Why These Readings Will Give Me a Heart Attack.
February 7, 2009
Politically, I am somewhere on the center-left side and I agree with most of the points that Chomsky makes. Yet, reading his article, New World Order, made me furious. Why? Because it belongs in a newspaper column, not in a university textbook. New World Order is a historic summary of United States’ war efforts, mainly focusing on the Gulf war. Most of the people I know agree that this attack was uncalled for, just like the more recent invasion initiated by Bush Jr. Chomsky is correct. The problem is, though, that he doesn’t convey his message in an objective and distanced way. He conveyed it barking at his enemies and foaming at the mouth. He certainly should have been able to produce a more objective piece of work, he is a respected scientist after all. This leads me to one conclusion: He didn’t write this article to inform those who were unaware. He did it to rally his sympathizers. This is a steamy piece of propaganda. The introduction to the article, written by Joe Kincheloe, only compounds this effect. Kincheloe doesn’t warn the readers that Chomsky is a communist. Instead, he presents him as a genius. There’s nothing wrong with being communist, but if such an important detail is omitted, then perhaps there is more at work here than simply informing students about facts. To be honest, I’ve been getting this feeling throughout all the chapters of this book. Big words like ‘oppression’, ‘minority’ and ‘tyranny’ are no different from words like ‘terrorist’, ‘freedom’ or ‘patriotism’.
I touched on this topic with Nicole Fiore in class today, and she said that Chomsky’s article meant to point out that very few of the facts he mentioned were ever publically discussed in the American media. This is a good point. It doesn’t justify Chomsky’s rage, but I’m willing to accept it. Still, this doesn’t change the fact, that the entire “media literacy A Reader” appears to be a brick of facts that were skewed with an agenda in mind. I don’t think that this book encourages any kind of critical thinking at all. Instead, I believe it’s a brainwashing tool to convert students toward the author’s way of thinking. Calling this critical pedagogy gives me the creeps. After all, the point of critical pedagogy is not to tell the students about everything that’s wrong with our society. Forcing a political agenda onto the students under the pretext of education is not only morally wrong, but it is also a horrendous crime against schooling everywhere. If the students are to build the society of the future, they should be the ones who decide what’s wrong with it and what isn’t, not the teachers. This is why classes that use critical pedagogy should always give both sides of the story and allow the students to make up their own minds.
By the way, In terms of critical pedagogy, bashing the Bush presidency is a somewhat moot point. After all, critical pedagogy is supposed to prepare us for the future, yet the Bush presidency is now a thing of the past (thank God!).
Since we’re on the topic of oppression and media…
(<3 Onion)
Note to teacher: This blog server uses a different timezone, and it’s 3 hours ahead. It’s actually still before midnight here!
