Noam Chomsky on Manufacturing Consent (Part 1)

March 1989 http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww....

Watch the full lecture: http://thefilmarchived.blogspot.com/2010/08/noam-chomsky-on-manufacturing-con...

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, first published in 1988. The title derives from the phrase the manufacture of consent that essayisteditor Walter Lippmann (1889-74) employed in the book Public Opinion (1922).

Using the propaganda model, Manufacturing Consent posits that corporate-owned news mass communication media - print, radio, television - are businesses subject to commercial competition for advertising revenue and profit. As such, their distortion (editorial bias) of news reportage - i.e. what types of news, which items, and how they are reported - is consequence of the profit motive that requires establishing a stable, profitable business; therefore, news businesses favoring profit over the public interest succeed, whilst those favoring reportorial accuracy over profits fail, and are relegated to the margins of their markets (low sales and ratings).

Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news medias dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, et cetera, incurs governmental disfavor, it usually is subtly excluded from access to information (news); resultantly, its competitors receive biased, preferential access. Consequently, the excluded news medium loses readers, viewers, and subscribers, hence its market-place business-leadership when it loses advertisers — the primary income sources. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reportage to favor government and corporate policies in order to maintain revenues and increase profits.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Noam
• Chomsky
• Supreme
• Court
• Justice
• Powell
• democratic
• democracy
• free
• access
• to
• information
• opinion
• civil
• war
• American
• revolution
• slaves
• poor
• John
• Locke
• manufacture
• of
• consent
• Clement
• Walker
• liberal
• army
• government
• Reinhold
• Niebuhr
• necessary
• illusion
• proletarian
• Walter
• Lippmann
• public
• World
• War
• Dewey
• propaganda
• pacifist
• Woodrow
• Wilson
• peace
• without
• victory
• intellectuals
• National
• Board
• for
• Historical
• Service
• agency

[bennygale]

Thank you!

[rollieskreetie]

Noam's great!

[lestertrad]

@skcin7 Yeah that's the point. We still don't know who killed the Kennedys or King, and probably never will. So it's a matter of believing that "well, surely they wouldn't go that far, would they"? And that becomes conventional wisdom, by default. Next step, if you assert the contrary, you're a conspiracy theorist.

[zapproowsdower]

@DaD3VIL07 politicians are terrible at keeping secrets, true. but military brass, especially in the collective intelligence networks, and the upper echelon of big business are an entirely different story. saying 'the bush admin did it', or even worse, 'the government did it', is naive.

[DaD3VIL07]

@zapproowsdower Chomsky has said that for the Bush Admin. to be the perpetrators would be insanity. For one they'd all be executed if caught out, and that would be almost certain as he believes there would be leaks.

[zapproowsdower]

@skcin7 9/11 is actually not very controversial. An assessment of all available data overwhelmingly points in the direction of a joint intelligence operation. But cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias are powerful subconscious blinders that operate on an emotional and instinctual level, not intellectual. religion, UFOs, and to a lesser extent events like 9/11... there's so much conflicting info that people resort to instinct instead of scrutiny.

[skcin7]

@zapproowsdower You don't know that it was either. None of us do. We can only speculate.

[zapproowsdower]

@Profitnation That's pretty arrogant of you. "You hold this opinion so therefore you must be stupid."

For something as complex as 9/11, you find absolutely brilliant people on both sides of the fence. And some very stupid people on both sides. Sounds like you enjoy arguing with emotions instead of logic, because you apparently don't understand how your argument is ironic.

[Profitnation]

@zapproowsdower The person who wrote this, and who is obviously but another drone marching to the beat of the dubious conspiracy theorists, after such a discredit to their own intellect, has no right commenting on others. And I am saying this because of your last, not your first, sentence.

[zapproowsdower]

Definitely a smart man - but I don't understand why people call him the smartest man alive today. Clearly not. He hasn't even figured out that 9/11 was perpetrated by the same "hidden government" that he so often talks about.

[75630KaraokeStar]

@barbcinque I am not a person who believes what I stated in regards to Chomsky. I was just seeing if I could get just the reaction you gave me. I wanted to get a reaction within the negative.

Truth be told the so called liberals are serving the same master as the conservatives and as long as people buy into the nonsense that the politicians feed us we will have a society of good and submissive slaves.

[futopolis]

@futopolis However, one might argue that pairing Oprah and that shaved ape, Dr. Phil, in a sentence describing "intellectuals" might be a clue in itself...