Bulletin 209
Subject: ON
THE CHARGES OF FALSIFICATION OF A RECENT INTERVIEW WITH NOAM CHOMSKY
PUBLISHED
IN THE
5 November
2005
Grenoble, France
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
We just received information from Boston and from Paris about the
scandal at
the London
Guardian, which printed on 31 October
Placing this scandal in a global framework, one might ask, at this
"progressive" moment in history when a U.S. President is very likely
to take a fall for his illegal policies and his general incompetence,
could
there be an organized effort on the part of corporate interests
(including
newspaper interests) to exclude radical criticism from the debate, by
simply
discrediting radical social scientists? Professor Chomsky's consistent "critiques of un-critical
criticism" could represent a major obstacle to light-weight
establishment criticisms of the Bush Administration which serve the
interests
of the status-quo, in editorials, for example, found in the New
York
Times or in the
The
political context of this recent defamation of Noam
Chomsky by Emma Brockes is
important to examin, if we are to grasp
its meaning
as a institutional policy decision, and not
simply as
a wild career move on the part of a young and ambitious reporter.
We invite
our readers to look at item A. below, in which
David Edward gives a brief account the history of this attempt
at
character assassination which was published in the London Guardian.
Edward concludes his account of this scandal with a call to action
: he encourages readers to demand that the Guardian
editors be
held accountable.
Item B. is
a copy of Diana
Johnstone's
response to
the libel against her which is found in the same Guardian
article by Brockes when distorting her
interview with Professor
Chomsky.
Sincerely,
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research
Université Stendhal-Grenoble
III
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/
_________________
A.
from David Edwards :
November 04, 2005
www.medialens.org
Introduction
On October 31, the Guardian published an interview with Noam Chomsky by Emma Brockes,
'The
greatest intellectual?' (The Guardian, October 31, 2005).
The article was ostensibly in response to the fact that Chomsky had
been voted
the world's top public intellectual by Prospect magazine the previous
week.
Chomsky describes his treatment by the paper as "one of the most
dishonest
and cowardly performances I recall ever having seen in the media".
(Email
copied to Media Lens, November 2, 2005)
The headline introduction to the article was:
"Q: Do you regret supporting those who say the Srebrenica massacre was
exaggerated?
"A: My only regret is that I didn't do it strongly enough."
Remarkably, and very foolishly, this answer attributed to Chomsky was
actually
in response to a different question posed during the interview. In a
letter to
the editor published in the Guardian on November 2, Chomsky explained:
"I did express my regret: namely, that I did not support Diana Johnstone's right to publish strongly enough
when her book
was withdrawn by the publisher after dishonest press attacks, which I
reviewed
in an open letter that any reporter could have easily discovered. The
remainder
of Brockes's report continues in the same
vein. Even
when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I
take no
responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they
appear.
"As for her personal opinions, interpretations and distortions, she is
of
course free to publish them, and I would, of course, support her right
to do
so, on grounds that she makes quite clear she does not understand.
Noam Chomsky" ('Falling out over
Srebrenica,' The
Guardian, November 2, 2005)
This is how Brockes presented the
discussion in her
article:
"Does he [Chomsky] regret signing it [a letter in support of Johnstone's work]?
"'No,' he says indignantly. 'It is outstanding. My only regret is that
I
didn't do it strongly enough. It may be wrong; but it is very careful
and
outstanding work.'"
Brockes's headline mis-matching
of questions with answers in this way is a genuine scandal - a depth of
cynicism to which even mainstream journalism rarely sinks.
In the third paragraph of the article, Brockes
wrote
that Chomsky's "conclusions remain controversial", namely:
"that practically every US president since the second world war has
been
guilty of war crimes; that in the overall context of Cambodian history,
the
Khmer Rouge weren't as bad as everyone makes out; that during the
Bosnian war
the 'massacre' at Srebrenica was probably overstated. (Chomsky uses
quotations
marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it
can come
across less as academic than as witheringly
teenage;
like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.)"
We wrote to Brockes:
"What is the source for your claim that Chomsky has
disagreed with the idea that there was a massacre at Srebrenica? Where,
for
example, has he used quotation marks in referring to the massacre?"
(Email, November 2, 2005)
It is an important question because Chomsky is adamant that no such
source
exists. He wrote to us of Brockes:
"... her piece de resistance, the claim that I put the word 'massacre'
in quotes.
Sheer fabrication. She and the editors know
perfectly
well that there is nothing like that in print, or anywhere, certainly
not in
the interview: people don't speak with quotation marks. That's why they
allowed
her to refer vaguely to the phrase she invented, so as to insinuate
that it is
in print -- which she knows, and the editors know, is a lie. Just ask
them to
produce the source". (Email to Media Lens, November 2, 2005)
We have received no reply from Brockes.
It took just minutes searching the internet for us to
find
numerous quotes that flatly contradict Brockes's
claims. For example, in his January/February 2005 article, 'Imperial
Presidency,' Chomsky described the November 2004 US assault on Falluja as involving "war crimes for which the
political
leadership could be sentenced to death under US law". He added:
"One might mention at least some of the recent counterparts that
immediately come to mind, like the Russian destruction of
Clearly, then, Chomsky considers Srebrenica nothing less than a
counterpart to
crimes "for which the political leadership could be sentenced to death
under
Similarly, on p.208 of his book Hegemony or Survival (Hamish Hamilton,
2003),
Chomsky also refers to the Srebrenica massacre - no quotation marks
were used
either there or in the index.
These are not the words of someone who insists in "witheringly
teenage" fashion: "Srebrenica was so not a massacre." They are
not the words of someone who believes that the term massacre should be
placed
between quotation marks in describing Srebrenica. And yet this is what Brockes claimed in a national newspaper.
So why has Brockes not replied to our
challenge? Is
she unable to answer? If so, is the Guardian not morally obliged to
correct
this slur, or to allow it be corrected in full by Chomsky? Why have the
Guardian's editor Alan Rusbridger, and the
paper's
ombudsman, Ian Mayes, also refused to answer repeated emails from us
and
others?
Chomsky's critics are ever-present in Brockes's
piece, his admirers notably absent. The critics claim that Chomsky
"plugs
the gaps in his knowledge with ideology". We learn that "of all the
intellectuals on the Prospect list, it is Chomsky who is most often
accused of
miring a debate in intellectual spam, what the writer Paul Berman calls
his
'customary blizzard of obscure sources'".
Book reviewer George Scialabba commented
on the
"obscure sources" criticism in The Nation:
"After the Indochina war, Berman writes, Chomsky had no way to explain
the
atrocities in
Scialabba explained that what Chomsky and
Edward
Herman actually set out to do in The Political Economy of Human Rights
was
"to show how differently the crimes of official enemies are treated in
mainstream American media and scholarship than are those of official
allies or
of
But Berman is hardly alone in misrepresenting The Political Economy of
Human
Rights, Scialabba noted: "Dealing fairly
with
the book's argument requires a modicum of discrimination, attention to
detail
and polemical scruple, courtesies rarely accorded Chomsky by his
critics."
(Scialabba, 'Clash of Visualizations,' The Nation, April 28, 2003)
And certainly not by Brockes
in the
Guardian.
In reality, what is so impressive about Chomsky is that he relies on
impeccable
sources - recognised authorities in their
fields,
released government documents, establishment journals and the like -
all
meticulously referenced so that readers can check his accuracy for
themselves.
It cannot be any other way, as Chomsky has noted many times -
dissidents
challenging established power +must+ achieve far higher standards of
evidence
and argument than mainstream writers because they are guaranteed to be
targeted
for fierce attack.
Brockes asked Chomsky if he had a "share
portfolio". Chomsky "looks cross", we are told. From her lofty
peak of wisdom and virtue, Brockes advised
one of the
world's most principled and selfless opponents of oppression: "people
don't like being told off about their lives by someone they consider a
hypocrite".
Carefully Paired Letters
On November 1, the Guardian
published
two letters intended to support Chomsky. Chomsky comments:
"I have to say that these letters disturb me as much or more than the
original deceit -- which worked, as the letters show. Both writers
assume that
there is a 'debate,' as the editors falsely claimed, in which I
question the
massacre (or as they pretend, 'massacre') in Srebrenica. That is all
fabrication, as the editors know well. They labored mightily to create
the
impression of a debate in which I take the position they assigned to
me, and
have succeeded. Now I'm stuck with that, even though it is a deceitful
invention of theirs." (Email copied to Media Lens, November 3, 2005)
As noted above, Chomsky was allowed a letter in response to Brockes's
article on November 2. On the same day, the Guardian was fortunate to
be able
to publish an ideal letter by a survivor from
We asked the editor and the comment editor if anyone associated with
the
Guardian had in any way solicited this letter - we have received no
reply.
The paper also provided a link to an interactive guide titled "Massacre
at
Srebrenica". ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,474564,00.html)
Chomsky comments on this sordid
affair:
"Someone sent me the letter the Guardian printed
[November
2], paired very carefully with a letter from a survivor from Bosnia,
which, as
the editors certainly know, is based entirely on lies in the faked
'interview'
they published.
"Same with their title: 'Falling out over Srebrenica.' There was no
Srebrenica debate, and they know it perfectly well. I never mentioned
it,
except to repeatedly try to explain to Brockes
that I
opposed the withdrawal of Johnstone's book
under
dishonest press attacks that were all lies, as I showed in the open
letter I
mentioned. And it had nothing to do with the scale of the Srebrenica
massacre,
as again they all know.
"As I think I wrote you, their legal department insisted that I delete
the
word 'fabrication,' [from Chomsky's November 2 letter to the Guardian]
and I
agreed. Mistakenly I now realize, after seeing how low they can sink. I
should
have insisted on the word 'fabrication,' and given the most obvious
example:
her piece de resistance, the claim that I put the word 'massacre' in
quotes. Sheer fabrication. She and the
editors know perfectly well
that there is nothing like that in print, or anywhere, certainly not in
the
interview: people don't speak with quotation marks. That's why they
allowed her
to refer vaguely to the phrase she invented, so as to insinuate that it
is in
print -- which she knows, and the editors know, is a lie. Just ask them
to
produce the source. Apparently that's OK by the standards of their
legal
department, and their journalistic ethics.
"As for LM [Living Marxism magazine], it had nothing to do with
Srebrenica
at all, as they know perfectly well. Rather, with a photograph of an
emaciated
person behind barbed wire elsewhere in
Noam" (Email to Media Lens, November 2, 2005)
Although the Prospect poll was largely a joke, it did bring Chomsky's
name to
the attention of thousands of people who would otherwise never have
heard of
him. But anyone who read Emma Brockes's
article in
the Guardian can only have come away with one conclusion about Chomsky.
Namely,
that he is an idiot - an angry, flaky fanatic given to denying obvious
crimes
against humanity.
This is one of the most shocking and appalling media smears we have
seen - and
we have been shocked and appalled many times in the past.
We spend our time well when we reflect that the source is not some
rabid,
right-wing, Murdoch organ but this country's "leading liberal
newspaper" - the Guardian.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality,
compassion and
respect for others. When writing emails to journalists, we strongly
urge
readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Ask the Guardian to provide the source for Brockes's
claim that "Srebrenica was so not a massacre" in Chomsky's view. Ask
them why they have so far failed to respond to emails.
Write to Emma Brockes
Email: Emma.Brockes@guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger
Email: Alan.Rusbridger@guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian readers' editor Ian Mayes
Email: ian.mayes@guardian.co.uk
Write to Guardian comment editor Seumas
Milne
Email: Seumas.milne@guardian.co.uk
Please copy all emails to Media Lens:
Email: editor@medialens.org
___________________
B.
from Diana
Johnstone :
November 5, 2005
To: The Editors of The Guardian
I have belatedly learned of
the
October 31 interview with Noam Chomsky by
Emma Brockes, in which my name appeared
(misspelled) three
times. I would like to correct that minor mistake as well as a few more
significant ones.
The most basic underlying
distortion
is to present Professor Chomsky's defense of free expression as a
defense of
particular statements or ideas. A related distortion is to
misrepresent
such statements and ideas.
As a young star reporter, on
the
heady assignment of ridiculing a man with the stature of Chomsky, Ms Brockes was obviously not required to check
facts or to
know much of anything about the subjects she raised in her interview.
One of these was the famous
"thin man behind barbed wire" photo taken by ITN in August 1992,
which became the emblem of the war in
the wire fence. Deichmann called
this "the
photo that fooled the world".
Ms Brockes
writes that the LM report was "proven" to be false in a court of law.
In fact, ITN put LM out of
business
by winning a libel suit against the magazine. But due to the quaint
nature of
British libel law, the decisive issue in
court was NOT
the truth about the wire fence. Rather, it was whether or not the ITN
reporters
had "deliberately" sought to deceive the public. The issue become one of intentions and emotions. The
judge, in
his summing up, acknowledged that the ITN team reporters were mistaken
as to
who was enclosed by the old barbed-wire fence, adding, "but
does it
matter?" The jury decided it did not.
I never said anything about
the
intentions of the ITN journalists. In my book, "Fools' Crusade"
(Pluto Press, 2002), I refer to the famous "thin man behind barbed
wire" photo, to point out the way the photo was interpreted by world
media
to create the impression that what was happening in Bosnia was a
repetition of
the Nazi Holocaust. According to what I have read, Ms Brockes'
colleague Ed Vulliamy himself, who
accompanied the
ITN team, also objected to the way the media used the Trnopolje
photo to liken
Bosnian camps to Nazi death camps.
It is not clear which
"controversy"
Ms Brockes is referring to when she writes
that
"the controversy flared up again" when I "made similar
allegations in a Swedish magazine, Ordfront".
Which allegations? Ordfront interviewed me
as part of
a long feature article on media "lies" about
Ms Brockes
neglects to mention my book, or the fact that publication of my book,
and not some
hypothetical statement about some particular fact, was what Chomsky --
among
others -- defended.
Neither I nor Professor Chomsky have ever
denied that
Muslims were the main victims of atrocities and massacres committed in
works as a sort of emotional blackmail.
If some of us dare expose
ourselves
to such distressing accusations, it is simply because we believe that
the
single-minded focus on particular massacres, and the hasty application
of the
term "genocide", is exploited to justify military intervention which
occurs only when it suits United States geopolitical purposes and which
on
balance makes bad situations worse. Prevention of an imaginary
"genocide" in Kosovo was the pretext for the
Current issues of war and
peace are
matters of importance which should be the object of serious public
debate,
instead of being treated as sacred dogma, from which any deviation is
condemned
as heresy.
*********************
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professor of American Studies/
Director of Research
Université Stendhal-Grenoble
III
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/