Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
Below are the top discussions from Reddit that mention this Amazon book.
Books Politics & Social Sciences Politics & Government
In this pathbreaking work, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky show that, contrary to the usual image of the news media as cantankerous, obstinate, and ubiquitous in their search for truth and defense of justice, in their actual practice they defend the economic, social, and political agendas of the privileged groups that dominate domestic society, the state, and the global order. Based on a series of case studies—including the media’s dichotomous treatment of “worthy” versus “unworthy” victims, “legitimizing” and “meaningless” Third World elections, and devastating critiques of media coverage of the U.S. wars against Indochina—Herman and Chomsky draw on decades of criticism and research to propose a Propaganda Model to explain the media’s behavior and performance. Their new introduction updates the Propaganda Model and the earlier case studies, and it discusses several other applications. These include the manner in which the media covered the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and subsequent Mexican financial meltdown of 1994-1995, the media’s handling of the protests against the World Trade Organization, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund in 1999 and 2000, and the media’s treatment of the chemical industry and its regulation. What emerges from this work is a powerful assessment of how propagandistic the U.S. mass media are, how they systematically fail to live up to their self-image as providers of the kind of information that people need to make sense of the world, and how we can understand their function in a radically new way.
Reddazon may receive an affiliate commission if you make purchases on Amazon.com through this site. Thank you for using these links to support Reddazon.
Edward S. Herman
Reddit Posts and Comments
0 posts • 33 mentions • top 32 shown below
5 points • cl0bbersaurus
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media
They’ve never done that before
2 points • autoeroticassfxation
Sounds like someone hasn't read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". This book should be covered in high school.
1 points • 0gammaray0
yup, read Manufacturing Consent
1 points • flyingpotatoeshurray
>The 'narrative' is almost completely controlled by the radical left, as proven by social outlets, classical media, Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, the BBC, and the university.
Lol
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
Read before talk
1 points • makoivis
Check this out: Manufacturing Consent
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375714499/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_awdo_t1_RKXxEbMVKSAJC
Read ASAP.
1 points • thrw2534122019
Far as quasi-scatological outbursts, that's not the wrongest one can go vis-a-vis comrade Chomsky.
Still: the nagging question remains of exactly how presciently correct of a "leftist cock sucker" he might have been. Couple of wars, one 2008 grand-scale implosion & ongoing Awokeggadon later, perhaps the man deserves some credit.
1 points • hectorgarabit
I'm reading Manufacturing Consent right now. I wish someone would re-write it to take into account Social Media and Internet.
Internet development since the 2000s and now is to propaganda what the steam engine was to the industry. I think most of what we hear and see is pure propaganda...
1 points • theytookthisfromyou
You’re going to have inform leftist MIT professor Noam Chomsky that he believes in “a deep state conspiracy theory” since he is the one that wrote the book. Lmao.
Pick up a copy sometime. It’s worth a read:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375714499/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_N3DgFbHJH6SMM
1 points • JR-Oppie
If you had asked me that question before your prior comment, I might have been inclined to answer at more length. But the bluster is a turnoff -- if you're already pretending to know what you're talking about when you clearly don't, there's little incentive for me to continue here. While you're certainly living up to your username, it just doesn't make for a pleasant or productive conversation.
But as a start, I'll offer the following: bias is something (all) people/media organizations have. Propaganda is something (some) people/media organizations make. One no doubt regularly plays a role in the other, but it is hardly the only qualifying criteria. For the rest of the explanation, I'd start with wikipedia and go from there.
1 points • medalgardr
For those who have never read Manufacturing Consent, I suggest giving it a chance. In particular I’d like to point out a line from the linked article that says:
“One of the hard rubber bullet rounds struck a homeless man in a wheelchair right above his left eye, drawing blood and a large welt.”
This line is an example of the propaganda model discussed in the book, whereby the tactic by the media is intentional to separate blame from the perpetrators, attempting to make it appear somewhat accidental.
The POLICE shot the man in the face with a rubber bullet. He was no threat. They shot him anyway. There wasn’t some wandering stray rubber bullet that ran into him. He was shot by the police. While there is coverage of this story, the media still has a responsibility to call things for what they are, and they are failing on that front.
1 points • Continental__Drifter
That's one theory, but it runs into significant problems I'm not sure can be overcome.
As I said, in most cases a commune wouldn't be able to ethically compete in a capitalist market even so far as necessary to pay their workers and meet their costs. Furthermore, in many or most modern industries capital is already extremely concentrated and operates on economies of scale, so it's not really possible for commune to compete in the automotive industry, for example. Other industries, such as the prison and weapons industries, are at odds with socialist goals. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the capitalist class doesn't just let challenges to it "grow organically". This is the essence of class warfare, this class actively fights against social changes which disadvantage them. The entire apparatus of the the state and mass media effectively manufacture consent to the status quo. "lead by example in isolated communes" isn't an effective counter-strategy.
1 points • tooleftwingforreddit
> Thankfully again, we're not reliant on mainstream media in this part of the globe.
LOL
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
1 points • jTheFox
I'm not really sure what you're asking! If you're asking if I have a problem with trusted news organizations blasting unchallenged, fascistic and racist (anti-Middle East) rhetoric on their airwaves to millions, then yes in fact I do.
If you're asking if I have a problem with news organizations leaving unchallenged the propaganda of health insurance executives and telling millions of people that universal healthcare is impossible, then yes I also have a problem with that!
If you're asking if I have a problem with massive, corporate-owned profit-driven conglomerates controlling so much of what Americans see and read every day in the political realm in order to defend the status and wealth of the privileged elite, then yes I also have a problem with that.
Check out the book Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky (https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499) and it might clarify this worldview a little bit more.
1 points • RainbowLightsaber
>and, as the primaries clearly have shown, bernie is not as popular.
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
Unfuck yourself
15 points • Nomadtv
5 Critical books.
you dont know me, if you look superficially you'll see someone devoted to trolling idiots.
you might even be tempted to peg me as a liberal, or if you look elsewhere you'll peg me as MAGA, depending on who I am attempting to awaken on any given day.
in a system devoted to the illusion of choice, of difference, those who float in the middle, or above, are loved by none.
Truth is the loneliest place.
the real enemy is not right nor left, not us vs them, but the false dichotomy that has been the elixir of control since the dawn of time.
distill all complicated subjects to the based opposites, add hate and religious vitriol, and you have a surefire potion of control.
5 critical books that can clue an initiate into current events and the modern systems take on that ageless tool of those that would move mountains of public thought to suite the whims of the few elite puppet masters... are as follows and currently in order of historic relevance and divided in 2 partitions of recent history and current manifestations:
the (not so ) old:
- Confessions of an economic hit man - john perkins: An easy but critical intro in o this subject https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081
Ive had the pleasure of spending a couple days at his house in northern Washington state for a series of exclusive, private interviews that never made the light of public consumption in the western hemisphere. John is a true old school warrior with a righteous conscious and a detailed understanding of the complexities of how the current system was built. His books, this being the first, are a great boots on the ground review of how the basics work, mixed with personal accounts that lend a good conspiratorial vibe that hook a reader with facts that almost read like a good novel.
- The Shock Doctrine: Naomi Klein
https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+shock+doctrine&qid=1592692655&s=books&sr=1-1
easily one of the most critical books in understanding the motive and money behind the last 50 years of world wide governance, power and money. And an great introduction to how the motive outlined in perkins works, is translated into manufacturing consent. which leads us to:
by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
Probably the most well known, this older expose of the realities of how media has been co-opted into a false narrative of division and theatrical illusion to portray truth in a manner solely meant to control emotion and thus behavior, is a critical understanding of how the motives and tactics of the above 2 books, have been filtered into eliminating the most potent threat to the elites plans, that being the dangerous yet easily controlled "Rough Ashlar" of the will of the people. It is a great primer that. if anything, should lead you to question whether or not your beliefs and opinions are your own creation, or a planted manipulation, used, for centuries, to control behavior.
- Hate Inc. - Matt Taibbi
a natural progression and update to Chomsky's MC, showing an insiders view of the systemic coup on media and journalism with the sole business of not only finalizing the system of control through media and dialogue, but a great treatise on the humanity that gets destroyed by those that would embrace such division to boost their own ego, both within the system of media, and those that consume it.
and Finally:
5: The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power by Shoshana Zubhoff
while the first half may be a bit dry in establishing a base understanding of the foundation of social media as a method of total population control. it is critical in establishing intent motive means and progression towards that end. The second half, although a few years old already, is a terrifying tying together off all of these books as a whole into the understanding of exactly how insidious, all encompassing, pervasive, and most of all, PLANNED the resulting last several decades have been in not only establishing total information awareness, but thus, total information and its natural progression to BEHAVIOR control.
These books taken together, to me have been a critical primer in the VAST insidious and multi generational conglomeration of mind and behavior control of a whole unknown and unchecked system of dominance that holds no national, ethical or moral allegiance, and despite its inevitable, decades long progression, short term focus on power and profit, are easily the greatest threat EVER to face the whole of humanity.
If your theories, posts and most of all emotions are not informed by a foundation of understanding of this type... if you bicker and post incessantly about partisan fluff.
if your posts and emotions are so obvious a result of this decades old manipulation. you are a tool of the evil you claim to oppose.
8 points • Waitaha
Its the long game of social engineering that started way back in the 1800s by Edward Bernays and a few others.
They called it 'science of modern public relations'.
Bernays' work is deeply embedded in the Western psyche, and forms the model by which our societies are run. Bernays believed that consent can be engineered, and should be engineered in any functioning democracy.
Here's one of his books.
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Bernays_Propaganda_in_english_.pdf
Just read the first couple of pages. If you like it, read the whole thing of course, but just the first couple of pages are enough to give you an idea of how important and powerful this material is. It reads like a grandiose dickwad, but he was quite serious about it and the proof is in the pudding (as it were).
Here is a brief list of some of his campaigns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations_campaigns_of_Edward_Bernays
It is coy and quaint. Understand that this material is neither coy nor quaint.
In that list there is a single paragraph discussing the overthrow of Guatemala in 1956. Research this. It is the model for every American war since. If you learn how Edward Bernays overthrew the government of Guatemala in 1956, you will understand a great deal about how the world works today.
Fun fact: Che Guevara was a medical student who happened to be in Guatemala when Bernays engineered the coup. Watching this event is what radicalized him.
This man's work is the key to nearly everything that has happened in the last 7 decades or so.
Here's another of Bernays' books, a German translation of which was found in the possessions of Joseph Goebbels. Just read the table of contents, that is enough. (Or the whole thing, if you want to learn how to do this.)
http://sttpml.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/5369599-Crystallizing-Public-Opinion-Edward-Bernays.pdf
I'm not sure I underscored why Bernays' work is so important. The answer is simple: his models are used to construct the principles of our government and how our society is run. Everything from war to healthcare to pharmaceuticals to food to political themes, all of it is sold to us using these techniques. This is why so many people cannot seem to make accurate sense of the world: their world view has been dominated in order to engineer a 'perfect society' according to someone else's rules.
Sounds loony until you read the life story of the guy who figured out how to make it happen.
It gets worse.
While the classic steering mechanism for public opinion used to be Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky) or Engineering Consent (Bernays) which generates propaganda to achieve more of a public consensus whereas Adam Curtis' HyperNormalisation looks at the shift from that to neutralizing the pubilc into inaction by polarizing them with conflicting information or misinformation (patently false information) so that NO consensus can be reached. Both achieve the same goal of allowing the power elite to carry out the policies they wish while reducing the influence of an ostensibly democratic public which, in conjunction with more and more police state-like authoritarian measures making them more compliant, can no longer tell what is truth and what is misinformation. The public descends into arguing amongst themselves as opposed to those in power.
I would highjly recommend watching Adam Curtis' famous documentary The Century of the Self which looks at Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) and the origins of the consumer society, public relations and propaganda.
http://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499/ref%3Dsr_1_1?ie=UTF8%26s=books%26qid=1274759989%26sr=1-1
http://classes.dma.ucla.edu/Fall07/28/Engineering_of_consent.pdf
http://thoughtmaybe.com/the-century-of-the-self/
2 points • Creeemi
*sigh...*
Again please... please provide any prove of "genocide". Where are the mass graves? Where are all the refugees? Where is all the outry showing us the horrible depictions of burnings, war crimes, ethnic cleansings etc. like there was during the genocide against the Rohingya in Myanmar? Where are the horrible stories about all the executions, mass murder and so forth?
What makes you think there is a "genocide"? If you can show me any credible source (that is not already disproved in the post) of something even remotely close to "genocide" I will immediately reverse my position and whole-heartedly condemn the CCP for their atrocitites. If your only source for the worst possible crime against humanity is "I heard it", "it is consensus" or "everyone knows" then Im sorry I cannot accept it. As every leftist knows, the media is Manufacturing Consent and Inventing Reality.
1 points • jkb_
> I dont understand how biden is winning
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
https://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Reality-Politics-News-Media/dp/0312020139/
1 points • Bruce_G
Leftists have been criticizing corporate media since at least the 1980s. Inventing Reality came out in 1986 and the better-known (but conceptually similar) Manufacturing Consent came out in 1988. Leftists absolutely agree with Trump that big media is biased; where they disagree is in the description of that bias (and the preferred solution).
This is a big part of Trump's appeal. Even when he says reprehensible shit, it's usually rooted in a legitimate observation or grievance -- he just misdiagnoses the cause of the problem and offers solutions that hurt a lot of people. So you can't say he's entirely wrong about everything, because he at least has his finger on something people recognize as bullshit.
1 points • Mog_Pharau
It's not necessarily paid coverage. Read Manufacturing Consent, or watch a video on the filters Chomsky talks about. These people don't have to be obvious paid-for propagandists. It's more subtle and pervasive than that. Suffice to say, Chuck Todd wouldn't have a job if he didn't say what they wanted him to say. But knowing Chuck Todd, he most likely actually believes what hes pushing, and therefore doesn't even feel the pressure of any filter acting on him.
1 points • mnn55
> C'mon, lad, if you're so bloody clever, surely you can see the problem with your argument.
Sorry but you live in a lawless oligarchy that's been lobbying away your rights and freedoms to own your own culture for 200 years, you don't live in a society where rule of law exists. It's obvious you don't know anything about the history of your own country.
I suggest you start here and here
1 points • Niggardly_Liberal
On your first paragraph I will just comment that I think Noam is focused on getting the rest of the story out there as succinctly as possible, the mainstream media will get out the rest for sure. Maybe not the best strategy to sell someone new to his work, but my best guess on his reasoning.
And yes I think you're right on almost all of what you said. I will only reject the conclusion that criticism of the Trump administration is futile and impotent, as I think trying is worth the shot. You only guarantee yourself failure if you don’t. Actually one of my favorite quotes from Noam's book Understanding Power goes as follows (paraphrasing):
>If you act on [the assumption that the likelihood of the survival of the human species is low], then you are guaranteeing that’ll happen. If you act on the assumption that things can change, maybe they will. The only rational choice, given the alternatives, is to forget pessimism.
Oh and on your last point regarding public option, I totally agree. You mentioned you’re not too familiar with Noam’s work so if you're not familiar with it I’d suggest one of his most famous books Manufacturing Consent (or if you prefer, there's a movie under the same name on Netflix. He explains, with many, many sources, how the large corporations can and do directly or indirectly control the nearly all of the news that the average U.S. consumer is exposed to. They use this tool to give us the story that we need to hear to get on board with their agenda.
So for instance, I noticed on the New York Times after the assassination, with differing opinions on the way it was carried out, they were all universally describing the man in exactly the same manner. I didn't notice any mention of how he was perceived at home until I went on Al Jazeera US to see how the perspective may have changed, and they noted that Soleimani was the most popular person in Iran. Maybe it was a coincidence but it seems like an odd thing to leave completely out of your coverage when your audience can't find Iran on a map. Being exposed to narratives in these manners leaves out important context which the corporations will take advantage of when it works best for them. In this case, Americans are loath to even have the vaguest idea of what the principle international law regarding the use of force so the fact that we killed a top enemy sounds pretty freaking good to them, no matter the "crimes" we committed to get there, of which we aren't even sure are real, and no matter example we are setting to others.
1 points • The_test_is_me
That's a little too political for me to answer honestly and I'm afraid I'll go on a list if i do.
Noam Chomsky is your way to go for "exporting democracy."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42982196?seq=1 https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499 https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/four-horsemen-documentary/
1 points • gustoreddit51
Historically, the classic manipulation mechanism for public opinion used to be Engineering Consent (Bernays) or Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky) which generates propaganda to mold, steer, and solidify public opinion. One of the first and most classic examples being The Committee on Public Information headed up by George Creel, Edward Bernays, and administration cabinet members to, as former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara put it, "distribute information intended to influence public opinion to inspire support for America's entry in the war (WWI)".
It seems over the past decade there has been a shift from the manufacture or the engineering of consent to manufactured polarization. Adam Curtis, the documentary maker who gave us the famous The Century of the Self (a four part look at the 100 year history and evolution of propaganda, public relations, advertising, and the creation of the consumer culture) has put out a more recent documentary illuminating this shift called, HyperNormalisation. It looks at the shift from propaganda to mold public opinion, more to neutralizing the public into inaction by polarizing them with conflicting information or misinformation (patently false information) so that NO consensus can be reached. Both achieve the same goal of allowing the power elite to carry out the policies they wish while reducing the influence of an ostensibly democratic public which, in conjunction with more and more police state-like authoritarian measures making them more compliant, can no longer tell what is truth and what is misinformation. The public descends into arguing amongst themselves as opposed with those in power. And much of it currently done under the banner of "populism" - deceptively suggesting that, "it's what people want".
1 points • tagerR
Sure.
https://www.amazon.com/Media-Control-Second-Spectacular-Achievements/dp/1583225366/
https://www.amazon.com/Age-Propaganda-Everyday-Abuse-Persuasion/dp/0805074031
https://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006
https://www.amazon.com/Spy-Dust-Masters-Disguise-Operations/dp/0743428536
https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499
I'd recommend the reading of the last one first, then the penultimate. As for everything else, I only analyzed the sources and their credibility. I'd also like for you to ask the other gentleman to provide any sources for his shocking declarations, but it seems like you don't think it's necessary.
-3 points • gnufortran
> Faith, religion, Christianity, or any other religious affiliation aren't mentioned in the article.
"There is evidence to suggest that Republicans may be less accurate than Democrats at discerning real from fake news headlines (Pennycook & Rand, 2019b)." [second last paragraph of Introduction].
The study is referring to conservative Republicans and the majority of conservative Republicans are Christians [1].
> You seem to think it wouldn't be, why is that? Are you saying that there are questions that we aren't allowed to investigate?
Neither is acceptable. Also, anti-Christian attacks and Christianophobia are on the rise in Europe [2], [3], [4].
> if you can point out where the study is biased or where the methodology is flawed or where the conclusions are illogical or where the premises are incorrect I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you. If you can't access the study, I suggest using sci-hub to unlock it and give it a read.
"Supporting Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, political conservatism was negatively correlated with ratings of vulnerability (p <.001), ratings of severity (p ¼ .002), and news discernment (p < .001) and positively correlated with ratings of conspiracy (p < .001) and media exaggeration (p < .001)." [see results of Study I]
In this study, who defines what is "fake news" and what is accurate news? Who are the "fact checkers"? Who is fact checking the fact checkers? Who is fact checking the fact checkers who are fact checking the fact checkers?
The authors of this study believe they have the ability to accurately discern between real and fake news; otherwise they won't be able to perform this study. Real propaganda is extremely subtle and sophisticated. Anyone claiming they can accurately distinguish between real and fake news are disingenuous.
The mass communication media "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication [“Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky].