> > from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >subject: N. Chomsky- Mass Media controls the public mind > (Entrevue avec Noam Chomsky � Radio Ouverture, sur les ondes > de CISM 89,3 FM (19/10/98) > > The Media > > Radio Ouverture: How important is it for the media, the mass >media, to control the public mind? > > Noam Chomsky: We always have to ask: important for whom? > >For the public, it's important that they not control the public mind. >For the public, it's important for them to prepare, to present a free >arena for discussion and debate and an honest acount, as much as one >can, of issues that are important and significant. But that's for the >public. For the media themselves, that is the owners, the managers, >their market, which is advertisers, and other power systems in the >society, control of the public mind is extremely important. And >that's not a hypotheses. They've been very clear about it for 70 or >80 years. In fact, this became a matter of really open and public >discussion, both in England and the United States. I don't know about >Canada. Around the time of the First World War, 1920s, around then, >that was a period when the franchise was extending. Up 'till then, >most voting was limited pretty much to people with property rights. >And it was extended. There's a lot of popular struggle in the late >19th century and early twentieth century and many rights were won, >including voting rights and that raised a serious problem both in >england and in the United States, the two major democracies. And the >response was the same in both. We can't control people by force any >more. At least not as well as before. So we'll have to spend more >energy on control of their beliefs, their attitudes. > > > You've argued that the media intentions, like managers and >journalists, were to keep people apathetic and divert them from >meaningful participation in the political process. How do you >consider their intentions. Are they really conscious of their >actions, or do they just conform unconsciously to the mainstream >ideology? What's the main dynamic at work here? > >Depends who you're talking about. If you're talking about media >leaders, theoriticians, leaders of the public relations industry , >public intellectuals who write about democracy and so on, it's quite >conscious. If you talk about people invoved in the system, it's >mostly unconscious. Not completely. Many people know what they're >being forced to do and in fact struggle against it. But by and large, >you only make your way into the system with any success if you've >more or less internalized the values. That's what a good education >is about. That's not only true of the media, it's also true of >scholarship and intellectual life, and in fact, what me might call >ideological institutions altogether. > > > Is it possible to, as you say, make our way in those kinds of >media businesses. Can it be changed from the inside? When we see >CNN, UPI, Associated Press, those big information businesses, is >it possible to change it by being with them or do we have to start >some alternative things on the side ? > >Both. And those are not the only means. Any institutions, even >fascist states, are susceptible to public pressure. And certainly >media in relatively free societies are. And in fact there have been >substantial changes, some of them for the better in the past thirty >years as a result of extensive public pressure, largely the ferment >that developed out of the 1960s and continued. That has noticeably >changed the media, not only in the way they deal with topics but also >who works inside them. Many people now inside them went through those >experiences and that changed them. So there are things that can be >done and many journalists with real integrity are very much aware of >these constraints and pressures. And they're in fact much more >cynical than I am because they have direct experience and try to >find their way in the spaces that are open. Sometimes they succeed. I >have some close friends who are distinguished reporteres who just >quit because they could'nt take it any more. > > As for concentration of the press, some people in Canada are >worried about Conrad Black owning too many newspapers. Do you see >concentration of the press as a problem or is it just the same >structures but with a new owner? > >It's a serious problem. Press concentration has been going all >through this century. And as the press has concentrated it of course >cuts back such diversity as there is. The restriction to commercially >owned media, big mega corporations, corporate media, that brought >about a very sharp concentration. So for example in the United States >, as recently as the 1950s, there were about 800 labor-based >newspapers that reached maybe 20 or 30 million people a week. They >were getting a very different picture of the world. And you go back >earlier in the century it was far more diverse. The recent wave of >concentration is reducing global media to basically a few mega- >corporations. And of course, the effects of that on freedom and >democracy barely have to be discussed. They're obvious. > > > International Politics > > In Kosovo right now, we see NATO trying to intervene. Is it once >again the US deciding to intervene without UN Security Council >support ? > >Well, they have been very explicit that they are not going to go to >the security council. Which means they're abandonning, not for the >first time of course, but very openly, flatly abandonning the whole >framework of international law and international treaties which >require explicitly that any threat or use of force be at the orders >of the security of the Security Council, unless it's in self-defense, >which is not this case. So the explicit position, not only of the >United States but of the other NATO countries, including Canada, is >that international law is to be ignored for us. Maybe it's OK for >other people but not for us. We're too powerful. And they intend to >act alone in the interests of the various NATO powers which are >somewhat conflicting. So there isn't complete unity about it by any >means. The United States of course has a dominant role just because >of its power but not the only role. And the problems that NATO >faces, having put aside the whole framework of international law and >legality, is that they have a kind of a conflict. They don't want >Kosovo to be independent, on the other hand, they don't want very >visible Serbian atrocities to be going on. And trying to find a path >between those conflicting goals has not been easy. > > > The US tends to have a leading role in world affairs, but do you >think that the non-participation or the non-willing participation >of the US in the World Criminal Court. Is it possible without >America or is it possible to force the US to participate in this >court ? > >No, of course not. In fact, you really can't force anybody, certainly >not the United States. I mean, the United States does what it wants. >It doesn't obey rulings of the International court of Justice for >example. Essentillay, that's what it wants. It's the biggest thug on >the block so you don't tell it what to do. As far as the Internat- >ional Court is concerned, the United States yes as you say was one of >the very few powers that was unwilling to sign on to it, and the only >major one. And the reasons that were given are not very persuasive. >The reason that was given was that there might be frivolous >prosecution of american soldiers who are involved in peacekeeping >missions. But that's highly unlikely. For one thing because US forces >are not involved in peacekeeping missions except under very limited >circumstances that result from US military doctrine which is unusual, >maybe unique in that US soldiers are not permitted to come under >threat. So for example if Canadian or Irish or Norwegian forces are >involved in peacekeeping missions in places where there are delicate >and complex relations with civilians, they may come under threat. But >they are not authorized to respond by massive force. US troops are, >in fact they must. That's why Somalia turned into such a total >disaster. And that's why US forces are very rarely involved in >peacekeeping operations, in fact almost never. Unless it's sort of to >seperate two military forces where there's a pretty clear battle >line. There are reasons though. The obvious reason is that any >independent International Criminal Court would trace atrocities right >up the chain of command. And that would lead to very high places. In >Somalia for example, it would go right back to the White House and >the Pentagon. > > > Another subject that comes up quite often in the media these days >is the IMF reform projects. We're calling it a new Bretton Woods. >I know that the Bretton Woods accords interest you quite a bit. >What do you think of these new developments in the IMF ? > >Well the Bretton Woods system basically broke down about 25 years ago >at the initiative of the United States with the support of other >major financial centers. And since then, we have not been in a >Bretton Woods system. The liberalization of financial capital, which >took place in the seventies, is exactly contrary to the Bretton >Woods system which called for regulation of international capital >exchanges. And that has had an incredible effect on the whole >economy, a very harmful effect in fact, except for small sectors of >pretty wealthy people. But it has also led to extreme volatility of >exchange rates and of markets. It's been well known for a long time >that finacial markets are subject to panicks and kraches and >hysterias as the standard phraseology puts it. And that's causing >plenty of problems. By now, the problems are even reaching the rich >and wealthy and they're getting worried about it. Which is why we're >hearing about reform. Now there are counter-tendencies going on. >Whithin the IMF, and in fact from the US treasury department, which >sort of dominates the IMF, the effort is to try to increase >liberalisation of finance even further. On the other hand, they're >trying to push that through the IMF charter right now. Which would be >a radical change. Look at the World Bank, they're opposed to it. And >many other sectors of quite conservative institutional power are >opposed to it because they're afraid of it. > > > How do you intepret the present international financial crisis ? >You can see on one end Russia falling apart , Asia falling apart >in an economic way. How do you see the world after this crisis? Do >you think it can go far ? > >The honest truth is that nobody has the slightest idea.It is by now >finally conceded , even by the World Bank,leading economists and so >on, that they simply don't understand the international economy. >Nobody predicted any of this, everything happened as a surprise. >There were a lot of guesses as to how to patch it up. But it could be >extremely dangerous which is why the front pages now are reporting >what was pretty obvious twenty years ago: that financial liberali- >zation is a very dangerous animal to let out of a cage. What it can >lead to, nobody really understands. It could lead to serious global >deflation and then depression. Or maybe it will be patched up >somehow. Or maybe there'll be enough popular pressures so that there >will be a real institutional change, which I think should be >important. Controling financial liberalization is, I think, a very >important thing. It's very dangerous. > > > Solutions for the future and the role of the State > > > In the context of the globalization of markets, what do you see >as the role of the State today? > >It depends on which countries you're talking about. In the rich >countries, the OECD countries, the role of the state has actually >increased over the past twenty years, relative to Gross National >Product (GNP). That's been reported by the World Bank for example. On >the other hand, in poor countries, like sub-saharan Africa, or Latin >America, the effort has been to minimize the State. Take the Western >Hemisphere, the richest country of course is the United States, where >the State plays an enormous role in economic development and >actually, it always has. But since the Second World War, it's >extensive, it varies somewhat, so it expanded during the Reagan >years, it's substantial now and so on. Turn to Haiti. Well there, the >condition on returning president Aristide to power was that he >accept a super neo-liberal program which opens Haiti up totally to >what are called market forces. Which means for example that Haitian >rice producers have to compete with US agribusiness which happens to >be very highly subsidized. So they get about 40% of their profits >from goverment subsidies. I mean to call that a free market isn't >even a joke. And naturally, Haiti is devastated. So there, the role >of the State is very limited. In fact, the State hardly functions. In >the United states on the other hand, the State is very strong. > > > You can see this in the Asian crisis. East and South East Asia are >somewhat different. But in East Asia, there was quite spectacular >development. In fact, historically unprecedented. And the State >played a central role in coordination, ensuring credit, and >stimulating rising industries and so on. They made mistakes but >basically, it was a pretty constructive role. The World bank for >example acknowledges that. In the late eighties and the early >nineties, South Korea in particular, was put under tremendous >pressure, primarily from the United States, to bring that to an end. >In particular, to deregulate financial markets.That was actually a >condition on their entry into the OECD. And they did. And financial >markets went crazy. That's the source of the crisis. Recently, >the chief ecodustries and so on. They made mistakes but basically, it >was a pretty constructive role. The World bank for example >acknowledges that. In the late eighties...? > > >No. I don't think it's a paradox at all. I mean free market ideology >has always had two sides. What really exists is: Free markets are >fine for you but not for me.I need the protection of the nanny state. >So free market rhetoric is impressively presented to poor >and defenseless people but the wealthy don't buy that story. >I mean, just take a look at the US congress and the last budget that >just passed. The majority leaders of the House and the Senate are >supposed to be leading conservatives. You know, they are just full of >free market rhetoric for poor children and so on. On the other hand, >they once again won the prize for bringing home public subsidies to >their rich constituencies. That's typical. > > > You talk a lot about the United States and the western world in >general. We feel sometimes that the wave of neoliberalism that >we've experienced since maybe the mid eighties is like something >that is inevitable. That we have to go through this to get some >kind of economic prosperity. And in this, we sometimes have the >feeling that democracy is not that much of a concern for companies >or economic big players on the political scene. What do you see as >the future for democracy when economics takes up so much place? > >Well, first of all, there's a lot of questionable assumptions in what >you've said. Maybe you're told to believe that neoliberal programs >are the way to prosperity. But that has not been the historical >fact. And it is not the fact in the United States right now for >example, nor has it ever been. So if you're taught to beleive that, >that's a technique of ensuring your subordination to external powers. >You don't have to believe what you're told to believe. You know >that's what we have minds for. And in fact, it's a very bad idea. >And in fact, you can see that by the fact that the rich and powerful >don't pursue it for themselves, never do, nor have. I think that the >question about democracy and private power is a different one. >Private power is enormous and growing. So the power of private >corporations and financial institutions is growing and extending but >not through neoliberal doctrines. I mean, they insist on and receive >ample protection and support from powerful states. Furthermore, >they're involved in what are called strategic alliances with one >another, even alleged competitors, to administer markets. And they >would like a powerful state but one that is directed to their >interests. So not wasting money on programs that are just of benefit >to the general population. And that of course does minimize >democracy as their power increases. The power of the general >population declines. But this is nothing we have to accept. > > Do you see unions as a force in opposing these kinds of politics ? >What would the role of the unions and the State be? Does the State >still have a reason to exist ? > >Ultimately no. But in the current world, there is a world of nation >states dominated by corporations that are based in nation states. >Unions are one of the few mechanisms by which ordinary people can get >together and pool their individual ressources in such ways that >counter, to some extent, concentrations of private power. And they >have done that. I mean, ask yourself why Canada has had a health >system, while the United States has'nt. It's largely traceable to >the relative power and activism of the union movements on the two >sides of the border. Unions are reviving to some extent in the >United States and recently they've had a few victories in blocking >the fast track legislation last fall. Or their involvment in >undercutting the negociations for the Multilateral Agreement on >Investments. Incidentally, that's now under way within a few days. A >major issue, at least here it's not reported. The unions have >finally realized that they better become international, not just in >name but in action. So there are buy now some cooperative efforts >between US and mexican and other Carribean unions and even much >further afield. And that's important. I mean capital is mobile, labor >isn't. And unless it establishes international links, it won't be >able to protect ordinary people or to extend social and democratic >rights. Of course, unions are only one of those means. There are >plenty of others. But popular organisations of all kind , of which >unions have historically been a leading one, that's the way to >counter concentrated power short of institutional change which would >eliminate it. Which is what I think we should be aiming for. > > You talk a lot about unions and people organizing. Do you think >it's the role of local people to get organised or do we have to >have a kind of elite in society that gathers people around or is >it really a movement that has to start from down below or is it >something that can come from people in universities or people who >know a little bit more about political and current affairs? > >If the movements that develop will be run by elites, they'll be run >in the interest of elites. Therefore, if the movements are to have >democratic and humane goals, they'll be popular movements in which >there is no elite. I mean, maybe somebody in the university knows >something, maybe I know something, maybe you know something, and we >should contribute our knowledge and also recognize that we want to >learn from others. But that's contributing your own skills and >whatever you have along with plenty of people who have other ones, >and maybe better ones than yours. That's the way serious organising >takes place. If it reflects an elite structure, a managerial >structure, we can predict pretty well what it will become. > > Do you have any hopes for the future, any progress you see coming >up along the way as the end of the century nears? Do you see any >progressive movements out there doing some good work? > >There's plenty of progress. Take for example the Multilateral >Agreement on Investments, which was a major effort to give >corporations the rights of States. They had already been given the >rights of persons. That's enormous power, with extremely dangerous >effects. They hoped to ram it through in secret. It was blocked >primarily by activism that started in Canada. Canada was by far the >most active center of protest. And then that spread elsewhere. And in >fact last april, they were unable to ram it through largely because >of public protest. That's a tremendous victory. And in fact, if you >look at the financial press internationnaly, they were in panic about >what they called the horde of vigilantes who had prevented agreements >from being negotiated in secret and rubber stamped by parliament as >in the good old days. When you look at the array of forces on the two >sides, it's an amazing victory. I mean, on one side you had the >concentrated power of the world. I mean the most powerful states, >the most powerful corporations, financial institutions, banks and the >media of course, all on one side. On the other side, you had people >like Maude Barlow. And they won, at least temporarily they won. It's >got to keep going. It's not the only case but it's a very encouraging >victory. People should take heart in it and learn from it. > > In one phrase, what are your thoughts on Quebec independence ? > >Well, I'm all in favor of autonomy and independence for anybody who >wants it. But if you think it through, my suspicion is that if Quebec >were really to become independent, it would quickly become a colony >of the United States. And the same would probably happen to the other >remnants of Canada. I mean in a sense, that's sort of happening >anyway. But I think this would accelerate it. " JC > > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
