Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman present a truly compelling and, in fact, horrifying case for a particular type of media bias they term the “propaganda model” in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

Published at the conclusion of the Reagan era, the framework of the two authors’ argument is largely derived from case studies of Cold War conflicts overseas. They assert that a significant portion of the (U.S.) media coverage regarding U.S. involvement in Latin America, the Middle East, and most notably Vietnam, is fundamentally flawed. This is because mass-media outlets are primarily focused on meeting the financial requirements of corporate investors. While not blatant censorship, they argue that media outlets will allocate more coverage to favorable stories about anti-communist efforts rather than providing an honest representation of those stories that do not conform to this narrative.

The two authors further contend that although in the United States, the press is granted freedom of speech under the First Amendment, media companies and networks still rely on government-granted licenses and franchises. This creates a form of technical dependency. Coupled with the fact that there is a substantial overlap between the regulators and the heads of (regulated) companies, this leads to a bias in storytelling that enables the powerful to maintain a status quo that consolidates their control. Narratives, as they point out, are extremely powerful.

The most prominent manifestation of this “propaganda model” is evident in how the media portrays “worthy” and “unworthy” victims. Specifically, “worthy” victims would consist of Americans and our allies, who would receive humanizing, front-page coverage. In contrast, “unworthy” victims are those from communist states (the other), who receive little humanization and marginal coverage. In the context of the Cold War period, where the “us and them” mentality defined the zeitgeist, Chomsky and Herman identify these two distinct categories. However, my only criticism lies in the rigidity of this dichotomy. I believe that while Chomsky and Herman have identified something of great significance, it is more constructive to view the “unworthy” and “worthy” as two ends of a spectrum.

Overall, Chomsky and Herman present a well-researched argument. Although I do concur that corporate interests can lead to a bias within the “propaganda model,” and that the powerful do indeed assert a hegemony from the top down, I still consider this model to be indicative of a bias (albeit a highly destructive one) rather than a comprehensive conspiracy. Systems can have flaws, but I firmly believe that there are good investigative reporters out there. Otherwise, we would never have had coverage such as that of Watergate (1972) or the revelations about Harvey Weinstein (2017).

All things considered, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is most certainly worth reading. It provides provocative food for thought, and I know that I will be reflecting on it for a considerable time to come.

There's a rather decent book available here that delves into the economic and political environment within which American media operate.

However, this aspect is confined mainly to the introductory chapters, where this idea is described, and the conclusion, which further reiterates and expands upon it.

The core or the meat of the book, which consists of its "case studies", seems to predominantly focus on the atrocities committed by the U.S. government in Latin America and Indochina.

These case studies are described in an extremely detailed manner, far more than what would have been necessary to connect them back to the authors' model.

Throughout my reading, I often found myself thinking that I had not initially intended to read a book specifically about the Vietnam war, and yet here I was, deeply engrossed in the details of these case studies that seemed to veer away from the central theme of the media environment.

It made me question the overall structure and focus of the book, as I felt a bit misled by the initial promise of learning about the economic and political context of American media.

A dense and exhaustive exploration of the propaganda model employed by mass media with detailed historical context is presented. This work delves deep into the inner workings of how the media shapes our perception and understanding. It is a complex and thought-provoking read that requires careful attention. Considering how challenging this was to get through, I recommend reading at least the preface and chapters 1, 2, and 7 to those interested in media bias and manipulation. These sections offer valuable insights into the mechanisms at play. I thought it was especially relevant as we watch the media’s continued attempts to manufacture our consent for the genocide of the Palestinian people in real time. The book serves as a wake-up call, highlighting the importance of critical thinking and media literacy in today’s information-saturated world.

As someone who, personally, is immune to propaganda, it was truly fascinating to read about the process by which other people's consent is manufactured. It was like witnessing a particularly disturbing episode of "How It's Made", where the final product is the citizenry's views on foreign policy. However, it's important to note that my views were not part of this manufactured process. Mine were artisanally hand-crafted by myself, without any external inputs. No offense to Garfield, but I'm different.

This reading also served as a kind of crash course on U.S. international affairs in the 70s and early 80s. It provided valuable insights into the political climate and the various factors that influenced the formulation of foreign policies during that time. By understanding how consent was manufactured and the role it played in shaping public opinion, we can better analyze and evaluate the decisions made by the government.

Overall, this exploration into the manufacturing of consent and its connection to U.S. international affairs was both enlightening and thought-provoking. It made me question the reliability of the information we receive and the importance of critical thinking in forming our own opinions.

If I had simply read the first chapter of the book, I might have given it a 3 or 4 star review. However, after reading the entire work, it only deserves a 2. It is dreadfully boring and not the unassailable crown jewel of political literature that so many reviewers claim it to be.

First, we should take all the 4 and 5 star reviews with a grain of salt. Read them and ask yourself how much sense they make. Many of the reviews will praise the brilliance of the book but also mention how difficult it was to get through. For me, 5 stars means that both the content and the presentation are excellent. Certainly, there was some thoughtful analysis in this book, but much of the content was presented in an overly wordy manner. Unfortunately, I believe the language and writing style used by the authors lead many readers to assign more credibility to the content than it actually merits.

This brings me to my second point. While I don't disagree with the premise of the book, I found some of the analysis to be just as biased as the media the authors seek to discredit. Chomsky and Herman frequently show their disdain for the right-wing in ways that don't further the point they were making at the time. This kind of sniping struck me as hypocritical.

Finally, I think the approach taken to illustrate media bias was overly in-depth with regard to the case studies they used and quite limited in terms of the breadth of case studies. The authors spent over 300 pages describing media bias from just 3 main political news stories from the 50 years before the book was written. There are many more examples to draw from, and I would have preferred to see a more comprehensive study of the application of the propaganda model across many historical events. Anyone who understands basic supply and demand economics and has completed even a remedial marketing course can sense the media bias right in front of them without having to struggle through these case studies. A far more interesting study would be to statistically prove the existence of the bias and offer evidence as to what really causes it. Very little of the Chomsky/Herman content was dedicated to the "why" beyond the first chapter.

In today's complex and information-saturated world, understanding the concept of'media propaganda' is of utmost importance. If you truly desire to gain in-depth knowledge about this phenomenon, there is a must-read book that can provide you with valuable insights.

This book delves into the various aspects of media propaganda, exploring how it shapes public opinion, influences behavior, and impacts society as a whole. It examines the different techniques and strategies employed by the media to convey messages and manipulate the masses.

By reading this book, you will learn to identify the hidden agendas and biases within the media, enabling you to make more informed decisions and form your own opinions. It equips you with the tools to critically analyze the information presented to you and to see beyond the surface-level propaganda.

Whether you are a student, a professional, or simply an interested individual, this book is a valuable resource that will expand your understanding of media propaganda and its far-reaching implications. So, don't miss out on this opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of one of the most significant issues in today's world.

An in-depth analysis into how mass media can function as agents of state doctrine reveals a complex and often concerning picture. From the Vietnam war to the Watergate scandal, Chomsky and Herman provided a scathing review of the role a politically driven media can play in manipulating public opinion.

During the Vietnam war, the media was accused of presenting a one-sided view that supported the government's actions, leading to a misinformed public. Similarly, in the Watergate scandal, the media's coverage was seen as being influenced by political interests.

While it is valid to express anger and mobilize forces for social movements, a more discerning citizen will also question the motives and forces behind a particular movement. By critically examining the role of the media and the context in which a movement occurs, we can better understand the true nature of the issues at hand and make more informed decisions.

A very comprehensive study was conducted by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, in which they proposed a ‘propaganda model’ of media operations. This model adheres to the view that the mass media are instruments of power that mobilize support for the special interests dominating the state and private activity.

Basically, Chomsky and Herman argue that in a smoothly functioning capitalist democracy, the mainstream media outlets act as a propaganda machine, even without direct coercion. The five filters of the propaganda model, as explained in the book, are: Ownership, Advertising, Sourcing, Flack, and Anti-Communism and Fear. In their subsequent case studies, they showcase in-depth how these filters worked to enable the news coverage of various events, such as the Guatemalan and El Salvadorean election processes compared to the Nicaraguan 1984 election, the Bulgarian Connection of 1981, the Vietnam War (with a focus on the Tonkin Gulf incident and the Tet Offensive), and the US attack on Laos and Cambodia following the Vietnam War.

This gives rise to an ethical and moral question: Is the US media as subject to state control as the Communist media it is so eager to criticize? Is US democracy actually an authoritarian regime in disguise? Once these questions are raised, the events mentioned above are seen in a completely different light.

That being said, the most interesting part of reading this was attempting to draw connections between the situation at the time when the book was published and how the media operates today in the digital format. As this book was written in 1988, one year before the Communist Block collapsed in Eastern and Central Europe, I am left to fill in the gaps of how that event and the following years shaped the five filters of the media and how those filters might have been translated into today's internet news outlets. It is interesting to speculate how the current wave of Fake News actually stems from the legacy of the US government's monopoly on the media and assess whether things have really changed that much or if they have actually spread across Europe as well.

There are many interesting things to take away from this book, especially from a historical and political perspective. What I always admire in Chomsky's works is his sharp critical thinking and detailed analysis of subjects that are otherwise considered controversial ideas outside of the academic world. He does this effortlessly and at times with great humor.

One minor heads-up would be: make sure your knowledge of history is solid, otherwise you may fall behind a bit. Even if it isn't, I suggest Googling whenever necessary. The language is very accessible, so don't be deterred by that. Just keep in mind that events and historical timelines are important to get the most out of it.

5\\\\5

This was kind of a slog!

It's well written, for the most part, and the arguments are extremely well presented. I find that the points made within the book hold up almost disturbingly well considering its age. However, at times it feels as if the authors have a particular agenda to push. Additionally, I was extremely put off by the multiple descriptions of torture, which I was not anticipating.

The book consists mostly of in-depth examples, which I think is a good choice. But since many of the same examples are used to make several different points, a significant portion of the time spent on them starts to feel repetitive. The structure of the book is also somewhat odd, especially for persuasive writing. The "introduction" (which really should have been an afterword) from 10 years after publication comes before the book and constantly refers to the arguments that the book will present, but which I haven't read yet. I think this is one of those rare books where I might have gained more from it if I had read a SparkNotes summary beforehand.

Nevertheless, overall it's a very compelling and convincing piece of writing, supported by an incredible depth of research. So it's difficult to be too critical of it.

Read this book.

It clearly and convincingly breaks down how the modern media framework functions. It's truly a masterful piece of, well, propaganda, as most Westerners firmly believe that their media aims to inform and educate them about the issues that are most deserving of their attention.

However, be aware that this book is somewhat outdated. Its focus is on American influence operations and black ops in Central America during the 1980s and the Indochina Wars (such as the Vietnam War that spread to Cambodia and Laos due to the secret bombing campaigns ordered by the White House). Nevertheless, these are some of the most significant myths that need to be debunked. Reading it equips you with the tools to more carefully examine modern media. This includes understanding what subjects are permitted, what are considered worthy and unworthy victims, and of course, the 5 filters.

After reading this, I'm definitely going to explore more of Chomsky's works.

In "Manufacturing Consent," Herman and Chomsky present a thesis that, while outdated and flawed in some respects, still holds some valid points about media propaganda.

They assert that the government and corporations control the mass media to promote a right-wing agenda. However, the book was written in the late 1980s and only lightly revised in 2000, so it fails to account for more recent media coverage, such as the eight-year vilification of George W. Bush and the love affair with Barack Obama's leftist agenda.

Moreover, the underlying premise that the media is right-wing because it is owned by corporations is not supported by evidence. In fact, corporations contribute to both political parties, indicating that they are more concerned with profit than with promoting a particular ideology.

Despite these flaws, the book does make a convincing case for being skeptical of the media. We should not simply accept the information presented to us without question. However, we should also be aware of the authors' left-wing bias and consider their arguments from a more balanced perspective.

In conclusion, while "Manufacturing Consent" has its limitations, it still offers valuable insights into the role of the media in society and the need for critical thinking.

The illusion of a mature, open-minded awareness is a constructed propaganda model.

Reread 2021 with an extended review.

In modern media, it is crucial to prevent uncomfortable and in-depth facts from coming too close to the light. To achieve this, it is best to mention them in the shortest newsflashes during lousy airtime and in subsidiary columns with only ten words. This is a difficult yet essential game. If a media company completely forgets such a report, it could face criticism for not openly and objectively reporting on essential topics. Therefore, the extremely important message about the controversial reform of the healthcare, pension, educational, etc. system is placed in a poorly legible font size somewhere on the left bottom half of page 74, where nobody reads it.

Praise the independence of the media. It's not as if MSNBC is the only larger media outlet that dares to criticize the economic system, while CNN, BBC, etc. report on the irrelevance of the political and financial circuses without ever questioning the foundations of this madness.

These techniques of concealing and hushing critical voices are revealed and explained by Herman and Chomsky. They emphasize that the essential thing is to more or less subtly shape the minds of the people towards a consensus. Over many years and decades, the message is repeated in various forms through always similar reporting until it has influenced the faith and attitude of the vast majority of pseudo-informed and fringe-educated people. As an encore, it is common practice to scatter confusing, inconsistent, exaggerated, and scary messages, which makes people even more receptive to the suggested solutions and options for action. The stoked fear can be combined with blind faith in authorities, which tremendously helps boost the success of the desired opinion.

Herman and Chomsky defined the new kind of influence and media control as a propaganda model in which the owners and shareholders of the media dictatorially determine the type of coverage and content. To mask this one-sidedness, supposedly objective reporting is simulated without ever touching the real core of the problems, the exponential growth dogma.

An example: Unworthy killed terrorists in rogue states against heroic fighters in submissive vassal states. This is the cheapest simplification, pigeonholing, black and white painting, worthy and unworthy, friend and foe, good and evil. Adult children's books are mistaken for education and information, with the bad witch sizzling in the oven until it's perfectly medium rare.

Twenty years after the publication of Herman's and Chomsky's work and the 50th anniversary of Operation Mockingbird, there is the question of where we stand now. What was possible at that time without technical goodies could soon have been expanded to unimaginable dimensions. Let's say individual, personalized propaganda to each smartphone, regardless of socioeconomic status, education, or ideology. It kind of seems as if a revision of the situation, a remake of Manufacturing Consent, would be urgently needed. But, duh, which media would review something that tells dirty, stinking lies about the news? Self-cannibalizing sucks.

However, Herman and Chomsky and/or their progressive successors should sit down with some of the leading activists and journalists and create a combination of the evaluation of the status quo and a prognosis of future developments. That would be a book.

In the past, blanket control and censorship without the internet were easy. Now, this facilitated communication can be a blessing or a curse. An awakened, enlightened, not brainwashed civil society can solidarize and compel positive changes with its sheer mass, whereas an apathetic, oppressed, and indoctrinated society may misuse the tools and turn their utility into the opposite. With a hammer, one can build a house or break a skull. Integrating this crucial new factor and thinking ahead with the concepts is a functional logic puzzle.

The media are still just as controlled as at any time of the democratic age. However, a significant amount of power has been put into the hands of users to get their data and earn money. This could be the overlooked factor that undermines the influence of the controlling bodies and finally brings them down because they have given the masses an opportunity to unite and solidarize in exchange for unprecedented surveillance in a way never seen before.

Also, the new industries are not interested in concealing the lies of the past since they have no contaminated sites, no skeletons in the closet. It's in their interest to make the old dinosaurs appear in the worst light possible. By this means, they can still bind people to their services because they associate it with something positive while, at the same time, they can weaken their competitors by explicitly promoting and fueling the debates. Of course, they are also opportunists, followers, and profiteers of the situation, but not so directly to blame as the old industries that caused the whole mess.

How far the technology for control and manipulation has progressed now cannot be estimated. Facebook alone employs thousands of people who are only concerned with the addictive flow production and the formation of perfect, cuddly filter bubbles. Google can influence a person's opinion across all platforms and age groups. The new giants are increasingly replacing the big media companies, and it's so much more entertaining and the people more united than with the passive, earlier methods. But the goal, controlling the dogmas, has remained the same.

A wiki walk can be as refreshing to the mind as a walk through nature in this completely overrated real life outside books:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_manipulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation

Kind of a warning:

As soon as one has read some Paul Hawken, Silvia Federici, Bill McKibben, Colin Crouch, Klein, William McDonough, Jessica Valenti, Henry David Thoreau, John Perkins, Steward Brand, Rebecca Solnit, George Monbiot, Kendi Ibram X, Yanis Varoufakis, Shiva Vandana, Jonathan Safran Foer, Ziegler, Davis Angela Y, Rachel Carson, Brittney Cooper, Kristof Nicholas D, etc., there is no way back. All once objective democratic institutions, media outlets, etc. just seem ridiculous, worthless, pathetic sockpuppets of corporate interests without any possibility of change.