After a particularly shabby interview with Noam Chomsky, the Guardian have realised the error of their ways and published an apology.
About time too, I wonder how many times he’s going to have to deal with the simple misunderstanding that supporting the idea of free speech doesnt mean you agree with what the person chooses to say.
As he points out in the superb documentary Manufacturing Consent, freedom of speech means freedom for exactly the views and opinions you dont agree with, otherwise where is the freedom?
Realize.
It is telling that Chomsky has declined to accuse Brockes of inventing any of his actual quotes. He opts only for making the inspecific and unfalsifiable charge that she “[invents their] contexts”. The Guardian’s retraction says nothing about the fidelity with which Chomsky’s statements were rendered. Therefore, the ones that stand alone should be considered accurate until Chomsky specifically and credibly disputes them.
The Srebrenica controversy has eclipsed the fact that Chomsky minimizes another set of atrocities in a different part of the interview: those of the European pogroms against the Jews. Chomsky refers to them as “not very bad, by contemporary standards”. This is outrageously false, as an examination of the historical record shows. Chomsky’s minimization of the pogroms, which (from the 16th to the 20th Centuries) claimed an estimated 300,000 Jewish lives, cannot be vindicated by an appeal to “invented contexts”.
I dont think it is telling at all, Brockes quite clearly invented a context within which to render a quote from him which clearly distorts the meaning. The charge is both specific and falsifiable. If she didnt invent the context then he would have no grounds for complaint and the Guardian would no doubt have arrived at the same conclusion as yourself. They didnt.
Regarding the heading of the interview the Guardians apology states ‘No question in that form was put to Prof Chomsky’. In other words, Chomsky’s response was from another context and Miss Brockes invented a new context to make it appear as if he was supporting a particular viewpoint, when he was quite clearly supporting Diana Johnstone’s right to freedom of speech.
‘The Guardian also accepts that and acknowledges that the headline was wrong and unjustified by the text.’
To me this is a clear indication about the fidelity with which his statements were rendered, his statement being part of the headline which they consider ‘wrong and unjustified’. Context is of paramount importance in deciphering the meaning of language and changing the context within which statements are presented is tantamount to changing the quote itself.
Considering your second point, I think it is worth looking at the statement again, there is no need for an appeal to invented contexts.
What are the contemporary standards that would make something that terrible seem not so bad in comparison?
To be clear ‘not very bad, by contemporary standards’ is a comparison, not a direct statement saying ‘It wasnt very bad’
In some cases you can take the sheer weight on numbers who died, in others its worth considering the per capita effects on the population. There are numerous examples from ‘modern’ times which clearly show that the statement is not outrageously false,. the 2nd world war, East Timor, Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, Nicaragua and so on.
Its definitely a worthwhile pursuit being critical of anything anyone says and considering carefully the words that are chosen and the context within which they are presented, something which Brockes clearly didnt do.
Well yeah.. best estimate is we’ve killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq in less than 3 years. While 300,000 is a horrific death toll… it’s over 500 years.
It’s very telling that any comparison of current US/UK crimes with e.g. the pogroms, is automatically assumed by people like John-Paul Pagano to be an attempt to dismiss or “minimise” the pogroms. He takes it as axiomatic that the US does not commit crimes.. therefore the comparison *must* (in his world) be an attempt to show the pogrom in a favourable light.
To those of use less blinkered, we can see the comparison for what it actually is. A comparison of one terrible crime with another terrible crime.
jm80f9kyhk5uoc1f