why are allt he morons here complaining thatmits all edited?its a half show oyu idiots.chomsky answers go ona dn on ,o f course ht ey have to edit the thing.good god..
I disagree with chomsky's assertion that the internet is not have that big of an impact on society. I think what we are seeing now with the occupy wall street movement is a demographic largely influenced by the internet for better and for worse.
Why go to all the bother of arranging to talk to Noam Chomsky and then talking over him and constantly interrupting.This guy did exactly the same thing with Slavoj Zizek.What a waste of time and the questions were nothing short of banal.
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
This is a joke. Chomsky is incredibly thorough, frequently talking for so long that he winds up on a completely different topic. Any fool who is familiar with his regular manner can see that 90% of his response must have been chopped out. Meanwhile this ass hat interviewer prattles on and on. Terrible.
The interviewer does too much talking. We don't wanna hear what some stuck-up, private school-educated chump has to say; let Chomsky impart his wisdom instead.
you're here to interview Noam, have the world hear what he thinks!!, shut up and let him talk, even if what he says invokes your interruption, it's not a debate it's an interview.
I couldn't care less what Stephen Sackur thinks about world affairs. So why are all of his long-winded questions left unedited but almost all of Chomsky's replies cut off? Kind of makes me wonder what he went on to say that the BBC didn't like so much.
Now, Chomsky, do I turn to thee, and mark my greeting well; for what I speak my body shall make good upon this earth, or my divine soul answer it in heaven. Thou art a traitor and a miscreant, too good to be so and too bad to live, since the more fair and crystal is the sky, the uglier seem the clouds that in it fly. Once more, the more to aggravate the note, with a foul traitor's name stuff I thy throat; and wish, ere I move, what my tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove.
@anthonynewsome Why is their spin? Just because he's asking the tough questions? Just because he's making him answer his convictions. Steven Sackur has no spin he attacks people like this from all sides of the political spectrum, watch him attack the leader of UKIP or Geert Wilders or Gene Robinson or Al Gore or anyone, whoever he brings on he attacks, that's a good interviewer in my eyes. In all the years I've watched the show I still have no solid clue of what Sackur actually believes in.
@SuperSuperfan well thanks for your reply about my comments,
to me he is very bad interviewer and I am surprised that the Beeb would produce such a poor show, I watched a few of his interviews and he really is just 'jumping at the bit' without any real argument to put forward, that's my opinion, I have no prob dealing with the fact that U thinking he is amazing and that you are unable to understand what he believes in, it's no big deal, good luck
@jabbaduhut Where evidence of that? Everyone seems to bash Sackur but people don't seem to understand that he attacks everyone like this, he makes everyone who comes on his show prove their convictions, and because of this the people who love Chomsky or UKIP or whatever bash him as being biased because they can't accept that their person or party or whatever is flawed in some way. I like Chomsky but I don't believe everything he says, I love Sackur, but I have no clue what he believes in.
This relatively new Hard Talk presenter must be in need of a pay rise, maybe he's also a victim of the "credit crunch" getting dangerously close to the red.
In short, he must have been under orders for not letting Professor Chomsky talk for more than 1 minute, plus anyone can see by the programs introduction that the same was no more than a cheap exercise in "politically correct slander" and disinformation about the ideas defended by interviewee.
Yes folks, it's called serving an elite agenda and unfortunately most media people are too fond of their paychecks and those who sign them to bother with the truth... which is what journalism is supposed to unveil and uphold.
@fronde56 i think thats becaus the guy is so shamelessly narzisistic. the show is not about the guests, its only about him looking good and soundin sophisticated... just an other media creatur nobody needs...
At 7:28 the interviewer suggests that mainstream America does not share Noams beliefs. He is missing the fact that Noam is a Professor of Linguistics at MIT. I would estimate 25% of Americans have not heard of MIT and 75% do not know what Linguistics is. He appears to be just asking a giant list of unrelated questions, that are generally skeptical in nature of Noams political opinions.
why are allt he morons here complaining thatmits all edited?its a half show oyu idiots.chomsky answers go ona dn on ,o f course ht ey have to edit the thing.good god..
M10663 2 months ago
The BBC wasted a precious thing (an interview with Noam Chomsky) by allowing this ignorant fool to interview him.
mossy121c 4 months ago
I disagree with chomsky's assertion that the internet is not have that big of an impact on society. I think what we are seeing now with the occupy wall street movement is a demographic largely influenced by the internet for better and for worse.
rodreas 4 months ago
Why go to all the bother of arranging to talk to Noam Chomsky and then talking over him and constantly interrupting.This guy did exactly the same thing with Slavoj Zizek.What a waste of time and the questions were nothing short of banal.
beansprout100 4 months ago
Long live Chomsky. Justice, truth, freedom, rolled in one.
searchtruth1 4 months ago
interviewer is a dick...
inapcha 4 months ago 3
really funny how the interviewer tries to talk over relevant Chom
sky's points
comadivine1 5 months ago
man this host is such an ass, the bbc is garbage
Sensarmy300 6 months ago
@Sensarmy300 The interviewer is shit, not the bbc.
MattMystrieo 4 months ago
@Sensarmy300 .lol the bbc if far superior than nay shitty us newsnchannel and it is getting bad which should open your eyes to the us news channels.
M10663 2 months ago
Whoever edited/manipulated this video should be sued.
susiaway 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you gentiles are Pathetic Always take some jew and make him god or Messiah just like the jesus and kerl marx and know this noam chomsky did you ever wondering why is this all your biggst gods and messiah and your intellectuals from right and left are jewish and you wonder how we the jews call are self the chosen people dont diss this
comment in 100 yreas from know your kids will things that holly histroy just like your Fathers Though't even the arebs belive in a jewish idea of god
ehudnold9 7 months ago
i hate how the cunting bbc also edit answers
FukCommando 8 months ago
Yeah cut out his answers, that's Bull$#!t Broadcast for you!!
bravo45 8 months ago
This is a joke. Chomsky is incredibly thorough, frequently talking for so long that he winds up on a completely different topic. Any fool who is familiar with his regular manner can see that 90% of his response must have been chopped out. Meanwhile this ass hat interviewer prattles on and on. Terrible.
sirmailbox 9 months ago
The interviewer does too much talking. We don't wanna hear what some stuck-up, private school-educated chump has to say; let Chomsky impart his wisdom instead.
DontFlopMusic 10 months ago
@urielrabo you can't even write properly. For future reference it is destroy not destoy. hahahaha
annuitcoeptis2008 11 months ago
Fuck this hartdtalk program..like everyone said..IT IS HEAVILY EDITED!
AGHH! FUCK THIS and the guy who Edited and guy who told him what to edit!
FUCK YOU!
PoChiLamm 1 year ago 3
Shakur's schtick is to create artificial conflict where it often doesn't lie.
Tsnore 1 year ago
@urielrabo have you got a pimple or a boil or something
telboyy 1 year ago
Heavily edited interview, Chomsky has answered similar questions in the past from others and have given a lot longer answers...
HelloimJim 1 year ago
interviewer/editing is quite disgusting...
psbjr 1 year ago
Sackur is so defensive of Obama, And Obama represents a government that doesn't even represent him.
ohfuqyes 1 year ago
you're here to interview Noam, have the world hear what he thinks!!, shut up and let him talk, even if what he says invokes your interruption, it's not a debate it's an interview.
icyicemanicyicy 1 year ago
Sakur seems annoyed that Chomsky refuses to embrace the Obama hype.
phooey108 1 year ago
I couldn't care less what Stephen Sackur thinks about world affairs. So why are all of his long-winded questions left unedited but almost all of Chomsky's replies cut off? Kind of makes me wonder what he went on to say that the BBC didn't like so much.
metalshredder 1 year ago
Stupid abusive interviewer! If you don't want Chomsky to speak why bother inviting him for an interview?
siamco 1 year ago
@jabbaduhut I agree...
would be great to see the unedited version :)
Oreddoh 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now, Chomsky, do I turn to thee, and mark my greeting well; for what I speak my body shall make good upon this earth, or my divine soul answer it in heaven. Thou art a traitor and a miscreant, too good to be so and too bad to live, since the more fair and crystal is the sky, the uglier seem the clouds that in it fly. Once more, the more to aggravate the note, with a foul traitor's name stuff I thy throat; and wish, ere I move, what my tongue speaks my right drawn sword may prove.
GreatGrumbledook 1 year ago
This show is very like what you expect to see on FOX/SKY, I am surprised that the BBC News allowing such blatant ignorant spin,
anthonynewsome 1 year ago 4
@anthonynewsome Why is their spin? Just because he's asking the tough questions? Just because he's making him answer his convictions. Steven Sackur has no spin he attacks people like this from all sides of the political spectrum, watch him attack the leader of UKIP or Geert Wilders or Gene Robinson or Al Gore or anyone, whoever he brings on he attacks, that's a good interviewer in my eyes. In all the years I've watched the show I still have no solid clue of what Sackur actually believes in.
SuperSuperfan 1 year ago
@SuperSuperfan well thanks for your reply about my comments,
to me he is very bad interviewer and I am surprised that the Beeb would produce such a poor show, I watched a few of his interviews and he really is just 'jumping at the bit' without any real argument to put forward, that's my opinion, I have no prob dealing with the fact that U thinking he is amazing and that you are unable to understand what he believes in, it's no big deal, good luck
anthonynewsome 1 year ago
Chomsky's answers seem heavily edited. Sackur's questions do not.
jabbaduhut 2 years ago 39
@jabbaduhut
Very heavily edited. There's no way he'd give such brief answers to a bunch of those questions.
bobwillis 1 year ago
@jabbaduhut Where evidence of that? Everyone seems to bash Sackur but people don't seem to understand that he attacks everyone like this, he makes everyone who comes on his show prove their convictions, and because of this the people who love Chomsky or UKIP or whatever bash him as being biased because they can't accept that their person or party or whatever is flawed in some way. I like Chomsky but I don't believe everything he says, I love Sackur, but I have no clue what he believes in.
SuperSuperfan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jabbaduhut
I am offereing 1.000.000 of my CAPITALISTIC euros to whoeevr is able to explain how Marxist/communist ideas can be realised
WITHOUT ending in
1) TERROR, DICTATORSHIP, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM
2) POVERTY; FAMINES; IN-EFFICIENCY, but in PROSPERITY.
I wopuld even pay another 100.000, if anybody were able to point out to ONE example of where communism/leftist agenda ever worked.
joaquinveyron 3 months ago
Amen to his comments on Obama.
redcommander27 2 years ago
This relatively new Hard Talk presenter must be in need of a pay rise, maybe he's also a victim of the "credit crunch" getting dangerously close to the red.
In short, he must have been under orders for not letting Professor Chomsky talk for more than 1 minute, plus anyone can see by the programs introduction that the same was no more than a cheap exercise in "politically correct slander" and disinformation about the ideas defended by interviewee.
theH0UNDSofD00M 2 years ago
Yes folks, it's called serving an elite agenda and unfortunately most media people are too fond of their paychecks and those who sign them to bother with the truth... which is what journalism is supposed to unveil and uphold.
govlover 2 years ago
why won't this guy let Chomsky answer the questions? Seems kind of rude.
fronde56 2 years ago 33
@fronde56 i think thats becaus the guy is so shamelessly narzisistic. the show is not about the guests, its only about him looking good and soundin sophisticated... just an other media creatur nobody needs...
photopic81 1 month ago
At 7:28 the interviewer suggests that mainstream America does not share Noams beliefs. He is missing the fact that Noam is a Professor of Linguistics at MIT. I would estimate 25% of Americans have not heard of MIT and 75% do not know what Linguistics is. He appears to be just asking a giant list of unrelated questions, that are generally skeptical in nature of Noams political opinions.
thenew45 2 years ago 6