Madam, - No political analysis, idea or philosophy should be immune from criticism and rational debate and the work of Noam Chomsky is no exception. Even his most fervent admirers should welcome reasoned and articulate scrutiny of his work, for no man is infallible. But in the area of media manipulation, surely his thesis that we are all subject to a relentless campaign of subtle propaganda and skewed narratives is self-evidently true.
This is particularly obvious in media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where two tactics are employed by a generally compliant media.
First there is the manipulation of language. The normal rules for covering military conflicts do not apply. Israeli invasions are referred to as "operations". Israeli soldiers are not captured, they are "kidnapped". All Palestinian militias are called "militants", even though taking up arms in the face of decades of violent occupation is hardly a militant stance.
The undoubtedly heinous acts of terrorism committed by Palestinians, such as the murder of settlers, get wide coverage. Yet this week's Israeli bombing of bridges and power stations are never referred to as terrorism even though the destruction of civilian infrastructure with the aim of intimidating a government or people amounts to terrorism in all accepted definitions of the term.
The second tactic identified by Chomsky is the containment of awkward truths. Inconvenient facts get limited coverage and are not highlighted in the mass media. For example, on June 28th you reported that Fatah and Hamas had agreed on a plan which implicitly recognises Israel and limits resistance attacks to the West Bank.
This is a major move forward by Palestinians but a limited report on page 12 of a paper of record is unlikely to be noticed by the wider public.
Most other media outlets have given this breakthrough even less coverage or none at all, because it upsets the cosy consensus of Israeli "defence" versus Palestinian "militancy".
- Yours, etc,
PAUL CARROLL, Churchfield, Clane, Co Kildare.