Average Rating: 
Rating:  - Plausible but Selective Indictment of Selective Media
If you are interested in media analysis and criticism then this book is certainly worth reading, but beware of its inherent weaknesses and do not assume that it is an authoritative voice on the issues it raises. Herman and Chomsky have a strongly researched thesis that they call the Propaganda Model, and they apply it well to case studies in which the mass media have been found to distort the truth behind major stories to cater to elite interests. Note that this book was originally written back in 1988 so the then-current stories that the authors use to back up their Propaganda Model are no longer of much interest - such as Solidarity in Poland and US relations with Central America in the mid-80's. However, these stories are still useful and informative in relation to the Propaganda Model, and the authors show with very strong evidence that those stories were misreported (accidental) or disreported (on purpose). The reasons for this poor reporting by a supposedly free press mostly include pressure from elite corporate interests in the US (blowing away predictable complaints about a "liberal" press) and the unreasonable assumption that US government press reports are factual and can be taken at face value - when the authorities have a self-serving and self-protecting agenda like everyone else. The current edition does have a new introduction that extends the Propaganda Model into more current events, proving that the media bias is still alive and well, although the authors show a rather Luddite-like disdain for the internet. Unfortunately, after a strong start and a very believable premise, this book breaks down steadily as it goes along. First, the authors use a very limited sample of major media outlets in their studies of the coverage of the various news events. These major outlets may have shown improper reporting, but the authors usually use just this small sample to support their thesis, completely ignoring smaller and non-establishment outlets that may have shown a less reprehensible side of the media. Another problem is the academic writing style that is meant for the peer review process rather than the enlightenment of the public. Here it is more important to endlessly pile on repetitive evidence to avoid having colleagues shoot down your thesis. This may work academically, but the concerned public reader will find an incredibly repetitive case of information overload that is low on enlightening insights. The book takes a major downhill turn in the chapters dealing with Vietnam and Laos/Cambodia, in which the Propaganda Model is less visible in the analysis, and the authors have switched from media analysts to historians. Here it is evident that Herman and Chomsky wish to provide an alternative history of the Indochina Wars in order to make political statements, under the pretense of presenting evidence that was withheld by the biased media. These chapters are marred by unprofessional sarcasm, loaded words like "murderous" and "immoral" to describe US actions, and Chomsky's creeping conspiracy theories. The Laos/Cambodia chapter breaks down completely as the authors had already covered that area in a previous book. The chapter here ceases to be a media analysis and becomes a rebuttal of criticisms from other authors who disputed Herman and Chomsky's earlier claims. This includes a suspiciously longwinded and sarcastic debunking and condemnation of the journalist William Shawcross. In the end, the Propaganda Model postulated by Herman and Chomsky is indeed plausible and perfectly proves media bias, but **only in the examples covered in this study**. There is little evidence of a pattern that extends across all media in all situations, which is the authors' apparent goal. In fact, corporate and government pressure on the media to toe the propaganda line is indeed a serious problem in America, but the problem is more inherent or systemic within a social system where money equals power. Digging into these systemic issues would be far more difficult and complex, but would be more enlightening than trying to find supposed conspiracies.
Rating:  - Brillinant if imperfect analysis from the great Chomsky
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky provide a radical critique of the American Mass Media through the formulation and testing of a "propaganda model." This propaganda model states that, contrary to popular opinion and conservative thinking, the media does not have a liberal or anti-establishment bias. The Mass Media is owned largely by wealthy individuals, banks, and corporate interests. The media depends upon the state for information and assistance in its day-to-day operations. Thus, free-market forces cause the media to adopt a bias in favor of corporate interests, government interests, and the status quo in general. The "Propaganda Model" is tested out on a variety of foreign affairs matters, ranging from Nicaragua to the "Plot to Kill the Pope" to Vietnam to East Timor. In between, a few comments on domestic affairs such as the FBI's intrusions and Watergate are thrown into the mix. Chomsky is a brilliant scholar and analyst, and his theory largely holds up under investigation. The propaganda model demonstrates how a free press such as our own can produce more influential and effective propaganda than a press with state censorship such as that of Communist countries. However, Chomsky's conclusions are difficult to swallow: The independent media which Chomsky prefers is biased based on the ideology of those doing the publishing, and therefore no better than the mainstream media in terms of fairness or accuracy. On page 299, Chomsky argues that the break-ins and harassment by the FBI of the Socialist Worker's Party were covered up by the media because the SWP represents no powerful interests. It is just as likely that few newspaper readers would be interested in the fate of a tiny, unpopular political organization. Finally, the propaganda model fails to take one factor into account: Perhaps the reason why people accept media distortions is that they WANT to be convinced that the government is doing right by the people, that our country is honorable and decent compared to our foes, and that the status quo is acceptable. Humans have a basic psychological desire to be convinced of such things, and a media that screamed about corruption and inequality would be unpopular indeed. In short, Chomsky's writing is thoroughly readable and his biting analysis is a must-see for Americans interested in how their media operates. Just look upon his analysis and conclusions with an open, yet critical, mind.
Rating:  - Ciritical to understanding press censorship in America.
Manufacturing Consent, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's 1988 analysis of press censorship in America, is an insightful look at the ways public opinion and choices can be molded by dominating interests in a free society. Its value lies in the model Herman and Chomsky develop and test to account for this censorship; while they limit their investigation to a few specific cases -- three 1980s Central American elections, the alleged 1981 KGB-Bulgarian plot to kill the Pope, and the Indochina Wars -- their model is testable and can be applied and modified to a variety of events. Obviously, not all happenings in the world can fit between the covers of the New York Times. Herman and Chomsky outline five filters, interrelated to some extent, through which these events must pass in order to become newsworthy. First, huge transnational businesses own much of the media - a fact probably more true now than in 1988 with Disney, Westinghouse, and Microsoft bullying in on the news markets. The corporate interests of these companies need not, and probably do not, coincide with the public's interests, and, consequently, some news and some interpretations of news stories critical of business interests will probably not make it to press. Secondly, since advertising is crucial to keeping subscription costs low, media will shape their news away from serious investigative documentaries to more entertaining revues in order to keep viewer or reader interest and will cater to the audience to which the advertising is directed; before advertising became central to keeping a paper competitive, working class papers, for example, were much more prevalent, leading to a much broader range of interpretations of events (and thus more room for a reader to make up his own mind) than can be found by perusing the pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe. Thirdly, media depend crucially on sources and these sources will inescapably have their own agendas. Reliability of information should be important (although it may not be as shown by the tabloidization of the mass media in Monica Lewinsky affair), but the press also needs a steady stream of events to make into news. This leads to a reliance on the public relations bureaucracies of government and corporate agencies for whom some measure of accepted credibility exists and who will also probably have a statement about major happenings. However, by relying substantially on the statements these parties, the media becomes less an investigative body and more a megaphone for propaganda; independent confirmation of facts as well as interpretation eludes it. Fourthly, there are costs to producing an incendiary news item -- one which attacks powerful interests whether they be advertisers, government agencies, corporate bodies, or public interest groups. According to the previous three filters, the media relies on these interests for its survival and cannot afford their sustained censure. While none of these filters guarantee that a news item attacking one of these interested parties will not appear, the story is likely to be spun in a way to minimize fallout or flak which may compromise its integrity. Since they wrote at the end of the Reagan years, Herman and Chomsky's final filter is anti-communism, but it may be any prevailing ideology. The assumptions behind ideologies, almost by definition, are rarely challenged; ideologies organize the world, constructing frames into which news events can be placed for easy interpretation: Communism is evil; the domino effect is an actual phenomenon; America is right. This past February there was no hint in the domestic press that there could be any response to Iraq's intransigence other than bombing, making the contrary opinions of the vast majority of the world unintelligible. In domestic affairs, article after article praises various organizations on increasing the diversity of their membership -- diversity being always ethnic and racial diversity without ever asking why racial and ethnic diversity is necessarily relevant in the first place (as opposed to diversity of political opinion, for example). Mark Twain said, "It was a narrow escape. If the sheep had been created first, man would have been a plagiarism." Manufacturing Consent asks us to challenge our assumptions about the way the world works, urges us to conscientiously separate the agendas behind the news we consume from the facts within, and demonstrates the danger of a monopolistic media cartel to purported American ideals of popular governance. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to break out of the flock and construct her own informed opinions about world affairs.
|
