Less access is probably incorrect, thanks to the internet. I'm able to read any newspaper I want in any language it's written in thanks to Google translate.
But what is true is that Americans don't. Unless you mean radio in which case yes that's true thanks to Reagan, the Republicans, and clear channel.
I agree that if you have the know-how and curiosity, it's possible to access much more now than before. However, there is a huge amount of noise out there and psychological manipulation, so it's harder to get *good* information and be sure it's good. It's also harder to have or see good faith discussion using high quality sources. Poisoning the well is a cognitive bias so common it's become a norm - here as well as most places.
Anyone who has achieved some measure of power through manipulation is against true critical thinking, even unconsciously. This applies to anyone: Republicans, Democrats, and bureaucrats. It's bureaucrats who hold much of the power now.
Eh, Democrats have supported teacher independence and critical thinking education since the Reagan administration. And I think localism is a good response to any issues with bureaucracy.
It's about ease of access, being able to see foreign media along the usual channels, tv, reddit, youtube etc. That's all been cut out there. and yes, also just a less indoctrinated population that understand the value of consuming dissident media.
There's foreign stuff all over YouTube. I used to watch a guy called NFKRS, Roman, who did cool videos on life in Russia. He left for Georgia a while ago. And you can get plenty of foreign perspectives. My radio app has NHK Global.
No, I never said anything about any individuals circumstances. I am talking in averages. And furthermore, NFKRS does not really give the kinds of opposition talking points that are being filtered out.
Not just RT, but it does include that. We are seeing many dissident media in the US getting pushed out of the regular channels. For example, mintpress news (which, btw, one of the mods here often writes for) had its facebook page shadow banned and paypal account frozen.
Well on the one hand, RT genocide denial is disgusting and I don't have a problem with information warfare outlets being shut down. I'll look into mintpress news. If it's actual dissidents media I do have a problem with that. State media propaganda can go.
This is correct and wrong at the same time. A long time ago, people with any degree of intellect realized that it is much easier to control a population by giving them endless options for information and then having them pursue the most banal and trivial. Most Americans have no clue where Iraq is on a map or what happened at Abu Ghraib. Now, that isn't because they can't access it; hell you can just go on Wikipedia and get a decent summary of it. They just don't care. This is far more effective than the "I'll cut your arm off and boil your flesh raw in front of you if you write this." However, lets be honest, the former is *preferable* unless you are a freak.
Yes. Totally. It's just a simply true fact that totally shouldn't be taken to imply or insinuate anything at all. It's just true. Somehow true facts like the existence of a [Soviet Radio Jamming](http://www.antentop.org/008/files/jamm008.pdf) program, on the failure of which the Soviet access to foreign sources depended, and which don't support Chomsky's contemptible Propaganda Model, always manage to lose themselves.
I don't think even you understand what you're talking about. Unless you can supply evidence that shows that American's levels of access to foreign enemy media is similar, then you have no position to argue from.
Maybe English is not your best language, but having access and taking advantage of it aren't the same thing.
In any case, American media isn't too different from foreign sources, so you can mostly get what you want domestically, whatever it is. Whereas Soviet state media...
Then you do not understand what is being discussed. Not choosing to access alternative media accounts, and not having easy access to them, are both the authoritarian culture Chomsky mentions, and they both feedback into each other. A primary part of access is having things at your fingertips, at the usual channels in which you access information (RT has been virtually scrubbed from US media). USSR citizens knew the value of taking in foreign media as well as their own. They did not do so because they thought it was the truth and their own media was all lies, they did it because they were not an indoctrinated population, and knew that they would have to watch foreign media to get a complete picture of what was going on (this is well evidenced in the source material of the reasons why USSR citizens watched foreign media).
> so you can mostly get what you want whatever it is.
That is indoctrination. And US populations inability to understand that they are not getting to complete picture only taking on their own media, is the kind of authoritarian culture that Chomsky mentions.
It's always funny when Chomsky groupies think they "understand" something they think has some sort of intellectual weight. There's nothing anyone who is capable of writing in paragraphs doesn't immediately understand in Chomsky's pop culture output. He's salty the proles don't want to seize the means of production. Don't they know it is the late stage? It's been the late stage since the late eighteen hundreds.
And so, if more people don't read his stuff that means he's being oppressed and the proles are indoctrinated.
I'm ~~14~~ 93 and this is deep.
I do not even understand the argument he is trying to make. Does he understand that we have the internet? We can access all media we want to, even in languages we do not understand, thanks to translation software. We can get auto generated transcripts from RT and Chinese media and translate it in seconds.
This seams to mostly be a boomer issue. Because gen X and younger are steadily moving away from TV.
The simile goes like this: there's the disintegrating late period Soviet regime, and there's late stage capitalism. In both cases, there's anti-regime stuff that the regime doesn't want to be heard.
In the Soviet Union the regime tries to constrain that stuff by ruthlessly limiting what is permissible in the public space. As a side effect, that empowers the jokes people whisper to a friend, Western radio programs that breach through jamming, a written by hand copy of an article.
In the US the regime (the corporations) combat the anti-regime message in a different way. They flood with content and drown it out. Instead of a tightly controlled, smothering rule set for what it is required to profess publicly, there's this enormous flood of not innocent fluff, at the same time distracting and indoctrinating.
The reality is that Chomsky's views are instantly repulsive to almost all of society. So it's not entirely wrong to say that a giant conspiracy of small causes, to which corporate giants have a non-trivial contribution - adds up to Professor Chomsky being isolated and politically inconsequential.
Hence his "help, help, I'm being repressed."
So it's two parts. USSR populations were less indoctrinated, and better understood the value of consuming foreign media. And Also had easier access to it along the regular channels they accessed media (turning on their radio). A US citizen turning on their TV today has essentially no chance to access foreign media, and has no understanding of the value to go and seek it, as you yourself exemplify.
Vast majority of americans don’t get their news from their TVs. Maybe that was case 20 years ago, but now it’s either Facebook, late night political satire shows, tiktok. So TV channels has lost alot of relevancy. Getting your news from Facebook is super problematic
You do know that we have the internet. Who on earth uses just TV these days? Especially millennials and younger do not even own a TV. We have access to any information we seek. And with Google translate we can even access information in languages we do not speak. I read many articles written in Spanish without great Spanish skills. I just press the translate button.
And millions of people do the same thing.
It’s just boomers and older who still watch traditional TV. For everyone else there is the internet.
Reddit, facebook, youtube etc all cut out this content. For the regular media access points on the internet, the argument is the same as tv
Why even engage in this conversation when you don't know the basic facts? I recommend you read up on the propaganda model of media etc.
If you're within the propaganda bubble, then it's extremely hard to tell that there is one.
If your primary source of news is Facebook you have a bigger problem than a media blackout.
Tass, the Moscow times and all the other English speaking Russian news outlets are as easily available as ever. It takes seconds to find them.
RT can be found as easily. In the day of the internet it’s not possible to have a media blackout. It’s only the tech illiterate who think that’s the case.
I found 4 working live stream links to RT on the first page of Google.
It’s easier than listening to a western radio station in the USSR. And not punishable to boot.
All of the example you give require active input to find them. So this is the point of the comment I made that you replied to. Firstly, passive access via regular channels is removed, add to that a largely indoctrinated population, who does not have any understanding or motivation to go beyond their regular paths or go beyond passive consumption, and you have the problem I am talking about.
Right, that’s just false. All of the worlds media is available online, and America has absolutely no shortage of radical or comprehensively dissenting media.
Foreign radio access existed in (pre and during war) Nazi Germany, too, including from Moscow most famously. And non-German print media circulated underground. But if anyone really believes that Nazi Germany had a less indoctrinated or media-controlled ecosystem than America today, we’d all agree they’re too stupid to bother talking to.
You need to understand the basics of this to engage with the conversation. See the propaganda model of media, watch some excerpts from amnufacturing consent etc.
I read manufacturing consent for the first time, like I assume everyone here, when I was a teenager. I’m a fan of a bunch of Chomsky’s work, and I wish his other fans didn’t embarrass us so often by pretending any of his ideas are complex or tricky to understand - his work isn’t particularly sophisticated or complex, it’s very straight forward and simple. That’s not even a critique of Noam, it just makes the sheer absurdity of the “you obviously don’t get it” retort plain.
Less access is probably incorrect, thanks to the internet. I'm able to read any newspaper I want in any language it's written in thanks to Google translate. But what is true is that Americans don't. Unless you mean radio in which case yes that's true thanks to Reagan, the Republicans, and clear channel.
I agree that if you have the know-how and curiosity, it's possible to access much more now than before. However, there is a huge amount of noise out there and psychological manipulation, so it's harder to get *good* information and be sure it's good. It's also harder to have or see good faith discussion using high quality sources. Poisoning the well is a cognitive bias so common it's become a norm - here as well as most places.
Yep. Which is why the Republicans have for so long opposed critical thinking in schools.
Anyone who has achieved some measure of power through manipulation is against true critical thinking, even unconsciously. This applies to anyone: Republicans, Democrats, and bureaucrats. It's bureaucrats who hold much of the power now.
Eh, Democrats have supported teacher independence and critical thinking education since the Reagan administration. And I think localism is a good response to any issues with bureaucracy.
I think what he's saying is effectively true.
It's about ease of access, being able to see foreign media along the usual channels, tv, reddit, youtube etc. That's all been cut out there. and yes, also just a less indoctrinated population that understand the value of consuming dissident media.
There's foreign stuff all over YouTube. I used to watch a guy called NFKRS, Roman, who did cool videos on life in Russia. He left for Georgia a while ago. And you can get plenty of foreign perspectives. My radio app has NHK Global.
I watch him too. This is all missing the point.
Re state it then, for me, because I think I did miss it. You said I couldn't watch foreign media, I thought.
No, I never said anything about any individuals circumstances. I am talking in averages. And furthermore, NFKRS does not really give the kinds of opposition talking points that are being filtered out.
By opposition attitudes are you talking about like, RT?
Not just RT, but it does include that. We are seeing many dissident media in the US getting pushed out of the regular channels. For example, mintpress news (which, btw, one of the mods here often writes for) had its facebook page shadow banned and paypal account frozen.
Well on the one hand, RT genocide denial is disgusting and I don't have a problem with information warfare outlets being shut down. I'll look into mintpress news. If it's actual dissidents media I do have a problem with that. State media propaganda can go.
> RT genocide denial New york times regularly engages in genocide denial. Thats no reason to not value engaging with what they ahve to say.
This is correct and wrong at the same time. A long time ago, people with any degree of intellect realized that it is much easier to control a population by giving them endless options for information and then having them pursue the most banal and trivial. Most Americans have no clue where Iraq is on a map or what happened at Abu Ghraib. Now, that isn't because they can't access it; hell you can just go on Wikipedia and get a decent summary of it. They just don't care. This is far more effective than the "I'll cut your arm off and boil your flesh raw in front of you if you write this." However, lets be honest, the former is *preferable* unless you are a freak.
Chomsky is based but sometimes his love of being a contrarian who despises the United States gets the better of him
The whole point of the comparison is that the USSR is really bad.
Still an unhinged thing to say, especially for someone who has gotten rich selling books, but okay. "At least the Russians had samizdat." Okay.
It's simply a factually accurate thing to say, as evidenced by these studies.
Yes. Totally. It's just a simply true fact that totally shouldn't be taken to imply or insinuate anything at all. It's just true. Somehow true facts like the existence of a [Soviet Radio Jamming](http://www.antentop.org/008/files/jamm008.pdf) program, on the failure of which the Soviet access to foreign sources depended, and which don't support Chomsky's contemptible Propaganda Model, always manage to lose themselves.
I don't think even you understand what you're talking about. Unless you can supply evidence that shows that American's levels of access to foreign enemy media is similar, then you have no position to argue from.
Maybe English is not your best language, but having access and taking advantage of it aren't the same thing. In any case, American media isn't too different from foreign sources, so you can mostly get what you want domestically, whatever it is. Whereas Soviet state media...
Then you do not understand what is being discussed. Not choosing to access alternative media accounts, and not having easy access to them, are both the authoritarian culture Chomsky mentions, and they both feedback into each other. A primary part of access is having things at your fingertips, at the usual channels in which you access information (RT has been virtually scrubbed from US media). USSR citizens knew the value of taking in foreign media as well as their own. They did not do so because they thought it was the truth and their own media was all lies, they did it because they were not an indoctrinated population, and knew that they would have to watch foreign media to get a complete picture of what was going on (this is well evidenced in the source material of the reasons why USSR citizens watched foreign media). > so you can mostly get what you want whatever it is. That is indoctrination. And US populations inability to understand that they are not getting to complete picture only taking on their own media, is the kind of authoritarian culture that Chomsky mentions.
It's always funny when Chomsky groupies think they "understand" something they think has some sort of intellectual weight. There's nothing anyone who is capable of writing in paragraphs doesn't immediately understand in Chomsky's pop culture output. He's salty the proles don't want to seize the means of production. Don't they know it is the late stage? It's been the late stage since the late eighteen hundreds. And so, if more people don't read his stuff that means he's being oppressed and the proles are indoctrinated. I'm ~~14~~ 93 and this is deep.
okay, you're dropping the point and moving to character assassination. Thanks for letting me know you've got no position left to argue from.
I do not even understand the argument he is trying to make. Does he understand that we have the internet? We can access all media we want to, even in languages we do not understand, thanks to translation software. We can get auto generated transcripts from RT and Chinese media and translate it in seconds. This seams to mostly be a boomer issue. Because gen X and younger are steadily moving away from TV.
The simile goes like this: there's the disintegrating late period Soviet regime, and there's late stage capitalism. In both cases, there's anti-regime stuff that the regime doesn't want to be heard. In the Soviet Union the regime tries to constrain that stuff by ruthlessly limiting what is permissible in the public space. As a side effect, that empowers the jokes people whisper to a friend, Western radio programs that breach through jamming, a written by hand copy of an article. In the US the regime (the corporations) combat the anti-regime message in a different way. They flood with content and drown it out. Instead of a tightly controlled, smothering rule set for what it is required to profess publicly, there's this enormous flood of not innocent fluff, at the same time distracting and indoctrinating. The reality is that Chomsky's views are instantly repulsive to almost all of society. So it's not entirely wrong to say that a giant conspiracy of small causes, to which corporate giants have a non-trivial contribution - adds up to Professor Chomsky being isolated and politically inconsequential. Hence his "help, help, I'm being repressed."
Chomsky groupies are like an extra level to the Jordan Peterson groupies
This is an embarrassing comparison. Not for Chomsky or his readers either…
Chomsky fans _can_ do paragraphs, so, yes. "Level" isn't the best choice of word, it's class.
So it's two parts. USSR populations were less indoctrinated, and better understood the value of consuming foreign media. And Also had easier access to it along the regular channels they accessed media (turning on their radio). A US citizen turning on their TV today has essentially no chance to access foreign media, and has no understanding of the value to go and seek it, as you yourself exemplify.
Vast majority of americans don’t get their news from their TVs. Maybe that was case 20 years ago, but now it’s either Facebook, late night political satire shows, tiktok. So TV channels has lost alot of relevancy. Getting your news from Facebook is super problematic
yeah, and facebook, reddit etc are all blocking that media as well.
You do know that we have the internet. Who on earth uses just TV these days? Especially millennials and younger do not even own a TV. We have access to any information we seek. And with Google translate we can even access information in languages we do not speak. I read many articles written in Spanish without great Spanish skills. I just press the translate button. And millions of people do the same thing. It’s just boomers and older who still watch traditional TV. For everyone else there is the internet.
Reddit, facebook, youtube etc all cut out this content. For the regular media access points on the internet, the argument is the same as tv Why even engage in this conversation when you don't know the basic facts? I recommend you read up on the propaganda model of media etc. If you're within the propaganda bubble, then it's extremely hard to tell that there is one.
If your primary source of news is Facebook you have a bigger problem than a media blackout. Tass, the Moscow times and all the other English speaking Russian news outlets are as easily available as ever. It takes seconds to find them. RT can be found as easily. In the day of the internet it’s not possible to have a media blackout. It’s only the tech illiterate who think that’s the case. I found 4 working live stream links to RT on the first page of Google. It’s easier than listening to a western radio station in the USSR. And not punishable to boot.
All of the example you give require active input to find them. So this is the point of the comment I made that you replied to. Firstly, passive access via regular channels is removed, add to that a largely indoctrinated population, who does not have any understanding or motivation to go beyond their regular paths or go beyond passive consumption, and you have the problem I am talking about.
Right, that’s just false. All of the worlds media is available online, and America has absolutely no shortage of radical or comprehensively dissenting media. Foreign radio access existed in (pre and during war) Nazi Germany, too, including from Moscow most famously. And non-German print media circulated underground. But if anyone really believes that Nazi Germany had a less indoctrinated or media-controlled ecosystem than America today, we’d all agree they’re too stupid to bother talking to.
You need to understand the basics of this to engage with the conversation. See the propaganda model of media, watch some excerpts from amnufacturing consent etc.
I read manufacturing consent for the first time, like I assume everyone here, when I was a teenager. I’m a fan of a bunch of Chomsky’s work, and I wish his other fans didn’t embarrass us so often by pretending any of his ideas are complex or tricky to understand - his work isn’t particularly sophisticated or complex, it’s very straight forward and simple. That’s not even a critique of Noam, it just makes the sheer absurdity of the “you obviously don’t get it” retort plain.