The media, often touted as free, is in reality only free for those who adhere to the principles that serve its'societal purpose'. The propaganda model is very much alive and, in my view, stronger than ever. The optimistic outlook that Chomsky and Herman had left has not materialized, and I don't think it was ever possible.

We are all aware that the media serves those with elite vested interests in political, financial, and privilege-maintaining matters. The deep-seated web of interconnected falsehoods, supported by the dogmatic foundation of presuppositional virtues that occidental society claims to be based on and which eradicates all dissent, eliminates any possibility of a truly intellectually free media. It is undeniable that the public is deprived of the opportunity to understand the real world through the induced conformity to elite values. Dissent is allowed in a vacuous way, without any real threat to the established order. Even when one is allowed to subvert a narrative, years of repeating dogma have already taken their toll. Active truth-telling is discouraged, as one needs mountains of evidence to label the US or its allies as genocidal, facing ridicule, slander, and the destruction of a livelihood. Meanwhile, any elite-benefiting notion is supported without question, even when statements are proven false or incorrect.

The propaganda model is highly strategized in its idiosyncrasy. It has a single purpose and will act seemingly erratically or hypocritically to achieve it. It is this model that influenced the coverage of events such as the murder of Popieluszko in Poland while ignoring the murders of hundreds of priests in Central American client states. It is also responsible for the misinformation used to justify military involvement in Vietnam and the subsequent actions in Cambodia and other countries. The cyclical, far-fetched, and overcomplicated nature of the propaganda model serves its purpose of creating the perception that the US has a'moral' responsibility to intervene in countries facing 'communist atrocities', even though its actions have often fanned the flames and created the very situations it claims to be addressing.

In conclusion, the propaganda model is well-known, but its intricacies and idiosyncrasies are not easily visible. Therefore, the only safeguard against mainstream dogma is contrarianism. The systems, institutions, and media are not ahead of us in a predictable way; they create their own paths as they see fit. It is impossible for the media to tell the whole truth, as it is designed to serve specific interests. We must be vigilant and question the information we receive to avoid being misled by the propaganda model.

The basic thesis is that so-called 'journalism' has a structural necessity to filter out certain information. It is indispensable for this filtering process to occur. The premise is that within a narrow ideological window, debate should be fiercely encouraged to achieve a conformity of opinion that is not seen in torturer states. However, any opinion outside this window is to be ignored and discarded as being crazed. This further develops the ideas that were articulated in the two-volume PEHR.

Journalism, in this context, plays a crucial role in shaping public perception and opinion. The filtering mechanism determines what information reaches the public and what does not. This can have a significant impact on how people view various issues and events.

The narrow ideological window within which debate is encouraged limits the range of perspectives that are considered valid. This can lead to a situation where only a certain set of ideas and opinions are given prominence, while others are marginalized or completely ignored.

The concept of discarding opinions outside the window as crazed also raises questions about the objectivity and fairness of journalism. It is important to ensure that a diverse range of voices and perspectives are heard and considered in order to have a more informed and democratic society.

It is rather hard to rate this work.

The ideas presented within it were truly great, yet it was an extremely laborious read. As a result, I simply cannot recommend it.

Paragraphs similar to the one below were not at all uncommon:
"Meanwhile, due to the power of establishment sources, the flak machines, and anti-Communist ideology, we would expect outcries that the worthy victims are being severely neglected, that the unworthy are treated with excessive and uncritical generosity, and that the media's liberal, adversarial (if not subversive) hostility towards the government accounts for our difficulties in gathering support for the latest national endeavor in counterrevolutionary intervention."

Yes, that was indeed a paragraph, and it was from chapter 1. Needless to say, it did not enhance my reading experience in the slightest. In fact, I don't even believe it is the best illustration of what troubled me about the writing.

If it didn't bother you, then you'll likely be okay. However, I have concerns with any book where I have to reread sentences three times just to understand their meaning.

This made the reading process a real struggle for me, and it ultimately detracted from my overall enjoyment and appreciation of the work.

Perhaps others may have a different perspective, but for me, the convoluted writing style overshadowed the otherwise interesting ideas.

This is an outstanding and significant work!

Undoubtedly, it might have been even more remarkable in the 1980s, as certain aspects of the context have somewhat dated. However, it has withstood the test of time.

Herman and Chomsky's use of a political economy framework, along with qualitative data, to debunk the myth of a free and unbiased press in so-called Western liberal democracies is truly extraordinary.

This book has made me reflect deeply and has enabled me to express many beliefs I have long held about the press but was unable to formulate as precisely as they do.

I highly recommend reading this book, even in the 2020s. The mechanisms elucidated by Herman and Chomsky can be effortlessly applied and adapted to the contemporary media landscape as well.

It offers valuable insights into the inner workings of the media and challenges our assumptions about its objectivity.

Whether you are a student of media studies, a journalist, or simply someone interested in understanding the role of the press in society, this book is a must-read.

It will expand your perspective and help you make more informed judgments about the information you consume.

Overall, it is a thought-provoking and influential work that continues to have relevance in today's world.

Wow, what a slog this book is!

The prose is so verbose and repetitive that it makes reading a real chore. However, in between all that, there are some genuine nuggets of solid information to be found. It's a pity that the book didn't have a better editor. With some careful pruning and tightening, it could easily be at least half its current length and still be more than sufficient to support its thesis. As it stands, it feels like the author has tried to pad out the content with unnecessary words and phrases, which only serves to make the book less engaging and less accessible to the reader. A good editor would have been able to help the author focus on the key points and present them in a more concise and effective way.

A well-researched and eye-opening book.

It's no surprise that the U.S. government often mistreats other nations that are not capitalist/neo-liberal enough or not its allies. Atrocities within their borders are sometimes overlooked as they don't serve the interests of the powerful, like mega-corporations and their lobbyists.

What truly shocked me was the extent of U.S. interference in foreign affairs. The callousness and cruelty shown in Latin America, Vietnam, and other "communist" countries were appalling. Chemical warfare was used, and thousands of peasants were deprived of sustenance and had their villages bombed indiscriminately.

The U.S., a democracy only in name with its "anti-communism" religion, continues to cause chaos with its military power instead of promoting world peace and environmental protection.

"Manufacturing Consent" reveals that the media, contrary to what some claim, is in the hands of the rich and powerful. The filters that lead to this result include the size and ownership of media firms, advertising as the main income source, reliance on government and business information, "flak" as a means of disciplining the media, and "anticommunism" as a control mechanism.

I gave the book four stars because it was repetitive at times and had too many details not relevant to those outside the U.S. who didn't experience the media's reaction to various wars and invasions.

However, it's highly recommended as it shows how the media serves the agenda of privileged groups by controlling topics, concerns, issues, and information, and keeping the debate within acceptable limits.

Not bad, per se.

However, it is distinctly underwhelming after having read Ellul's Propaganda. The case studies presented are rather tedious and seem to pad out a book whose thesis is deceptively simple.

That thesis, while not necessarily wrong, does feel increasingly outdated in a media landscape that is so defined by social media. In this new landscape, what Ellul calls horizontal propaganda, or the pressure to conform to the expectations of our peers, is pervasive.

This reflects another significant shift, one away from political propaganda and toward sociological propaganda, which is really just another way of referring to the culture war.

The analysis proposed here seems to describe the pre-Bush era quite well. However, I'm not entirely sure it can fully cope with all the changes that have occurred since then.

Moreover, this book is also quite dry, which has led to me rereading sentences frequently. This is not due to a lack of clarity but rather a lack of attention on my part.

Overall, while the book has its merits, it also has several shortcomings that prevent it from being a truly outstanding work.

On the even more intellectual periphery of the left, Noam Chomsky has unwaveringly waged a battle against the blindness of American foreign policy and the manner in which the press manipulates public opinion to endorse and encourage catastrophes like the Vietnam War (and more recently, the disasters of the two Iraq Wars, the War in Afghanistan, etc.).

This book elucidates how the press, even when it adopts a slightly more critical stance towards events, still fundamentally manipulates the truth in the service of power. The most recent instance was Drumpf's utilization of misinformation, false news, lies, and the press' blind faith in a certain Clinton victory, which enabled him to carry states that Obama had won in 2008 and 2012 and secure the electoral college (despite his having criticized it as useless in 2012).

The erudite perspective of Chomsky might be difficult to digest for those who desire to safeguard their blinkered views. Nevertheless, he has been proven right time and again.

On a side note, last year's independent film Captain Fantastic pays a beautiful and moving (at least to me) tribute to Noam.

Happy reading!

Listen, I'm disassociating as I write this.

It's likely that I was in a similar state of mind half of the times I picked up this book. But I'll wipe my own slate. I admit I didn't read the entire book. I got up to the part about the pessimistic coverage of the Tet Offensive, so page 240?

It was a good book, don't get me wrong. This book is absolutely brimming with quotes, real life events, and references. It's thoroughly researched. And in the end, that's what made me stop reading it. It's so academic and stiff! Which is perfectly fine. However, there was little context for historical events, even if they served a macro-purpose in shaping the world as we know it. Noam assumes the majority of his readers are well educated in matters of history, and that's probably right. If you pick up this book, bear in mind that it's incredibly valuable! But you'll need to know your history.

For example, when he mentions the Tet Offensive, he doesn't go into great detail about the events leading up to it or the full implications. It's just presented as a fact within the context of his argument. This can make it a bit difficult for those who aren't as well-versed in history to fully understand and appreciate the significance of what he's saying.

Overall, while the book has its strengths, it also has its limitations. It's a great resource for those who are already knowledgeable about history and want to gain a deeper understanding of Noam's perspective. But for those who are new to the subject, it may be a bit of a challenge.

Manufacturing Consent is a remarkable work. In it, Daddy Chom Chom barges through the door of the fourth estate and poses a profound question: what the hell are we truly doing here?

This book is still a classic and astonishingly, it holds up better than one might expect. As a child of the 90s, I was not familiar with some of his examples. However, it's evident that the US military has been following the same old playbook for ages. It wasn't difficult to relate his examples to more recent US adventures in the world.

While US institutions are garnering less trust than ever before and alternative media has given us new sources of information, the power of manufactured consent persists. We find ourselves siloed within our political beliefs, existing on different planes of belief from our fellow citizens. We all know that Fox News is a propaganda machine, but take a look at how many MSNBC guests are former CIA analysts, military generals, or Bush-era administrators. It's quite an eye-opener!

In fact, we don't even rely on traditional journalists to define the boundaries of our discourse anymore. We do that every single day on social media! Manufactured Consent has now become a group project, and even if you're that person in the group who doesn't contribute much, you still have to abide by the rules.

If you can endure going through it (it's not that the writing is bad, it's just that the topics covered have, for most people, the inherent attractiveness of lint analysis), you will be rewarded with a novel way to view the mass media and a new framework with which you can apply your own critical analysis.

It's not an easy task to persevere with this reading, but the effort will pay off. You'll gain a fresh perspective on how the mass media operates and be able to use a new framework to analyze it critically.

This new understanding can help you make more informed decisions about the information you consume and the messages you receive from the media.

Congratulations on taking the first step towards a deeper understanding of the mass media.

This book was truly an absolute behemoth.

I am extremely thankful for the way it presented the propaganda model through a number of case studies.

Prior to reading this book, I was filled with wariness and suspicion regarding U.S. foreign policy reporting.

However, after delving into this in-depth analysis, I feel as if I have almost acquired a new set of eyes.

This allows me to view how dominant imperial powers distort and suppress crucial stories that have the potential to ignite social revolutions.

Moreover, this model can be applied to all forms of political media in today's age.

It is particularly relevant when it comes to reporting on Palestine and domestic civil rights struggles.

By understanding this propaganda model, we can better analyze and question the information we receive, and become more discerning consumers of media.

This, in turn, can help us to form more informed opinions and take more effective actions in the face of the complex political and social issues that we encounter.