‘Manufacturing Consent‘, a term coined by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, dissects the function and impact of media as a propagandistic tool for the powerful elite. The media, often regarded as an unbiased and honest institution, is posited to have far more insidious roles – that of indoctrination and consent manufacturing.

This assertion counters the common belief that the media is a defender of public interests, challenging large power structures. Instead, Chomsky and Herman reveal how media operates within the confines of these power structures, promoting the values and ideologies of the ruling class while maintaining a façade of objectivity.

The media, rather than challenging socio-economic disparities, becomes an apparatus perpetuating such inequalities. Through a veil of neutrality, it disseminates information that subtly endorses the existing hierarchical order, leading the public to accept their place within this structure. The Vietnam War, often exemplified as a media triumph, is a case in point, illustrating how media narratives can manipulate public opinion to align with elite interests. Thus, ‘Manufacturing Consent’ underscores the critical need to scrutinize media narratives and challenges us to rethink how we consume news.

Analyzing the Media’s Role through the Lens of ‘Manufacturing Consent’

Critics may point to instances where the media appears to actively criticize the ruling elites, with cases such as the Watergate scandal often being cited. In these instances, politicians and business leaders were subject to intense scrutiny, their transgressions laid bare for the public to see. At face value, these incidents seem to contradict the notion of inherent media bias in favor of the ruling classes. It’s not uncommon for media representatives to assert their role as guardians of free speech and the broader community against the powerful and wealthy.

However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that such criticisms by the mass media merely reflect the interests of one elite faction over another, rather than representing a non-elite group in opposition to an elite group. Criticisms originating outside of the elite are often suppressed or ignored by the media. The Watergate scandal perfectly exemplifies this split in elite interests. The media was willing, even eager, to investigate and expose Richard Nixon and his associates because the victims of their actions were the powerful Democrats, a political faction representing a section of the elite. Conversely, when the Socialist Workers Party, lacking any elite affiliations, was illicitly surveilled by government agencies, the media turned a blind eye. Thus, while the media may occasionally give the appearance of critiquing the ruling elite, this typically only occurs when there’s discord within the elite itself.

Propaganda Model: The Subtle Forces Shaping Media Narratives

Recognizing the role mass media plays in subtly fostering elite interests necessitates understanding the underpinning ‘propaganda model’. This model outlines a set of filters through which information must pass before it can be presented as news. It’s not overt censorship or state ownership that constrains media in democratic Western societies, but rather these more subtle, ‘natural’ forces, often misperceived as indicators of a ‘free’ and ‘objective’ press.

In essence, the propaganda model elucidates how the mass media can be coerced into propagating for the higher strata of the social hierarchy. For instance, one such filter might be financial incentives. A media outlet must remain profitable and, often, mollify its owners or advertisers to survive. Take General Electric, for example. They own a substantial portion of the mass media and are deeply involved in controversial areas such as nuclear power and the arms trade. Understandably, they pressurize their media networks to stay clear of controversies in these sectors.

Another filter might arise from the sources of the news itself. Government agencies and large corporations provide substantial source material for news, leading the media to heavily rely on these sources. Consequently, these sources could manipulate the media by presenting them with carefully chosen news items framed to their advantage.

Through these filters, the media’s coverage is heavily skewed in favor of the elite’s interests and opinions, with news contradicting these interests conveniently disregarded or suppressed. As a result, the mass media, following this ‘propaganda model’, ensures that any information countering elite interests is filtered out, leaving the news that reaches the public staunchly supportive of those in power.

The Influence of Market Forces and Elite Ownership on Mass Media

The consolidation of mass media under the control of a handful of wealthy families and corporations often stifles diverse viewpoints, particularly those challenging elite ideologies. A look back at the history of the British press in the early 19th century reveals the press’s evolution from a diverse, vibrant platform representing working-class interests to a streamlined echo chamber for the ruling class. Despite the state’s numerous attempts to suppress the left-wing radical press through libel laws and prosecutions, it thrived, fueled by small independent proprietors.

However, the advent of the Industrial Revolution greatly benefited large publications capable of investing in new printing technologies, consequently crowding out the underfunded radical press.

This market-driven suppression of the radical press marked the onset of an era dominated by the right-wing press, backed by the upper echelons of society. As the media industry has evolved and consolidated, its control has increasingly fallen into the hands of a few powerful entities, resulting in a homogenized media landscape that largely reflects the interests of the ruling class.

In the present day, the mass media remains under the control of a select few wealthy families and corporations, driven by a singular pursuit of profit. The power they wield is formidable, with the top 29 media providers accounting for over half of America’s newspapers and the lion’s share of sales and audiences across magazines, movies, books, and broadcasts. Independent media, lacking the backing of a major capital, struggles to compete, often leading to their demise.

This concentration of power and the relentless pursuit of profits are significant factors impeding the mass media’s objectivity. For instance, large investment firms, banks, and brokers, attracted by the media’s monopolistic nature, expect a significant return on their investment, pressuring the media to prioritize profit over impartial reportage. The inherent requirement of prioritizing profits and the control by a minuscule elite inevitably compromise the mass media’s objectivity, raising concerns about the ability of media to fulfill its role as a watchdog of society.

The Advertising Filter: How Sponsorship Shapes Media Content

The survival and success of media organizations are inextricably tied to advertising revenue. The high cost of operations, coupled with intense industry competition, places a premium on garnering sponsorship from advertisers. Consequently, media organizations often resort to bias in their coverage to appeal to their sponsors. This creates another filter in the propaganda model, where the wealthy can exclude news stories that critique their interests.

The influence of advertising on media content is evident in numerous ways. One blatant example is the suppression of news that could harm large corporations. In a notable instance, a US television network lost its advertising funding after airing a documentary highlighting the malpractices of multinationals in developing nations.

Moreover, advertisers exert pressure on televised media to prioritize light entertainment over serious, insightful content that could dampen the viewer’s ‘buying mood’. Hard-hitting documentaries and dramas are often sidelined to maintain an atmosphere conducive to consumerism.

Advertisers are primarily driven by the desire to maximize sales, leading them to manipulate media content to appeal predominantly to affluent audiences, who are more likely to purchase their products. Consequently, media outlets that cater to less wealthy, working-class audiences often struggle to attract advertising revenue. This economic dynamic effectively narrows the range of perspectives presented in the media, tailoring content to the interests of wealthier consumers. Therefore, media organizations, reliant on advertising revenue for their survival, are compelled to keep their advertisers satisfied, often at the cost of objective and diverse reporting.

Dependence on Regular Information Sources: How Government and Big Business Influence the Media Narrative

The daily rhythm of news production necessitates a steady stream of material, leading media organizations to rely heavily on government institutions and large corporations for a sizeable share of their content. The sheer scale and influence of these entities enable them to furnish consistent and seemingly authoritative information, thus deemed trustworthy by the media, which frequently relays such information verbatim without additional verification. This dependence, however, allows these ruling elites to subtly manage and shape the media narrative, adding a filter to the propaganda model through which news is strained before reaching the public.

The privileged position held by the government and large businesses in supplying information enables them to dictate the news agenda strategically. They can present stories to the media in a well-timed fashion to bolster their position or advance their objectives. A historical instance of this manipulation is the orchestrated release of a fallacious story in 1984 concerning the provision of Soviet MiG aircraft to Nicaragua. The cleverly timed dissemination of this false news stirred agitation in the United States and discredited the Nicaraguan election, thereby aligning with President Reagan’s political agenda.

Alternative news sources find themselves at a distinct disadvantage in this landscape. The sporadic nature of their news contributions, combined with the potential for their information to challenge elite interests, often results in skepticism and criticism. To maintain their relationships with regular sources, media organizations may even feel compelled to suppress these non-conforming perspectives. Consequently, the media’s requirement for a steady influx of content propels them into an uncomfortable alliance with government organizations and sizeable corporations, further impeding their ability to provide unbiased and diverse news coverage.

The Power of Flak: An Instrument of Elite Control Over Media

Flak serves as a potent tool in the arsenal of the ruling elite, used to penalize and dissuade critical media that challenge their interests. This backlash against media outlets can manifest in several forms, ranging from direct threats against journalists to the promotion of negative public relations campaigns. The elite are also known to exert indirect influence, prompting advertisers to withdraw their support from recalcitrant media companies, and in more extreme cases, launching legal attacks. The intent behind the creation of flak is to put non-compliant media on the back foot, cultivating an image of an unnecessarily critical press with an alleged ‘liberal bias.’ Well-orchestrated and financed flak, instilling fear in media institutions, thus adding another layer to the propaganda model’s filters.

Right-wing ‘think tanks,’ often established and generously funded by the elite, are tasked with manufacturing flak aimed at critical media. Owing to their prestige, influence, and financial backing, their pronouncements on media bias are widely accepted and unchallenged.

An apt illustration of the power of flak is the dossier published by the right-wing think tank ‘Freedom House’ critiquing the media’s coverage of the Vietnam War. This document accused the media of over-pessimistic reporting and misleading the American public, going so far as to suggest that the media’s portrayal of the war led to the United States’ defeat. Despite the flawed research and inflated conclusions, the dossier was well-received within elite circles and generally reported favorably within mainstream media. This incident underscores the tremendous power and influence of flak in shaping media narratives and silencing dissenting voices.

The Ideological Battle: Mass Media’s Distorted View of the World

The mass media consistently view events through the prism of the battle against communism, a lens dictated by the ruling elites. In this ideologically skewed perspective, the actions of communist forces are invariably presented negatively, while the endeavors of America and its allies receive a favorable portrayal. In this skewed narrative, atrocities such as executions and torture committed in a communist-controlled state receive extensive coverage, whereas similar occurrences in nations allied with America get conveniently overlooked.

This pattern of coverage offers clear advantages to the ruling elites. It galvanizes support across diverse social strata against a universally recognized enemy – the specter of communism. This fear binds communities together, rallying them behind American policies. Moreover, it provides a convenient tool to quell dissent and preserve social hierarchies. Groups that challenge societal inequalities can be labeled as ‘pro-communist’ and, by extension, ‘anti-American’.

This ideological framing places liberals on the defensive, as they face the constant threat of being branded as communists or criticized for insufficient anti-communism. To counter such criticism, they may feel compelled to adopt more right-leaning positions. This dynamic, perpetuated by the majority of media outlets, shifts the perceived political center of society further to the right.

Consequently, this pressure to report right-leaning stories introduces an additional filter in the ‘propaganda model.’ Through this, all events are inevitably viewed through the prism of the battle against communism, further propagating a skewed perception of global events.

Western Bias: Distortion in World News Coverage

The assertion of objectivity by the mass media often stands in stark contrast to the palpable bias that permeates their coverage of global events. Far from providing a balanced outlook, media outlets demonstrate a distinct favoritism towards states that are allied with Western interests. This bias manifests strongly in the media’s reporting on Central American issues, a region that falls under the sphere of American influence.

Among the Central American nations, some like Guatemala and El Salvador operate under US-sponsored military dictatorships, while others like Nicaragua have leanings towards democracy. The political posture of these nations significantly influences how they are portrayed in the media.

For instance, media coverage of elections reveals a concerning disparity. Elections in puppet states like Guatemala, saturated with reports of fraud, voter intimidation, and violence, are depicted as legitimate, with the results—often skewed in favor of government forces—accepted without question. Conversely, Nicaragua, which is known for conducting relatively free and fair elections, often gets dismissed as a propaganda tool for left-wing leaders, even when such elections are globally recognized as open and fair.

This pattern illustrates a troubling reality: when reporting world news, the mass media heavily favor states that are allied with the West, often distorting or outright reversing the truth to align with elite interests in the United States. This practice not only compromises journalistic integrity but also misleads the public, reinforcing a skewed perception of global events.

The Role of Experts in Media Bias

A common strategy employed by the mass media to lend credibility to their reports is the inclusion of insights from ‘experts’. However, beneath the facade of objectivity, these so-called ‘experts’ often serve as key players in disseminating the biased narratives of the ruling elites. Vast resources are poured into cultivating these ‘experts’ within think tanks and similar institutions, where their studies are funded and published, thereby providing a steady stream of voices ready to echo the elite’s perspectives in the media.

Contrary to popular belief, the role of these ‘experts’ is not to foster understanding of events, but rather to lend an air of gravitas to the interests and viewpoints of the elites being broadcasted. In their selection of experts, media outlets prioritize those who align with the views of the dominant elite, further strengthening the biased narrative.

A poignant example of the influence of ‘expert’ opinion in supporting biased reporting is the reaction to the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981. The would-be assassin was a right-wing Turkish national, yet two ‘experts’ funded by the media propagated a plot that blamed the Soviet Union. Despite the dubious evidence that was easily irrefutable, this narrative was picked up and spread uncritically by a majority of the mass media, largely due to the credibility lent by the ‘experts’. This incident demonstrates the strategic use of ‘expert’ opinion by the media in bolstering and propagating their biased views.

The Value of Life: Media’s Biased Coverage of Death

The mass media often exhibit a disturbing hierarchy in their valuation of human life, depending on the political implications of each death. Take, for instance, the 1984 incident where Jerzy Popiełuszko, a Polish priest who openly opposed Poland’s communist regime, was abducted, brutally beaten, and murdered by members of the secret police. This tragic event garnered extensive coverage in the US media, emphasizing its emotional weight and broader political ramifications for the communist system.

Such a narrative comfortably fits the framework established by the interests of the ruling elites, effectively casting the communist adversary as a ruthless and ominous force. This narrative amplifies support for American policies while simultaneously vilifying the opposition. Contrast this with the media’s conspicuous silence on the torture and murder of hundreds of religious representatives in US-friendly Central American states.

Despite numerous instances of religious figures facing brutal oppression for standing against autocratic governments in these states, the media largely turns a blind eye. Judging from the disparity in coverage, it might be inferred that a priest’s life in Poland is valued a hundredfold more than a priest’s life in Central America.

The explanation lies in the media’s obligation to enthusiastically highlight transgressions in enemy nations, using graphic details to stir outrage, while linking these crimes directly to the ruling system. In contrast, when it comes to allies of the US, the media tend to conceal state crimes to maintain unity, going as far as to disregard the murders of US citizens in Central America.

In this context, these victims are deemed unworthy of our attention, not because their lives are intrinsically less valuable, but because they perished under inconvenient circumstances and at the hands of the “wrong” perpetrators. Consequently, the mass media, knowingly or unknowingly, value lives based on the political messages their deaths can relay.

Summary and Key Messages of ‘Manufacturing Consent’

The central premise of ‘Manufacturing Consent’ is the assertion that the mass media act as a bulwark, safeguarding the interests and perspectives of the ruling political and economic elites. They play a pivotal role in fostering a society that is dramatically unequal and unjust, subscribing to a ‘propaganda model’ that meticulously filters out any criticism, thereby ensuring the news agenda is steered by the elite’s viewpoints.

• ‘Manufacturing Consent’ claims that mass media guard the interests and perspectives of the ruling political and economic elites.
• Mass media contribute to the creation of an unjust, unequal society.
• The media propagate a ‘propaganda model’, eliminating any criticism and ensuring the news agenda is orchestrated by the elite.
• The media’s obligation to protect the ruling elite’s interests is derived from their role in conditioning people to accept an unjust society.
• The ‘propaganda model’ advances the control that the elites have over the news agenda.
• The mass media are primarily owned by a small number of wealthy families and corporations, prioritizing profitability and relying heavily on advertising revenue.
• The need for constant news makes media dependent on government organizations and large corporations, amplifying their bias.
• The elites exert control by generating ‘flak’ against any media that ventures to criticize them.
• In reporting news, the media typically favor states allied with the West.
• The value assigned to human lives by mass media, especially in death reporting, depends on the political narrative that can be supported by their death.
• Some lives are considered more newsworthy than others, reflecting a grave bias in media reporting.
• ‘Manufacturing Consent’ exposes the workings of the mass media, revealing their strategies and motives.