Noam Chomsky Stumps Andrew Marr
Why Hacker News recommends it
Cited as the source of Chomsky's 'you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting' line in threads on media bias and corporate employees defending their employers.
What it is
A three-minute clip of Noam Chomsky in an exchange with BBC journalist Andrew Marr about media filtering and self-censorship. Chomsky argues that people reach positions precisely because they would not say things that conflict with the system.
Recommended by 1 HN commenters across 1 different months, 2019 to 2022.
What Hacker News said
Recommends herbstein · 2019-03 · on “Facebook, Axios and NBC Paid to Whitewash Wikipedia Pages”
> Thus (not having read it myself), Manufacturing Consent could show how emergent properties of mass media might lead to them pushing a certain incorrect world view, rather than proposing a theory that requires the teams behind them to all agree to conspire and none of them to make that public knowledge. That is right. Chomsky proposes 5 filters through which this process happens. These filters operate, according to Chomsky, not just in media, but in all of society. From kindergarten to our deadbeds. I think this was best illustrated with Chomsky's 1996 interview in "The Big Idea" on BBC by Andrew Marr. Chomsky is outlining how the filters make sure certain viewpoints are popularized, and An
Cites mistermann · 2019-05 · on “Gmail really wants me to say yes”
I make absolutely no claim of accuracy to your particular situation here, but the unique speaking style you use (unique to a layman, but quite common I suspect among people who find success in SV) made me immediately recall a Noam Chomsky interview I watched quite some time ago: [this video] The key line being: "I'm sure you believe everything you're saying, but what I'm saying is, if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."
Cites mistermann · 2019-06 · on “The Making of a YouTube Radical”
> The vast majority of utterances do indeed have specific meaning. It's why we bother to write and why human society works. The vast majority of utterances is not the topic of discussion, the topic of discussion is one specific utterance, and very specific claims that you are making based upon it. > So to the same degree the contrived "pretty little girl school" is ambiguous, the real phrase "clean the gene-pool of crazies" has a single unambiguous meaning that the author intended and I know enough English and context to understand as does almost every English speaker. You are restating your claim in a different way, but this provides no evidence or solid reasoning. I doubt you'd think using
Cites mistermann · 2019-06 · on “The Making of a YouTube Radical”
> You mentioned "all phrases must have only one meaning...is obviously not true". I pointed out that, while technically correct, it is a misleading irrelevancy. That is one way your claim could be satisfied as true, I was pointing out it fails. > Next to it we have the claim that "clear the breeding arena" cannot have a single meaning. No, I do not make that claim, it was stated as a alternative condition that if satisfied could make your assertion true: "the particular phrase "clear the breeding arena" must have a pre-determined and singular meaning" > If Molyneux were a rancher referring to his bull's pen, then yes I'd get a shovel instead. But he isn't. So the point is esoteric to the poi
Cites chacha2 · 2021-03 · on “'Fake' Amazon workers defend company on Twitter”
Noam Chomsky with Andrew Marr [this video] "If you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you are sitting"
Cites aahortwwy · 2021-08 · on “Six corporations control 90% of America media”
"I'm not saying you're self-censoring; I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. What I'm saying is that if you believed something different you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting." [this video]
Cites herbstein · 2021-08 · on “We built a system like Apple’s to flag CSAM and concluded the tech was dangerous”
Herman & Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" proposes the method through which the media influence isn't by way of "old men in a dark, smoky backroom" as the claim conjures images of. Rather, it's a series of filters that funnel like-minded people into the decision-making roles of the companies. If we simplify it a lot, it's the claim that a CEO is very likely to hire a senior editor that shares his views on the world, that editor in turn hires writers with a similar outlook on the world, etc. etc. Likewise, promotions within these companies is predicated on this same mechanism. To the question "Do you think all journalists are self-censoring? Do you think I'm self-censoring?", posed by the BB
Cites r0uv3n · 2022-09 · on “On my resignation as regulator of the Dutch intelligence and security services”
I believe this [1] should be the interview, found it via leaving out the quotes and using "Chomsky" instead of "Noam". [1] [this video]