Bloggrokker (Scott) Herman & Chomsky & Borat

Alright, I went and saw Borat the other day and it turns out theorists are still lurking in the shadows of darkened theatres whenever I go. This time around, things dovetailed comfortably with the Herman/Chomsky reading and the exploits of Kazakhstan's most culturally-skewed media personality, Borat Sagdiyev. Sacha Baron Cohen's rendering of a post-millennial "other," a media-warped Central Asian innocent(?) abroad and in search of an America rolled up in an SNL skit, "to make benefit for the great state of Kazakhstan," and finding the ongoing SNL skit that is America, an America replete with Jesus-drunk faith healers, jingoistic uber-patriotism, and the Pamela Anderson sex tape.
(A brief headscratcher regarding the film's--highly satirized, I'd hope--rendition of the Kazakhstani National Anthem. I'll respect the spirit of adventuresome moviegoing and not let anything leak here concerning this anthem, but I'm just wondering if it qualifies as commentary supplanting authority if the Althusserian cultural ISA of a film--even a more-or-less potentially-perceived subversive film such as Borat--can project the likes of such unofficial commentary. I see a similarity to when The Simpsons premiered one hundred years ago, and similar thoughts regarding its subversive power when this power operates under the influence of the ultra-conservative Murdochian Fox Gang. Or it could just be spoofery, I mean parody, no, wait, pastiche is the po-moism I'm looking for.)
Borat and Herman/Chomsky, you ask?
It centers around the Said-esque concept of alterity, the ability to see the culturally-distant "other."
Herman and Chomsky write that, in order to avoid upsetting deep-pocketed advertisers, "the commercial television drama 'deals almost wholly with the here and now, as processed through advertising budgets,' but on public television, culture "has come to mean 'other cultures' . . . American civilization, here and now, is excluded from consideration."
In the film, Borat is a documentary filmmaker for Kazakhstani television, the "other" let loose in America--an "other" who has severe problems with alterity, such as his perceptions of Jews as literal demons and shape-shifters, a comic reflection of unfortunately real beliefs in Central Asian and Muslim states of Jews as inhuman nether-creatures. And, sad to say or not, I did laugh hard during a sequence that drew such wrong beliefs to ridiculous lengths. Irreverance is the path to freedom, someone once told me.
Anyway, Borat, coming from an iron-fisted bureaucratic state rather than an advertiser-dominant media-culture, knows no desire to bend to capitalist demands. Borat is free to deal in the "here and now" in America, although perhaps not in his home state; for the Kazakhstani documentarian, American civilization is put under consideration, and the Jesus freaks, Bush patriots and the future artifacts of celebrity pornography fall out like the candy from a ruptured pinata.
In Kazkhstan, too, we can assume there's no division separating commercial and public tv; there is only state tv--an Althusserian ISA brushing up close to a Repressive SA, nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
In Borat, we see a farcical "other" in control of the means of dissemination, and the culture which normally determines the "other" under scrutiny. As to the ways in which this adds to the film's lunacy, well, Borat is, depite its effective look--Kazakhstani subtitles retitled in English, Kazakhstani state crests, old Soviet-era stock footage, etc.--a U. S. production.
As for Herman and Chomsky and their take on public tv's bent toward "other cultures," I'd like to ask 'em if they've ever seen PBS's Frontline. C'mon, guys, no program lifts the lid from the home sewer and peers inside like Frontline does.
Frontline's kinda like Borat, if you stretch it enough.