<media href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDj2dUIQcA" src="https://www.youtube.com/v/umDj2dUIQcA" source="YouTube" width="560px" author="" caption="2024 Election was the Oligarchic Elite vs. Corporate Elite (w/ Chris Hedges)"> This is a fantastic and wide-ranging interview by Brianna. Hedges is at his morose and realistic best. Near the end, they discuss the possibility of Hedges going on Rogan to teach him about Gramsci. I, for one, would absolutely watch the hell out of Chris Hedges on Joe Rogan. Joe would take a week off just to think about what had just happened. Imagine Hedges bringing his message to Rogan's audience. I <i>really</i> wonder what that would look like in terms of viewer numbers. Would the same people tune in or would they tune out? They include a long clip of Noam Chomsky's famous interview by Andrew Marr at <b>01:02:00</b> from 1996. I hadn't seen the full clip in a long time. I pulled a bit of the transcript from <a href="https://scratchindog.blogspot.com/2015/07/transcript-of-interview-between-noam.html" author="" source="scratchindog pisses on a tree" date="2015">Transcript of interview between Noam Chomsky and Andrew Marr (Feb. 14, 1996)</a> and the original video is linked below (30mins). <media href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjENnyQupow" src="https://www.youtube.com/v/GjENnyQupow" source="YouTube" width="560px" author="" caption="Noam Chomsky on Propaganda - The Big Idea - Interview with Andrew Marr"> <bq><b>Marr:</b> This is what I don’t get, because it suggests that - I mean I’m a journalist - people like me are self-censoring. <b>Chomsky:</b> No, not self-censoring. You’re, there’s a filtering system, that starts in kindergarten, and goes all the way through, and it’s not going to work 100% but it’s pretty effective. It selects for obedience, and subordination, and especially I think… <b>Marr:</b> So stroppy people won’t make it to positions of influence. <b>Chomsky:</b> There’ll be behavioural problems. If you read applications to a graduate school you’ll see that people will tell you, he’s not, he doesn’t get along too well with his colleagues, you know how to interpret those things. <b>Marr:</b> I’m just interested in this because I was brought up like a lot of people, probably post-Watergate film and so on to believe that journalism was a crusading craft and there were a lot of disputatious, stroppy, difficult people in journalism, and I have to say, I think I know some of them. <b>Chomsky:</b> Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority - I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one. <b>Marr:</b> How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are. <b>Chomsky:</b> I’m not saying you're self censoring. <b>I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.</b> <b>Marr:</b> We have a press, which has, seems to me, has a relatively wide range of views… There is a pretty small ‘c’ conservative majority, but there are left wing papers, there are liberal papers and there is a pretty large offering of views running from the far right to the far left for those who want them. I don’t see how a propaganda model can. <b>Chomsky:</b> That’s not quite true. I mean there have been good studies of the British press and you can look at them, by James Curran3 is the major one, which points out that up until the 1960s there was indeed a kind of a social democratic press which sort of represented much of the interests of working people and ordinary people and so on, and it was very successful. I mean in the Daily Herald, for example, had not only more… it had far higher circulation than other newspapers, but also a dedicated circulation, furthermore the tabloids at that time, The Mirror and The Sun, were kind of labor based. That, by the 60s, that was all gone. And it disappeared under the pressure of capital resources. What was left was overwhelmingly the sort of center-to-right press, with some dissidents, it’s true. <b>Mann:</b> I mean, we’ve got, I’d say a couple of large circulation newspapers which are left-of-center. Which are, which are, you know putting in neo-Keynesian views which the, you call the elites, are strongly hostile to. <b>Chomsky:</b> It’s interesting that you call neo-Keynesian left-of-center, I would just call it straight and center. The… I mean left-of-center is a value term. <b>Marr:</b> sure... <b>Chomsky:</b> But there’s, there’s… there are extremely good journalists in England. A number of them write very honestly, and very good material, a lot of what they write couldn’t appear here. On the other hand, if you look at the question overall I don’t think you are going to find a big difference. And the few, there aren’t many studies of the British press, but the few that there are have found pretty much the same results and I think the better journalists will tell you that. In fact, we, what you have to do is check it out in cases. Let’s take what I just mentioned, the Vietnam War. The British press did not have the kind of stake in the Vietnam War that the American press did, because they weren’t fighting, but just check sometime and find how many times you can find the American war in Vietnam described as a US attack against South Vietnam, beginning clearly with outright aggression in 1961 and escalating to massive aggression in 65. If you can find .001% of the coverage saying that you’ll surprise me. And in a free press a 100% of it would have being saying that. Now that is just a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with left and right.</bq>