Manufacturing Consent The Political Economy of the Mass Media

What Our Readers Are Saying

Share your thoughts on this title!

Average customer rating 5 (2 comments)

---

`

The basic argument of the book is that the media, which has become ever more centralized and corporatized in recent decades, tends to show a consistent bias toward reporting the news in a way that is favorable to those in power, including government institutions and corporations. In the book's preface, the authors make the important point that their analysis differs from a conspiracy theory in that, rather than positing some powerful puppet master who is secretly pulling all of the strings, their "propaganda model" describes the subtle pressures felt by those reporting the news that lead to a widespread understanding about what is acceptable to be presented as news and what isn't. This leads to a large amount of self-censorship of which most of those involved probably aren't even aware. In this sense, the propaganda model is more like a market analysis than a conspiracy theory. Just as important as censorship of the news content is the way that the framework for debate is presented in a way that is congenial to those in positions of power, although they very often don't have to demand this explicitly. An example of such a framework is the way in which the media constantly frames all political stories as a battle between Democrats and Republicans, leaving alternative narratives unexamined. For example, the possibility of decreasing military spending is never discussed, although polls show consistent and widespread public support for this. Rather, the two sides that are presented are the Republicans' plan for huge increases versus the Democrats' plan for moderate increases. The propaganda model comprises five key components, which act as successive filters through which the news must pass: (i) Size, ownership, and profit orientation of mass media. The US media has become ever more centralized in recent decades, with a handful of huge corporations and very wealthy individuals making up the majority of it. Thus it is no surprise that corporate interests tend to be well represented by the media. In some cases this can lead to flagrant conflicts of interest. For example, General Electric, which owns NBC, is involved in weapons production and obviously might prefer the news on this topic to be reported in a certain way. (ii) Dependence on advertising revenue. This tends to put news outlets oriented towards a working-class audience at a disadvantage, since advertisers are less willing to pay for the privilege of advertising to such "lower quality" audiences that don't have much buying power. Further, news outlets have a strong incentive not to upset their advertisers. Reading this chapter led me to reflect on the large number of television advertisements by oil and gas companies that one sees these days, in which the companies boast about how virtuous and necessary they are, working together to create American jobs and build a better future. One can imagine how the relationship between Exxon and CNN might sour if the latter were to air an investigative documentary critical of fracking, for example. (iii) The reliance of media on government, big business, and "experts" for news. It's much easier for media to get their news by going to a weekly press conference at the White House than it is to get it by going out into the world and doing investigative journalism. This sort of tendency creates a cozy relationship between the media and those in power. As Herman and Chomsky put it, "It's very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for news liars, even if they tell whoppers." (iv) "Flak" as a means of influencing content. The term "flak" refers to any negative responses that the media receives from parties that are unhappy about the way that the news has been reported. While flak can come from both ordinary individuals and large, established organizations, the latter are generally in a better position to produce flak that will actually lead to a media response. Important sources of flak are think tanks, corporations, and the government, all of which can seek to ensure that the media is strongly rebuffed for not being sufficiently pro-business, etc. (v) Anticommunism as an overarching ideology. Obviously this was more relevant when the book was written in 1988. It's tempting to apply the same framework to today's media, but with "communism" replaced by "terrorism," the arch nemesis of all Very Serious People in the media and government today. The analogy isn't quite perfect, though, since anticommunism as a state religion could be used naturally to push a pro-corporate agenda, which lies at the heart of the propaganda model, in a way that antiterrorism can't. (There are some obvious exceptions, of course, in the case of firms like Halliburton, for whom the War on Terror has been quite lucrative.) On the whole I found this book to be a very enlightening read. Despite the fact that many of the examples are a bit dated, I would certainly recommend this book to anyone looking for a critical perspective on mass media today.

`

Now more than ever specially with advanced technology and quick electronic transactions across the World, true media needs to be available. Society needs to have dialogue at all levels and social classes of matters that may affect their lives. It is becoming scarier to think Media has become even more of a liar and this could cause society to self-destruct. People since the beggining of time have shaped society and worked to improve it when needed and forged their communities, however now we are having centralized banks and governments along with the Corporate interests Shaping the society and forming it Unnaturally. It will be a matter of time before a new kind of Frankestein problem developes due to Greed and then it may be too later to reverse the damages. All other people since made powerless wont be able to revert or even be able to help in the changing of a negative situation. So, yes this book is extremely relevant to what is going on today and we need to find a solution for its getting worse as each day passes. We have NAU warehouses all over the Nation and task forces h a r m onizing laws for Amexicanada as called in the streets. Is the media insane and not fear that when people discover and even the other parties involved that they were lied to and plans to make these changes even date back to the 50's and done in increments? There are so many lies that I sure hope people just quit buying newspapers or even watch television. ABC is owned by Disney? So what are we getting there Fantasia?