MANUFACTURING CONSENT

The other day, I was talking to my mother over the phone about how the US corporate news media (which is what most Americans turn to for their news) ignore and distort the truth, and often simply lie in support of the corporate, military, and government dominated establishment. I did a pretty bad job of getting my point across. The whole conversation made me think that I need to address in blog form Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann's propaganda model of how the US news media actually function. (For an excerpt from their book that goes into much more detail, but is kind of dry and tedious, click here.)

The Propaganda Model

The first and most important point to make about the propaganda model (PM) is that it is an analysis of the business of the news. Chomsky and Hermann's PM is often dismissed by establishment critics as a conspiracy theory; it is often portrayed as a crazy, impossible "expose" of some sort of secret, intentional, individually directed cabal against the people of America. As Chomsky has pointed out, such dismissals serve to discourage "institutional analysis," but never actually address the arguments head on. In constructing the PM, Chomsky and Hermann analyzed thousands of US news media stories, how they are gathered, how they portray the facts, what is emphasized, frequency of story occurrence, news media career issues, and news media economic issues. They arrive at some startling conclusions that are supported by reams of credible evidence. One of the most startling conclusions, to me, is that most of the individuals involved in the news business seem to have no idea that the industry is structured in such a way that it, ultimately, serves as a propaganda force that strongly supports the corporate, government, and military establishment. (This is especially startling considering the conventional wisdom that states that the media is totally liberal; it is clearly conservative on the most important issues.)

In discussing the media's methods of business and newsgathering practices, Chomsky and Hermann determine that the truth is essentially siphoned through five "filters" before it is distilled into the consumer product known as "news." Sometimes, the truth passes through these filters almost unchanged. Much of the time, however, this "news" reflects the views and assumptions of the powerful interests that control America. Even though the news industry believes that it bends over backwards to be "objective," it is usually, in fact, quite subjective--I would even add that there can be no such thing as "objectivity" in the news and that the industry should just give up the façade. (Fox is trying really hard to do this already; it is pretty clear to almost anyone with a brain that Fox is not "fair and balanced.")

The rub here is that the news business sets the boundaries of national debate about and understanding of extremely important issues: the PM filters make it such that numerous, important points of view and facts never even make it into the debate. In other words, whether by conscious intention or by individual businesses collectively, but unknowingly, pursuing their perceived best interests, the American "marketplace of ideas" is rigged in favor of the wealthy elites that run the country. This severely undermines any concept of American democracy that was taught to us in school--most people do not realize this, do not want it to be true and, therefore, are quite resistant to even considering its possibility.

But Chomsky and Hermann prove it beyond a doubt in their book, Manufacturing Consent.

The Five Filters

SIZE AND OWNERSHIP is the first filter. In short, the media are not owned by regular people; no normal person could even hope to ever compete in a field that is already totally monopolized by a few vastly huge corporations. This creates an unrelenting downward pressure on newsgathering organizations to reflect their masters' views in reporting. These reflected views in the news also strengthen such corporate powers by providing "popular" leverage in Congress to get bills passed that further their ends.


ADVERTISING is what pays the bills and makes the news business profitable. Advertising also skews the news while it skews the fictional concept of consumer choice of news sources. In other words, the main incentive to produce news products is not to dutifully inform the people; rather, it is to attract audiences that are desired by advertisers. This means that news products are tailored to seduce news customers into buying what advertisers are selling. News stories that show a business, industry, or product in an unfavorable light are often relegated to the trashcan (or, at least, page 13A in the bottom left corner...) if they are ever even written: reporters often self-censor so as not to offend advertisers.

SOURCES become problematic for news organizations when viewed through the PM. As the news business increasingly becomes concerned with the bottom line, old style, hit-the-streets reporting becomes increasingly anachronistic. That is, reporters cost money: for years now, the mass media has been employing fewer reporters and keeping fewer bureaus in different cities. At the same time, due to the rise of cable and the Internet, there are increasingly more news outlets, and, therefore, the need for news products has also increased. The media have heavily turned to relying on corporate and government spokespersons to fill the gap. It's a good deal from a business point of view. Government and corporate sources are always in the same place, always have something to say, and, because of their relative importance to the country, always look and sound newsworthy. Obviously, these spokesmen have their own agendas, and too much reliance on them distorts the news in their favor. That's what's happening right now.

FLAK AND THE ENFORCERS refers to organized negative responses to news products. The way this works is such that any reporting that is perceived as unflattering to the views or aims of these "flak machines" is attacked so endlessly that the news business loses money. A worst-case scenario, in these terms, is a boycott of news advertisers--advertising is the entire reason for the news business's existence. Of course, both liberal and conservative groups create flak (but I would say that the most powerful "flak machines" are conservative; they've got the money), but the point is that the news business is highly vulnerable to this kind of pressure and they certainly never admit it to their consumers.

ANTI-COMMUNISM AS A CONTROL MECHANISM is the fifth filter. Although, since the dismantling of the Soviet Union, this concept is somewhat obsolete (but charges of "Socialist!" still freak out reporters, editors, and producers), the basic concept of "national religion," as Chomsky and Hermann call it, still heavily influences the creation of news products. That is, there are some very basic assumptions that "everybody knows are true" to which journalists must be subservient. One assumption is "free trade." Almost all corporate journalists seem to believe that "free trade" on corporate terms is totally the way to go--anybody challenging this is a total loon, treated like the Catholic Church treated Galileo for daring to say that the Earth orbits the Sun. Another assumption that is now a "national religion" is anti-terrorism-by-force. Again, if the media even cover dissenting views at all, anybody that opposes "war on terrorism" is simply crazy, or extremely naive, if not downright traitorous.

A Closing Thought

The most interesting thing about the PM is that it is, for the most part, self-imposed by individuals working in the news industry. That is, there is really no actual "censorship" as understood in the traditional way--the business doesn't force reporters to obey. Instead, the business hires and advances only those individuals that already buy into the filtering process (although, I'm sure, that's not how most reporters see it). In other words, you don't work in the news unless you already buy the bullshit. That's probably why so many journalists think that Manufacturing Consent is a bunch of crazy rubbish (even though they never take time to actually sit down and read the damned thing), and that Chomsky and Hermann are lunatics. The beauty of the PM is that those suffering the censorship have no idea that it's happening. Neither do their readers and viewers.

The net effect of the PM is that news products overwhelmingly favor pro-military, pro-government, and pro-corporate views and goals without seeming that way to most Americans. This, as well as some other problems such as campaign finance, has destroyed democracy in the United States. Sadly, not many people seem to want to know this.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$