Take a photo of a barcode or cover
calarco 's review for:
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
by Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman present a compelling (and horrifying) case for a type of media bias they deem the “propaganda model” in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
Published at the end of the Reagan era, the framework of the two authors’ argument stems largely from case studies of Cold War conflict overseas. They contend that much of the (U.S.) media coverage of U.S. involvement in Latin American, the Middle East, and most notably Vietnam, is inherently flawed due to mass-media outlets’ goal of meeting the financial lines for corporate investors. While not outright censorship, they argue media outlets will give more coverage to favorable stories of anti-communist efforts as opposed to honestly representing the stories that do not meet this narrative.
The two authors argue that while within the United States we have freedom of speech granted to the press with the First Amendment, media companies and networks still need government granted licenses and franchises. This creates a type of technical dependency, then coupled with the fact that there is a great deal of overlap between the regulators and heads of (regulated) companies, which results in a bias in storytelling that allows the powerful to maintain a status quo that consolidates their control. Narratives are powerful things.
The most prominent way that this “propaganda model” manifests is seen with how the media will portray “worthy” and “unworthy” victims. Specifically, “worthy” victims would comprise Americans and our allies who would receive humanizing, front-page coverage, whereas “unworthy” victims are those of communist states (the other) who receive little humanization and marginal coverage. Within the context of the Cold War period where the us and them mentality was what defined the zeitgeist, Chomsky and Herman denote these two distinct categories. My only critique would be with the rigidity of this dichotomy; I believe Chomsky and Herman have identified something significant, but I find it more constructive to consider the “unworthy” and “worthy” as two ends of a spectrum.
Overall, Chomsky and Herman lay out a well-researched argument. While I do agree that corporate interests would fall into the bias of a “propaganda model,” and that the powerful certainly assert a hegemony from the top down, I still took this model to be indicative of a bias (albeit a destructive one) rather than a sweeping conspiracy. Systems can be flawed, but I do believe there are good investigative reporters out there else we would have never had anything like the Watergate (1972) coverage or even the Harvey Weinstein (2017) illuminations.
All things considered, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is most definitely worth reading. It’s provocative food for thought; I know I’ll be thinking about it for quite some time to come.
Published at the end of the Reagan era, the framework of the two authors’ argument stems largely from case studies of Cold War conflict overseas. They contend that much of the (U.S.) media coverage of U.S. involvement in Latin American, the Middle East, and most notably Vietnam, is inherently flawed due to mass-media outlets’ goal of meeting the financial lines for corporate investors. While not outright censorship, they argue media outlets will give more coverage to favorable stories of anti-communist efforts as opposed to honestly representing the stories that do not meet this narrative.
The two authors argue that while within the United States we have freedom of speech granted to the press with the First Amendment, media companies and networks still need government granted licenses and franchises. This creates a type of technical dependency, then coupled with the fact that there is a great deal of overlap between the regulators and heads of (regulated) companies, which results in a bias in storytelling that allows the powerful to maintain a status quo that consolidates their control. Narratives are powerful things.
The most prominent way that this “propaganda model” manifests is seen with how the media will portray “worthy” and “unworthy” victims. Specifically, “worthy” victims would comprise Americans and our allies who would receive humanizing, front-page coverage, whereas “unworthy” victims are those of communist states (the other) who receive little humanization and marginal coverage. Within the context of the Cold War period where the us and them mentality was what defined the zeitgeist, Chomsky and Herman denote these two distinct categories. My only critique would be with the rigidity of this dichotomy; I believe Chomsky and Herman have identified something significant, but I find it more constructive to consider the “unworthy” and “worthy” as two ends of a spectrum.
Overall, Chomsky and Herman lay out a well-researched argument. While I do agree that corporate interests would fall into the bias of a “propaganda model,” and that the powerful certainly assert a hegemony from the top down, I still took this model to be indicative of a bias (albeit a destructive one) rather than a sweeping conspiracy. Systems can be flawed, but I do believe there are good investigative reporters out there else we would have never had anything like the Watergate (1972) coverage or even the Harvey Weinstein (2017) illuminations.
All things considered, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is most definitely worth reading. It’s provocative food for thought; I know I’ll be thinking about it for quite some time to come.