I am truly tired.

Not only am I tired physically, but also mentally and emotionally. I feel despondent, as if all hope has been drained away. I even have moments when I feel like a crackpot and a conspiracist, constantly questioning the world around me.

The situation just seems to be getting worse and worse, and I often find myself identifying with David in his battles. However, I need to remember that David ultimately won.

I hope that as you see me reading these books, at least one of them will pique your interest. Maybe you'll decide to pick it up and read it, and in doing so, it will open your eyes to the vast amount of lies we are constantly fed.

InshAllah, slowly but surely, the tides will turn in our favor. But for now, I am tired. I need a break to recharge and gather my strength for the challenges that lie ahead.

I know that this is just a phase, and better days will come.

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman's "Manufacturing Consent" is one of their more significant written contributions.

It details a framework known as the "propaganda model," which can determine or explain various factors of media reporting that are found to be deficient, biased, or simply incompetent.

I found this book to be a poignant and effective review of a period when the media was supposed to maintain an "adversarial stance" towards those in power, yet the opposite was often the case.

Even for those who don't believe in the "propaganda model" as explained by the authors, the book remains important for highlighting many instances of media bias and societal constraints during the turbulent 1960s, 70s, and 80s.

For those who see the model as a reliable framework for understanding media behavior, it's easy to identify numerous cases of institutional misbehavior in recent decades and up to the present day.

For example, the anti-communist filter has evolved into a general "anti-socialist" dogmatic barrier, which is still evident in media across the board, especially at outlets like Fox News.

The principles outlined by the authors are well-described and supported by an exhaustive investigation of evidence in all evaluated circumstances.

Moreover, the book's framework continues to be relevant. Despite the internet's rise cracking the corporate media's grip, it still holds firm as the vast majority of news consumed worldwide is produced by corporate media.

The updated version includes additional information to keep the text relevant in the modern era, such as references to internet use, media consolidation, and more examples of the model's effectiveness.

For these reasons, the book is a very engaging read, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in expanding their knowledge of how the world truly operates.

To be honest, I skipped a few chapters because the case studies were a bit outdated.

However, the hypothesis about the media's propaganda model is extremely valid and crucial for understanding today's media empires.

Specifically, the analysis of worthy versus unworthy victims is significant. It shows how the media portrays certain victims as more deserving of attention and sympathy than others.

The distinction between sources within the "inner circle" and those outside it also plays a vital role.

Insiders often have more influence and access to information, which can shape the news coverage.

Moreover, the way advertising has transformed the function of news media cannot be overlooked.

Advertising revenue has become a major factor in determining what news is covered and how it is presented.

Understanding these aspects helps us see the complex and often hidden forces at work in the media landscape.

Everyone is constantly referring to this as the Chomsky book that one must read, the one that truly and definitively altered their perception. So, I definitely felt compelled to read it.

It was more or less what I had anticipated. I believe that if you have listened to media critiques from the left, then this is rather familiar ground. However, the specifics detailed in the presented case studies were novel to me, and I did indeed learn things that I hadn't previously known.

At times, it did seem repetitive as they frequently would restate what they had already said. But I think that's largely a characteristic of an argumentative academic writing style.

Mostly, though, when I read books like this nowadays, it simply makes me wonder about the things that are currently happening that I'm not aware of and makes me feel somewhat exhausted at the thought of attempting to stay updated with current events. It makes me realize how vast and complex the world of information is and how difficult it can be to keep up.

Nevertheless, reading such books also serves as a reminder of the importance of being informed and engaged, even if it can be a challenging task.

Chomsky's analysis is truly remarkable once again.

He has the ability to cut through the chaos and confusion, the rubble of nonsense that often surrounds us.

By presenting vivid examples and tangible truths, he effectively demonstrates the extent of the systemic misinformation and cover-ups perpetrated by the mass media.

His work serves as a wake-up call, highlighting the importance of critical thinking and media literacy in today's society.

We need to be aware of the biases and hidden agendas that may lurk behind the stories we are presented with.

Chomsky's analysis empowers us to question, to dig deeper, and to seek the real truth.

It is through his efforts that we can hope to see a more informed and enlightened public.

His contributions to the field of media analysis are invaluable and should not be overlooked.

We would do well to pay attention to his insights and use them as a guide in our own understanding of the complex world of mass media.

I have a deep affection for this book. It caught my attention right after the 2024 election when Trump won the popular vote.

Upon further contemplation, considering that the majority of people obtain their news from social media, and the owners of these platforms were in support of Trump, it led me to question whether the people truly voted for Trump or if they were being fed certain information.

I believed it would be a wise decision to read a book on muckraking and media literacy in the United States. I can assert that this book is an extremely crucial read. It assists you in comprehending the framework within which all the major news companies operate.

My friend and I were engaged in reading this book and discussing each chapter. I highly recommend that folks do the same with their friends. It aids in providing an understanding of our government's tendency towards fascism.

I will be recommending this book to a great number of my friends. It has truly opened my eyes and I believe it will have the same impact on others.

This was one of the books that had a profound impact on my life.

It offers an astonishing and comprehensive exploration into the origin, development, and operation of the modern media.

The authors approach this subject matter from the perspective that the media predominantly functions as a potent tool for social control.

The world view presented in the media is essentially that of the ruling classes, while the rest of us, the common people, are excluded from it all.

We are passive consumers of the false information being spoon-fed to us by large corporations and other powerful interests.

They do an excellent job of supporting their claim (with solid scholarship, as I remember...although my standards have risen somewhat since then) that almost all television and most magazine content is blatant propaganda for the dominant classes.

Read this book and then see if you can watch TV or read a newspaper in the same way again...I highly doubt it.

It makes you question the very nature of the information we consume and forces us to be more critical of the media's influence on our lives.

It's a thought-provoking read that challenges us to look beyond the surface and see the hidden agendas at play.

Overall, this book has had a lasting impact on my perception of the media and has made me a more informed and discerning consumer.

In the case of the Pentagon Papers, the government tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing them, claiming a potential threat to security. However, Judge Gurfein ruled in favor of the newspaper.

As he stated, "a cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."

This ruling emphasized the importance of a free press in a democratic society. It recognized that the press has a crucial role in informing the public and holding those in power accountable. Even if the information may cause embarrassment or discomfort, the right to know takes precedence. The government's attempt to suppress the publication was unjustified as it failed to prove a legitimate security threat. This case set a precedent for the protection of freedom of the press and the public's right to access information. It serves as a reminder that a free and independent press is essential for the proper functioning of a democratic society.

Grappling with Manufacturing Consent often feels like grappling with its legacy.

There are several points that have become common wisdom. In some cases, "manufacturing consent" is misused as a verb phrase rather than a book title. The "propaganda model" by Herman and Chomsky aims to describe how the news media is structured to create content that aligns with state interests. However, the effect of media on populations is outside the scope of their thesis. The title is a nod to Walter Lippmann, and the book focuses on demonstrating this model through case studies.

The surprise is that the thesis becomes even narrower. When thinking of propaganda, one might consider the rhetorical, epistemic, and political aspects of how ideology perpetuates itself through the media. But ideology is taken as a base factor in H&C's model and not analyzed further, which makes the analysis less interesting.

The third point of the propaganda model, about news agencies preferring professionally put together sources, is clever. However, the model only focuses on the state and American foreign policy, ignoring other forms of propaganda. For example, the "Superpredator" media frenzy of the mid-90s has no place in the model.

H&C do consider bourgeois ideology, but their model's success is tied to the analysis of US foreign policy. The implication that the business class is patriotic and will support the US's bad decisions is laughable. In fact, business only fights wars it can profit from.

The limitations of this work are played out through its legacy. Some people believe there is no benign media reporting on US Government releases. Chomsky has even used the language of the propaganda model to avoid commenting on Ukraine's sovereignty.

Despite its limitations, the book has a sterling reputation, perhaps due to its crash course in US foreign policy and the seemingly successful propaganda model. There is some good analysis, such as the section on the media's role in the Vietnam War. And aspects of the propaganda model are now common sense. Reading the book has helped me think about media, even if in a critical mode.

“Convenient mythologies require neither evidence nor logic.”

“Manufacturing Consent” offers an in-depth analysis of what, in my view, has become common knowledge in the 21st century. It reveals that mass media is influenced by financial and political forces that enable its content to be spread globally. This statement is likely to be recognized as a truth by both the left and the right, although we tend to attribute it less to our own preferred platforms. Chomsky and Herman succinctly outline the 5-step propaganda model, as well as the concept of “worthy and unworthy victims.” The main text largely consists of an analysis of the media's treatment of Central American elections, the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, and the Indochina Wars. My only real disappointment with the book is the lack of an intense focus on domestic politics or the inner workings of media conglomerates, although they are mentioned. However, the foreign policies listed above are chosen for good reasons and vividly illustrate the book's central thesis.

In contrast to the common perception of the media as being argumentative, stubborn, and omnipresent in their pursuit of truth and independence from authority, we have detailed and implemented a propaganda model. This model indeed views the media as having a "societal purpose," but not one that empowers the public to exert significant control over the political process by supplying them with the necessary information for the intelligent fulfillment of political responsibilities.

On the contrary, the propaganda model posits that the "societal purpose" of the media is to instill and safeguard the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that hold sway over the domestic society and the state. The media accomplish this in numerous ways: through the selection of topics, the allocation of concerns, the framing of issues, the filtering of information, the emphasis and tone, and by confining the debate within the boundaries of acceptable premises.

As we have emphasized throughout this book, the U.S. media do not operate in the same manner as the propaganda system of a totalitarian state. Instead, they allow - indeed, encourage - lively debate, criticism, and dissent, as long as these remain firmly within the system of presuppositions and principles that form an elite consensus, a system so potent that it is largely internalized without awareness.

“Genocide” is indeed an extremely invidious word.

Officials seem to be quite willing to apply this term to cases of victimization that occur in enemy states. They do so without hesitation, as if it is a convenient label to attach to the actions of others.

However, when it comes to similar or even worse cases of victimization that are perpetrated by the United States itself or its allied regimes, the situation is completely different. Rarely, if ever, will these officials use the word “genocide” to describe such events.

This double standard is highly concerning and raises questions about the objectivity and fairness of how such terms are used. It makes one wonder if the application of the term “genocide” is more about political posturing and finger-pointing at enemies rather than a genuine attempt to address and condemn all forms of mass victimization, regardless of who is responsible.

We need to be more critical of this inconsistent use of language and demand a more honest and accurate assessment of all cases of victimization, regardless of the source.