I interverviewed Chomsky; but I think I got away with it

My first reaction on opening up the comment pages in the Guardian today was to think: "Oh good; look forward to reading that."

Then I thought: "Oh no; you're going to get creamed."

The Guardian carries an interview with noted linguist, political activist and media theorist Noam Chomsky who was giving a talk in London this week (a sell out, as always).

I think this is the first time the paper has carried an interview with Chomsky since a disasterous encounter back in 2005 which led to them having to apologise for misrepresenting his views.

Since then barely a day goes by without Medialens, the group which monitors bias in the liberal media, bringing this up as an example of how the Guardian et al are in league with the Illuminati. (Before they write in; that sentence was written in a style known as 'irony' or 'taking the piss' so don't bother factually analysing it.)

So I expected Seamus Milne's thoughtful piece to attract a blizzard of micro-anaylsis. Afterall, when George Monbiot called Blair a war criminal he got 'lensed' because he wasn't John Pilger and only Pilger gets to say that.

But, 12 hours after publication, all is quiet.

Surely Milne is merely adding another bar to our gilded cage by helping with the pretence that the Guardian carries dissenting opinion? (I note the Chomsky interview isn't puffed on the guardian's home page: censored again!)

Or maybe Chomsky's visit was a good chance to carry an interview with a man who is of interest to hundreds of thousands of people and who offers a different perspective on international affairs.

No, that is far too simplistic and rational an explanation.

Comments

[dav]

"Noam Chomsky is the closest thing in the English-speaking world to an intellectual superstar...
But the bulk of the mainstream western media doesn't seem to have noticed."

Why?

"Chomsky is America's most prominent critic of the US imperial role in the world."

So?

That's pretty weird.