Manufacturing Consent

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

Notes by José Guilherme de Almeida

1 Propaganda model

In this chapter, Herman and Chomsky define the propaganda model which will sustain the rest of the book. The model itself in practical terms a series of filters that affect the “true reporting” that we would get in their absence. The 5 filters are summarised as subheadings in this chapter and below as 5 points:

1.1 Size, ownership and profit orientation

Here, liberalism really plays a decisive role in creating a media that is focused on profitability by necessity (shareholders, Reaganomics, you know the drill). While initially this does not have to be terrible (if we disregard most ethical problems with the system), by focusing on profits you create a system were the metric stops being quality of media (good metric) and starts being the amount of money generated from said media (bad metric - if quality is to be previliged, that is). This ultimately leads to some level of regularised monopolization (this is (was?) achieved by capping the number of TV channels, radio stations and newspaper that a single enterprise can own). Herman and Chomsky present some very nice tables that summarise:

  1. The very small number of entities owning most major media outlets - most of which dedicating their activities to more than one branch of media (TV/radio/newspapers)

  2. The tight grip that the owners/families have on the company with many very few/single majority stockholders

  3. The promiscuity between these outlets and the government through the ownership of/participation as persons with significant power in major media outlets by people who are/were members of the government

Interestingly, in Britain, the “free market” and the state’s compliance with its existence managed to regulate (see: stop) the existence of labour-leaning/union-supporting major publications (something that the state had previously tried) by creating a system were not only profitability but also the lack of scrupulousness was heavily impactful in the success of media

1.2 Advertisement

Herman and Chomsky argue that a crucial loss of power and leverage for a lot of media institutions happened when advertisement became a necessity to sustain the business model of journalism. More concretely, corporations hoping to advertise in newspaper would intuitively advertise in media outlets which catered to wealthier subsects of the population - this is inquestionable fertile ground to exclude outlets which catered mostly/exclusively to the working class. This also led to media outlets taking a pro-corporation stance to secure the easy influx of advertisement money. Ultimately, this leads to media outlets which are designed to appease corporations/richer strata of the population and leave the disenfranchised without a legitimate and widespread news outlet.

  • Here they provide another example with the UK (go figure) where the introduction of media advertisement in the 60s caused Labour-leaning newspapers to become financially unsustainable

  • It is important to notice that advertisement did not enable the production of newspieces from a logistical or technical perspective. The advertisement was however a necessity to decrease the retail price of the newspaper, increasing its accessability. This, combined with the rest of this point, led to newspapers which catered to wealthier subsects of the population to become cheaper, while those catering to the poorer subsects got stuck with the same prices

1.3 Privileged sources

The propaganda model does not generate itself from thin air; indeed, it requires the fabrication of privileged sources and channels of communication better access the media to establish which truths shold be broadcasted in the media and experts that can corroborate those same truths. Also in this subsection Herman and Chomsky mention the useful tactics of drowning particularly damaging newspieces

  • Regarding privileged sources and channels of communication - the fabrication of these by the governments and their branches (during the 70s, the U.S. had dedicated thousands of jobs and billions of dollars to their public relations) has allowed the rectruitment of journalists which abide by specific forms of convenient truths by creating ideal conditions for reporting and environments where dissidence is punished and heavily disapproved by cancelling a privileged channel (contemporary examples of this involve the Spanish government only answering to convenient questions during COVID-19 briefings or president Trump avoiding questions by calling them nasty). Additionally and in the U.S., the government’s defense branches own a dramatically high number of actual media (newspapers, radio statios, television channels and studios) which are able to bypass the need for other media outlets to fabricate news - this is especially relevant because media outlets now (and then) also act as privileged, trusted sources

  • Regarding the fabrication of experts - experts are easily fabricated. If a U.S.-favourable “expert” on the Soviet Union is needed, you can just get someone who fled the Soviet Union - credentials become something of the past, even farmers (whose jobs were ridiculed by the U.S. media) become authorities on any topic concerning the country from which they escaped if the U.S. so wishes. Additionally and unmentioned by Herman and Chomsky, questioning this expert is likely to sound unsensitive because their expertise will become tied to their suffering - questioning their expertise will equate with questioning their suffering, a political move few in power would be willing to make

  • Regarding the drowning of particularly damaging newspieces - this one is perhaps the most blatant. The U.S. has been known to control the flow of news that damage the institution of white house/its two main parties (think Biden’s accusations of sexual assault from a former aide (Tara Reade) and how long it took the media to produce a piece on this, giving everyone time to be briefed in with the same agenda, preparing smearing campaigns against Tara Reade). Additionally, the U.S. government is also incredibly talented at producing massive amounts of information which can easily divert attention from a particularly damaging newspieces (there is always a more relevant newspiece to report on when other newspieces affect the status quo negatively). There are exceptions to this, however - it has been observed that if movements gain enough traction within the general populace, they will be featured in the mainstream media (usually because they become supported/personified in someone who has been affected by similar issues with enough power to do so) and this can be used to affect the status quo to some extent (even if this is generally through the use of a scapegoat that signifies the wrongdoing - think #MeToo (the movement), and Harvey Weinstein (the embodiement of the evil figure in #MeToo) - this is not a commentary on the morality of the movement and its convictions (Harvey Weinstein is an evil man and deserves everything that can happen to him), but rather a cynical view of the media games played with movements that affect the status quo and gain traction)