good show on iraq war

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

 

Watch for free online.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[luke warm]

woo hoo, from the pbs... bound to be fair and balanced :)

[jdonn]

woo hoo, from the pbs... bound to be fair and balanced :)

I was not aware PBS had a reputation as anything but, although that's not to say it couldn't easily be true. At work though so I haven't been able to watch the show yet.

[mycroft]

PBS is neither fair nor balanced. It doesn't parrot Fox News, or the current (or previous, to keep the record straight) government's line. Therefore, by definition, it has a liberal bias.

 

Of course, I'm a liberal (except in my home country, where the Liberals disgust me). But it is likely to provide a balance to other media views of whatever they discuss. Please note, that is independent of the bias of the chosen "other media". PBS is good that way - showing a different view. Its own, of course; but frequently unique.

[cherdano]

woo hoo, from the pbs... bound to be fair and balanced :)

Which media in the US do you consider to be fair and balanced, Jimmy?

[jtfanclub]

Which media in the US do you consider to be fair and balanced, Jimmy?

On the left: CNN Headline news (worst), CNN, CBS, Comedy Central, PBS.

On the right: Fox (worst), Disney, TNT, Spike, ESPN

Insane, but mostly to the right: NBC, MSNBC

Used to be balanced, now I dunno: ABC

Balanced: Nickelodean

[PassedOut]

At one time PBS put out the facts and let the chips fall where they may, and the PBS broadcasts still put the others to shame in terms of fairness and objectivity. However, the PBS management has been very cautious the last few years to avoid antagonizing the government.

 

For example, an interview with a sweet, soft-spoken old man - Noam Chomsky - was dropped from a PBS radio news broadcast at the last minute at the insistence of upper management, leaving a long music segment in place of the interview.

 

Although Chomsky probably appeals a bit more to progressives than to right-wingers, he's hardly a controversial figure. Surely he deserves as much air time as many of the political thinkers that PBS has chosen not to suppress.

[mike777]

"For example, an interview with a sweet, soft-spoken old man - Noam Chomsky - was dropped from a PBS radio news broadcast at the last minute at the insistence upper management, leaving a long music segment in place of the interview.

 

Although Chomsky probably appeals a bit more to progressives than to right-wingers, he's hardly a controversial figure."

 

 

Most importantly I share your outrage for this brilliant, brilliant man not being shown more on PBS or Fox for that matter.

 

 

 

I guess if you think he is " a bit more" progressive and not controversial, says it all....:)

 

Now I finally understand why people think Fox News and Bush is a raving right wing fascist fanatic. :)

 

Chomsky is middle of the road, sweat softspoken and hardly controversial. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Political views

Main article: Politics of Noam Chomsky

 

Chomsky at the World Social Forum (Porto Alegre) in 2003.Part of the Philosophy series on

 

Anarchism

 

 

Schools of thought[show]

Buddhist · Capitalist · Christian

Collectivist · Communist · Crypto

Feminist · Green · Individualist

Info · Insurrectionary · Leftist

Pacifist · Philosophical

Platformist · Post · Post-leftist

Primitivist · Social · Syndicalist

Without adjectives

 

 

Theory and practice[show]

Anarch · Anarchy · Black bloc

Communes · Deep ecology

Direct action · Direct democracy

Especifismo · Horizontalism

Illegalism · Individual reclamation

Law · Participatory politics

Permanent Autonomous Zone

Prefigurative politics

Propaganda of the deed

Rewilding · Social ecology

Spontaneous order

 

 

Issues[show]

Anarcho-capitalism · Animal rights

Capitalism · Criticisms · Islam

Marxism · Nationalism

Orthodox Judaism · Religion

Violence

 

 

History[show]

Amakasu Incident · Anarchist

Catalonia · Anarchist Exclusion Act

Anarchy in Somalia · Australian

Anarchist Centenary Celebrations

Barcelona May Days

Carnival Against Capitalism

Escuela Moderna · Hague Congress

Haymarket affair · High Treason

Incident · International Anarchist

Congress of Amsterdam · Kate

Sharpley Library · Kronstadt rebellion

Labadie Collection · LIP · May 1968

May Day · Paris Commune · Provo

Revolutionary Insurrectionary

Army of Ukraine · Spanish Revolution

Third Russian Revolution · Tragic

Week · Ukrainian Revolution of 1918

WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999

protest activity

 

 

Culture[show]

Anarcho-punk · Arts · Black anarchism

Celtic anarchism · Culture jamming

DIY culture · Freeganism

Independent Media Center

Infoshop · The Internationale

Jewish anarchism · Lifestylism

Popular education · Radical

cheerleading · Radical

environmentalism · Squatting

Symbolism · To the Barricades

 

 

Economics[show]

Agorism · Capitalism · Collectivism

Communism · Co-operatives

Counter-economics · Free market

Free school · Free store · Geoism

Gift economy · Market abolitionism

Mutual aid · Mutualism

Participatory economics

Really Really Free Market

Self-ownership · Socialism

Syndicalism · Wage slavery

Workers' self-management

 

 

By region[show]

Africa · Austria · Brazil · Canada

China · Cuba · England · France

Greece · India · Ireland · Israel

Italy · Japan · Korea · Mexico

Poland · Russia · Spain · Sweden

Turkey · Ukraine · USA · Vietnam

 

 

Lists[show]

Anarcho-punk bands · Books

Communities · Fictional characters

Jewish anarchists · Musicians

Organizations · Periodicals · Poets

 

 

 

Related[show]

Anti-capitalism · Anti-communism

Anti-consumerism · Anti-corporatism

Anti-globalization · Antimilitarism

Anti-statism · Antiwar · Autarchism

Autonomism · Labour movement

Left communism · Libertarianism

Libertarian Marxism · Libertarian

socialism · Situationist International

 

 

Anarchism Portal

Philosophy Portal · Politics Portal

v • d • e

 

Chomsky has stated that his "personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in The Enlightenment and classical liberalism"[31] and he has praised libertarian socialism.[32] He is a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism[33] and a member of the IWW union.[34] He has published a book on anarchism titled, "Chomsky on Anarchism", which was published by the anarchist book collective, AK Press, in 2006.

 

Noam Chomsky has been engaged in political activism all of his adult life and expressed opinions on politics and world events which are widely cited, publicized and discussed. Chomsky has in turn argued that his views are those which the powerful do not want to hear, and for this reason he is considered an American political dissident. Some highlights of his political views:

 

Power, unless justified, is inherently illegitimate. The burden of proof is on those in authority to demonstrate why their elevated position is justified. If this burden can't be met, the authority in question should be dismantled. Authority for its own sake is inherently unjustified. An example of a legitimate authority is that exerted by an adult to prevent a young child from wandering into traffic.[35]

That there isn't much difference between slavery, and renting one's self to an owner, or "wage slavery." He feels that it is an attack on personal integrity that destroys and undermines our freedoms. He holds that those that work in the mills should run them.[36]

Very strong criticisms of the foreign policy of the United States. Specifically, he claims double standards (which he labels "single standard") in a foreign policy preaching democracy and freedom for all, while promoting, supporting and allying itself with non-democratic and repressive organizations and states, and argues that this results in massive human rights violations. He often argues that America's intervention in foreign nations, including the secret aid given to the Contras in Nicaragua, an event of which he has been very critical, fits any standard description of terrorism.[37]

He has argued that the mass media in the United States largely serve as a propaganda arm and "bought priesthood" of the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, with the three parties all largely intertwined through common interests. In a famous reference to Walter Lippmann, Chomsky along with his coauthor, Edward S. Herman has written that the American media manufactures consent among the public.

He has opposed the U.S. global "war on drugs", claiming its language to be misleading, and referring to it as "the war on certain drugs." He favors education and prevention rather than military or police action as a means of reducing drug use.[38] In an interview in 1999, Chomsky argued that, whereas crops such as tobacco receive no mention in governmental exposition, other non-profitable crops, such as marijuana, are specifically targeted due to the effect achieved by persecuting the poor.[39]

"US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn't about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control."[40]

Critical of the American capitalist system and big business, he describes himself as a libertarian socialist who sympathizes with anarcho-syndicalism and is critical of Leninist branches of socialism. He also believes that libertarian socialist values exemplify the rational and morally consistent extension of original unreconstructed classical liberal and radical humanist ideas to an industrial context. Specifically he believes that society should be highly organized and based on democratic control of communities and work places. He believes that the radical humanist ideas of his two major influences, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, were "rooted in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and retain their revolutionary character."[41]

Chomsky has stated that he believes the United States remains the "greatest country in the world"[42], a comment that he later clarified by saying, "Evaluating countries is senseless and I would never put things in those terms, but that some of America's advances, particularly in the area of free speech, that have been achieved by centuries of popular struggle, are to be admired."[43] He has also said "In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society."[44]

According to Chomsky: "I'm a boring speaker and I like it that way…. I doubt that people are attracted to whatever the persona is…. People are interested in the issues, and they're interested in the issues because they are important."[45] "We don't want to be swayed by superficial eloquence, by emotion and so on."[46]

He holds views that can be summarized as anti-war but not strictly pacifist. He prominently opposed the Vietnam War and most other wars in his lifetime. However, he maintains that U.S. involvement in World War II was probably justified, with the caveat that a preferable outcome would have been to end or prevent the war through earlier diplomacy. In particular, he believes that the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "among the most unspeakable crimes in history".[47]

He has a broad view of free-speech rights, especially in the mass media; he opposes censorship and refuses to take legal action against those who may have libeled him.[citation needed][48]

Chomsky has frequently stated that there is no connection between his work in linguistics and his political views, and is generally critical of the idea that competent discussion of political topics requires expert knowledge in academic fields. In a 1969 interview, he said regarding the connection between his politics and his work in linguistics:

 

I still feel myself that there is a kind of tenuous connection. I would not want to overstate it but I think it means something to me at least. I think that anyone's political ideas or their ideas of social organization must be rooted ultimately in some concept of human nature and human needs. (New Left Review, 57, Sept. – Oct. 1969, p. 21)

On September 20, 2006, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez recommended Chomsky's book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, during his speech at the U.N. General Assembly. Chávez stated that it was a good book to read because it demonstrates why the greatest danger to world peace currently is the United States.[49]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

[Winstonm]

Specifically, he claims double standards (which he labels "single standard") in a foreign policy preaching democracy and freedom for all, while promoting, supporting and allying itself with non-democratic and repressive organizations and states, and argues that this results in massive human rights violations

 

So, Mike, do you think he is wrong in this assertion? Myself, I think he is simply pointing out an obvious truth - which makes the statement neither pro nor anti American - simply critical of the foreign policy.

 

He has argued that the mass media in the United States largely serve as a propaganda arm and "bought priesthood" of the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, with the three parties all largely intertwined through common interests.

 

Is this so very far-fetched?

 

He favors education and prevention rather than military or police action as a means of reducing drug use.[

 

This not only sounds sensible but has been proven by drug courts to be more effective and at lower cost.

 

In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society.

 

I see no problem with this view. Am I missing something, here?

 

He holds views that can be summarized as anti-war but not strictly pacifist. He prominently opposed the Vietnam War and most other wars in his lifetime.

 

I don't see great controversy, here, either.

 

IMO it would take a pretty far-right thinker to vigorously argue these views as being unreasonable.

[mike777]

Specifically, he claims double standards (which he labels "single standard") in a foreign policy preaching democracy and freedom for all, while promoting, supporting and allying itself with non-democratic and repressive organizations and states, and argues that this results in massive human rights violations

 

So, Mike, do you think he is wrong in this assertion? Myself, I think he is simply pointing out an obvious truth - which makes the statement neither pro nor anti American - simply critical of the foreign policy.

 

He has argued that the mass media in the United States largely serve as a propaganda arm and "bought priesthood" of the U.S. government and U.S. corporations, with the three parties all largely intertwined through common interests.

 

Is this so very far-fetched?

 

He favors education and prevention rather than military or police action as a means of reducing drug use.[

 

This not only sounds sensible but has been proven by drug courts to be more effective and at lower cost.

 

In many respects, the United States is the freest country in the world. I don't just mean in terms of limits on state coercion, though that's true too, but also in terms of individual relations. The United States comes closer to classlessness in terms of interpersonal relations than virtually any society.

 

I see no problem with this view. Am I missing something, here?

 

He holds views that can be summarized as anti-war but not strictly pacifist. He prominently opposed the Vietnam War and most other wars in his lifetime.

 

I don't see great controversy, here, either.

 

IMO it would take a pretty far-right thinker to vigorously argue these views as being unreasonable.

Ok you convinced me after reading and following his comments for at least 40 years. He is a middle of the road, fair and balanced guy, only right wing nut cases could think otherwise.

[Winstonm]

He is a middle of the road, fair and balanced guy, only right wing nut cases could think otherwise.

 

I never said that. I said only a far-right thinker would have strong arguments against the specific, highlighted comments.

 

For that matter, it's ludicrous to think any one person is going to be fair and balanced. Fair and balanced means allowing opposing viewpoints to be heard with equal time - Chomsky followed by Perle is more like it.

[kenberg]

woo hoo, from the pbs... bound to be fair and balanced :)

PBS generally gets intelligent guests with a variety of viewpoints and gives them an opportunity to develop their ideas without browbeating them.

 

I try not to go on about right wing quackery (it does no good) but there is a lot of it out there. For quite a few on the right, "left wing bias" means "disagrees with me". Personally, I think we need all of the insight we can get on the war and on many other topics. I'm not ready to dismiss a view because of the channel it shows up on.

 

Anyway, thanks for the link. I have watched part, I'll get to the rest later.

[luke warm]

woo hoo, from the pbs... bound to be fair and balanced :)

Which media in the US do you consider to be fair and balanced, Jimmy?

i think there probably are none, arend... there are just degrees of bias