Well, the main problem with this interview is because of the constraints of the medium. There are certain things this interview just can't touch on: it isn't allowed. It is a fine interview considering the medium. But it is also true that Chomsky consistently gets a far more satisfactory hearing by far more honest (that is, less willing to hide their biases) reporters who are curious because their job is to report, no to prod. Chomsky constantly says this.
An adversarial debate style is great for challenging convention, but it is a shame the interviewer didn't bother to research enough to ask insightful questions. Or listen to any of Noam's answers and adjust his pre-prepared script to compensate.
Nice to hear someone with a brain explaining things rather than the same old Ron Paul raving nonsense. Still, no one who is familiar with the works of V. I. Lenin takes Chomsky serious.
Yes, we should all tell the truth, just like Chomsky did when speaking about the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The guy is a pretentious retard, and so is every leftist rushing to his aid. You'll all burn in Hell together.
I'm not going to get pulled into an argument. If I did, you would entrench yourself in your position and learn nothing. I want you to look at these statements for yourself and ask how can I justify this? I believe an intelligent person can play both prosecution and defense equally well. I believe this will help people develop a higher, more scientific measure for acquiring truth. I have done this myself, I find Chomsky's statements to be indefensible via natural truth alone.
god, this interviewer has some horribly fallacious questions. His question about how Chomsky's parents came to the US more or less as refugees yet Chomsky criticizes US foreign policy...what a joke.
This interviewer is a total hack, a real abrasive jerk. I love how Professor Chomsky, despite absurdly provocative questions and constant interruption, never loses his cool, never looses him calm.
All of the hatred for Stephen Sackur here seems really unjustified. He's far from an idiot and doesn't overpower the debate with his opinion at all, to the opposite effect allowing Chomsky to elaborate. If everyone who watched this video studied Chomsky's career as closely as Sackur's I truly doubt he would be receiving the multitude of harsh comments he is here. Another thing I doubt is that Chomsky holds some kind of resentment to the person interviewing him by the end of it.
Just because someone is an "intellectual" doesn't give them special status.
The idea that; if you disagree with said "intellectual" you are automatically projected into this black hole of ignorance and doom with which you must be saved...
It's ridiculous.
It's the same with Hitchens or Dawkins. I wish more people would really push the questions instead of sitting in a pool of drool, lapping up every word like little pigs.
Completely agree. It's Sackur's job to ensure the subject conveys their opinion to the viewership as fully and clearly as possible. He will use techniques like, "That is a fact" to provoke the interviewee into going further, but I think people are easily mistaking this for being able to tell what his actual personal opinion is. I mean all things considered, I think the BBC in general do a great job - by no means perfect - but better than most.
Chomsky a linguist should know better than to assert his opinions as facts. Most of these crimes are exaggerated, controversial and unsubstantiated by evidence. I don't believe he intentionally lies. I think he long ago create systematical flawed mechanism for acquiring knowledge, and is completely unaware of it and so are his loyal followers. To a man science like myself this flaw is so glaringly obvious its laughable.
@owenhunt No, I don't. And it's not an opinion. Chomsky makes are all his arguments from the safety of his false reality, no one has to defend reality form fictions attacks.
@MichelSainteClaire I don't see how his arguments rely on a "false" reality. The bulk of what he claims I have been able to verfiy with online sources from actual leaked documents. You only need to watch and muse over the events of recent times such as the Wikileaks debacle and the Libya uprising to find evidence of inconsistencies and panic from the Western powers. Mubarek was supported and is now denounced/US leaders lapped up Saudi opinion of their opposition to Iran.
@MichelSainteClaire Then you provide no reason to think your claims are true or false. Since it is just your opinion, and any opinion needs to justification to be accepted as his opinion, as opposed to facts, we thereby put on the same footing Nazism as any other position. But if there are facts, and not just opinions, and Chomsky is not conveying facts but only opinions, you need to say why what he claims is the case is not a fact, but an opinion. But you don't say why; making all worthless.
@Krelianx A claim easily asserted is easily dismissed. I dismisses Chomsky's facts because they have been opinionated. It's not my job to do your homework. I'm stating my assessment of his reality after measuring it to my experience and knowledge of natural truth. I don't have to justify this in 500 characters.
Noam Chomsky is A TREASURE for humanity. I used to hate this journalist but, by being so controversial and playing devil's advocate, he brings up deep topics that would be impossible to cover in such sort inteviews. So thumbs up for S Sackur too.
I've probably never seen Stephen Sackur, so competitive and wise, without doubt one of my favourite TV-journalists in the Western world, as helpless and desperate as he is here with Noam Chomsky.
Sadly i think we need one hell of a third world war that almost destroy the whole planet and then out of the rubble, the very few survivers will go: Hmm we need a totaly new way of living, we need to build up a new society from scratch were non are left behind, a new way of thinking were violence and war in any form is considered as a criminal act. We need to read some of Mr Chomskys books.
Chomsky is wonderful. Stephen is a worthy opponent. I think Fisk and Stephen are among the best journalists. I haven't seen or known any other person but Chomsky after great english philosopher Bertrand Russell with such unbiased and rational character. What he said about judging 1's own crime is tremendouly important for every1. Here in Pakistan every critic of Pak army or taliban is held to be the enemy of the state & U.S, Chritian and jewish sympathizer. I wish if we had people like Chomsky.
AMERICANS PLEASE LISTEN. All you people saying "the interviewer got owned" are not understanding something about British (or at least BBC) journalism. America's idea of broadcast journalism is a guy shoving his opinions on both guest and viewer. Here in Britain - particularly at the BBC - the interviewer is expected to play devil's advocate and put critical points of view to the guest to challenge him\her. ALL Hardtalk interviews are like this, no matter what the guests POV. Its called scrutiny!
@nomis101uk That's all correct but only at a superficial level. Don't hold your breath while you expectantly wait the local commissars to go into great lengths in denouncing the crimes of the British establishment, but neither argument changes the fact that S. Sackur got schooled by Chomsky, well and proper, which wasn't a surprise, let's face it.
Before you call me an ignorant American or something, let me just add that I live in the UK, East Midlands to be more precise.
@nomis101uk But he doesn't put "critical points of view"; he takes things out of context, and proceeds to further challenge without allowing the guest to properly explain his points. It is great to be critical, but this doesn't mean that a challenge is worth by itself. It isn't; politics is not just a tug of war between guys disagreeing. It is to find out the substance and resolution of the disagreements themselves. This kind of harassment barely allows issues to be addressed with concern.
Journalists are sometimes expected to ask questions not because they don't know the answer or don't have an opinion, but to allow/provoke the guest to offer his answer/opinion.
Chomsky is the very model of a pathological liar. There is no fundamental difference between he, and counterparts of the Right Wing like Bill O'reilly who engage in the precise manner of propaganda-peddling.
@redrosary you should get out more. chomsky is brilliant, and speaks his mind. o'reilly, beck, limbaugh, et al, are very smart, and spew the party line. some of those guys may believe some of the ridiculous trash that thew spew on air, but mostly they are talking machines, designed to fool the naive and under-educated.
"o'reilly, beck, limbaugh, et al, are very smart, and spew the party line."
Sounds exactly like Chomsky to me. Since your first assumption is to label me with that old Fox news (I don't watch Beck or O'reilly for the same reason I denounce Chomsky) Straw Man that's become so prevalent among the Left, and to simply assert your rightness, I feel it's safe to say you're very much one of those "naive and udnereducated" types.
Another foolish emotional point by the journo-putz. How can you criticize American terrorism when your parents survived by coming here?" Makes no sense whatsoever except in a manipulative, lying way that is disgraceful let alone stupid. "Your world is a black and white world, what about the good things that drive people to America?" Sounds like something your senile grandpa would say.
The interviewer is missing Chomsky's point that he while he is denouncing American institution-run power structure, he is praising true democracy in the form of what the people have achieved in spite of the institutions. The interviewer wants to let the institutions take the credit for such achievements, and conveniently blur the distinction between government and the corporations that run it, and the democratic organisations who fight for the rights of ordinary working-class people.
Except that Chomsky has only ever expressed glorification and apologism for oppressive institutions like those in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and all over the Middle East.
I dunno. At least the BBC guy was sorta doing his job. An American commentator would have just more methodically interrupted him with even more idiocy
BBC interviewer get a lot of hate, but they are just doing their job and they do it well. They go totally against anyone they interview. It's called "Devil's Advocate" in debating. The interviewer might actually agree with Chomsky but that's not his job. I enjoyed watching the last Hardtalk guy, Tim Sabastian, absolutely hammer Donald Rumsfield over Iraq. Watching US network, not as good. Always an agenda, especially Fox. Hardtalk goes against everyone, but unlike Fox, let's them speak.
You people wont be happy until every interview is performed by someone who completely agrees with the interviewee. It is the job of the interviewer to play devil's advocate, take up an opposing position and follow the logic of the debate. He does this very well, it's called HardTalk not TeaParty. Chomsky acquitted himself well, in the way he always has. If he spent his time deconstructing the interviewer I would have turned off, we don't like FOX news here.
@djboony yes you are so right. such a stupid question he begins with. Such a shame since he is usually so cutting! A terrible argument from conservatives... you where born of crime and yet deem it none-the-less satisfactory to criticise it. I am not bound to carry my fathers yoke, I will criticise everything without question. Continue the project of imm. Kant...........
Hardtalk never had any interest in hearing what Chomsky had to say, just having such a prominent intellectual on the show. The entire interview was only scratching at the surface of Chomsky's opinions. It started with the assumption that he's "radical" and then it became about making him justify his "radicalness," rather than actually talk about it. If I'm not mistaken, the same was true for the Richard Dawkins interview.
@jessemonson The format of the interview is intentionally so. The discussion is not meant to be very deep. The idea is that the interviewer will take an adversarial position and play the devil's advocate. I think you knew this already :)
Chomsky destroys this idiot. You can see the disdain for the reporter in his face throughout the interview. There are moments where you can clearly see him thinking "what a moron" lol.
@a3th3r What the reporter trying to win? How Chomsky "destroy" him, all the interviewer did was make Chomsky prove his convictions and he really pressed him, the interviewer wasn't trying to prove anything he was only trying to make Chomsky prove his points are valid to the audience. The interviewer Sackur does this to everyone on the political spectrum and everyone seems to hate him just because he asks their idol tough questions.
@a3th3r I don't really like the guy much either, but it is called "Hardtalk", the whole point of it is that the interviewer takes the opposing position to challenge the assertions of the interviewee. If they're unable to defend their assertions, their ideas must not be well thought out. You can't know (and therefore, ensure) that your world view is correct unless you challenge it.
@a3th3r To be fair to Sackur, he looks like that whoever he interviews. Afterall, the show is called hardtalk. He asks the same combative questions to everyone. I don't think it matters much in this case. Noam has a solid, no-nonsense answer to all his questions, which is the reason i was drawn to him in the first place.
@TeifiValley123 YEs! aargh finally. EEVryone always talks bad about Sackur. But yes its the style of the programme!! He playes the annoying devil's advocate and sort of an accuser. Its a role and he acts it pretty well always. And with this style he forces people to defend their positions and you get good info like this. Btw, a less evil sounding and more friendly version of his predecessor. Hehe listen to Tim Sebastian's questions, when i hear him, I imagine him in these red inquisitor robes.
@comanchio1976 he doesn't ask difficult questions, he asks inflammatory and clearly ridiculous questions. "it's a pity" that you're too fucking stupid to realize this.
@a3th3r Those questions (accusations), are the ones often put to him by his critics,Sackur even spells that fact out for you, yet you still dont see it.
He gives Chomsky an opportunity to answer those criticisms, which Chomsky does brilliantly.
I realise that the point I'm trying to make,and Sackur's style, may be too sophisticated for you to comprehend..but I'll give it a go:
Britain has a long tradition of adversarial style debating (at Oxford etc), this is just an extension of that.
I think Sakur's interview style is in a large part due to the nature of the "hardtalk" show - viewers expect guests on the programme to be given a 'tough' time, whatever their position or views.
Don't blame the interviewer for his slanted, purposeful, juvenile line of questioning. He does it because there aren't any serious criticisms of Chomsky's positions, at least none that he knows of.
@SuperSuperfan Basically yes. I've never seen anyone give him a serious challenge in a debate before. Most of what he says is undeniable except for the rare instance in which he makes a value judgement, which he generally refrains from doing.
Its not surprising that the interviewer is being an ass with a deliberate preconceived intention to undermine Chomsky, ultimately he begins assuming what he is proving than the other way around. He intentionally cuts off Noam Chomsky so he wouldn't defend or articulate his position, and he took certain quotes off context. The interviewer accuses Chomsky for being "black and white" when ironically his accusation is very "black and white" itself. I applaud Chomsky for his objectivity
Well, good old Noam shows us how to teach a lesson to an arrogant prick without the slightest hint of arrogance on his side. When Sakur, the quintessential short-sighted british imperialist, asks Chomsky if he is still so sure of being right as always, that's in fact the admission of a complete defeat. Slavoj Zizek should take a look at this and learn from Chomsky the way to handle a hostile interviewer.
Why are people complaining about the interviewer for? He's not there to kiss Chomsky ass and accept every word he says. Do they not realise that the best way to get to the truth of something is to challenge it with alternative viewpoints and ideas?
The interviewer has been criticized because, while surely within rights in posing tough questions, tries to insult Chomsky personally and refuses to listen to his answers. The questions are not meant to allow the interviewee to articulate his positions or to challenge them on fair grounds of debate; they are meant to abuse the interviewee and to make him appear mean, short-sighted, hypocritical, and egotistical. People can see that it's futile to try to slam such false impressions home.
So funny how the interviewer loses all credibility towards the end and basically just starts hurdling thinly veiled insults like 'are you sure of your own righteousness?'
I feel angry for the way the interviewer underestimated one of the greatest thinker this century has ever produced. Only a mediocre mind would pull arguments like this interviewer did. Shame on him !!!
Mr. Chomsky was indeed brilliant, however, maigning the interviewer is uncalled-for. His arguments and questions are merely to assist Chomsky voice his opinion to the ever-present opposition. Allowing Noam to speak unfettered would basically be equivalent to a personal blog.
No. Were you a hard talk regular, you would know he's all about playing the devil's advocate. You should see how many crooks' theories he's invalidated.
I think that his insistance on apparently weak arguments goes to show how brilliant and thorough a thinker Chomsky is. I don't think we North Americans are used to seeing interviewees so strongly questioned in their beliefs.
Maybe Oprah should look at this and think back in shame to her complacent talk with Sarah Palin.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I hope someone can read this comment though the jizz-stains of Chompsky Fanbois posting here but Chompsky isn't taken seriously. Only 20 year old university students and far-left professors give any of his political opinions any credibility. Remember he tried to justify the Khmer regime! Yeah the one which killed millions of people. Whenever the interviewer posed a difficult question Chompsky just returned to British Imperial crimes /yawn.
Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 198092 period. Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect. In 2006, New Statesman voted him seventh in the list of "Heroes of Our Time". He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. How's that for not being taken serious?
@Belegaer No, you said he wasn't taken seriously and you were thoroughly rebutted by @NecroButcher91. As Chomsky (not Chompsky - you might at least get his name right) says at around 1:56 'We should tell the truth about important things.' Especially important things that are just a few paragraphs down the page for all to see.
@pawnjp Mr. Chomsky was indeed brilliant, however, maigning the interviewer is uncalled-for. His arguments and questions are merely to assist Chomsky voice his opinion to the ever-present opposition. Allowing Noam to speak unfettered would basically be equivalent to a personal blog.
I suppose it's this guy's job to be an attack-dog, and maybe a Dick Cheney or William Buckley-type would get it just as bad. But if he really subscribes to the things he's saying he really doesn't understand geo-politics, nor does he grasp American foreign policy history. He treats Chomsky as if he's some kind of fringe-thinker, when Noam simply researches many of the foreign policy wonks and reports back. It seems this guy hasn't even skimmed a Chomsky book or article.
Everyone should read Chomsky's books, he's one of the most intelligent human beings that have ever lived. He's never been fooled by the propaganda and he's not afraid to speak out about it.
What an exteme freaking tool the interviewer is. How can an intelligent person not understand caring for the character of one's country means you crticize things that are wrong; that you hold yourself and your own country to the same standards of critique you would hold your enemies! He's trying to convert Chomsky to jingoism? What a massive tool.
Overall, I thought the interview was fairly good, especially if intended for an audience not well acquainted with Chomsky's ideas, but I can't help but feel that the interviewer would probably not have questioned a more ostensibly moderate political voice about their sense of righteousness.
This "journalist" line of questioning was so negative. Amazing composure on Chomsky's part, loved his "party hack" comment in response to a stupid question.
The leader is a representative of an institution, big or small. The bishop has his diocese, the bank executive, his or her bank. The leader, however, is also a person with his or her own values, gifts. Every leader must struggle with the problem of how to satisfy the institutions´s needs without "compromising" his or her own values. This is an age-old problem.
Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader without an institution, would never betray his, or universal values. Salute you, Professor Chomsky!
More than alerted, that Germany is No. 2 or even No. 3 exporter of military weapons; and wants to increase military presence worldwide! Heard an outstanding speech by Oskar Lafontaine, responding to the shallow one of Angela Merkel in the parliament. He represents the spirit of Willy Brandt; he was mobbed, because he did not give in?! Now he suffers from cancer, like Willy Brandt did.
Some people really internalize the cancer of the world. Love and Blessing for him.
Was a supporter of Pres. Obama, campaigning. Changed, when I saw him visiting the White House walking with Pres. Bush! Site by Site?! Diplomacy? Fine! Witnessed a lot of speeches of his, recently; the one, "honoring" the indigenious people! Lacking is, what Willy Brandt expressed, kneeing down in Warsaw. Humility, Dignity, Compassion, Oneness. Asking for Forgiveness, in light of the imperialistic history, and not to address values, which have not been lived, by the U.S. government!!
Chomskyan, in the name of Democracy the ultimate state of anarchism, I motion and submit this to vote. I propose you change the title of these videos to : "How Chompsky totally singlehandedly OWNED HardTalk interviewer"
P.S: It was also the first time I heard our hero (well almost) say that the FBI on 911 was still lacking evidence. He was right in the end statements he made, he leaves room in his positions in case he might be wrong. And I have always belied he was whit regards to 911
@josealonsoleon He wants to stick to the style of the question not the actual answer to the question. He merely needs the style of an answer. Get it? For that he gets a real paycheck. Not the style of it.
Control your emotions soly89. Hate will only bring more hate. People have been getting angry and hating, but what has it accomplished? Only more backlash. Only more hate.
If doing the same thing brings the same results, think about changing the behavior if you want different results. Instead of doing the same old useless hate game, try "love"?
Are you kidding me? That clip was HILARIOUS! I don't know if our sense of humour differs that much but believe me, it was funny to me. I Loved it. One of Ali G's best interviews.
Have you ever freaking heard of STRAIGHT MAN? Maybe I'm in a pissy mood, but I'm sick of people's one dimensional take on that interview. It's like the kid that watches a cartoon and then exclaims "that could never happen!" boisterously like he's so clever. It's maddening. You don't get it.
Oh, talking about the AliG interview in the above comment, sorry. This interview here is awesome. Interviewer: 'I'm sorry, I'm baffled by the concept of right and wrong, could you please elucidate for me?' Chomsky: "Of course, it's what I do.'
Chomsky was the straight man but he was not playing a role. He was genuinely annoyed at Ali G. I found it quite awkward to watch but other people liked it.
thank you Dr. Chomsky for being the voice of the voiceless...
Chomsky is calm in responding because a) that's his style b) he's not the same as his younger years.. his speech is showing difficulty in delivery c) the guy is an intellectual... already established... widely referenced in humanities... well known around the world... every tactic the interviewer is trying to use, Chomsky has already discussed in his writings...
He toured the UK for 2 weeks and gave 10 talks and many interviews, so his voice was strained. He has way more trouble hearing nowadays, which is sad to see.
But he told me though it was exhausting, it was also exhilarating.
Pointing out that the guy just quote mined a criticism from some blog that took him out of context was the greatest burn imaginable because it pointed out what a shoddy job the guy did as an interviewer.
Something slightly William F. Buckley-esque about this guy...I wonder if Chomsky was feeling any deja-vu? As much as I respect Chomsky (and I really do) I still like a press or media that has the strength to pose tough, direct questions to any one..politicians,intellectuals,celebrity of all political persuasion..etc...who knows maybe the interviewer is actually a supporter of many of Chomsky's views but is trying to maintain the integrity of his profession by taking an objective position.
Even the premise of the interview was preposterous: "Chomsky has not changed his views in 40 years!" Chomsky should have used that head-on and pointed out the rational for not changing his stance. Murder is murder. It was murder back then and still is, etc.
I think Chomsky was far too respectful. I would have liked him to deconstruct and ridicule the questions - to point out the underlying assumptions in the questions. It's almost like there was a mutual agreement to be nice to each other. I think more is achieved by showing that the questions are twisted rather than answering the questions with valid messages. Activism not education. We can read his books but a public face to face with the Man is where you kick ass.
I think he that's just stylistic judgements, but his answers were often cutting through the BBC guy's bullshit. The audience could see through it, he didn't really have to rant about it. Also, it turns the premise on its head, since from the beginning they describe Noam as "raging against US power" but he just answered the bs questions calmly.
Everyone has their own style, but I wouldn't underestimate Chomsky. He knows these snakes veeeery well. His approach seemed very effective & hard to surpass--just brilliant. A more confrontational attitude would have played into the loaded context (old raging professor, anarchist, stubbornly unchanging etc). His calm, rational answers challenged those statements and twisted questions, and exposed their veneer of neutrality. And notice how he had the "last laugh" at the end--very typical Chomsky.
I agree in the sense that that would have been an amazing thing to watch, but I agree with others in that his calm rational approach is what wins the day. The way I see it, by doing this he gives those who wish to defame him (and any positive thing he could possibly be associated with) little to nothing to work with. Case and point, this video looks like it was very heavily edited- but outside of the editorial commentary; it failed to make him look like a raging lunatic.
My comment does not mean that Chomsky should have been less calm or less rational. One can be intellectually disrespectful of the opponent's proposals and use ridicule while remaining calm and rational.
I agree, and like I said I would have love to have seen something like that. Still, I think if he had done even that the editors would have been able to flip it around to make him look like a fringe wacko.
It's HARDtalk, the whole point of the programme is that he's supposed to question the position of the person he's interviewing.
I think it's good that he brings up all the standard, boring mainstream media criticisms of Chomsky's position as it allows Chomsky to show clearly that they're false.
OK, I'll give you half on that one. And I do enjoy an antagonistic interviewer better than a sycophant who lobs marshmallows the whole time. But if it's HARDtalk, then the HARD part should be substantive, and not the same old fallacious bullshit. Maybe you're right about giving him a chance to respond to it, but they are still crap accusations.
But unfortunately I think that it's precisely these fallacious rightwing questions that are the standard objections to more radical political alternatives among too much of the general public.
Having someone posing these questions explicitly and having Chomsky reply is in the end better than not having these issues addressed at all.
Well, the main problem with this interview is because of the constraints of the medium. There are certain things this interview just can't touch on: it isn't allowed. It is a fine interview considering the medium. But it is also true that Chomsky consistently gets a far more satisfactory hearing by far more honest (that is, less willing to hide their biases) reporters who are curious because their job is to report, no to prod. Chomsky constantly says this.
KilVall 2 months ago
An adversarial debate style is great for challenging convention, but it is a shame the interviewer didn't bother to research enough to ask insightful questions. Or listen to any of Noam's answers and adjust his pre-prepared script to compensate.
samsksdiisd 2 months ago
Comment removed
comanchio1976 4 months ago
Noam Chomsky, the true American. Cleverest man I have had the pleasure to listen to.
casinohire 4 months ago
Nice to hear someone with a brain explaining things rather than the same old Ron Paul raving nonsense. Still, no one who is familiar with the works of V. I. Lenin takes Chomsky serious.
reyter2007 6 months ago
Yes, we should all tell the truth, just like Chomsky did when speaking about the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. The guy is a pretentious retard, and so is every leftist rushing to his aid. You'll all burn in Hell together.
pal5017 6 months ago
I'm not going to get pulled into an argument. If I did, you would entrench yourself in your position and learn nothing. I want you to look at these statements for yourself and ask how can I justify this? I believe an intelligent person can play both prosecution and defense equally well. I believe this will help people develop a higher, more scientific measure for acquiring truth. I have done this myself, I find Chomsky's statements to be indefensible via natural truth alone.
MichelSainteClaire 7 months ago
god, this interviewer has some horribly fallacious questions. His question about how Chomsky's parents came to the US more or less as refugees yet Chomsky criticizes US foreign policy...what a joke.
mellamosean 7 months ago
This interviewer is a total hack, a real abrasive jerk. I love how Professor Chomsky, despite absurdly provocative questions and constant interruption, never loses his cool, never looses him calm.
ParallaxVue 7 months ago
3:46 - what is up with that face?
juujuuuujj 9 months ago
2:41 - what a stupid question --> if it was not for people like Chomsky we would be living in a world very much like North Korea.
This reporter is completely biased - shame on him!
jagara1 9 months ago
A great man with a great mind.
jamaljumah1 9 months ago 2
did anyone else feel that this tool's mannerisms are similar to william buckleys in an interview with chomsky ? fucking annoying
djamorpheus 10 months ago
Chomsky was great in this interview /because/ of Sackur... and obviously because he's Chomsky, but that isn't my point.
xjtbarnesx 1 year ago
All of the hatred for Stephen Sackur here seems really unjustified. He's far from an idiot and doesn't overpower the debate with his opinion at all, to the opposite effect allowing Chomsky to elaborate. If everyone who watched this video studied Chomsky's career as closely as Sackur's I truly doubt he would be receiving the multitude of harsh comments he is here. Another thing I doubt is that Chomsky holds some kind of resentment to the person interviewing him by the end of it.
halocekicksass 1 year ago 5
@halocekicksass
I agree completely.
Just because someone is an "intellectual" doesn't give them special status.
The idea that; if you disagree with said "intellectual" you are automatically projected into this black hole of ignorance and doom with which you must be saved...
It's ridiculous.
It's the same with Hitchens or Dawkins. I wish more people would really push the questions instead of sitting in a pool of drool, lapping up every word like little pigs.
No one is free from criticism.
ExtremeBogom 11 months ago
@halocekicksass
Completely agree. It's Sackur's job to ensure the subject conveys their opinion to the viewership as fully and clearly as possible. He will use techniques like, "That is a fact" to provoke the interviewee into going further, but I think people are easily mistaking this for being able to tell what his actual personal opinion is. I mean all things considered, I think the BBC in general do a great job - by no means perfect - but better than most.
PurushaDesa 8 months ago
Chomsky a linguist should know better than to assert his opinions as facts. Most of these crimes are exaggerated, controversial and unsubstantiated by evidence. I don't believe he intentionally lies. I think he long ago create systematical flawed mechanism for acquiring knowledge, and is completely unaware of it and so are his loyal followers. To a man science like myself this flaw is so glaringly obvious its laughable.
MichelSainteClaire 1 year ago
@MichelSainteClaire You need to justify that outlandish opinion fast, or simply denounce it.
owenhunt 11 months ago
@owenhunt
Why are you so afraid of someone with a differing opinion?
ExtremeBogom 11 months ago
@owenhunt No, I don't. And it's not an opinion. Chomsky makes are all his arguments from the safety of his false reality, no one has to defend reality form fictions attacks.
MichelSainteClaire 11 months ago
@MichelSainteClaire I don't see how his arguments rely on a "false" reality. The bulk of what he claims I have been able to verfiy with online sources from actual leaked documents. You only need to watch and muse over the events of recent times such as the Wikileaks debacle and the Libya uprising to find evidence of inconsistencies and panic from the Western powers. Mubarek was supported and is now denounced/US leaders lapped up Saudi opinion of their opposition to Iran.
owenhunt 10 months ago
@MichelSainteClaire And would you care to provide any kind of concrete example of this? Which statements do you dispute, and on which basis?
Krelianx 7 months ago
@Krelianx No!
MichelSainteClaire 7 months ago
@MichelSainteClaire Well, then you fail to rise to your rational obligation to provide reason; no reason for anyone to listen to you.
Krelianx 7 months ago
@MichelSainteClaire Then you provide no reason to think your claims are true or false. Since it is just your opinion, and any opinion needs to justification to be accepted as his opinion, as opposed to facts, we thereby put on the same footing Nazism as any other position. But if there are facts, and not just opinions, and Chomsky is not conveying facts but only opinions, you need to say why what he claims is the case is not a fact, but an opinion. But you don't say why; making all worthless.
Krelianx 7 months ago
@Krelianx A claim easily asserted is easily dismissed. I dismisses Chomsky's facts because they have been opinionated. It's not my job to do your homework. I'm stating my assessment of his reality after measuring it to my experience and knowledge of natural truth. I don't have to justify this in 500 characters.
MichelSainteClaire 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MichelSainteClaire You're not very intelligent.
Krelianx 6 months ago
This interviewer is a dunce, and no match for Chomsky's brilliance.
AdoreWL 1 year ago
Noam Chomsky is A TREASURE for humanity. I used to hate this journalist but, by being so controversial and playing devil's advocate, he brings up deep topics that would be impossible to cover in such sort inteviews. So thumbs up for S Sackur too.
amatorynumber 1 year ago
I've probably never seen Stephen Sackur, so competitive and wise, without doubt one of my favourite TV-journalists in the Western world, as helpless and desperate as he is here with Noam Chomsky.
UTubeHelsinki 1 year ago 2
This interviewer brings shame on the profession of journalism.
matt301273 1 year ago
Both are extremely clever
NoMamonos 1 year ago
Sadly i think we need one hell of a third world war that almost destroy the whole planet and then out of the rubble, the very few survivers will go: Hmm we need a totaly new way of living, we need to build up a new society from scratch were non are left behind, a new way of thinking were violence and war in any form is considered as a criminal act. We need to read some of Mr Chomskys books.
TinyArts 1 year ago
Chomsky is wonderful. Stephen is a worthy opponent. I think Fisk and Stephen are among the best journalists. I haven't seen or known any other person but Chomsky after great english philosopher Bertrand Russell with such unbiased and rational character. What he said about judging 1's own crime is tremendouly important for every1. Here in Pakistan every critic of Pak army or taliban is held to be the enemy of the state & U.S, Chritian and jewish sympathizer. I wish if we had people like Chomsky.
Taimoor1989 1 year ago
Comment removed
Taimoor1989 1 year ago
AMERICANS PLEASE LISTEN. All you people saying "the interviewer got owned" are not understanding something about British (or at least BBC) journalism. America's idea of broadcast journalism is a guy shoving his opinions on both guest and viewer. Here in Britain - particularly at the BBC - the interviewer is expected to play devil's advocate and put critical points of view to the guest to challenge him\her. ALL Hardtalk interviews are like this, no matter what the guests POV. Its called scrutiny!
nomis101uk 1 year ago 6
@nomis101uk I completely support your statement and wanna say Thank you for making it clear because I have been reading such remarks here and there.
Taimoor1989 1 year ago
@nomis101uk That's all correct but only at a superficial level. Don't hold your breath while you expectantly wait the local commissars to go into great lengths in denouncing the crimes of the British establishment, but neither argument changes the fact that S. Sackur got schooled by Chomsky, well and proper, which wasn't a surprise, let's face it.
Before you call me an ignorant American or something, let me just add that I live in the UK, East Midlands to be more precise.
theH0UNDSofD00M 1 year ago
@nomis101uk But he doesn't put "critical points of view"; he takes things out of context, and proceeds to further challenge without allowing the guest to properly explain his points. It is great to be critical, but this doesn't mean that a challenge is worth by itself. It isn't; politics is not just a tug of war between guys disagreeing. It is to find out the substance and resolution of the disagreements themselves. This kind of harassment barely allows issues to be addressed with concern.
Krelianx 7 months ago
@nomis101uk
And I'd add that it's not only in Britain.
Journalists are sometimes expected to ask questions not because they don't know the answer or don't have an opinion, but to allow/provoke the guest to offer his answer/opinion.
grozde 2 months ago
'but what about the good things?'
the interviewer is a retard
timmyn101 1 year ago
@TheKwatch
Only if your concept of a "better" world is collectivist totalitarianism.
redrosary 1 year ago
Chomsky is the very model of a pathological liar. There is no fundamental difference between he, and counterparts of the Right Wing like Bill O'reilly who engage in the precise manner of propaganda-peddling.
redrosary 1 year ago
@redrosary you should get out more. chomsky is brilliant, and speaks his mind. o'reilly, beck, limbaugh, et al, are very smart, and spew the party line. some of those guys may believe some of the ridiculous trash that thew spew on air, but mostly they are talking machines, designed to fool the naive and under-educated.
montrealbroadway 1 year ago
@montrealbroadway
"o'reilly, beck, limbaugh, et al, are very smart, and spew the party line."
Sounds exactly like Chomsky to me. Since your first assumption is to label me with that old Fox news (I don't watch Beck or O'reilly for the same reason I denounce Chomsky) Straw Man that's become so prevalent among the Left, and to simply assert your rightness, I feel it's safe to say you're very much one of those "naive and udnereducated" types.
redrosary 1 year ago
Love to just sit down and talk to chomsky for abit about stuff lol
shanksy67 1 year ago
"WIsh astonishing consistency, there's nothing there"
That retort made me laugh.
Tyrfingr 1 year ago
Another foolish emotional point by the journo-putz. How can you criticize American terrorism when your parents survived by coming here?" Makes no sense whatsoever except in a manipulative, lying way that is disgraceful let alone stupid. "Your world is a black and white world, what about the good things that drive people to America?" Sounds like something your senile grandpa would say.
Dionysos37 1 year ago
The interviewer is missing Chomsky's point that he while he is denouncing American institution-run power structure, he is praising true democracy in the form of what the people have achieved in spite of the institutions. The interviewer wants to let the institutions take the credit for such achievements, and conveniently blur the distinction between government and the corporations that run it, and the democratic organisations who fight for the rights of ordinary working-class people.
ringadong 1 year ago
@ringadong
Except that Chomsky has only ever expressed glorification and apologism for oppressive institutions like those in China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba and all over the Middle East.
redrosary 1 year ago
the interviewer begins sounding like Glenn Beck towards the end
generalzeedot 1 year ago 2
Brilliancee!
NitroEthiopian 1 year ago
I dunno. At least the BBC guy was sorta doing his job. An American commentator would have just more methodically interrupted him with even more idiocy
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 1 year ago
BBC interviewer get a lot of hate, but they are just doing their job and they do it well. They go totally against anyone they interview. It's called "Devil's Advocate" in debating. The interviewer might actually agree with Chomsky but that's not his job. I enjoyed watching the last Hardtalk guy, Tim Sabastian, absolutely hammer Donald Rumsfield over Iraq. Watching US network, not as good. Always an agenda, especially Fox. Hardtalk goes against everyone, but unlike Fox, let's them speak.
DistantEarthJp 1 year ago
You people wont be happy until every interview is performed by someone who completely agrees with the interviewee. It is the job of the interviewer to play devil's advocate, take up an opposing position and follow the logic of the debate. He does this very well, it's called HardTalk not TeaParty. Chomsky acquitted himself well, in the way he always has. If he spent his time deconstructing the interviewer I would have turned off, we don't like FOX news here.
jacksawild 1 year ago
CONSIDER YOURSELF SCHOOLED, STEPHEN SACCUR OF THE BBC
smilingasteroid 1 year ago
Sakur was far too soft on him! Should be called "Soft Talk"!
Awasukuname 1 year ago
this guy is brutally honest, love it
hhaassaann134 1 year ago
I think the interviewer is fam more black & white than Chomsky, Chomsky always considers the details., the intervewer just tried to pigeon hole him.
THEFRANKLINFILM 1 year ago 2
what a pathetically juvenile man that interviewer is,
the herd of independant minds strikes again
djboony 1 year ago 10
@djboony yes you are so right. such a stupid question he begins with. Such a shame since he is usually so cutting! A terrible argument from conservatives... you where born of crime and yet deem it none-the-less satisfactory to criticise it. I am not bound to carry my fathers yoke, I will criticise everything without question. Continue the project of imm. Kant...........
cscambler 2 months ago
Hardtalk never had any interest in hearing what Chomsky had to say, just having such a prominent intellectual on the show. The entire interview was only scratching at the surface of Chomsky's opinions. It started with the assumption that he's "radical" and then it became about making him justify his "radicalness," rather than actually talk about it. If I'm not mistaken, the same was true for the Richard Dawkins interview.
jessemonson 1 year ago 9
yes this guy is a true dick
timetochilli 1 year ago
@jessemonson The format of the interview is intentionally so. The discussion is not meant to be very deep. The idea is that the interviewer will take an adversarial position and play the devil's advocate. I think you knew this already :)
saqib09 1 year ago
Chomsky destroys this idiot. You can see the disdain for the reporter in his face throughout the interview. There are moments where you can clearly see him thinking "what a moron" lol.
a3th3r 1 year ago 31
@a3th3r I think one of the main reasons I, and I believe you too, love Chomsky is that he doesn't think like that.
But I know its a fun comment. :)
saqib09 1 year ago
@a3th3r What the reporter trying to win? How Chomsky "destroy" him, all the interviewer did was make Chomsky prove his convictions and he really pressed him, the interviewer wasn't trying to prove anything he was only trying to make Chomsky prove his points are valid to the audience. The interviewer Sackur does this to everyone on the political spectrum and everyone seems to hate him just because he asks their idol tough questions.
SuperSuperfan 1 year ago
@a3th3r I don't really like the guy much either, but it is called "Hardtalk", the whole point of it is that the interviewer takes the opposing position to challenge the assertions of the interviewee. If they're unable to defend their assertions, their ideas must not be well thought out. You can't know (and therefore, ensure) that your world view is correct unless you challenge it.
annoloki 1 year ago
@a3th3r To be fair to Sackur, he looks like that whoever he interviews. Afterall, the show is called hardtalk. He asks the same combative questions to everyone. I don't think it matters much in this case. Noam has a solid, no-nonsense answer to all his questions, which is the reason i was drawn to him in the first place.
TeifiValley123 7 months ago
@TeifiValley123 YEs! aargh finally. EEVryone always talks bad about Sackur. But yes its the style of the programme!! He playes the annoying devil's advocate and sort of an accuser. Its a role and he acts it pretty well always. And with this style he forces people to defend their positions and you get good info like this. Btw, a less evil sounding and more friendly version of his predecessor. Hehe listen to Tim Sebastian's questions, when i hear him, I imagine him in these red inquisitor robes.
tchoco 5 months ago
@tchoco 100% agree. I was going to make those very points...with the frustrates "aargh" too!
comanchio1976 4 months ago
@a3th3r "Destroys this idiot"? Watch it again. Sackur asks difficult questions that Chomsky's critics would ask...It's called 'HARDtalk' for a reason.
As someone's already mentioned, Sackur plays devils advocate in ALL of his interviews, it's his style and the nature of the programme.
I think it's clear that Chomsky gets this, it's a pity you dont.
comanchio1976 4 months ago
@comanchio1976 he doesn't ask difficult questions, he asks inflammatory and clearly ridiculous questions. "it's a pity" that you're too fucking stupid to realize this.
a3th3r 4 months ago
@a3th3r They are questions that are often asked of him by his critics, which Sackur himself acknowledges...that should have been a clue for you.
This is a chance to answer those criticisms, which Chomsky does brilliantly.
i realise that the truth maybe too subtle, and Sackur's technique/style maybe too sophisticated for you to grasp..but I'll try anyway.
The UK has a long tradition of adversarial-style debating, this is just a continuation of that.
You calling me stupid, is hugely ironic.
comanchio1976 4 months ago
@a3th3r Those questions (accusations), are the ones often put to him by his critics,Sackur even spells that fact out for you, yet you still dont see it.
He gives Chomsky an opportunity to answer those criticisms, which Chomsky does brilliantly.
I realise that the point I'm trying to make,and Sackur's style, may be too sophisticated for you to comprehend..but I'll give it a go:
Britain has a long tradition of adversarial style debating (at Oxford etc), this is just an extension of that.
comanchio1976 4 months ago
I think Sakur's interview style is in a large part due to the nature of the "hardtalk" show - viewers expect guests on the programme to be given a 'tough' time, whatever their position or views.
gaussian 1 year ago
Don't blame the interviewer for his slanted, purposeful, juvenile line of questioning. He does it because there aren't any serious criticisms of Chomsky's positions, at least none that he knows of.
bobomber 1 year ago 5
@bobomber Are you serious? There are no serious criticisms of anything he's said? How smug is that. Everything he says is undeniable than I suppose.
SuperSuperfan 1 year ago
@SuperSuperfan Basically yes. I've never seen anyone give him a serious challenge in a debate before. Most of what he says is undeniable except for the rare instance in which he makes a value judgement, which he generally refrains from doing.
bobomber 1 year ago
And I love his quote "The only style of argument is to speak the truth"
Philonus 1 year ago 32
Its not surprising that the interviewer is being an ass with a deliberate preconceived intention to undermine Chomsky, ultimately he begins assuming what he is proving than the other way around. He intentionally cuts off Noam Chomsky so he wouldn't defend or articulate his position, and he took certain quotes off context. The interviewer accuses Chomsky for being "black and white" when ironically his accusation is very "black and white" itself. I applaud Chomsky for his objectivity
Philonus 1 year ago 7
Well, good old Noam shows us how to teach a lesson to an arrogant prick without the slightest hint of arrogance on his side. When Sakur, the quintessential short-sighted british imperialist, asks Chomsky if he is still so sure of being right as always, that's in fact the admission of a complete defeat. Slavoj Zizek should take a look at this and learn from Chomsky the way to handle a hostile interviewer.
kiasmus 1 year ago 6
for stephen its like going back to school...
asseeninYOURDREAMS 2 years ago 4
I love this man!
Dalychomsky 2 years ago 5
Chomsky is definately one of the most gifted intellectuals alive.
lindmusik 2 years ago 7
Why are people complaining about the interviewer for? He's not there to kiss Chomsky ass and accept every word he says. Do they not realise that the best way to get to the truth of something is to challenge it with alternative viewpoints and ideas?
WastedTourist 2 years ago
The interviewer has been criticized because, while surely within rights in posing tough questions, tries to insult Chomsky personally and refuses to listen to his answers. The questions are not meant to allow the interviewee to articulate his positions or to challenge them on fair grounds of debate; they are meant to abuse the interviewee and to make him appear mean, short-sighted, hypocritical, and egotistical. People can see that it's futile to try to slam such false impressions home.
fanniterrette 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
kiasmus 2 years ago
exactly Davelrie
a slap in the face of that clown.
as always well done Chompsky.
Gago559 2 years ago
So funny how the interviewer loses all credibility towards the end and basically just starts hurdling thinly veiled insults like 'are you sure of your own righteousness?'
DaveIrie 2 years ago 7
Noam is brilliant!!! God Bless Him
k1a1t1h1y1 2 years ago 4
How the hell did this journalist get this job? Surely there are better interviewers in UK? He just does not shut up
dsr99 2 years ago
Noam is absolutely brilliant
rh7189 2 years ago
Chomsky, as always, a great American Hero!
I feel angry for the way the interviewer underestimated one of the greatest thinker this century has ever produced. Only a mediocre mind would pull arguments like this interviewer did. Shame on him !!!
silentrocker 2 years ago 3
@silentrocker
Mr. Chomsky was indeed brilliant, however, maigning the interviewer is uncalled-for. His arguments and questions are merely to assist Chomsky voice his opinion to the ever-present opposition. Allowing Noam to speak unfettered would basically be equivalent to a personal blog.
xinonero76 2 years ago
@silentrocker
No. Were you a hard talk regular, you would know he's all about playing the devil's advocate. You should see how many crooks' theories he's invalidated.
I think that his insistance on apparently weak arguments goes to show how brilliant and thorough a thinker Chomsky is. I don't think we North Americans are used to seeing interviewees so strongly questioned in their beliefs.
Maybe Oprah should look at this and think back in shame to her complacent talk with Sarah Palin.
mtlson 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hope someone can read this comment though the jizz-stains of Chompsky Fanbois posting here but Chompsky isn't taken seriously. Only 20 year old university students and far-left professors give any of his political opinions any credibility. Remember he tried to justify the Khmer regime! Yeah the one which killed millions of people. Whenever the interviewer posed a difficult question Chompsky just returned to British Imperial crimes /yawn.
Belegaer 2 years ago
"Remember he tried to justify the Khmer regime!"
he never offered any sympathy to the Khmer regime.
he said something else. If you didn't check, then go dig for yourself instead of swallowing slogans from blogs.
If you checked and came to this conclusion, then sorry, learning logic is difficult.
And, this non "20 year old university student", non "far left professor" was countered on every single point he made.
anonymouscrazybear 2 years ago 4
Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 198092 period. Chomsky was voted the leading living public intellectual in The 2005 Global Intellectuals Poll conducted by the British magazine Prospect. In 2006, New Statesman voted him seventh in the list of "Heroes of Our Time". He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society. How's that for not being taken serious?
NecroButcher91 2 years ago 2
He also has a total of 33 honorary degrees from universities around the globe.
NecroButcher91 2 years ago
@NecroButcher91
I'm not denying his langauge prowess I'm just disputing his mad political opinions.
Belegaer 2 years ago
@Belegaer No, you said he wasn't taken seriously and you were thoroughly rebutted by @NecroButcher91. As Chomsky (not Chompsky - you might at least get his name right) says at around 1:56 'We should tell the truth about important things.' Especially important things that are just a few paragraphs down the page for all to see.
JohnMoseley 2 years ago 3
Like what?
Redcarpet01 2 years ago
Well obviously his views that capitalism and democracy are wrong and that "anarcho-collectivism" is the way forward.
Belegaer 2 years ago
Oh so awesome.
Most interviewees on this program get flustered by the hostile and relentless style of the questioning, but not Chomsky.
Watching him just Pwn every "tough" question was a thing of beauty.
I feel inspired.
pawnjp 2 years ago 2
@pawnjp Mr. Chomsky was indeed brilliant, however, maigning the interviewer is uncalled-for. His arguments and questions are merely to assist Chomsky voice his opinion to the ever-present opposition. Allowing Noam to speak unfettered would basically be equivalent to a personal blog.
xinonero76 2 years ago
I guess you mean maligning.
I wasn't.
I was commenting on Chomsky's ability to stay level headed and respond beautifully in the face of ostensibly aggressive questioning.
pawnjp 2 years ago
" I don't want to get into to much detail" Classic!
TALIAFERRO69 2 years ago 3
I suppose it's this guy's job to be an attack-dog, and maybe a Dick Cheney or William Buckley-type would get it just as bad. But if he really subscribes to the things he's saying he really doesn't understand geo-politics, nor does he grasp American foreign policy history. He treats Chomsky as if he's some kind of fringe-thinker, when Noam simply researches many of the foreign policy wonks and reports back. It seems this guy hasn't even skimmed a Chomsky book or article.
comradshaw 2 years ago 3
Everyone should read Chomsky's books, he's one of the most intelligent human beings that have ever lived. He's never been fooled by the propaganda and he's not afraid to speak out about it.
urcritic 2 years ago
5:26
I couldn't help laughing here either.
adcashmo 2 years ago
What an exteme freaking tool the interviewer is. How can an intelligent person not understand caring for the character of one's country means you crticize things that are wrong; that you hold yourself and your own country to the same standards of critique you would hold your enemies! He's trying to convert Chomsky to jingoism? What a massive tool.
SweetDissident 2 years ago 2
Overall, I thought the interview was fairly good, especially if intended for an audience not well acquainted with Chomsky's ideas, but I can't help but feel that the interviewer would probably not have questioned a more ostensibly moderate political voice about their sense of righteousness.
DrunkOnInk 2 years ago
- "The most important thing for each of us is the predictable consequences of our own actions"
The fact that this basic principle, which usually is taught to children, has to be told to a BBC reporter with all his education, is shocking.
CheekyNonconformist 2 years ago 5
This "journalist" line of questioning was so negative. Amazing composure on Chomsky's part, loved his "party hack" comment in response to a stupid question.
Antoinetubefeed 2 years ago 5
He's more than 80 and one of the most brilliant individuals standing on Earth
What does he care?!
adrianmh1919 2 years ago 2
"I think the style of argument is we should tell the truth about important things..."
Fantastic reply.
Mjhavok 2 years ago 8
The leader is a representative of an institution, big or small. The bishop has his diocese, the bank executive, his or her bank. The leader, however, is also a person with his or her own values, gifts. Every leader must struggle with the problem of how to satisfy the institutions´s needs without "compromising" his or her own values. This is an age-old problem.
Professor Noam Chomsky, a leader without an institution, would never betray his, or universal values. Salute you, Professor Chomsky!
Sundrumify 2 years ago 2
More than alerted, that Germany is No. 2 or even No. 3 exporter of military weapons; and wants to increase military presence worldwide! Heard an outstanding speech by Oskar Lafontaine, responding to the shallow one of Angela Merkel in the parliament. He represents the spirit of Willy Brandt; he was mobbed, because he did not give in?! Now he suffers from cancer, like Willy Brandt did.
Some people really internalize the cancer of the world. Love and Blessing for him.
Sundrumify 2 years ago
Was a supporter of Pres. Obama, campaigning. Changed, when I saw him visiting the White House walking with Pres. Bush! Site by Site?! Diplomacy? Fine! Witnessed a lot of speeches of his, recently; the one, "honoring" the indigenious people! Lacking is, what Willy Brandt expressed, kneeing down in Warsaw. Humility, Dignity, Compassion, Oneness. Asking for Forgiveness, in light of the imperialistic history, and not to address values, which have not been lived, by the U.S. government!!
Sundrumify 2 years ago
is youtube censoring fuckin comments?
Cefuroxx 2 years ago
Chomskyan, in the name of Democracy the ultimate state of anarchism, I motion and submit this to vote. I propose you change the title of these videos to : "How Chompsky totally singlehandedly OWNED HardTalk interviewer"
P.S: It was also the first time I heard our hero (well almost) say that the FBI on 911 was still lacking evidence. He was right in the end statements he made, he leaves room in his positions in case he might be wrong. And I have always belied he was whit regards to 911
josealonsoleon 2 years ago 11
haha too bad I run my channel dictatorially. :P
Chomskyan 2 years ago 5
Demagogue....:-)
josealonsoleon 2 years ago
@josealonsoleon hahahaha
TheWhiteWire 1 year ago
@josealonsoleon He wants to stick to the style of the question not the actual answer to the question. He merely needs the style of an answer. Get it? For that he gets a real paycheck. Not the style of it.
TheAlexlab 1 year ago
3:49 the face of Western guilt.
newtype64 2 years ago 3
did you heared u fucking americans?
invading countries don"t have any and i repeat my self any rights. they have responsibilities.
solysoly89 2 years ago
Dude, if invaders were responsible, they usually wouldn't invade in the first place. I would count D-Day as a possible exception.
badger5079 2 years ago
Control your emotions soly89. Hate will only bring more hate. People have been getting angry and hating, but what has it accomplished? Only more backlash. Only more hate.
If doing the same thing brings the same results, think about changing the behavior if you want different results. Instead of doing the same old useless hate game, try "love"?
majet76 2 years ago
When is the Colbert Report Tv show going to interview Noam Chomksy?, greatest intellectual alive.
majet76 2 years ago 3
Chomsky might not be good on Colbert. Did you see his humourless response to Ali G?
badger5079 2 years ago
Are you kidding me? That clip was HILARIOUS! I don't know if our sense of humour differs that much but believe me, it was funny to me. I Loved it. One of Ali G's best interviews.
majet76 2 years ago
Sure the clip was funny and awkward but that was because Chomsky was humourless.
badger5079 2 years ago
Have you ever freaking heard of STRAIGHT MAN? Maybe I'm in a pissy mood, but I'm sick of people's one dimensional take on that interview. It's like the kid that watches a cartoon and then exclaims "that could never happen!" boisterously like he's so clever. It's maddening. You don't get it.
jedimasterbooboo 2 years ago
Oh, talking about the AliG interview in the above comment, sorry. This interview here is awesome. Interviewer: 'I'm sorry, I'm baffled by the concept of right and wrong, could you please elucidate for me?' Chomsky: "Of course, it's what I do.'
jedimasterbooboo 2 years ago
Chomsky was the straight man but he was not playing a role. He was genuinely annoyed at Ali G. I found it quite awkward to watch but other people liked it.
badger5079 2 years ago 7
briliiant man,jews are smartest
eulex10 2 years ago
brilliant man but I'm sure noam would disagree on your "smartest" comment
6thmonkey 2 years ago
He is an awesome man.
tommytowne 2 years ago 3
Daddy.
beta447 2 years ago
If I were 60 years old or more I would marry this man!!!
chepamela87 2 years ago
If this BBC guy thinks America is so great why doesn't he move here?
porkchopexpress07 2 years ago 5
a great man!
thank you Dr. Chomsky for being the voice of the voiceless...
Chomsky is calm in responding because a) that's his style b) he's not the same as his younger years.. his speech is showing difficulty in delivery c) the guy is an intellectual... already established... widely referenced in humanities... well known around the world... every tactic the interviewer is trying to use, Chomsky has already discussed in his writings...
rodeo179 2 years ago
He toured the UK for 2 weeks and gave 10 talks and many interviews, so his voice was strained. He has way more trouble hearing nowadays, which is sad to see.
But he told me though it was exhausting, it was also exhilarating.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
where else was he interviewed?
mjd1982 2 years ago
take that! mainstream media!
lol!
by the way ... I DONT want to live in the US
this propaganda move is getting old really...
greenhell666 2 years ago
Pointing out that the guy just quote mined a criticism from some blog that took him out of context was the greatest burn imaginable because it pointed out what a shoddy job the guy did as an interviewer.
bobomber 2 years ago
Something slightly William F. Buckley-esque about this guy...I wonder if Chomsky was feeling any deja-vu? As much as I respect Chomsky (and I really do) I still like a press or media that has the strength to pose tough, direct questions to any one..politicians,intellectuals,celebrity of all political persuasion..etc...who knows maybe the interviewer is actually a supporter of many of Chomsky's views but is trying to maintain the integrity of his profession by taking an objective position.
catgumart 2 years ago
yea i hate william f. buckley but that was fucking awesome when he threatened to punch chomsky in the face on national TV!
oiuoiu988 2 years ago
We need more people like Chomsky.
Mechelle68 2 years ago 6
Even the premise of the interview was preposterous: "Chomsky has not changed his views in 40 years!" Chomsky should have used that head-on and pointed out the rational for not changing his stance. Murder is murder. It was murder back then and still is, etc.
DenisRancourt 2 years ago
being consistent comes natural when one seeks truth.
dEEpindEEd 2 years ago
I think Chomsky was far too respectful. I would have liked him to deconstruct and ridicule the questions - to point out the underlying assumptions in the questions. It's almost like there was a mutual agreement to be nice to each other. I think more is achieved by showing that the questions are twisted rather than answering the questions with valid messages. Activism not education. We can read his books but a public face to face with the Man is where you kick ass.
DenisRancourt 2 years ago
I think he that's just stylistic judgements, but his answers were often cutting through the BBC guy's bullshit. The audience could see through it, he didn't really have to rant about it. Also, it turns the premise on its head, since from the beginning they describe Noam as "raging against US power" but he just answered the bs questions calmly.
Chomskyan 2 years ago
Everyone has their own style, but I wouldn't underestimate Chomsky. He knows these snakes veeeery well. His approach seemed very effective & hard to surpass--just brilliant. A more confrontational attitude would have played into the loaded context (old raging professor, anarchist, stubbornly unchanging etc). His calm, rational answers challenged those statements and twisted questions, and exposed their veneer of neutrality. And notice how he had the "last laugh" at the end--very typical Chomsky.
mr1001nights 2 years ago 2
I agree in the sense that that would have been an amazing thing to watch, but I agree with others in that his calm rational approach is what wins the day. The way I see it, by doing this he gives those who wish to defame him (and any positive thing he could possibly be associated with) little to nothing to work with. Case and point, this video looks like it was very heavily edited- but outside of the editorial commentary; it failed to make him look like a raging lunatic.
the2500 2 years ago
My comment does not mean that Chomsky should have been less calm or less rational. One can be intellectually disrespectful of the opponent's proposals and use ridicule while remaining calm and rational.
DenisRancourt 2 years ago
I agree, and like I said I would have love to have seen something like that. Still, I think if he had done even that the editors would have been able to flip it around to make him look like a fringe wacko.
the2500 2 years ago
Trying to nail Chomsky on his views is like trying to nail Kasparov on a chess board, which is to say: good fucking luck.
Chemicalogic 2 years ago 12
The interviewer is a gargantuan dick.
noisepuppet 2 years ago
i disagree... i think he's just stupid
bluebluewolfwolf 2 years ago
t/ bbc dude? indeed.
audiofeel1 2 years ago
It's HARDtalk, the whole point of the programme is that he's supposed to question the position of the person he's interviewing.
I think it's good that he brings up all the standard, boring mainstream media criticisms of Chomsky's position as it allows Chomsky to show clearly that they're false.
alucardzer0 2 years ago
OK, I'll give you half on that one. And I do enjoy an antagonistic interviewer better than a sycophant who lobs marshmallows the whole time. But if it's HARDtalk, then the HARD part should be substantive, and not the same old fallacious bullshit. Maybe you're right about giving him a chance to respond to it, but they are still crap accusations.
noisepuppet 2 years ago
True, comrade.
But unfortunately I think that it's precisely these fallacious rightwing questions that are the standard objections to more radical political alternatives among too much of the general public.
Having someone posing these questions explicitly and having Chomsky reply is in the end better than not having these issues addressed at all.
alucardzer0 2 years ago
Chomsky straight annihilates this guy's ass!
thefreeassociation 2 years ago
thanks for posting!
gnumusic 2 years ago
Thanks again from New Zealand!
ginganz13 2 years ago
god dam chomsky is amazing, if only i could have 10% of his brain
gimlithepimp88 2 years ago 9
I like Hardtalk, it's a testing show for anyone to go on.
Chomsky met the Challenge as I knew he would.
A great interview.
2DRonaldo 2 years ago