Did the Guardian smear Noam Chomsky?

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=21&ItemID=9045

Smearing Chomsky - The Guardian In The Gutter

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express my regret: namely, that I did not support Diana Johnstone's right to publish strongly enough when her book was withdrawn by the publisher after dishonest press attacks, which I reviewed in an open letter that any reporter could have easily discovered.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.

Surprising? Hardly. Can't have those ideas gaining popularity!

Would be nice to see Chomsky become the subject of international attention.

Would be nice if Noam replaced Condi, too.


-85%

to the extent that he's even mentioned at all? But that is a particularly obvious and dishonest way to attack him.

... attack on provincial grounds (Hitchens wasn't first on the American Prospect list).

But, this is not the first time that reporters have chosen to do a hatchet job on Chomsky by selectively choosing to mistake his defense of free speech rights as an endorsement of an unpopular view. As I recall, the same thing happened with the book of a Holocaust denier a few years back. Chomsky wasn't promoting the views in the book, but was, instead, defending the writer's right to be heard, however distasteful his message.