‘Manufacturing Consent‘, a term coined by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, dissects the function and impact of media as a propagandistic tool for the powerful elite. The media, often regarded as an unbiased and honest institution, is posited to have far more insidious roles – that of indoctrination and consent manufacturing.
This assertion counters the common belief that the media is a defender of public interests, challenging large power structures. Instead, Chomsky and Herman reveal how media operates within the confines of these power structures, promoting the values and ideologies of the ruling class while maintaining a façade of objectivity.
The media, rather than challenging socio-economic disparities, becomes an apparatus perpetuating such inequalities. Through a veil of neutrality, it disseminates information that subtly endorses the existing hierarchical order, leading the public to accept their place within this structure. The Vietnam War, often exemplified as a media triumph, is a case in point, illustrating how media narratives can manipulate public opinion to align with elite interests. Thus, ‘Manufacturing Consent’ underscores the critical need to scrutinize media narratives and challenges us to rethink how we consume news.
Analyzing the Media’s Role through the Lens of ‘Manufacturing Consent’
Critics may point to instances where the media appears to actively criticize the ruling elites, with cases such as the Watergate scandal often being cited. In these instances, politicians and business leaders were subject to intense scrutiny, their transgressions laid bare for the public to see. At face value, these incidents seem to contradict the notion of inherent media bias in favor of the ruling classes. It’s not uncommon for media representatives to assert their role as guardians of free speech and the broader community against the powerful and wealthy.
However, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that such criticisms by the mass media merely reflect the interests of one elite faction over another, rather than representing a non-elite group in opposition to an elite group. Criticisms originating outside of the elite are often suppressed or ignored by the media. The Watergate scandal perfectly exemplifies this split in elite interests. The media was willing, even eager, to investigate and expose Richard Nixon and his associates because the victims of their actions were the powerful Democrats, a political faction representing a section of the elite. Conversely, when the Socialist Workers Party, lacking any elite affiliations, was illicitly surveilled by government agencies, the media turned a blind eye. Thus, while the media may occasionally give the appearance of critiquing the ruling elite, this typically only occurs when there’s discord within the elite itself.
Propaganda Model: The Subtle Forces Shaping Media Narratives
Recognizing the role mass media plays in subtly fostering elite interests necessitates understanding the underpinning ‘propaganda model’. This model outlines a set of filters through which information must pass before it can be presented as news. It’s not overt censorship or state ownership that constrains media in democratic Western societies, but rather these more subtle, ‘natural’ forces, often misperceived as indicators of a ‘free’ and ‘objective’ press.
In essence, the propaganda model elucidates how the mass media can be coerced into propagating for the higher strata of the social hierarchy. For instance, one such filter might be financial incentives. A media outlet must remain profitable and, often, mollify its owners or advertisers to survive. Take General Electric, for example. They own a substantial portion of the mass media and are deeply involved in controversial areas such as nuclear power and the arms trade. Understandably, they pressurize their media networks to stay clear of controversies in these sectors.
Another filter might arise from the sources of the news itself. Government agencies and large corporations provide substantial source material for news, leading the media to heavily rely on these sources. Consequently, these sources could manipulate the media by presenting them with carefully chosen news items framed to their advantage.
Through these filters, the media’s coverage is heavily skewed in favor of the elite’s interests and opinions, with news contradicting these interests conveniently disregarded or suppressed. As a result, the mass media, following this ‘propaganda model’, ensures that any information countering elite interests is filtered out, leaving the news that reaches the public staunchly supportive of those in power.
The Influence of Market Forces and Elite Ownership on Mass Media
The consolidation of mass media under the control of a handful of wealthy families and corporations often stifles diverse viewpoints, particularly those challenging elite ideologies. A look back at the history of the British press in the early 19th century reveals the press’s evolution from a diverse, vibrant platform representing working-class interests to a streamlined echo chamber for the ruling class. Despite the state’s numerous attempts to suppress the left-wing radical press through libel laws and prosecutions, it thrived, fueled by small independent proprietors.
However, the advent of the Industrial Revolution greatly benefited large publications capable of investing in new printing technologies, consequently crowding out the underfunded radical press.
This market-driven suppression of the radical press marked the onset of an era dominated by the right-wing press, backed by the upper echelons of society. As the media industry has evolved and consolidated, its control has increasingly fallen into the hands of a few powerful entities, resulting in a homogenized media landscape that largely reflects the interests of the ruling class.
In the present day, the mass media remains under the control of a select few wealthy families and corporations, driven by a singular pursuit of profit. The power they wield is formidable, with the top 29 media providers accounting for over half of America’s newspapers and the lion’s share of sales and audiences across magazines, movies, books, and broadcasts. Independent media, lacking the backing of a major capital, struggles to compete, often leading to their demise.
This concentration of power and the relentless pursuit of profits are significant factors impeding the mass media’s objectivity. For instance, large investment firms, banks, and brokers, attracted by the media’s monopolistic nature, expect a significant return on their investment, pressuring the media to prioritize profit over impartial reportage. The inherent requirement of prioritizing profits and the control by a minuscule elite inevitably compromise the mass media’s objectivity, raising concerns about the ability of media to fulfill its role as a watchdog of society.
The Advertising Filter: How Sponsorship Shapes Media Content
The survival and success of media organizations are inextricably tied to advertising revenue. The high cost of operations, coupled with intense industry competition, places a premium on garnering sponsorship from advertisers. Consequently, media organizations often resort to bias in their coverage to appeal to their sponsors. This creates another filter in the propaganda model, where the wealthy can exclude news stories that critique their interests.
The influence of advertising on media content is evident in numerous ways. One blatant example is the suppression of news that could harm large corporations. In a notable instance, a US television network lost its advertising funding after airing a documentary highlighting the malpractices of multinationals in developing nations.
Moreover, advertisers exert pressure on televised media to prioritize light entertainment over serious, insightful content that could dampen the viewer’s ‘buying mood’. Hard-hitting documentaries and dramas are often sidelined to maintain an atmosphere conducive to consumerism.
Advertisers are primarily driven by the desire to maximize sales, leading them to manipulate media content to appeal predominantly to affluent audiences, who are more likely to purchase their products. Consequently, media outlets that cater to less wealthy, working-class audiences often struggle to attract advertising revenue. This economic dynamic effectively narrows the range of perspectives presented in the media, tailoring content to the interests of wealthier consumers. Therefore, media organizations, reliant on advertising revenue for their survival, are compelled to keep their advertisers satisfied, often at the cost of objective and diverse reporting.
Dependence on Regular Information Sources: How Government and Big Business Influence the Media Narrative
The daily rhythm of news production necessitates a steady stream of material, leading media organizations to rely heavily on government institutions and large corporations for a sizeable share of their content. The sheer scale and influence of these entities enable them to furnish consistent and seemingly authoritative information, thus deemed trustworthy by the media, which frequently relays such information verbatim without additional verification. This dependence, however, allows these ruling elites to subtly manage and shape the media narrative, adding a filter to the propaganda model through which news is strained before reaching the public.
The privileged position held by the government and large businesses in supplying information enables them to dictate the news agenda strategically. They can present stories to the media in a well-timed fashion to bolster their position or advance their objectives. A historical instance of this manipulation is the orchestrated release of a fallacious story in 1984 concerning the provision of Soviet MiG aircraft to Nicaragua. The cleverly timed dissemination of this false news stirred agitation in the United States and discredited the Nicaraguan election, thereby aligning with President Reagan’s political agenda.
Alternative news sources find themselves at a distinct disadvantage in this landscape. The sporadic nature of their news contributions, combined with the potential for their information to challenge elite interests, often results in skepticism and criticism. To maintain their relationships with regular sources, media organizations may even feel compelled to suppress these non-conforming perspectives. Consequently, the media’s requirement for a steady influx of content propels them into an uncomfortable alliance with government organizations and sizeable corporations, further impeding their ability to provide unbiased and diverse news coverage.
The Power of Flak: An Instrument of Elite Control Over Media
Flak serves as a potent tool in the arsenal of the ruling elite, used to penalize and dissuade critical media that challenge their interests. This backlash against media outlets can manifest in several forms, ranging from direct threats against journalists to the promotion of negative public relations campaigns. The elite are also known to exert indirect influence, prompting advertisers to withdraw their support from recalcitrant media companies, and in more extreme cases, launching legal attacks. The intent behind the creation of flak is to put non-compliant media on the back foot, cultivating an image of an unnecessarily critical press with an alleged ‘liberal bias.’ Well-orchestrated and financed flak, instilling fear in media institutions, thus adding another layer to the propaganda model’s filters.
Right-wing ‘think tanks,’ often established and generously funded by the elite, are tasked with manufacturing flak aimed at critical media. Owing to their prestige, influence, and financial backing, their pronouncements on media bias are widely accepted and unchallenged.
An apt illustration of the power of flak is the dossier published by the right-wing think tank ‘Freedom House’ critiquing the media’s coverage of the Vietnam War. This document accused the media of over-pessimistic reporting and misleading the American public, going so far as to suggest that the media’s portrayal of the war led to the United States’ defeat. Despite the flawed research and inflated conclusions, the dossier was well-received within elite circles and generally reported favorably within mainstream media.