Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

At a certain point in time, this particular concept was truly mind-blowing.

However, in today's context, it has become almost stiflingly obvious.

The system of propaganda that is outlined here could likely be better grasped with just a quick YouTube video or a single-class explanation.

Nevertheless, what "Manufacturing Consent" does is painstakingly showcase, by using a wide variety of important examples, just how real this system truly is.

That being said, this isn't a book that one comes to in order to learn about something entirely new. Instead, it is more about helping to confirm what one may already suspect or have a hunch about.

It serves as a valuable resource for those who want to have a deeper understanding and verification of the existence and functioning of this propaganda system.

Overall, "Manufacturing Consent" offers a detailed and thought-provoking exploration of this significant topic.

When I was studying political science during my undergrad circa 98 - 02, I had a little button that I wore for years. It simply said ‘Read more Chomsky’.

I’ve read many of his books, but nothing in at least 15 years. So I decided it was time to return to that button's advice.

Picking up Manufacturing Consent, a book on my bookshelf that has been there for years without having been read, was like enjoying a bottle of my favourite wine that I haven't drunk in eons. It's just so good! So smart! I love the arguments and how it is broken down! Yes, it's old, even though I read the 2002 new intro version, but it doesn't matter. The arguments are sound. With the existing North American media landscape, it is even more relevant than ever.

This is a book that I fantasize that every single person involved in media, communications, journalism and political science should have as mandatory reading during their BA. Imagine how the collective consciousness of our societies would rise. I dare dream what a better world it would be if everyone read a bit more Chomsky.

A very thorough and comprehensive account is presented on how "media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them." This aspect is explored in great detail, shedding light on the complex relationship between the media and those in power.

The weak point of the book, however, is that the examples it discusses are rather old, such as those related to Laos, Cambodia, and Nicaragua. This makes one doubt whether the book will be accessible to Gen Y or younger generations. The 2002 edition that was read does have a new introduction with more recent discussions, but it seems that the book requires a complete new edition to remain relevant and engaging for the current audience.

Although the book is from a pre-internet world, it is even more relevant now. In the case of the Kim Dotcom situation in NZ, it became evident how poor the actual reporting had become. Not a single mainstream media organization provided any context to the case. As a result, the general public opinion was that "If the FBI want him he must be a bad guy and the NZ government is entitled to break the law, and lie about it, in order to catch bad guys." The Gen Y kids being taught have no knowledge about this issue and don't seem to care, which is quite disturbing. At times, one even finds oneself unexpectedly turning into one's grandfather.

Listen, it's an important book. However, Noam and Herman are my literal nightmare in terms of their writing style. Their work is so incredibly boring. It's as if they put me to sleep with their dull and unengaging prose. But despite that, their ideas are still super important and represent a real step towards class consciousness. We can't ignore the significance of their work just because the reading experience isn't the most exciting. #slaynoah

It is a sin against the democratic socialist gods to award anything with Chomsky's name on it just two stars, yet here we are.

There is absolutely nothing amiss with this book, its methodology, or its final conclusions. However, if you have perused Chomsky's other literary works or tuned in to his interviews, you are already well-acquainted with the contents of this particular volume.

I had anticipated a more essay-style approach to writing, along with in-depth pondering about propaganda in the mass media, which would be intertwined with the empirical work presented in this book. Regrettably, I was left with only 10 pages in the conclusion that somewhat fulfilled this desire.

All in all, it is not a bad book by any means, but it simply did not meet my specific expectations. It seems that Chomsky's ideas, while still relevant and thought-provoking, may have become somewhat repetitive for those who are already well-versed in his body of work.

Nevertheless, for those who are new to Chomsky's perspectives, this book could serve as a useful introduction to his views on various aspects of society and media.

I read the first chapter of this book in college as part of an assignment. I found the thesis profound: state propaganda doesn't necessarily need a conspiracy to control the media. Certain aspects of the media itself can lead to the same result without state oversight. It lists five such aspects:

"The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news 'filters,' fall under the following headings: (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and 'experts' funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) 'flak' as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) 'anticommunism' as a national religion and control mechanism."

This was a perspective I hadn't considered before. Since then, I always intended to read the whole book, and now, 20 years later, I finally did. I'm surprised how little this book has to do with the media. The vast majority of it is a painfully boring account of American foreign relations in the 60s and 70s. Maybe it's because of how long ago it was, but I think it's mostly because the writing is just not engaging.

There aren't exactly any "smoking guns" in this book. There is no evidence of media companies overtly censoring some stories and promoting others based on the five filters, as one might expect. Really, all this book does is tell stories that were mostly ignored by the mainstream media and shouldn't have been. It merely looks at the effects and claims they are in line with what we'd expect from the proposed propaganda model. The motive for why these stories weren't covered by the press is simply assumed.

Also, now that I'm older and have more experience with the media and politics, I think Herman and Chomsky are overlooking some things. For one thing, he laments the lack of the perspective of the "radical press." In my 20s, I might have called that censorship, but now I can think of a much better reason these perspectives aren't heard: they're crazy. Keeping out radical nut jobs is not censorship any more than not teaching creationism in schools is Christian persecution. Discredited nonsense has no place in the news. I think there's already too much of this crazy stuff in the media as it is.

Probably the highlight of this book is the discussion of the Vietnam War. There are many false or incomplete impressions Americans have of this war. One is that "the media lost the war." This book points out that America "lost" the war only if you define "lost" as "didn't complete 100% of their objectives." In fact, most of our objectives were achieved. Moreover, the media's role at the end of the war tends to overshadow its role at the beginning, which was extremely supportive of the war. So, even if it's true that the media lost the war, it's also partly the media that got us into the mess in the first place.

Finally, the biggest regret people have about Vietnam, and the media also conveys, is the cost of the war effort, not that aggression is wrong. The end of the chapter sums this up nicely:

"The more significant and instructive point is that principled objection to the war as 'fundamentally wrong and immoral,' or as outright criminal aggression--a war crime--is inexpressible. It is not part of the spectrum of discussion. The background for such a principled critique cannot be developed in the media, and the conclusions cannot be drawn. It is not present even to be refuted. Rather, the idea is unthinkable."

I wouldn't say it's unthinkable, but it is a good point nonetheless. I've heard regrets about the financial costs and the American lives lost, but rarely do people worry about the Vietnamese costs and lives lost, including civilians. It tends to be described more as wasteful than immoral.

I think Herman and Chomsky overlook the biggest media filters: pandering and sensationalism. These make the media behave like propaganda in some cases, but like an echo chamber in all cases. People want to hear their beliefs reflected back to them, and they want lots of drama. They find this very entertaining and comforting. The media follows the public opinion trends of the times very closely and always tries to reflect the current fads.

This, I believe, better explains the media's behavior during the Vietnam War: at first, people supported the war effort, so the media did too. When people started protesting the war, that's when the media started showing them graphic images of Americans dying. They're showing them what they want to see. Only when people support the war effort will the media behave like propaganda. So it's only a part-time propaganda machine, but it's a full-time pandering machine.

It's a feedback loop. The media panders to public opinion, then people see their opinions reflected in the media, and they feel that confirms what they already thought. Then, if they start doubting their original stance, the media follows along obediently. Herman and Chomsky focus on the way the media shapes public opinion but ignore the ways public opinion shapes the media.

I was amazed by the turn of events after 9/11, for example. One minute, the media is talking about terrorism, WMDs, and giving George W. Bush extensive air time, and the next minute, they're talking about Bush's war crimes. Only when the people are supportive of the military does the media tend to fit the propaganda model that Herman and Chomsky talk about.

One of the filters Herman and Chomsky mention is "'anticommunism' as a national religion and control mechanism." While this is true, it's even more true that communism is a national religion and control mechanism. I think of the cold war, McCarthyism, and Vietnam as all part of a religious war. More and more, I'm starting to notice all the ways political ideologies operate like religion. People say you should avoid discussing religion and politics, and there's a reason these topics are so divisive: they both evoke our tribal instincts. I'm right, you're wrong, so you must die. It's for the good of The People/The Chosen Ones/God's Children. Instead of exposing politics as religion, Herman and Chomsky are really just fighting for their own religion. They miss the bigger underlying psychology at work.

Still, I'd rather live in a world with Chomsky in it than not. He raises unpopular perspectives, and he bases them on a lot of data. I'm not sure I could say I'm glad I finally read this book, as I didn't get much out of it, but at least now I won't be wondering about it anymore.

P96 E25 H47 2002 College Library Rm 1191 and Memorial Library

Here's how George H.W. Bush manufactured consent to his 1991 Iraq war: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/12/...

In 1991, the situation in the Middle East was complex. George H.W. Bush, the then President of the United States, had his own motives for launching the Iraq war.

He used various means to try to gain the support and consent of the American people and the international community.

One of the ways was through the media. He presented the war as a necessary action to protect the interests of the United States and its allies, as well as to uphold international law and order.

However, critics argue that the real reasons for the war were more about oil and geopolitical interests.

The war had a significant impact on the lives of the Iraqi people and the stability of the region.

To this day, the question of whether the war was just and necessary remains a topic of debate.

By examining how Bush manufactured consent, we can gain a better understanding of the complex political and historical context of the 1991 Iraq war.

**Expanded Article**

Once, I was employed at a market research firm specializing in print media. There, I gained a wealth of knowledge. For instance, I discovered that there are magazines and journals catering to every conceivable niche, ranging from fly-fishing to industrial food-processing equipment, and from alpaca farming to professional clown associations. One particular magazine for yacht owners taught me an important lesson about wealth inequality. However, all the magazines impressed upon me the significance of ad revenue. I had naively believed that publications generated income solely from subscriptions. But in reality, readers are more like television viewers than true customers; they serve as an audience for advertisers to target.

Convenient mythologies require neither evidence nor logic.

It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to recognize that this must have an impact on the actual content of the articles. After all, if a publication aims to make money by selling, say, Home Depot ads, it will be reluctant to criticize the home improvement industry. Yet, this is just one of the factors that Herman and Chomsky identify as influencing media coverage. Not only are publications directly funded by large corporations, but they are also often owned by them.

Then there are logistical considerations. If a publication must maintain its credibility while producing a sufficient volume of 'important' news, it needs a reliable source of information. Sending investigative reporters to every corner of the world is not cost-effective. Instead, media outlets have developed symbiotic relationships with government agencies, often simply reprinting press releases with a few explanatory comments. This benefits both parties, as the news outlets obtain reputable and newsworthy information, while the government agency can directly shape the narrative.

But perhaps the most powerful influence, especially when it comes to foreign affairs, is the invisible force of patriotism. A coworker of mine had a cartoon on his locker that neatly summed this up. My brave explorer is your bloodthirsty invader, my freedom fighters are your insurgents, my noble traditions are your barbaric rites, and so on. Humans have an almost irresistible tendency to apply a double standard when group loyalty is involved. We always see ourselves as the good guys in the story.

When you combine psychological bias, economic incentives, and structural inducements, you get what the authors aptly term propaganda. This is not propaganda in the traditional sense, with the government actively writing, screening, and approving news stories. Instead, it is a system where the boundaries of debate are set within an acceptable range, and certain events are considered important while others are ignored. In other words, it is a system of assumptions about what is newsworthy, what is outrageous, and what is acceptable. The authors call this description of media activity the “propaganda model,” and they set out to prove it.

Manufacturing Consent has achieved classic status not because of its complex theorizing, but because of its well-documented case studies on media bias. The first case study, a comparison of the media treatment of the murder of Jerzy Popieluszko, a Polish priest, and the killings of several religious personnel in Latin America, is perhaps the most convincing. Popieluszko's murder by communist police received extensive and enthusiastic media coverage, while the deaths of activist nuns, priests, and archbishops in El Salvador and Guatemala were reported only intermittently and in a relatively dry manner. This is especially ironic, as the authors point out, since Popieluszko's killers were brought to justice, while the vast majority of the murders in Latin America led to no convictions or even investigations.

The reason for this disparity is not hard to find. It is politically advantageous, not to mention emotionally satisfying, to focus on the atrocities of our enemies (in this case, the Soviets), while it is politically damaging to consider that our own country may be condoning or sponsoring similar acts of terror. The double standard also appears in elections. As the authors convincingly show, the US media went to great lengths to praise flawed elections in US-backed El Salvador and Guatemala, while questioning the validity of much fairer elections in adversarial Nicaragua.

The book concludes with two long chapters on the Indochina conflicts (the Vietnam War and its aftermath). These chapters are particularly powerful because they challenge the popular narrative of how media coverage influenced the war. The conventional wisdom is that the media, by showing Americans the true brutality of the war, effectively 'lost' the war by eroding public support. However, the authors demonstrate that the objections to the war presented in the mass media were primarily concerned with whether it was 'worth it' – whether the US was gaining or losing from the endeavor – rather than whether it was ethical in the first place. There are many other examples of this bias, such as the discussion of the use of Agent Orange in the press as a hazard to American troops, rather than as a war crime or a chemical weapon, and the consistent avoidance of the lack of support for American involvement among the South Vietnamese. The authors ultimately conclude that the media's portrayal of the war's progress was more positive than the government's own internal briefings.

Although the authors are persuasive, I can't help but wonder if their analysis still holds true today. The media misdeeds they analyzed occurred during the Cold War, when the US had a clear enemy to defeat. Shortly after the book was published, the Soviet Union collapsed, but soon America had a new enemy in Islamic terrorism. This threat now seems to be receding from public consciousness, and most Americans no longer have such a strong us-versus-them mentality towards the wider world. Without this evil adversary, does the mainstream media still employ such an obvious double standard?

One major flaw in this book is its almost exclusive focus on foreign affairs, which I suspect is of secondary importance to most voters. The only exception is a brief section comparing the media treatment of Watergate, which targeted the elite Democrats, and the simultaneous revelation that the FBI had been actively interfering with and harassing the socialist party for years. The former was a major scandal, while the latter hardly registered in the public's awareness. However, I would have liked a more in-depth analysis of how issues in, for example, presidential elections are framed by the media.

Another shortcoming is the authors' narrow focus on proving their thesis rather than offering solutions. While the reader is convinced by the end of the double standard applied by the media in foreign affairs, we are left without any clear idea of how to address this problem. Their account of media bias could have been balanced by looking at organizations that manage to do a better job and analyzing how they achieve this. Without this, or even a list of sources that the authors themselves find useful, the reader is left feeling confused and despondent.

The closest the authors come to imagining a solution is their call for more democratically controlled media. Thanks to a technological miracle, we now find ourselves in this situation: almost anyone can upload videos and pictures, write articles and blogs, and potentially reach a wide audience. However, the evidence as to whether this has been a good thing is rather ambiguous.

To me, it seems that the democratization of the media has led to both the greater dissemination of truth and falsehood. On the one hand, the growing awareness of police brutality would probably not have been possible without people being able to capture and upload videos, providing citizens with shocking and undeniable evidence of violence. On the other hand, this same ease of access has allowed misinformation to spread just as widely, creating an epistemological crisis where different political groups not only have different opinions, but also believe in very different facts.

This has culminated in the alarming growth of conspiracy theories, most notably the Qanon movement, which Buzzfeed has recently described as a “collective delusion.” As someone who has witnessed a person descend into the rabbit hole of “alternative” news sources, from vaccine skepticism to the JFK assassination and finally to Qanon (complete with fanatical Trump support, of course), I am rather skeptical that the democratization of news sources alone will be enough to save us.

There don't seem to be any easy solutions. Good reporting requires resources – not only technology and capital, but also trained personnel who are familiar with journalistic standards. The technology, capital, and training must come from somewhere, and it is difficult to imagine a source that would not have a significant impact on the information. State-owned media are not beholden to advertisers, but to the state; and journals funded solely by subscriptions face the strong temptation to pander to their readers with sensationalist content.

One wonders, then, whether this critique of the mainstream media has ultimately backfired. Nowadays, media skepticism is most vehemently expressed by the right, not the left; and Trump has used this skepticism as a powerful weapon to avoid accountability. Skepticism and democratization are double-edged swords, it seems. So, what can be done?