Liked her on "TV Nation" too

Over at the invaluable Eschaton , which anyone with manners would have added to the links list ages ago, I noticed the CNN.com transcript of Janeane Garofalo's appearance on Reliable Sources:

[ HOWARD] KURTZ: So why are you putting yourself on the firing line if you feel you are being condescended to?

[JANEANE] GAROFALO: Well, I actually -- it's a drag. I would much rather they talk to Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. I think that would be fantastic, and they certainly know a lot more than I do, but I have access to the media. I have been asked to be on some of these shows, and I for one am not going to let the Bush administration and the mainstream media roll right over me. And I'm not going to go quietly into this war, if we're going into the war, because I vehemently disagree with it and I disagree with a lot of Bush administration foreign policy.

And I feel like if I can give a voice to the millions of Americans who are in the -- who advocate peace and diplomacy, then I feel an obligation to do that.

Guess I could check the Democracy Now archives over at WebActive, or have a look at ZNet -- I'm sure both Chomsky and Zinn have made their opinions on current events clear, but somehow, I've managed to avoid any mentions of them in theliberalmedia. Must be a failing on my part.

Oddly, the first result in a date-sorted Google News search for Howard Zinn is an article in the Montreal Gazette. And the second is from Australia.

I could be tacky and claim the first result for a similar search on Noam Chomsky is also from Canada, but it only mentions him with regards to Mark Achbar, director of Manufacturing Consent.

The first actual mention of Chomsky is from the Guardian.

Insert snarky comment. . . here.

Update: Found at blogdex, there's also a Washington Post article about Janeane's. . . hang on, it's by Howard Kurtz, too. What an amazing coincidence.

But Garofalo isn't kidding when it comes to her disdain for the media: "These same corporate entities have an interest in war, have an interest in profiting from war. They represent corporate America. Corporate America dictates the news we are getting."

Does she really believe that anchors and correspondents are just following company orders? Too many, she says, "are willing to be a mouthpiece for the establishment and for White House propaganda."

While Garofalo believes Saddam Hussein is a menace -- but that U.N. weapons inspectors should be given more time -- she also tosses around the word "imperialism" and declares that "this is a manufactured conflict for the sake of geopolitical dominance in the area.

"There is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. You never even get that idea floated in the mainstream media. If you bring it up, they hate the messenger. You've ruined everyone's good time."

Saying that some/many anchors and correspondents are "mouthpiece[s] for the establishment and for White House propaganda" isn't the same as saying they're "following company orders," in case that's unclear in the quoted bit.

Could'a sworn Dan Rather said something along those lines, but that was many, many news cycles ago, and hardly worth mentioning today.