they think counts as an expert and so on well he knows too much for another thing he takes an opposition view but there's another reason why I think I mean even if Noam was on Nightline it might be pretty hopeless let me set the scene for you it's night man Ted Koppel or one of the other priesthood is on he says welcome we've got now where we now we've got now we believe Scowcroft and Aran's and some Saudi princes obviously now we've got professor MIT Noam Chomsky do you think it would be in our interests to trade a short-term settlement freeze on the West Bank for two billion dollar loan guarantee and remember that we're running out of time here I want a very quick answer in fact is the whole grammar of the question from the point of view of anyone who studied the subject and has any interest in justice on its a stupid question you would hardly have time to point out the the false assumptions contained within it but it would all have to be framed in terms of we of our interests which were assumed our common membership in a family rather than a divided society which is intended to be conveyed by we all of that couldn't be couldn't I think be vanquished even by someone that professor Chomsky in the time that would be allowed it so it isn't just as I write back to people who say this it's not as who you see on the air it's the assumptions that govern discourse it's the assumptions that say if James Baker says he's on a peace mission he's on a peace mission we call it secretary Baker's peace mission it's for him to prove but we don't ask that and if I was to say for instance secretary Baker's salesmanship campaign to sell a fairly questionable notion of the you know us control of emerging governments in Eastern Europe that I would be lapped up there well so yes so you would but you needn't I mean we didn't take it that far we can see we describe it as a diplomatic mission but to save peace mission as it's always called and the peace processes it's always called when anyone who study it knows it's neither of the above makes two assumptions one is that of altruism in a sense with all of the things that come from the word peace the other is that of the United States as a disinterested superpower with no involvement of its own merely trying to compose a wild quarrel among barbarous people you know spending its own time and money on this on this enterprise and being totally above the battle every time you get a peace mission and peace process that is what's really being told you alright let's take some calls this is talked to the nation eight hundred nine eight nine talk eight hundred nine eight nine eight to five five is the number here in studio one if you have a question for Christopher Hitchens columnist for the nation and the Washington editor for Harper's Magazine or professor Noam Chomsky professor of linguistics at MIT and the author of deterring democracy among other other books which are certainly available all this is available even if noam chomsky is not available on Nightline and I hope someday that you're asked that question for us our emcee from San Diego California Charles you're on the air yes first of all what an honor to be on the air with beef the stellar people you have dr. Chomsky and mr. Hutchins are absolutely leading lights out of curiosity I think that the first thing needs to be asked is what political political discourse in an age of bumper sticker issues and fortune cooking policies where the the primary thrust of the media seems are the politician seems to be to adhere to Milo Frank's dictum of get your point across in 30 seconds or less there is no space for for discourse ironically today is Lincoln's birthday the lincoln-douglas debates would attract thousands of people 3,500 to 7,000 people and they went on for up to 10 hours with food breaks and restroom breaks and all of that going on all the time tell me what politician today could advertise that they were going to have a three-hour discourse in any public billy graham country Billy Graham's and 100 people Billy Graham Charles he does it all the time though I said political right good no good point give a question for professor Chomsky or Christopher Hitchens yes uh why are these men why are you you men allotted only an hour you should be on and least an hour a day for a year well maybe that's two John if I can make a brief comment I've been listening to Chris and also to your comment I was reminded of a one of my favorite radio interviews with a gentleman named Jeff Greenfield who I think may be the producer of Nightline or something like that and he was asked on this interview it was played for me and my own interview on the same station later he was asked how come Chomsky's never on Nightline and he her fumed for a while that he's from Neptune and this and that but when he got Greenfield said that really like that then I think I was worried something but when he calmed down he said look there's a real reason Chomsky lacks concision first time I've ever heard that word and anyone on to explain it concision means the ability to say something in you know between two commercials or something like that in one minute now that's a crucial structural property of the American media I've been on the media all over the world in fact um I spent hundreds of hours on national and mainstream media in Europe and Australia and Canada and everywhere else and to my knowledge the United States is the only country that has this structural property mainly you have to get it out in a few minutes and that's very useful because in a few minutes you can say something that's conventional or you can say in which case you don't need any evidence for it or you can say something unconventional in which case it sound like you do come from Neptune so for example say take let's take the Libyan case again since it happened to be on my mind if I were to say Qaddafi is a terrorist I can do that under the conditions of concision because I don't need any evidence everyone knows that they've heard it a million times if I were to say George Bush is a terrorist I would sound like I'm coming from Neptune because I would have to I would be asked properly what would he mean by that I never heard that one before but then they say Thank You mr. Chomsky with the terms of commercial break that same is true with regard to say peace process the point that Chris Hitchens brought up the fact of the matter is for anyone who looks at this material it's perfectly obvious that the United States has been opposing the peace process for twenty years in fact not just opposing it but blocking it you can tell this simply by looking at UN votes every year there's a can't come to Security Council because the United States vetoes it in the General Assembly where the US doesn't have a veto there are regular votes with numbers like 142 two and so on the two being the US and Israel every year right up to December 1990 calling for a political settlement which the u.s. blocks well suppose somebody were to ask me Chris's question what do you think about the American effort and the peace process I would in order to answer the first thing I would have to say is wait a minute there is no u.s. peace process that the United States is opposed to the peace process at that point somebody would want some evidence and at that point the break would come that's a striking property of the US media now the fact of the matter is in every other country that I've know of in the third world or in Europe or Australia or wherever you not only have a chance to make your ones you know your 30 second statement but you have time to back it up to give evidence to have interchange at dialogue and so on and so forth that virtually doesn't exist in the United States if I have to take a break now am I going to get accused of something in this crime I mean just really did promise me you won't do that I'm gonna take a break yet but I may do so pretty pretty soon from Milwaukee Wisconsin you you're on the air hi hi it is good to hear the Hitchens and and AM Chomsky on the radio and and they should have more access but there should also be more accessed on the right and in Wisconsin I've heard named Chomsky giving hour-long radio lectures but you know we never hear William Shockley or Arthur Jensen or Linda Gottfredson whose work is controversial because it doesn't fit the liberal a pattern of thought you are you familiar with Joseph Sobran and David Mason I die not all right there too I suppose you might call them conservatives they'll be on this program in the same hour tomorrow but let me just say one thing the feminists who don't you know every time there's a rape trial you'll have experts from n o w or a rape centers who are invariably a cos dial to the man the alleged rapist they'll be condemning him long before a jury the AAUP report saying that girls are discriminated against in schools in math and science you know it may well be genetic there there are genetic differences between men and women that the absurd absurd liberal view which is never contested on the newscast or in the major media there there ought to be room from far more diverse views than there are than there than I hear on radio okay thank you for calling um to both of you there are constant accusations of this network that were a leftist which makes me hysterical most of the time but as far as you particularly Christopher Hitchens cover issues in the left is there a kind of fad ISM and a uniformity in the American left that maybe it doesn't dominate the media I don't think feminist controlled media particularly but that it makes it difficult for diverse points to be to be heard within the American left no I don't believe that's true me know though I've written articles critical of you know positions that are cherished on the left in my time I find that the irritation thing about that is is that but in a sense the two political cultures reflect upon one another the the left is unlike to debate too much in public sometimes because it fears that the only coverage they'll get from that is of practice I'd on the left you know because otherwise it wouldn't be intelligible so this has a sort of stupid in my opinion coercive effect on on people so trying to keep keep solidarity in the ranks and that kind of thing that bad on the other hand people who do that I think are responsible for their own actions for their own ways of thinking they can't blame the consensus for that I think I still have the form of questioners point in my mind I mean he's right up to a point in that the bias very much is against ideas or people who have them and thus honest conservatives very often in I suppose one must add dishonest ones and suffer too from this because they there isn't time for them if they want to develop a real theory to get it across however in general in my in my media which is that of the sort of the columnist the pundit the gabfest show that kind of thing the right has an enormous number of branches I mean from oblong on on PBS there are three captures all of them run by people who are associated with the National Review which is William Buckley right it is an example though it's right there is really no I mean there is nobody to the left of Walter Mondale I would say who is regularly to be seen on Mount Airy that does seem to me to be bizarre we're talking about the US political spectrum and just how wide it is with Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens we'll take a short break when we come back we'll take more of your calls if you want to get in a discussion call us at 899 talk 800 nine eight nine eight two five five or twenty eight minutes before the hour you're listening to Talk of the Nation from NPR news this is talk of the nation I'm John Hockenberry we're discussing the breadth or lack of same of the political debate in this country today we view from the left with Noam Chomsky professor of linguistics at MIT and author of the book of deterring democracy and Christopher Hitchens a columnist for the nation and the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine and from Philadelphia PA code esse Michigan Joanne you're on the air hello I wonder was that mentally ill I the last to receive human rights and suffer the most every time someone's killed or a terrible crime is committed this public I I'll cry rises up well they must have been another they were mentally ill or something usually it turns out to be just another guy but they don't forget me it comes from the papers that fit it when I tried was committed it's reported in the paper Sidney was mentally ill okay joint but thanks for calling it and just hold on there you know she raises the Jeffrey Dahmer story which is a very interesting example of how difficult it is to come to grips with with people who are evil or people who have a pre you know people who have a systematic pattern of crime there it much easier to call them mentally ill and to create a category that we can throw them in professor Chomsky what do you think of the coverage of the Jeffrey Dahmer story not that the caller necessarily raised it to be perfectly frank I don't feel competent to comment on it my concentration lies elsewhere I do think that it's quite true that we don't pay attention to people or who are habitually violent and murderous and they start in the highest places starting with the President on down and there's a long record of atrocities and violence which are systemic and institutional and we do this regarding them with regard to the particular case in question I don't feel competent to make a comment let's find from Boston Massachusetts a Pete you're yeah hello Pete hi thank you very much for the show and all your other ones that I've heard my comment and hopefully we cogent to this question I was in 1981 the when the hostages were returned there was a the morning 9:00 a.m. morning interview series with the hostages and the boatman was the highest ranked ranking officer Bruce who's Langan Bruce Langan right and he was asked a question by by a female member of the of the media I don't know from where I can't recall the question was don't you think that the US should take some responsibility for your people being taken hostage because of the overthrow in the 53 regime and the funding of savate and he said can't hear you perfectly audible to me and I'm sure to everybody else and probably to him and he said and she started again he said well I can't hear you will have to go on well the fact that he didn't respond is indicative of something but the see the fact that no one else in the in the media in a major media I should say ever seem to respond to this at all there was no if there's a were they or the nuclear disaster in 68 in Russia that was never brought out and I'd heard about it in 72 or something from some countercultural magazine well don't seem that we don't seem to dig deep enough if I may comment on that there there take the first case the US media and the regime attend the overthrow of the parliamentary regime and Iran and then the u.s. support for the shot till 1979 there is in fact a very good book by a by a professor of journalism William Dorman and I think months are far hung which studies the US media on Iran very closely I have a kind of a review of it and some other material in a book of mine called necessary illusions and the main story without going into the details is that from 1953 until 1979 the media overwhelmingly took the position of the US government that the US was supporting democracy human rights modernization and so on the true the Shah was not called a dictator as with a regime that had compiled one of the worst records of torture in the world virtually all suppressed that just almost total submissiveness for that's quite a long period 53 to 79 - the official story so it's not just the government that had some responsibility for inflicting this monstrous regime on the Iranian people and keeping it there but it's also the responsibility of the US media which went along with very few breaks you can look that up for details what I'm sure but I mean I've just having extra on your on question I mean having some experience in editorial meetings on this question there is one can see a residual reluctance to simply say the CIA installed the Shah the CIA was responsible for repudiating an elected government the same is true at IND the same is true with samosa the same is true all over the world and the media it's not clear to me being sort of on the inside sometimes the why why this happens because it's such a Beca it's not clear to me why people don't say that Kissinger and Nixon started a secret war of slaughter in Laos and Cambodia well in our war criminals as a result it's not clear why that's an obvious and I tell you something about that Laos case because I worked on it very hard the last case I know very well in 1968 the first credible information from respected Western correspondents in particular the Jacques de Cornwall the head of the Southeast Asia bureau for lamomam in Paris very respected well-known correspondent he was an eyewitness to intensive US bombing in Laos which is at that time in fact probably the heaviest bombing in history refugee stories were coming out I in fact was there and collected a lot of refugee stories I tried very hard for a couple of years to try to get even appeared at editorial meetings with Time Life and the New York Times spoke constantly editors wrote to them tried to get somebody to cover the story no couldn't do it in fact the little bits of it dribbled out later in fact but it's amazing how much of that is still is still just buried well I'm from the US bombing of Cambodia was the same I mean for example the New York Times had correspondents there like Sydney schanberg they virtually never interviewed refugees that's one of the reason we know so little about the u.s. bombing of inner Cambodia which probably killed maybe hundreds of thousands of people now but it is a story when they're killing each other that sister doesn't that make it fascinating that the present administration and many of its partisans and supporters are firmly convinced that the press is a determined anti imperialist critic and that it's always been trying to lose America the war and they've been corralling quite a bit of public opinion to the view for example that Vietnam was lost by the media that's it a very widely held opinion in official Washington as I can testify and it's it was a personal report trickle-down effect without opinion on on public opinion too even though if you look at the record you find that with Vietnam also the press share the general assumption of the of the administration for most of it and it was very late that the press so very around in any really so it is I it's there's a sort of fork here on which critical journalists can very easily get impale and what I think it happens and it certainly happened in cases like our hometown papers Washington Post is that they're very very determined to deflect that criticism they're extremely keen Ben Bradley and his farewell interview as editor of The Washington Post said we had become so convinced that Nixon Heights were right in thinking we were liberals that we we gave Reagan much more the vent of the doubt than we ever gave to Carter and people won't want to know why the Reagan regime got such a free ride from the press need only really look up that interview fully internalizing in other words the assumptions of the consensus from Bethlehem Pennsylvania Adam you're on the air yeah I am I think that we can go on and talk about the cases of media problems and on and on and list them but I was wondering if anybody had a suggestion about how we can attack this problem so that the information can start getting out we have NPR the nation there are sources but what's a way to start making people aware that they have to read between the lines when they read the New York Times that they have to read into stories a little bit and have some background uh what's a good way to attack that thanks for calling Adam you know I think that things are changing on this but because for Hitchens I'm interested in your well I mean if just we can insult as you're listening I mean I think a thing to do is to just count up in your daily paper every day wherever you live how many of the stories begin either with a statement by the government simply says this is what the government said yesterday one department or one spokesman or other it merely tells you what yesterday's interpretation of events by the state happen to be all is based on a rewritten opinion poll that says we think this or the consensus is shifting or perhaps firming up on that if you look the number of stories in your paper that begin with I in one or other of those two ways which I think are deeply connected because it's very easy to decide what the question in an opinion poll is going to be because they look at what the press is saying and what the TV is saying and they in turn look at what the opinion polls are demanding you get a multiple reinforced sense of this of the grand we of which anyone out there doesn't feel a part should take them to take a step size of Janet Adam do you think we've advocated the violent overthrow of the American government yet during this hour yes I think it's program I think you should all be shot dead okay thank you very much for calling thing but I from North Plainfield New Jersey Manny you're on the air hello gentlemen with all the trials that have been going on all the coverage that's been happening on these trials how come we haven't heard what we've heard very little about the Noriega trial after all we fought a war to get him and we made an invasion let's put it that way and it's not a political decision is that some sort of cover-up what do you think professor Chomsky well the European press in fact has commented on the remarkable lack of attention given to the Noriega trial by the US media and it is in fact remarkable I think you'd probably read more about it the Financial Times in London than in the New York Times we should do a show on drag again actually it's quite an interest and attack they're quite interesting issues there I mean the fact of the matter is a first of all the major issues have been kept out the judge and the government have succeeded in eliminating most of the issues there are also some extremely fundamental question like if the United States has the right to invade another country and kill hundreds of people and destroy large parts of it in order to capture someone who they put on trial well I mean does Nicaragua have the right to invade the United States to capture a man who was who was convicted by the world by the International Court of Justice the World Court for the unlawful use of force against Noriega and then just against Nicaraguan and just dismissed the indictment I mean disk adavi have the right to invade the United States to capture somebody who bombed Tripoli and Benghazi and totally fraudulent pretenses and on and on those issues don't arise the question of Noriega involvement of with the US government which was extreme we sort of know the background that barely arises the question why the United States turned against Noriega after having supported him for years that doesn't arise how can you look at the indictment of Noriega you'll notice that the charges against him are almost entirely from the period when the United States was backing in that question doesn't arise and we could go on and on if the media were to cover the trial they would it would be difficult to avoid questions like this it would also be difficult to avoid the fact that the was that the results of the trial so far indicate that the US has released and given benefits to major drug peddlers some of the top people in the field and later just in order to try to get after this minor figure who they're trying to get rid of their own special purposes and distribution has increased Animus yeah the General Accounting Office just to estimate of continent of Congress just estimated that the drug peddling and won't money laundered money laundering flourishing and drug peddling has perhaps doubled since the invasion from Philadelphia Oh Steve you're on the air yes thank you but for those of us who know mr. Chomsky and mr. Hitchens through the written work it's a miracle almost to hear them in person on radio and I thank you for letting them be there and I just wanted to ask a couple questions make a comment that mr. Chomsky is absolutely right at the end Ling commit violence of the turf terrorism actually sometimes it goes right to the top and specifically these tests starting 1981 these 10 11 years has been proof of that the whole question of the conference Nicaragua El Salvador you name it the trials were all whitewash practically everybody that had anything to do with the worst parts of it you know tens of thousands of people died in those countries in Panama some 3,000 families still don't have their homes which were bombed out of the Americans supposedly in order to get my body eiga and you know questions need my question I guess is the both of you mr. Chomsky mr. Hitchens if Americans will they ever find out the results of the Gulf War I mean I was overwhelmed that the flag waving in the Yellow Ribbon II all over the place and the fact that those of us who were against the moai's had to defend ourselves by saying oh were there for the troops but were against the war will this change anything would ever come out there it seems to me the only person who gets partly there is Bill Moyers on public television occasionally he produces his own show so far he's caught everything from Reagan's religious right friends through Nicaragua and most recently he's done a bit of piece on after the Gulf the Gulf War the day the Americans don't realize what's happening to people who are continuing to die especially children and sure Steve let's get it coming from Chris region I mean will we ever change you might want to take a look if you can get hold of it that's a an excellent documentary made by friends of mine Andrew and Leslie Coburn was shown on PBS not long ago called the war we left behind I thought the very good title because I practiced to be criticized don't need one respecting that it does suggest the war is over whereas in fact as you know the war against Iraq is continuing and it's continuing now by the means which the administration described as contemptible and useless when they were put forward as an alternative to an actual all-out aerial bombardment namely economic sanctions which do have the effect of slowly starving and crippling the population of Iraq while leaving the military cast of Saddam Hussein and his chrome criminal bath party in charge now I was asked the other day at a public forum in Washington sponsored by the Middle East Institute why do you think the administration decided to spare Saddam's what if because it's clear that they did that was a decision and I said I think because they thought they might need him again as they had used him before so they might wish to return him to employment they said he didn't think it was worth discarding someone who had in the past been such a useful and loyal ally now the fact is if that's true I caught a sort of note of despair almost an cynicism in the question as wise if that's true then things are really horrible because it means that people can be fooled which is something that those of us who consider ourselves Democrats don't like to admit and in fact don't really believe we don't think people are just so many units to be to be forced into a one-note of applause well let me just add to that one of the cases where the newspapers did tell the truth and in fact I will now compliment a journalist who I rarely do compliment the chief diplomatic correspondent of The New York Times Thomas Friedman at the time when the u.s. turned was offering tacit support to saddam hussein as he slaughtered first the Shiites in the south and then the kurds in the north friedman who essentially expresses the State Department views explained why this was happening and he put it pretty frankly and honestly and I think accurately he said the United States is trying to achieve what he called the best of all worlds and the best of all world would be an iron-fisted Iraqi military hunter which could wield the iron fist exactly as Saddam Hussein did prior to August 2nd 1990 much to the satisfaction of the US allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the only thing he didn't that is much to the satisfaction of the boss in Washington well that's the answer sometimes you do get the truth Noam Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens I'm John Hockenberry this is talk of the nation from National Public Radio from San Diego California Lisa you're on the air hi I want to thank you all for for doing what you're doing and I also want to bring up that mainstream media did not report the Syrian government human rights violations that were exactly the same as that on the same and they were our ally during the war and also the the Totenberg Daniel Shores problems they're having with the government of the result of the leaks during the year hilda and clarence thomas hearings I remember hearing in a mass communications class years ago that he who controls the media controls the government I think Ronald Reagan was a prime example this being an actor and whoever was behind him and his administration I feel that we really really have to be cognizant of who's supporting the media where I know the public radio was supported right I know I know how Public Radio was supported but the mainstream media do do you really really know that was weighted and also for donations and so forth but he who controls the mainstream media controls the government that's no secret and well anyway I'd like to know what sure what comment Lisa thank you very much for calling Reza chomsky about Syria right yeah a battery you're absolutely right I mean uh fissile out of Syria is indistinguishable from Saddam was saying we love the bath party air these the Washington White House loves the ban but he was but you know he's and in fact don't don't forget that George Bush was there it was extremely friendly to Saddam Hussein prior to the time when he disobeyed orders on august 2nd 1990 but before that he was a favored friend and ally up until August first the administration was still authorizing a credit shipment even are even shipments who's went with straight to military industries a true later bomb Baba oh wait there yeah editor Bob Dole right the said he was just a fine guy and just as Friedman said as long as he was wielding the iron fist in our interest now we forgot your comment that he who owns the media runs the government there's something true about that I think but it goes a little bit deeper the mainstream media are a major corporation in in turkette parts of even larger conglomerates that's who owns the mainstream media and it is absolutely true that they also dominate and control the government we talk about the media we talk about the government but we don't talk very much about the corporate centers of power and that's where real power lies in the country as long as we don't talk about that we're always around the periphery from Fairfield Connecticut Felix you're on the air yes hi thank you for taking my call I'd like a comment on the the mission of the media I see the media lacking altruism and its mission to me the the primary responsibility of the media is to be part of the educational process of our society and it seems that more often than not what they tend to do is try to entertain and do what sells more than try to help people to be more intelligent and although Felix only asked your question about that I mean would you trust you know bryant gumbel to teach you things about you know Australian politics or European economics or something like I mean you really want the media to be the the holders of all knowledge I would like them to be a part of the educational process but that's my my big complaint there there isn't enough National Public Radio's type media going on it's the vast majority of the media is as I say not altruistic I'd like a comment about how surely I'm sure let's say we're running out of time so I'll just let you go thank you very much Peter Felix Christopher Hitchens look I think it's true that there are showbiz values very dominant in the media the part of this is to do with the battle for ratings and matters of this kind barely ideological at all I mean aggressions law will occur where you know we're by a good story about sports or sex or weather or something of the sort has a better chance than are considered but we think that well I think it has like it is it is in the last in the last instance it is a devotional yes because it would certainly need an ideological decision to do it the other way around I say exact logically yes but what worries me even more is the way that showbiz values have bled into what the ostensible coverage is supposed to be I'll give you what will seem a trivial example the other day the president was asked I go to these White House press coasters sometimes I never get called and I never will and everybody knows that there is in the literal sense of the term stage management of those White House press moment it is decide in advance who's going to ask what question and certain people are not going to get caught so I just go to observe when I can bear it and Bush was asked so whoever you called if you ever got called we can it's presume that you started to work for the CIA it would be a war it would be what is some days for me if I was ever get caught have to admit anyway the leader of the free world was asked what he thought about David Duke who was dead running a campaign in Louisiana and he said I want to be positioned where I can't be perceived as being at all aligned with him he was reading from the notes of what he was supposed impression you imposed to give instead instead of saying something that would lead people to perceive that he wasn't positioned anywhere near Duke he said I want to be positioned where I can't be perceived as I've been total post modern intellectual chaos matched by his syntactical usual train wreck nobody bothered nobody Butler they let him let him do that went back in the server the president gave the expected position and perceived reply it would only be in a store if Bishop said he liked David Randall something we're almost at a time professor Chomsky we have about eight minutes to have a final comment well with regard I think the caller suggested that the he gave a an idealistic picture of what the media ought to be like something that helps us understand the world but I don't think that's the function of the meeting and I think if they started to carry out that function they would be destroyed their function is in fact to distract most of the population to marginalize them to keep them out of the pout of what is none of their business like it's a gray errors right and for the more you know for the political class those are decision makers their function is to indoctrinate them thanks those functions are carried out very well thanks to all who called this hour into our guests Noam Chomsky Christopher Hitchens thank you very much for joining us today professor Chomsky is professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology the author of deterring democracy and other books professor Chomsky spoke with us in the studio's of member station WBUR in Boston joining me here in studio one was Christopher Hitchens columnist for the nation and the Washington editor of Harper's Magazine don't forget tomorrow at this time on most of these public radio stations we'll continue our discussion of the width of a political spectrum tomorrow our guests include columnist Joseph Sobran and David Mason of the Heritage Foundation that's tomorrow I'm talking our technical director is Liz vehicle the audio engineers are Preston Brown Lauren Kelly and John Carrillo here in Washington and David Goren and neo Roush in New York the staff pianist is Linda Lee in Washington I'm John Hockenberry

Channel: hitch archive

Views: 62,242

Keywords: Christopher Hitchens (Author), Noam Chomsky (Author)

Id: o5BT_ow_32E

Length: 47min 13sec (2833 seconds)

Published: Sun Jan 26 2014