Ed Horgan on Prime Time tonight!

by io Thu Jan 19, 2006 20:30

In my opinion Ed Horgan has spoken to the Irish established media many times. & in my opinion any statements he made on the involvement of the FF/PD regime in an illegal war were equally valid "pre-" or "post-" Chomsky. So Ed, my wee bit of advice would be - don't mention the linguist ;-)

by Seamus Thu Jan 19, 2006 20:33

Anyone know if I can see the program on the net at some point, sure other ex pats like myself would love to see this,
Beir bua Ed,
go raibh maith agaibh,
S

by Seán Ryan Thu Jan 19, 2006 20:35

It's time to take the tv outta retirement.

Time to see a gentleman confront a bully.

Fair play to you Ed, and I know you don't need luck.

Sláinte
Seán Ryan

by John Fri Jan 20, 2006 00:00

Rather unfortunate timing for Horgan, given that Bin Laden has popped up today on Al Jazeeera to announce his intention of letting off a nuclear weapon in an American city. Let's just hope the Bush Administration continues to be as successful in thwarting the sewer rat as it has been since 9/11. When the Americans finally capture Bin Laden and transport him back to the U.S. via Shannon, no doubt Horgan will be there demanding that the Gardai storm the plane and free him so he can be granted political asylum in Ireland.

by Margaret Fri Jan 20, 2006 00:41

RTE has posted the entire show here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0119/primetime.html

by Deirdre Clancy - Pitstop Ploughshares Fri Jan 20, 2006 01:56

Well done to Ed - he did well to respond to that Washington yes-man (advisor to both Regean and George W. - what a record).

Mark Little's interview with Chomsky was awful. Little embodied everything Chomsky critiques about the media. He consistently interrupted Chomsky's analyses mid-sentence to make points that were invariably misinformed and spurious. It was clear he had no familiarity with Chomsky's work, or if he had, he managed to hide it very well. I'm still trying to figure out if he glossed over some of the finer nuances of Chomsky's points deliberately or just because he didn't catch them. It was as if Prime Time set out to try to undermine and discredit Chomsky with their report. Ultimately, Little came out of it looking ignorant, flippant and rather unjustifiably arrogant. Where do they get their broadcasters from - the Pat Rabbite school of journalism? The interviewing style reminded me of Chomsky's point about the educated classes often displaying 'intentional ignorance', which he made repeatedly at the Amnesty talk at the RDS.

I did have to wonder, looking at the 2,000 odd people in the RDS, where these people are when they're needed, though (not to mention the 4,000 still on the waiting list). The number estimates I get from activists with regards to the (more recent) marches on Shannon are usually between 200 and 300. I don't get to go myself, being banned from within a five kilometre radius of Shannon Airport as part of my bail conditions, but I trust the numbers are pretty accurate. Where are these people when they're not giving Chomsky standing ovations for pointing out that the US and UK are continually committing war crimes? It's a question that sort of troubles me, as the bodies pile up in Iraq, and as the US military continues to go through Shannon with the blessings of our government and essentially unchallenged by much of our respectable leftist population. I'm not saying everyone should do civil disobedience or risk arrest, and I know not everyone's in a position to do that. I'm just curious as to how so, so many people can pay homage at the feet of a man who speaks the truth about US foreign policy so unambiguously and yet not participate in the anti-war movement in some way, be it large or small.

Another troubling question: people on Prime Time tonight - on both sides of the debate - kept referring to the US government as our 'ally'. Were they aware what they were saying? It's a term that's pretty unambiguous in its meaning, politically.

by cs lewis Fri Jan 20, 2006 03:12

I've always liked Chomskys characterisation of mainstream journalists as 'stenographers to power'. It was kind of thrilling then to see the amatuerish attempt to ambush him on the telly by the cretins from prime time. Mark Little is an arch stenographer, his interview technique is more oprah or gay byrne than paxman but tonight he revealed himself as a dupe, and not a very smart one at that. Prime Times conceit was to introduce the shibboleth of the 'chomsky debate'. This apparently involves Chomsky favouring facts that suit his ideological axe, blaming america, being a friend of tyrants (pol pot, saddam, milosovich...) and being 'outside the mainstream'. A couple of guys talked the professor up and then some sindo creep rolled out the usual fox news rap. All very old hat for chomsky who dispenses with this routine charge sheet regularly for the benefit of sundry, well, stenographers. the real surprise was mark little sitting down to actually 'confront' him with this stuff. Kosovo, america hating and the rest. It was quite embarrassing to see Littel attempt the bill o reilly angle and get slapped around and sweetly set up as someone who 'doesnt like the facts' and so resorts to the above.

Interesting only cos mark little is the guy who got an erection when he met dollar bill clinton and couldnt think of anything to say. I look forward to his next interview with ahern when im sure he will lay on the war criminal stuff as thickly as he tried to get chomsky tonight. he should have read some of the guys books before interviewing him. but hey, Oprah doesnt read. The professsor may be an old bore who encouraged people in the US to vote for Kerry but he didnt sweat too much in showing up rte as a haven for lazy second rate journalism.

by R. Isible Fri Jan 20, 2006 04:34

I didn't like Little's interview but you can't blame him for trying to get Chomsky to say that Bertie Ahern is a war criminal. I don't understand why Chomsky is so elliptical about points like that. I'll say it for him: Ahern is a war criminal that should very possibly be tried and a sentence of life imprisonment kept in view as a suitable punishment. Or possibly we could render him in accordance with the new international laws to somewhere which takes a dimmer view of war criminals.

The contextualisation of the interview in the lead in material (weepy guitar music playing over pictures of what may or may not have been Kosovar Muslims, but not pictures of Iraqi children with their stomachs blown into purple mush by US bombs) was interesting. The false balance: Chomsky is adulated and reviled" gives a misleading impression of fairness. Similarly the assertion that most Westerners believe the bombing of Serbian civilians was a good thing ignores the fact that there is ample evidence (see Diane Johnstone's work) that the NATO command anticipated increased civilian atrocities and then observed it happen. The actual facts are balanced against the personal opinions of David Begg and Mark Little.

On another point: Mark Little during the interview stated that "our American ally" had given "emphatic and unequivocal assurances" that no prisoners being transported through Shannon were being mistreated. Where on earth does Mark Little get that from? Condoleeza Rice's statement was /highly/ equivocal and indirect! Little's assertion and the later clips of Dermot Ahern repeating a similar statement put them in the direct position of responsibility for being the liars on this issue.

Hmmm.... maybe Little should get a few years in jail too?

Still, for all that he's pretty representative of the mainstream media and not that bad compared to some (like the toad journalist who made the completely /unsupported/ assertion that Chomsky was some sort of apologist for Mao, Pol Pot, Hussein etc.)

by Cathal Brennan - SP Fri Jan 20, 2006 09:45

I had been to UCD on Thursday evening to see Chomsky and got to see most of Primetime afterwards. It was truly incredible. Mark Little should be forced to sit down and actually watch the tape of his interview.

When he wasn't interrupting Chomsky and preventing him from answering questions he was asking questions that were so stupid that he either hadn't read anything Chomsky had ever written or he just didn't understand anything he'd read.

It's a shame RTE seems to think that a journalist is somebody with an expensive haircut, who can speak with some measure of gravitas in his voice.

Well done RTE you've excelled yourself once again.

by shannonite Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:34

well done Ed you are an inspiration

by GoodManYerself Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:41

an international commission of inquiry on crimes against humanity committed by the Bush administration, at an event at Riverside Church in New York City. And you can read more about that at BushCommission.org.

Carig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan is one of the people testifying, he has spoken out about CIA and MI6 using false intelligence from Islam Karimov's torture chambers, and CIA jets like N379P making regular trips to Tashkent.
Other witnesses include Brig. Gen Jan Karpinski, the woman who has supposed to be in Charge of Abu Ghraib, until Military Intelligence took over part of it, and started making it more like Guantanamo Bay.
Scott Ritter, retired US Marine Major, and senior UN Weapons Inspector will also testify.

By the way, it seems that another CIA jet, an ATR marked as N212AZ has been using Dublin Airport. Any planepotters up there? OR are the lads in Shannon covering Baldonnel and Dublin too?

by Eoin Dubsky Fri Jan 20, 2006 13:25

.

by Eoin Dubsky Fri Jan 20, 2006 15:46

.

by Brian Fri Jan 20, 2006 17:39

Heres a link to the interview.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0119/primetime.html

What did you think about it?
I thought Mark Little obviously had only read what critics had written about the man. Offering erroneous arguments that have long been discredited yet still are repeated over and over by the main stream media.

He seemed determined to be the journalist who scored a few points off the great Noam Chomsky asking questions in a very glib manner.

That said, it was great to see Professor Chomsky tear Little's points apart. Especially when Little produced a report in his hand only to have Chomsky show he knew more about it off the top of his head then Little did.

However I often wondered about Chomsky's views on Kosovo and it was good to hear more about it.

Also I'm not saying that journalists should throw softballs at interviees, I just think that the opinion of the journalist shouldn't be so blatent. At least the pretense of some level of objectivity should be maintained.

by Seán Ryan Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:53

Found an interesting article from this source:
http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1313928&secid=1

Here's the same story from the Washington post's perspective:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001335.html

Sláinte
Seán

by Seán Ryan Sun Jan 22, 2006 18:59

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer Jr. has been found guilty of negligent homicide in a court-martial, after he had been charged with the murder of Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, a former aide of Saddam, who had surrendered himself to American forces. The court had alleged that Officer Lewis tortured the victim to death.

The LA Times has stepped closer to confirming that the CIA and their methodologies (ie. rubber hoses and all that stuff) were involved. It is alleged the CIA beat this man severely two days before he was killed, and that after the beatings he had to be carried to his cell. The CIA's involvement came to light after a slip up in the trial and the CIA were mentioned. Newshounds all around the globe have since been, putting it together.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate22jan22,0,2449357.story?coll=la-home-nation

This follows, people like Rivkin claiming that the US abides by international law. Thankfully Ed, pointed him out for what he was, RTE would have happily let him off, even after he pointed out the recognised humanity associated with force-feeding, by claiming it to be ok because the British did it to us.

This happened in Iraq, it happened solely in a context that was under American control. A man who surrendered, and who was a soldier, was denied his rights under international law and is now dead.

And that the best the Americans can say of this man is that he was too valuable to be tortured to death.

What does this say of those who are unimportant, those who are sometimes referred to as "collateral?"

Sláinte
Seán

by Our Los Angeles Correspondent - IMC Internationale Sun Jan 22, 2006 19:22

This is being reported on National Public Radio in the US simply, and without commentary, as being the fact that the soldier's defence claimed that he was "confused by misleading signals from higher up the chain of command" and that the general "suffered a heart attack" after the soldier had "smothered him in a sleeping bag", "sat upon him" and "covered his mouth with his hand". The soldier "now faces a potential sentence of a maximum 3 and half years for negligent homicide".

by A10 Sun Jan 22, 2006 22:07

Caroline Coleman when she was interviewing GWB last year used the same RTE Primetime interruption of an answer tactics,and was praised to high heaven as a "brilliant and coreageous"interviewer.Yet when the great God Chomsky is interviewed in the same fashion,Little is accused of being interruptive and asking inane questions. It is anyway a shite way of doing an interview anyway.If you ask a question,let the other answer the question fully,then you can pull his answer to bits.But it seems to be an unique IRISH habit to interrupt halfway therough an answer.Sauce for the goose and all that .You cant have it both ways. Ed Horgan was really pathetic in his interview.He was out manouverd and out gunned by the "Washington Yes man".And then had to resort to insulting his oppo by claiming that Quote"you are a liar." At one point towards the end of the interview.All in all Ed was not very creditable at all.

by Bill Bullen Wed Jan 25, 2006 16:50

I didn't see Little but I saw Coleman. Coleman interrupted Bush because he was not answering her questions. He was spinning homely little yarns largely unrelated to the interview. Was the same true of Chomsky's answers?

by A10 Wed Jan 25, 2006 20:03

If Coleman had let GWB finish his "homely little yarns".She could have not shown herslelf to be
1] a rude ignoramus out to try and make a name for herself.
2]Been much better able to hang GWB by digesting the answer and turning his answers upon him.
3] Chomsky can drone on as well,or do a good Gerry Adams as well.

by munnki - munnki.blogspot.com Mon Aug 21, 2006 18:15 munnki at hotmail dot com

Hey,
was just wondering who the journalist on that primetime interview with Chomsky was that said he
indulged in "apologetics for terror and tyranny". I'm assuming he bases that on what he's heard about Chomsky rather than by actually getting up off his arse and reading some of his work. I'm only in Ireland briefly and his name didn't seem to be tagged onto the broadcast.
Anybody know who he is... he features on that clip, shortly after Michael D Higgins does his high-flown poetry....
Cheers
munnki