Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media

Rating:
Summary: The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
Review: In "Manufacturing Consent", Chomsky lays out his "propaganda model" which applies to the mass media in the free-market United States. It purports that the media, owned and controlled by powerful, wealthy, special interests, aids these elites in their quest to dominate the state and private activity. Chomsky's analysis of the media's choices, emphases, and omissions, suggests a better way to understand "reality" versus what the "propaganda model" would condition us to believe.

Chomsky ties his assumptions into a tight theory followed by reams of information and examples supporting his thesis. He reminds me of an attorney whose closing argument is airtight to the point that you wonder how the opposing attorney can possibly rebut it. Then you hear the other attorney do his wrap-up and realize what the first attorney left out. Just as with the first attorney, there are components of truth to Chomsky's allegations. He's right, ruling elites do seek to control the masses of people, and they do lie to them and do attempt to shape their thinking. However, American elites have to contend with many sources of information that are available to the people i.e. the popular program "60 Minutes." This makes the moulding of public opinion more difficult. In contrast, the Communist party in Russia got away with information control for most of the 20th century until the information revolution made it impossible; see "Dismantling Utopia: How information ended the Soviet Union" by Scott Shane.

Chomsky's media model seems to describe Cuba's, and North Korea's domestic media more than it does America's. See "Guerrilla Prince" by Geyer; also, see "the Guide to the perfect Latin American Idiot" which describes media propaganda in Latin America.

Chomsky's story makes perfect sense. The trick, as stated above is in knowing what's left out, knowing what questions to ask, and knowing how to weight the variables in the equation. Once you buy into Chomsky's model you're buried with proof, and if you don't do your own homework you're apt to be misled.

Chomsky, out of the Bakunin-Proudhon school, implies that people tend to be automatons and to that end are incapable of exercising free will. He seems to feel they are either unable or too lazy to search out answers on their own. His model uses the major networks of TV and radio in addition to the major newspapers to suggest that they are run on the model of a Japanese Keritsu; that they are somehow controlled by cooperating, interlocking families with great wealth. He never mentions the SEC in its role as a regulator. He doesn't mention FASB. He doesn't seem to take economics into consideration. He needs to run a regulated business like McGovern did when he ran a bed & breakfast, who then saw government regulation differently.

Chomsky describes filters that control the disemination of information, particularly on international events. Nothing reaches the public without being tightly managed. Well what about the film footage of the Vietnam war on TV? If Robert E. Lee had Jane Fonda and TV during our civil war we would have 2 countries in the USA today.

In 2001 the internet, with outlets like the Drudge Report, is the bane of those trying to control the news. It also provides for news published by other than American sources. "Spin Cycle" by Howie Kurtz is about political elites attempting organized thought control. And how about the popularity of the "O'Reilly Factor" on cable, who was all over the Clinton's like white on rice?

It would be helpful if the book were to point out that the USSR, Cuba and N. Korea block media information, but the author seems to save his criticisms for free-market America. He never contrasts these critiques with the mostly one-party regimes in the other 200+ countries in the world. In his discussion on filters, Chomsky talks about a filter for anti-communism, but he never mentions "Political Pilgrims" or "Anti-Americanism", both written by Paul Hollander, a former immigrant, and a prof at Umass. The only individual who gets more mentions than Chomsky, in "Anti-Americanism", is Fidel Castro.

Are American elite's different than elite's in other countries? History suggests that elitism is all about metaphorical mafia families fighting for control of the people. Perhaps 2-3% of people everywhere wish to control everyone else, like in a barnyard pecking order. Another 12-15% of people facilitate the 2%. While ambitious, they don't possess the skills of the 2%. America's system was set up to thwart rule by this 2% group of wannabe dictators.

Chomsky prefers the 18th century Hegal-Marx master-slave model, refers to the labor movement as though we are still in a Marxist labor vs capital mode, and uses words like "reactionary" with its Soviet connotations. Using critical thinking on Chomsky's arguments requires an understanding of statistical data and how it is compiled. An academic background in economics, accounting, statistics and military history is also essential.

David Horowitz, author of "the Politics of Bad Faith", has critical insights into Chomsky's views and should be read for contrast. For further contrast read "1984" by Orwell, "the Long March" by Kimball, "Against All Hope" by Valladares", "the Soviet Paradox" by Bialer and "the Burden of Bad Ideas" by McDonald. Balint Vazsonyi's "America's 30 year War" compares Chomsky's Franco-German political theory with the Anglo-American model favored by most Americans. Also read the "Black Book of Communism" for examples of the results of Franco-German political thinking; Robispierre writ large. And finally, what country has 70 million people owning their own homes and 50% of its people owning stocks? ...

Rating:
Summary: Brillinant if imperfect analysis from the great Chomsky
Review: Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky provide a radical critique of the American Mass Media through the formulation and testing of a "propaganda model." This propaganda model states that, contrary to popular opinion and conservative thinking, the media does not have a liberal or anti-establishment bias. The Mass Media is owned largely by wealthy individuals, banks, and corporate interests. The media depends upon the state for information and assistance in its day-to-day operations. Thus, free-market forces cause the media to adopt a bias in favor of corporate interests, government interests, and the status quo in general. The "Propaganda Model" is tested out on a variety of foreign affairs matters, ranging from Nicaragua to the "Plot to Kill the Pope" to Vietnam to East Timor. In between, a few comments on domestic affairs such as the FBI's intrusions and Watergate are thrown into the mix. Chomsky is a brilliant scholar and analyst, and his theory largely holds up under investigation. The propaganda model demonstrates how a free press such as our own can produce more influential and effective propaganda than a press with state censorship such as that of Communist countries. However, Chomsky's conclusions are difficult to swallow: The independent media which Chomsky prefers is biased based on the ideology of those doing the publishing, and therefore no better than the mainstream media in terms of fairness or accuracy. On page 299, Chomsky argues that the break-ins and harassment by the FBI of the Socialist Worker's Party were covered up by the media because the SWP represents no powerful interests. It is just as likely that few newspaper readers would be interested in the fate of a tiny, unpopular political organization. Finally, the propaganda model fails to take one factor into account: Perhaps the reason why people accept media distortions is that they WANT to be convinced that the government is doing right by the people, that our country is honorable and decent compared to our foes, and that the status quo is acceptable. Humans have a basic psychological desire to be convinced of such things, and a media that screamed about corruption and inequality would be unpopular indeed. In short, Chomsky's writing is thoroughly readable and his biting analysis is a must-see for Americans interested in how their media operates. Just look upon his analysis and conclusions with an open, yet critical, mind.

Rating:
Summary: A tour de force
Review: A tour de force, co-authored by one of the world's leading experts on language and meaning.@In this book, Herman and Chomsky put forward a "propaganda model" to explain the bias in Western (mostly US) media on international affairs. Their thesis is that, although the US is not a dictatorship where a single leader can censor the press, the very market forces that lead people to believe in the freedom of their press actually work to create a self-imposed censorship which creates a biased media, more intent on delivering audiences to their advertisers and vital corporate sponsors than in providing their readers with balanced and informed news.@The authors back up their theory with a large number of examples, and focus on 3 main topics: Latin America, Vietnam and the attempt on the life of the Pope in 1981. Using extensive quotations from US contemporary media reports, and comparing them with official sources such as government documents, White House memos, State Department press releases, as well as reports in non-US-based media, Herman and Chomsky are able to bolster their thesis of a propaganda model, and show that US media reports are nearly always skewed to show the US and its allies as the "good guys", and other (enemy) states as the "bad guys". When "they" do it, it's called "terrorism", when "we" do it, it's called "fighting for democracy and freedom."

Such a statement seems too blatantly simplistic to require serious consideration; nevertheless, the authors do give it very serious consideration, and the evidence they have scrupulously collected is hard to refute. Moreover, their propaganda model helps to explain why and how this can be so, even (indeed, particularly) in a "free democracy": a number of filters act to screen out unwelcome aspects of news.

A startling eye-opener, very well researched and cogently, passionately argued. These authors care intensely about lives lost due to state-sponsored violence, whether that state is the US or the Soviet Union or anywhere else. A must-read for students of media and communication, and indeed any intelligent reader curious about the forces that shape what actually appears in their newspapers and television news.

Rating:
Summary: politically radical yet superb
Review: This is the one Chomsky book to read if you're going to read only one. It's a scathing indictment of the "free" press, packed with a massive amount of carefully documented evidence. The focus throughout is on the nature of pro-establishment propaganda foisted on the public by the elite print media, primarily the New York Times and Washington Post. The authors painstakingly compare the editorial positions and news biases of leading media with the information available through third parties (typically foreign or smaller-scale U.S. media) and find that the elite print media are slanted far in favor of official Washington policy--with journalistic integrity and independence pushed aside.

Rating:
Summary: a superb indictment of the media
Review: "Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media" is a superb indictment of the news media's subservience to elite, corporate power and its ongoing betrayal of the public's trust - especially when dealing with American foreign policy. "Manufacturing Consent" is in many ways an appendix to Robert McChesney's "Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy" as Herman and Chomsky posit that "the societal purpose of the media is to... defend the economic, social and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state." A must-read for anyone under the illusion that the media is an adversarial, liberal or democratic institution.

Rating:
Summary: Incisive, scholarly, and, unfortunately, accurate
Review: The one great pleasure about reading Herman and Chomsky's works is their scholarly approach. They reference copiously, thus empowering the reader to go deeper into the subject. I've listened to idiots rebuff Manufacturing Consent by suggesting it's one big conspiracy theory. Having read this book, I can, with certainty, conclude that those people have either never opened the book, or they held it upside down when they read it. What's patent about these writers' works is the growing gap between the intellectually rich and the rest of the population (the "sheeple"). You have incisive analysts who can tell the wheat from the chaff, and then there's the majority, who are busy watching football and studying the President's sexual habits. But, when you read manufacturing consent, you find out that this disparity is an output desired by those who govern, for it makes their job easier. In other words, they've introduced a new definition of democracy that says it's a system where a mighty few run the show and the rest are spectators.

Rating:
Summary: We get the point.
Review: I'm sure Chomsky & Herman have made an excellent case, but after the characteristics of their propaganda model have been defined in the first chapter, the next three hundred pages become a tiresome list of examples illustrating their point. The numbing predictability this produced meant that I was unable to finish the book. It does not help either that the book was written in such dessicated prose. It illustrates an important point and it's some feat of research, but it's a pity it's so dull.

Rating:
Summary: Full Marks to Chomsky and Herman
Review: As an avid Chomsky reader (cf. my other reviews), it is not surprising that I am fascinated with this book. Chomsky et al. confidently and carefully disect the actual construction of the media outlets. They ask questions I am yet to see elsewhere: who OWNS the media? Who PAYS for the words you see on a newspaper or hear on the tube? This book changed my views radically when I first read it (the book can be read 2-3 times a year for life in my opinion). Until I read this book, I assumed that the product of a newspaper was just that, the newspaper. However, as the authors point out this is not the case. The product of a newspaper is the reading audience, who are then sold by the newspaper to advertisers. As Chomsky has pointed out, newspapers do not make money from the 30 or 40pence you pay for a paper, after all, they are happy to post it on the internet for free. The media institutions are answerable to the advertisers who ultimately pay for the media and thus allow it to continue.

Through diligent examination of various case studies, Chomsky and Herman demonstrate other factors which influence and blur news reporting. My advice is as follows: buy the book, read it, consider the arguments and the case studies presented, and then apply the principles of the propaganda model to your own favourite newspaper or TV news programme. Don't be surprised however if you never believe a word you read or are told again. For this book is about critical thinking. It deals with awakening your innate skills of critical analysis. Chomsky and Herman do not ask, nor expect, you just to accept what they tell you; rather they request you look at the evidence yourself and come to your own conclusion. Walter Lippmann said that when everyone is thinking the same, then no one is thinking. Think about that.

Rating:
Summary: Who buys and sells the media in the U.S.?
Review: The answers, or at least some of them, are here in this excellent book by Chomsky and Herman.

The current media situation in the U.S. is dire, and growing worse with every passing year. This book should be required reading in U.S. high schools, or at the very least, for college students majoring in political science, marketing/advertising or journalism.

The citizens of the U.S. need to open their eyes about who owns the media...and why.

Rating:
Summary: Perhaps the most important work Herman and Chomksy have done
Review: Manufacturing Consent is a landmark piece of scholarship. I hesitate to name any work in the Chomsky and Herman canon as the "best," but I lean toward Manufacturing Consent as the most important work that either of them has produced. I have seen many pathetic criticisms that their work has received (like several on this review page), and I have never seen any of them hold any water. Their criticisms say a lot more about the critics than they do Manufacturing Consent. Manufacturing Consent demonstrates how truly "free" we are in America. Like Chomsky has said, when the apparatus of the state cannot unleash violence with impunity to control the masses, then the ruling class has to control what people think. Manufacturing Consent is virtually unanswerable in its scholarship, and I have never seen anybody make a worthy attempt to answer it. I would be embarrassed to have written the kinds of brainless criticisms that I have seen directed toward their work.

The only worthy criticism that I have seen directed toward Manufacturing Consent was made by Chomsky himself, when he noted that the fifth media filter, anticommunism, was too specific and has made the book dated. Chomsky said (In The Common Good, pp. 41-42), "I thought at the time it was put too narrowly. More broadly, it's the idea that grave enemies are about to attack us and we need to huddle under the protection of domestic power. You need something to frighten people with, to prevent them from paying attention to what's really happening to them." With the "Communist Conspiracy" gone, the U.S. fear mongers have had to dredge lower and lower to conjure those malevolent threats to our "great nation" like Saddam Hussein, Nicaraguan farmers, drug dealers, etc. It might be evil extraterrestrials next year. Hey, whatever works.

I used Manufacturing Consent as an important part of my education into how the media works. I devote much of my writings to the issue of the media and history, and how we are being lied to. I have a new 1,000-page web site up which deals with the issues of Manufacturing Consent in great depth, especially regarding my experiences, which are a case study of media manipulation. I had a business partner who spent years behind bars in America as a political prisoner for daring to try to revolutionize the energy industry.