Chomsky on HARDtalk, Nov. 09 (3/3)
August 2, 2010
Noam Chomsky interviewed on the BBC program HARDtalk, during his tour of the United Kingdom in Nov. 2009. Support our work: The Authority Smashing! Hour Weeknights at 8pm www.blogtalkradio.com The show is archived at www.authoritysmashers.wordpress.com
Comments
25 Responses to “Chomsky on HARDtalk, Nov. 09 (3/3)”
Got something to say?
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.
Chomsky is the greatest debater and his logic is rock solid. Pure genius, one of the smartest guys ever. I wish influential people would listen to him… we would all live in a much better world, unfortunately corrupt f***ers continue to rule and spread misery to people all over the world…
CONSIDER YOURSELF SCHOOLED, STEPHEN SACCUR OF THE BBC
Sakur was far too soft on him! Should be called “Soft Talk”!
this guy is brutally honest, love it
@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 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.
@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.
@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
@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.
I think the interviewer is fam more black & white than Chomsky, Chomsky always considers the details., the intervewer just tried to pigeon hole him.
yes this guy is a true dick
what a pathetically juvenile man that interviewer is,
the herd of independant minds strikes again
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.
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.
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.
And I love his quote “The only style of argument is to speak the truth”
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.
for stephen its like going back to school…
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.
I love this man!
Chomsky is definately one of the most gifted intellectuals alive.