A little dose of Mr. Chomsky

Few people of this century have influenced our ability to critique mass media and their control on our thoughts and opinions quite like Noam Chomsky. Noam was one of the first people to challenge the commonly held notion that our news sources were bias neutral. Today, anyone who watches “Fox News” and evaluates it with a critical eye, only taking some of what they say at face value because they know the news is coming from a biased sourced has been influenced by Chomsky’s theories.
Noam Chomsky is reported as being the most “cited living person” with over 4,000 of his citations being listed in the Arts and Humanities Citation Index for the years 1980-1992 (Barsky, 1998). He holds rank against the likes of Plato and Aristotle as being one of the most quoted people of all time. This is likely because of the vast plethora of written works of his from which to quote from. Chomsky has written books on a great number of subjects, including linguistics, theory and syntax of linguistics, politics, and mass media critique. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his arguments, one has to admit that with close to 200 published books and articles, the guy can write. And while some of his political pieces are easy to understand and comprehend, one only needs to read a few pages from “Systems of Syntactic Analysis” to realize his ability to write, and think, at a level far beyond the comprehension of most people.
Yet, when one reads an article by Chomsky, then proceeds to see him on video, they can get the strange feeling they have perhaps just experienced two very different people. This same Noam Chomsky, who can be so convincing in print, comes across as somewhat meek and mild when seen in real life. While Chomsky’s words can be strong and convincing, his live delivery, and his presence can hinder those arguments.
To clearly see this, one only needs to watch Chomsky’s opening statements at his appearance in Nanaimo, BC at the beginning of Manufacturing Consent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb_dTOOUuVYChomsky starts out this talk with discrediting himself in a sort of way, by explaining that while some people refer to him as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, they also accuse him of having a rather simplistic thought on foreign policy. And while this can be seen as a way for Chomsky to soften the crowd by ensuring they don’t think he is some kind of egotistical blowhard, he also sets the tone and thought of he’s not a great as some people claim he is.
It is easy to argue that Chomsky is much more convincing in print because Chomsky in real life is much like Chomsky in print – lacking significant and important non-verbal cues. Words are Chomsky’s specialty. The speaking of those words is not. When Chomsky speaks, his tone and spoken rate varies very little. You never really hear him raise his voice or hear verbal excitement. He uses lots of large words and long sentences. While in an interview or giving a speech, he lacks large physical movement. To listen to Chomsky speak and really comprehend his arguments, one has to really focus on the words, and not count on the fact that he will speak in a way in which to keep you engaged. You have to force yourself to concentrate on what he is saying. And the minute you don’t, you have missed a significant point to his criticisms. If you carefully examine some of the interviews shown on the movie “Manufacturing Consent” you can almost see the exact time when the person giving the interview tunes out. The viewer almost gets uncomfortable watching Chomsky go on and on when the person sitting across from Chomsky is obviously no longer listening. This is probably because Chomsky thinks and speaks at a level far beyond that of most people interviewing him.
Much like the Kennedy/Nixon Presidential debates of 1960, in which we saw just how influential the visual perception of someone can be, Chomsky’s visual presence is almost a hindrance to his fantastic work. What arguments he can present so well in writing, he cannot portray with the same excitement in live presentation. While reading a Chomsky political work I may be compelled to rise up and be an active member of war opposition. But listening to Chomsky make that same argument will most likely not have that same effect. This illustrates what some may think of as a fault within our society. The fact that we put so much weight on how someone presents as opposed to what they are presenting I believe shows a failing of humans as highly intelligent specie. We are drawn to that Gatorade commercial featuring Michael Jordan because Michael Jordan has good visual presence. He speaks well, he’s cute, and if he tells me drinking Gatorade will help me become a professional athlete, then I believe him. So I go out and buy Gatorade, but I am no professional athlete. Why? The resounding reason (which is very convincing but not related to this paper) can be found by reading Chomsky’s “Propaganda Model”.
Whether heard orally or read in a book, everyone should experience some of Chomsky’s works. His arguments are some of the most influential of our time, and whether you agree with them or not, they give you a whole new way of viewing and critiquing the world around you.
Achbar, M & Wintonick, P (Directors) 1992. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky
and the Media [motion picture]. Canada: Necessary Illusions and the National Film Board of Canada.
Barsky, R. (1997). Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent. Canada: ECW Press.
Chomsky, N. & Herman, E. (1988). Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of
the Mass Media. New York. Pantheon Books.