,
16 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This quote is from an interview where Chomsky was discussing propaganda and how he believes the elites broadly control messaging in a way that appeals to "privileged audiences" in service of corporate advertiser's goals.
Leading up to the quote Bregman uses, Chomsky identified the press as having a misguided & self-serving view of themselves as bold crusaders speaking truth to power and he argues most of them are elevated precisely because their opinions jibe with those corporate elite goals.
Chomsky also concurs with the rightwing (at the time) who believed the media is mostly offering a liberal worldview, though I'm sure since this interview he'd say the corporate model has splintered and there is a large powerful right wing media as well.
But the reason it interests me is because I think this is a misuse of the quote. Chomsky described how there are journalists who do NOT view journalists as crusaders or inherently noble having a much more cynical view of the profession (similar & more severe even than his).
He says these "rogue" journalists don't get the same type of elevation and are often subversive and hunting for ways to sneak in the types of stories that are normally rejected by this corporate elite propaganda model.
It seemed clear that Bregman viewed the topic he'd been brought on Tucker to discuss was this very type of story. One that is not normally 'allowed' or can't seem to make it through because of the way the 'machine' operates.
So if Tucker brought Bregman on his show specifically to talk about the type of thing Chomsky says journalists should do MORE of and are often prevented from doing, why then would he not be where he's sitting if he believed something different as this use of the quote suggests?
He's sitting there ASKING to discuss the very thing that Bregman is claiming no one is willing to discuss. The way he's offered this quote is like saying "If you offered the opinion that you're LITERALLY offering right now while sitting there, you wouldn't be sitting there." Huh?
I'd argue that Bregman is the one who most fits Chomsky's quote. It seems to me that while he took the opportunity to appear, Tucker doesn't fit the preferred model of a "journalist" & Bregman knew if he treated Tucker respectfully on this point, BREGMAN would lose credibility.
He had the opportunity to talk about something he feels is important & dangerous to what he contends is corporate propaganda. Had he done this, who knows? Maybe Tucker would've shown an unwillingness to allow Bregman to make his points & Bregman could've pointed to his hypocrisy.
But that opportunity didn't come up because Bregman instead decided it was a great moment to earn kudos from the left-leaning propaganda wing of what Chomsky believes is a corporate propaganda machine by 'OWNING' a 'LOL FAUX NEWS' pundit
Because if his argument is that @TuckerCarlson wasn't wiling to discuss it, that's pretty clearly not true. Instead of discussing it Bregman attacked the person.
My question is, whatever opportunities come as a result of this moment, when he inevitably appears on more left-leaning shows who are so pleased at how things went down, would he be sitting there if he "believed something different?"
Doubt it. He didn't subvert a propaganda machine. He added to it. Enjoy the youtube videos of yourself saying "BREGMAN OWNS TUCKER ROFLMAO!" You're just another noisemaker.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of Chomsky, Mr. Bregman. But watch how he discusses the idea of a controlled press directly to a member of the press who clearly took some offense at the idea. Notice how he wasn't an asshole to him?
What an unimpressive showing by a man who appears eminently impressed with himself. Here's the Chomsky interview that includes the quote.
