A Postcard From Noam

Noam Chomsky is one of the most intriguing figures from academia of the last half century. As a political and social commentator he is all at once inspirational, controversial, polarizing and, to most of the population, obscure. And he has also found time to be a giant in the field of linguistics - and no less controversial. (There is an excellent overview of everything Chomsky in Wikipedia.) I was first introduced to the works of Chomsky while studying Communications at Concordia. It was fashionable in that faculty to read the works of leftists like Chomsky, and Howard Zinn, and any number of others who the Right would describe as "self-loathing Jews." And at the time I dismissed most of the Chomsky I read as bunk. Little did I know then how much of it would seep into my worldview as time went on.

The thing about Chomsky is that you may vehemently disagree with his conclusions, but he certainly makes you re-evaluate the way you think about things. I'll give you an example. I recall the first time I read Chomsky opine on the obsession with Sports in society, myself being a big sports fan, I thought he was full of shit. It is his belief that the function of sports is to act as a diversion from the things that are important, so the huddled masses could devote their intellect and energy to something unimportant rather than toward upsetting the pillars of power and authority. My initial reaction was that it is ridiculous to think that the rise to prominence of sports had to do with anything other than market forces, and if people choose to devote their time as sports spectators rather than as political activists, that is their free will.

My perspective has changed somewhat since then. The thing you have to realize with Chomsky is that it is very easy to disagree with his conclusions regarding cause, but in this case there is no mistaking the effect. The heightened status of sports, light entertainment, fluff and the general culture of celebrity does have a damaging effect on democracy. It is a complicated issue in the big picture, but I'll try to be brief. The main principle is that a corporate media only serves corporate interests, and not the public. Why do CNN and Fox News devote so many hours a day to Michael Jackson trials and Tom Cruise ramblings and tabloid trash when, back in the old days, these things would be relegated to the gossip columns, People Magazine or the National Enquirer? They have a lot of hours to fill, and they are up against the Oprahs and Dr. Phils of the world and this is what the focus groups say people want to see. And because it's on the news networks, it must be important. The conventional network news programs, desperate to keep their decimated audiences and more bottom-line conscious than ever before, follow suit. The definition of news has changed. So now every celebrity blowup, or missing teenage girl (provided she's white and attractive) becomes the big story of the day. Which means there is less time and resources available to cover the real issues of the day and provide the oversight of power that should be expected from the fourth estate. That's when the parroting of propaganda that I wrote about in a previous post comes into play and, subsequently, Manufactured Consent. And let's not forget the sports industry which has grown exponentially, not coincidentally, since the advent of 24 hour a day sports television. No doubt about it, the people are getting what they want to see as consumers. But are they well served? Is democracy well served? If you consider that two of the issues that the U.S. Congress took up recently - with unquestioning media coverage - were Terry Schiavo (a tragic family story that would be tabloid fodder) and steroids in baseball, all while there is war and scandal going on, you might start to see the connections.

Once you step away from the model of "conspiracy" and objectively look at what the importance placed on circuses has done to the discourse in society, you realize that Chomsky has something valid to say, and that same critical thinking can be applied to his other areas of commentary. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong with diversions, as I will continue to write about sports and music and the like in this space. But make no mistake - golf isn't a diversion. It is the only true reality.