In today's society, we often hear people make statements like "the government wouldn't do that!" However, it's important to remember that governments have the power and sometimes the inclination to take actions that may seem unexpected or even controversial.

Governments are made up of individuals who may have their own agendas, political pressures, or misunderstandings. They may make decisions based on incomplete information or in an attempt to achieve certain goals, even if those decisions have negative consequences for the general public.

We should always be vigilant and question the actions of our government. Don't simply assume that they are always acting in our best interests. By staying informed and speaking up when we see something that doesn't seem right, we can help hold our government accountable and ensure that they are making decisions that are truly in the public good.

And remember kids, the next time someone says, “the government wouldn’t do that!” — oh yes they would.

Let's unpack this modern classic on the role of propaganda in perpetuating imperialism:

The Good:

--While "Manufacturing Consent" has become a subtitle to "Noam Chomsky", Herman seems to be the primary author of this book. Nevertheless, I felt the need to go through Chomsky's most-read book to evaluate the details for this often-cited framework.

--Having heard Chomsky summarize media propaganda elsewhere, what stood out with this book's presentation are:

1) It provides the 5 propaganda filters preventing free press (monopolized private ownership, advertising as income, reliance on elite sources, disciplinary disincentives, and anti-communist ideology) and applies these in case studies.

2) There are illustrative comparative case studies to isolate profound American media bias (this term seems too docile given the consequences of genocide, fascism, and imperialism): US in Vietnam vs. USSR in Afghanistan, US allies El Salvador/Guatemala elections vs. enemy Nicaragua elections, etc.

3) The 5 criteria for meaningful elections is also useful, given the propaganda value of declaring "fair elections" vs. "rigged elections".

--In scrutinizing the book's delivery, this format seems more useful to counter devoted centrists/liberals/social democrats/intelligentsia (i.e. ones who actually follow/contribute to foreign policy mass media, like The New York Times' Stephen Kinzer used in case studies here) rather than for educating default centrists (who just assume what they perceive as the "middle ground" without following the details).

Devoted centrists can tune out conflicting frameworks like power/class relations as "ideology" (and therefore not "objective"), but they still rely on some logic to arrange the bit-sized details they consume. Would they implode at a certain point from their internal contradictions? Or were they pre-selected for superhuman abilities in cognitive dissonance?

The Missing:

--The rigor in this book is most useful as a reference and historical resource; for the other group of centrists, the default centrists, accessibility (and greater scope) would be a better place to start than this grueling read...

--Chomsky intros:

1) Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

2) Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies

--Although not part of this book's scope, a common debate regarding Chomsky is his anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist critiques of real-world socialism as authoritarian (you can witness this unfold in the comments below):

1) Vijay Prashad: Struggle Makes Us Human: Learning from Movements for Socialism

2) Michael Parenti: Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism

--The "media" in this book is confined to foreign policy/international relations (thus omitting domestic issues and of course pop culture/entertainment); this topic indeed receives the most insidious propaganda. A more-opaque topic is the structures capitalism (profit/private power/capitalist property rights/endless accumulation/economic rent), the modern religion; useful intros:

1) Yanis Varoufakis: Talking to My Daughter About the Economy: or, How Capitalism Works—and How It Fails and Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present

2) Jason Hickel: The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions and Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World

--This book does provides an illustrative example of market logic in theory ("freedom!") and practice (one-dollar-one-vote), where the working class Daily Herald in Britain had 4.7 million readers in its last year, almost doubling the combined readership of establishment giants The Times, The Financial Times, and the Guardian. However, the Herald was no longer competitive in terms of profitability given the growing dominance of advertising profits (one-dollar-one-vote, as opposed to one-person-one-vote). Unpacking market ideology in healthcare, education, pensions, labor market, etc. in an accessible manner is much needed...

Manufacturing Consent

turned out to be less significant than I had anticipated. The authors present a six-pronged propaganda model encompassing mass media ownership structures, the role of advertising, news sourcing, the production of flak, and anticommunism as a control mechanism. In the introduction, they assert that the media serve and propagandize on behalf of the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The essence of their criticism lies in who decides what deserves mainstream reporting, including the language, frequency, and balance.

To illustrate how their model operates in practice, the professors meticulously examine reporting on four events: elections in three Central American countries, Mehmet Ali Agca's attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, the US involvement in Vietnam, and the US involvement in Laos and Cambodia. They have a bone to pick with the media and they pursue it with focused energy. They observe repeated asymmetries where American values influence reporting in a world where the US is at odds with those who don't share its values. The authors claim that sometimes it's the Americans causing destruction, a thread rarely followed, even though the wreckage is obvious in extreme circumstances.

The book is so detailed in its criticisms that my mind easily wandered. I wondered if the authors had gotten lost in the weeds. Highlighting the shortcomings of the media is not novel, as it's not what the audience desires. Our former president's derision of the "lamestream media" found acceptance, much to the establishment's bewilderment. Institutional skew is not limited to any one place. If you have a free moment, look at the online offerings of Rossiyskaya Gazeta or China's People's Daily - they're not great either.

Isn't the media industry a reflection of ourselves? Don't journalists generally provide content that reassures us and aligns with our common comforts? How else could they stay in business? We seem to have an easy mental alliance with certain narratives like military might, science fiction, the wisdom of CEOs, climate fears, athletic heroes, and moral panics. Is it a surprise that we're fed what tempts us? Here, the authors fall short as they focus only on a few foreign policy examples and fail to anticipate the harmful effects of crowd-sourced, uncurated news feeds on social media. Maybe a misguided professional media is better than an unleashed horde of amateurs? An acquaintance recently pointed out a broadening theme of "enrage and engage," which the authors didn't anticipate and makes me wonder if engaging with the news media, supposedly a civic virtue, is another harm to be avoided or minimized.

I did an ultra quick skim through the audiobook. It was a rather hasty process, and I realize now that I should have been more careful in selecting my sources.

Next time, I will take the time to thoroughly research and evaluate each audiobook before deciding to listen to it. This way, I can ensure that I am getting accurate and valuable information.

Skimming through the audiobook may have given me a general idea of the content, but it also meant that I missed out on many important details. By being more discerning in my selection, I can make the most of my listening time and gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter.

In the future, I will approach audiobook selection with a more critical eye and take the necessary steps to ensure that I am choosing high-quality sources.

The propaganda model put forward here is extremely compelling, and I firmly believe it remains highly relevant!

Herman and Chomsky commence by clearly enunciating the model. Subsequently, they dedicate the majority of the book to comparing and contrasting numerous 'notable incidents'. They analyze how the reporting (or the curious absence thereof) by the U.S. media on these incidents was in line with the interests of the U.S. government.

I would strongly recommend that everyone reads at least the first three-fourths of the chapters. The explanation of the propaganda model, followed by the comparison of very similar foreign incidents (in both allied and enemy states), is truly enlightening. That is not to suggest that the remainder of the book is not also excellent. However, it mainly consists of additional case studies that validate the proposed model. If you have grasped the essence by that point, I would not fault you for moving on.

Noam Chomsky has had a profound impact on my perception of America and politics, perhaps more so than anyone else.

He, along with Edward Herman, embarked on a journey in this book to present a series of case studies highlighting the media's unwavering subservience to corporate elites and American state interests. And indeed, they achieved their objective with great success. They meticulously examined the media's coverage of some of the most heinous atrocities committed by America and its allies throughout history, spanning from the 1960s to the late 1970s (the time period covered in the edition I read). This included events in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, as well as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. With an abundance of citations and intricate details, they demonstrated that the mainstream media, regardless of its political leanings from the right to the left, neatly conforms to a propaganda model. This model involves carefully arranging news coverage and even blatantly fabricating events to present American and allied goals and actions in a noble and favorable light.

The authors' work is of utmost importance in comprehending the forces of power and control that mold our opinions within what is号称 the 'freest' society in the world.

However, the one drawback I must mention about this book is the overwhelming amount of detail. At times, I found it difficult to keep up with the intricate descriptions. If you are seeking a more general or contemporary account of American imperialism, some of Chomsky's newer books or lectures (of which there are numerous available on good old Youtube) might be more suitable for you. Nevertheless, do yourself a favor and give Chomsky a listen! His work has significantly influenced the world's understanding of power for decades past, and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so in the years to come.

Chomsky is widely regarded as one of the most important and influential linguists of the 20th century. His work has had a profound impact on the field of linguistics and beyond.

One of the key aspects of Chomsky's theory is the idea that language is innate and that humans are born with a language acquisition device (LAD). This LAD allows children to rapidly and effortlessly acquire language without the need for extensive formal instruction.

Chomsky's work has also challenged the traditional view of language as a set of learned behaviors. Instead, he argues that language is a creative and rule-governed system that allows speakers to generate an infinite number of sentences.

In addition to his contributions to linguistics, Chomsky is also known for his political activism and social commentary. He has been a vocal critic of US foreign policy and has written extensively on issues such as war, inequality, and human rights.

Overall, Chomsky's work represents a significant contribution to our understanding of language and the human mind. His ideas continue to inspire research and debate in linguistics and related fields, and his political activism has made him a respected voice in the fight for social justice and equality.

This is an excellent book that delves deep into the propaganda model. It explores in great detail how this model has been employed to depict various events in the US media. The author presents a comprehensive analysis, shedding light on the hidden mechanisms and biases at play.

By examining real-life examples, the book showcases how the media can shape public perception and influence opinions. It becomes evident that the propaganda model has a significant impact on the way we understand and interpret events.

This is truly a must-read for anyone interested in media studies, politics, or the power of information. It offers valuable insights and challenges us to think critically about the media we consume. Whether you are a student, a researcher, or simply a curious individual, this book will expand your understanding and leave you with much to ponder.

The first chapter of Manufacturing Consent provides an essential analysis of American Mass media from a materialist perspective.

The remainder of the text presents numerous, well-researched examples of what they refer to as the "propaganda model" in operation, mainly concentrating on foreign intervention.

Although many of their examples date back half a century, the general model still holds true today. Mass media is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the wealthy (as seen in the ownership of WaPo and NYT), and the number of outlets has decreased, resulting in predictably skewed coverage. We observe this in the media's handling of the 2019 coup in Bolivia and the botched coup in Venezuela.

Now that there appear to be emerging threats to the neoliberal consensus of the latter 20th century domestically, Herman and Chomsky's materialist analysis can assist us in understanding the slanted media coverage of domestic politics. From the 2020 presidential primaries, the MA-01 race, and the last two British general elections, a persistent pro-business, pro-wealth media bias has emerged within at least the Anglosphere.

I have briefly examined critiques of their analysis, and they seem to mainly归结为 the fact that the authors did not take government officials at their word or that they used particularly evocative language. Neither of these critiques seems particularly convincing to me. This is not to say that it is a perfect text - I would have preferred a better organized book with a more satisfying conclusion and perhaps a more consistent tone - but it is an important one.

An extremely interesting analysis of how the US press (and by extension, the hegemonic global press) functions is presented here. It explains everything from the worthy or unworthy victims to exposing the double standards regarding similar or identical events perpetrated by friends or enemies of the regime. It details how stories are constructed that reach the majority of the population as truths, simply by choosing which stories to tell, the emphases placed, and the small lies or lack of research that support the official narrative.

Although it was written in the late 80s, one could relate it to many current events. I don't give it 5 stars because at times it becomes tedious with millions of references. However, it is an excellent book that I definitely recommend.

I've been a journalist for 15 years now. Throughout this time, I've often found myself pondering a rather perplexing question: How is it that the mass media in the United States manage to project the image of being defenders of democracy while, in reality, they seem to be deterring it?

Recently, I had the opportunity to read "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. This book has finally provided me with the in-depth understanding I've always craved.

Where should I begin? For starters, have you ever heard of the concept of worthy and unworthy victims? The authors argue that the press was far less the watchdog it was lauded for being in covering the Watergate scandal.

Remember that Vietnam War "documentary" by Freedom House that essentially blamed the media for losing the war because they were too negative and anti-government? In some circles, this argument still holds sway, having become ingrained in the American psyche as an almost self-evident truth. But as Chomsky and Herman convincingly show, it's complete and utter nonsense.

The authors are meticulous in their examination of these and many other issues. This book is a true work of scholarship, extremely well-researched, heavily footnoted, and filled with abundant evidence to support its central thesis that the mass media in the U.S. operate on a foundation of systematic propaganda.

Chomsky and Herman write that the mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general public. Their function is to amuse, entertain, inform, and inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major class conflicts, fulfilling this role requires systematic propaganda.

The frustrating thing about this system is that, unlike in a totalitarian state or one with highly concentrated power, it's much more difficult to detect the workings of a propaganda system where there is no formal censorship and the media are largely privately owned.

This explains why the media sometimes compete and expose corporate or government corruption, and present themselves as looking out for the little guy through their own advertising channels. However, as the authors point out, what's not evident (and remains undiscussed in the media) is the limited nature of such critiques, as well as the huge inequality in the command of resources and its impact on both access to the private media system and its behavior and performance.

The authors propose a propaganda model that focuses on the inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the ways in which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to convey their messages to the public.

The essential elements of the U.S. propaganda model include the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass media firms; advertising as a primary income source; the media's reliance on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism.

Using numerous examples, Chomsky and Herman demonstrate how these elements interact and reinforce each other. Take the issue of worthy and unworthy victims. The mainstream press, fed by government officials, deems the stories of victims of Soviet oppression worthy of extensive and sustained coverage. But when a U.S. client state like Guatemala or El Salvador, friendly to American business, brutalizes and terrorizes its civilian population, the mainstream media either turn a blind eye or, when they do pay attention, water down their coverage, relegate it to a brief on the back page, or report verifiably false information.

This is hardly the work of a free and independent press. The Vietnam War is another case in point. Contrary to the popular belief that the mass media turned the public against the war, the media actually supported the war from the beginning, failing to raise even the most fundamental moral questions. As the war escalated, they published the outright lies of the Nixon Administration. If you read the media at that time (and perhaps even today), you'd think America was righteously defending South Vietnam from the communists in North Vietnam. But this is completely false, and the authors painstakingly present the facts to prove it.

Even the most comprehensive retrospective media documentaries about the Vietnam War adhere to the propaganda model, calling the war a "tragic error" despite all the evidence of criminal aggression by the U.S. The authors write that their point is not that the retrospectives fail to draw what seem to be the obvious conclusions. The more significant and instructive point is that a principled objection to the war as "fundamentally wrong and immoral," or as outright criminal aggression - a war crime - is inexpressible. It's not part of the range of discussion. The background for such a principled critique cannot be developed in the media, and the conclusions cannot be drawn. It's not even present to be refuted. Instead, the idea is unthinkable.

"Manufacturing Consent" was first published in 1988, and the copy I read was a 1994 reprint. I believe there is an updated and expanded version, and I kind of wish I had bought that one instead of looking for the cheapest option. This is because I imagine the latest version delves into the right-wing hysteria promoted by the likes of Fox News and also examines the role of the Internet in fragmenting the media and, arguably, democratizing it by allowing anyone to become a publisher.

At least, that's what I imagine the latest version does. Maybe it doesn't. So I urge anyone interested in reading this extremely important work - perhaps the best and most incisive dissection of the media I've ever read - to purchase the most current edition. And then, please share your thoughts with me.

In any case, be prepared to have the fog of our propaganda model - and its central message that America is just great and, with the exception of a few minor tactical errors, is always on the side of freedom and democracy - lifted from your mind.

While Chomsky and Herman offer hope in the form of nonprofit and public TV and radio programs, and the dissident press, they are under no illusions about the political economy of the mass media. They write that, in sum, the mass media of the United States are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function through reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, without significant overt coercion. This propaganda system has become even more efficient in recent decades with the rise of the national television networks, greater mass media concentration, right-wing pressures on public radio and television, and the growth in the scope and sophistication of public relations and news management.

A significant number of the examples presented in this book date back over 40 years.

Nevertheless, they remain highly relevant when it comes to comprehending the reasons why the media places significantly more emphasis on certain matters compared to others.

This serves as a powerful reminder that no one is as objective and immune to media bias as they might believe themselves to be.

A prime illustration that constantly comes to mind is the fact that many individuals are deeply concerned about the people of Ukraine, yet they scarcely give any thought to other peoples who have also endured very similar and devastating aggression, such as those in Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and so on.

I would truly love to witness someone update this framework, dissecting the illusion of choice that many Americans think they possess with their liberal and conservative media options.

This would provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the complex relationship between the media and our perception of the world.