Critical Thinking Assignment.

‘Manufacturing Consent’: The political-economy of mass

media.
Addis Ababa University Graduate School of Journalism and Communications

Manufacturing Consent: The political-economy of mass Media

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

Review and Critics of the Book

With the advice of:

Gebremedhin Simon (PhD)
Addis Ababa University, Graduate school of Journalism and Communications, Dean.

By: Mastewal
Bizualem
Addis Ababa University, Graduate school of Journalism and Communications.

2011

Graduate School of Journalism and Communications, Addis Ababa University

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1977265

Content

Introduction................................................................................. 1
The Title 2
Manufacturing Consent

Book Review............................................................................... 3
Manufacturing consent
Political-Economy 5
The Propaganda model.................................................................5
Filters of news: Ingredients of propaganda model 6
Dichotomization 7
“Worthy” victims and “Unworthy” victims

The Critique................................................................................. 7

Conclusion.................................................................................. 14
Present and Clear Danger
Propaganda analysis

Bibliography

Graduate School of Journalism and Communications, Addis Ababa University

Introduction

‘Manufacturing Consent’ of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky is a book that

presents the critical mass media model that focuses on the inequality of wealth and
power and it’s multitude consequences on the use of mass media to the elite’s own
interests and ends.
In ‘manufacturing consent’ (1988) this two scholars Herman and Chomsky presented a
recognized critical theory of “systematic long-term effect”
(Mc Quail, 2005) in the name of ‘Propaganda Model’.

Graduate School of Journalism and Communications, Addis Ababa University

The propaganda model in mass media

In advanced and compact way Howard Tumber (2008) puts it as “a propaganda approach
to media coverage suggests a systematic and highly political dichotomization in news
coverage based on serviceability to important domestic power interests.” Its focus is on
the systematic design and refinement of the information that flows from the elite to the
mass with mass media being used as a channel.

In regards to this model, even earlier than Herman and Chomsky, other researchers and
philosophers presented a similar crafts in their research works and books. Horold
Lasswell and Robert Park, for example, pointed out that”powerful interest groups in a
society would use the media for propaganda purpose” and to their political or
organizational ends.
As a startling finding in this paper is that ‘propaganda model’ tends or seems to have its
root in the similar works of Walter Lipmann work more than half a century ago. Walter
Lipmann in his work ‘public opinion’, (1922) presented a profound theory referred as
‘agenda setting’.
Lines from this theory might help as analyze the similarity in some way, “ the news
media are a primary source of the ‘pictures in our heads’ about the vast external world of
public affairs that is “out of reach, our of sight, out of mind”.
We will see some effects of Walter Lipmann’s work in this book review later.

Perhaps ‘propaganda model’ basically as framework along with its components is

discussed with in the book review in the next part of this paper, with in an effort to
present the paper in a holistic manner.

2
The Title: ‘Manufacturing consent’

The title of the book carried diligently the overall meanings presented in the book, but
perhaps the authors are not the first ones to use this expression.
E. Herman and N. Chmskey took the title ‘manufacturing consent’ from Walter Lipmann
who wrote (1922:158) ‘that the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinement…
and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are
plain enough.”

(The pharagraph, to show it explicitly, goes on explaining . . . [a]s a result of

psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice
of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant
than any shifting of economic power........Under the impact of propaganda, not
necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking
have become variables. It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original
dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs
comes up spontaneously from the human heart. Where we act on that theory we expose
ourselves to self-deception, and to forms of persuasion that we cannot verify. It has been
demonstrated that we cannot rely upon intuition, conscience, or the accidents of casual
opinion if we are to deal with the world beyond our reach.)
— Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, Chapter XV

3
Review of the Book
…in contrast to the standard conception of the media as cantankerous, obstinate, and
ubiquitous in their reach for truth and their independence of authority, we have spelled
out and applied a propaganda model. The authors wrote “the model that indeed sees
media as serving a societal purpose, not that of enabling the public to assert meaningful
control over political process by providing them with the information needed for the
intelligent discharge of political responsibilities.

Edward Hermand and Noam Chomskey’s manufacturing consent: the political–economy

of mass media showed a different model for understanding at the media. We can say it’s
a powerful assessment of how propagandistic, especially the US mass media are. How
they systematically fail to live up to information that people need to make sense of the
world, and how we can understand their function.
Manufacturing consent presented to us a critical mass media theory ‘The propaganda
model’:
To make this writing coherent and organized as much as possible, we will try to see
interrelated topics in an integrated manner. Let’s see manufacturing consent first and
propaganda model detaily yet concisely then after.

Manufacturing consent: a reader may not be expected to read critically and raise issue or
ask at this level as whose consent is being manufactured? And what is it all about?

Manufacturing consent here happens when the elite group reach to a consensus among
and between each other (for a mutual benefit) to take advantage over censorship of the
news and any other information that will be broadcast to the public. Manufacturing
consent by a ‘specialized class’ that can override the “short-sighted’ perspective of the
masses must entail media control by the class.

The book convincingly showed and discussed the political-economy of mass media and
perhaps the propaganda model in regards to it.

4
As the Political-Economy is a focus specifically on when and how the economic
structure of society and the media system reflect the political interests of society’s
rich and powerful.
Thinking that one of the authors is Chomsky a celebrated linguist, (who wrote
impossible –to-read books like ‘language acquisition’) one may suspect at the beginning
that the book might be complex or impossible to read. The reverse is true! Actually
manufacturing consent is an academic text but perhaps it is a clearly written book that
support the issues raised in it with numerous, historical true instances.
It is a valuable book yet, in many scholarly aspects that, fierce critiques since then don’t
invalidate it. It is written more than 20 years ago, but perhaps manufacturing consent is
upright and meaningful until to day. This is evident profoundly due to many reason, one
for example, I believe, is that the model is being more applicable these days than in
1988.

The Propaganda model

It is at the heart of manufacturing consent. Similarly, it is a provocative model that
explains well the issues rose in the book. It’s about revealing the elite-mass gaps in a
new way and control and mis-use of mass media by the elite to their own advantages.
The model satisfies that dominant media firmly embedded in the market system. They
are profit-seeking businesses, owned by very wealthy people (or other companies) and
they are funded largely by advertisers who are also profit-seeking entities, and who
want their advertisement to appear in a supportive selling environment. The media also
lean heavily on the government and major business firms as its information sources, and
both efficiency and political considerations. (Like processing license to work and
others)

5
The reason of this overlapping interests, cause certain degree of solidarity to prevail
among the government, major media, and other corporate businesses- in which public
interest is being set aside.

Filters of news: Ingredients of propaganda model

Accordingly, there are essential ingredients of propaganda model. Five news ‘filters’.
The model stated firmly that any news of the dominant media is refined at least in one of
these ‘filters’ before it’s released. News of the dominant media is under the influence or
favor of one of these following groups.
1. Ownership
News media are owned by small handful people or corporations and thus the
news will pass through a censorship based their interests.
2. Advertising
News media must sell advertising for their financial well being and are at the
influence of those advertisers to high extent.
3. Official sources
Dominant Medias usually look for official sources for their news since they
are cheapest and simplest ways to find news.
4. ‘Flaks’
The media must be way of defending groups capable of throwing flaks at
them.
5. Ideology
Anti-communism ideology as a national religion, and news should be in line
with this underlying ideology.
Propaganda model is presented like this in the book, then after a determinant effort has
been done by the authors to test it in the real world. For example, according to the model,
depending on whether elections are held in countries approval of by the elite or not, the
media should present elections very differently. Criteria to decide weather an election is
right-wing El Salvador was legitimate will not be used election in the left wing Nicaragua
and the opposite is also true. This is what happened in the coverage of the media of these
elections that took place in these countries.

6
Dichotomization
In propaganda model, we would also expect news stories about “Worthy” victims and
“Unworthy” Victims (or enemy and friendly states) to differ in quality. We would expect
official sources to the US and its clients regimes be help heavily in connection with
one’s own abuses and those of friendly governments while refugees and other dissident
sources will be used in dealing with enemies.

Let’s see a case study from the book …Jerzy Popieluszko, a catholic priest murdered by
the police of communist Poland in 1984, will be a worthy victim, and receive a great
deal of media attention; while the dozens of religious workers murdered in right-wing
Latin America countries will be unworthy victims, and will receive little media attention.
Conforming to these predictions, Popieluszko, a worthy victim, receives 78 articles and
1183 column inches in the New York Times, while “72 religious victims in Latin
America, 1964-78” all unworthy, receive 8 articles and 117.5 column inches in the same
paper.

The critique

The structural, critical mass-media theory ‘The propaganda model‘ has numerous straight
forward and practical strengths. We have tried to look the strengths in the previous part,
in similar manner, the model received a list of critiques forwarded from different scholars
in different times. Let’s see the main ones: (11 critiques that took almost the amount of
half of the paper)

1. Monopoly. I believe, propaganda model is for the countries or places where

there is monopoly of one (few) Media. In such away the

7
 dominant Media will have interdependence with financial elites or government
easily. However, in countries or areas where there is tight competition between
various Medias, the propaganda model will become less /no workable.

2. Propaganda model failed take account of media professionalism /

Journalists/ and objectivity.

In its focus area, the model, presented that due to the inter- dependence between
the government, major media, and other corporate businesses, media is being
used in favor of elite interest and news has to be censored with ‘filters’ to meet
the needs and expectations of those groups. However, in condemning the media
& concerned elites, the model failed to take account of media professionalism &
objectivity. At one interview Herman and Chomsky being asked this question,
they continue defending saying “professionalism & objectivity roles are not
likely override the claims and demands of deeper power and control
relationships. Badge of legitimacy to journalism, ostensibly assuring readers
that the news would not be influenced by the biases of owners, advertisers, or the
journalists themselves.” In this paper; however, by stressing again at the
invaluable contribution the journalists might have whether or in the content, let’s
put Prof. Hallin’s words “to recognize journalists is the central to understand
how media operates.”(Hallin’s, 1994:13) (Prof. Daniel Hallin) and propaganda
model is an operational (structure) model.

8
3. Weak assumptions. The propaganda model assumes the mass as a total collection
of ignorant. In such away, the model relied to high extent on the area of
interdependence of those elites and the refinement of news according to their need.
However, in the model nothing is stated about the public or it’s involvement in any
part of the making of the news; Not as a source, beneficiary or influential body,
though one of the authors, Chomsky, stated in other instance as they believe that
the hope lies with ordinary people and in the understanding that all changes in
history have come because people build a foundation for changes at the grassroots
level.

4. Its concern is entirely on Media structure, not on Media effects.

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s propaganda is a model that discusses the
media structures and not in the results or effects. In counter response authors say
“…we explicitly pointed out the existence of alternative media, grassroots
information sources, and public skepticism about media truthfulness as important
limits or media effectiveness in propaganda service.” But the case is the
prominent media are in this system and it would be difficult for someone to find a
media free from such engagement.

Chomsky asserts, therefore, in this regard that America has a system of

indoctrination (including the system of propaganda imposed largely by media)

9
5. The propaganda model is hybrid critical theory designed typically for American
media structure. Countries in the world have different mass media rules and
regulations. For instance, in our country, Ethiopia, media ownership, for example,
is legalized as: Public, Private, and Community, each takes significantly equal
amount share of audiences. Therefore, propaganda model might be difficult to
implement in some any where in media system

6. Failure to show scholars view towards the area

Another critique the propaganda model entertained is its failure to show other
scholars opinion or view. In regards to the interdependence between the elite’s
mass media, the wealthy people or corporation and

10
 the government towards the censorship of the news and information broadcast
by the mainstream media; from the view of mass media scholars and other
experts in the area, the model keeps silent. Even if the model is profound and
sturdy in its focus area, this failure to show scholars view might be considered a
significant factor to serve uninterrupted critics form many people from different
areas.

For example, let’s see (the next) a criticism from a neo-conservative person
(Victor David Hanson) and Chomsky’s aggressive towards it; as is released in
Chomsky’s official website:

7. Manufacturing consent as nothing more than a recycling of Marxist idea of ‘false

consciousness’: in which the masses, having been so manipulated that they have
neither the perspective nor the intellect to see beyond the propaganda, require
superior intellect like Chomsky’s to point out to them the real truth.”

8. The buying public. / Wikipedia/

Although similar with the criticism stated earlier as monop[oly , this one slightly
focused on a different aspect. Let see a part of it as it is in the web site:

The bewildered herd , in the propaganda model is stated as , must pay for
understanding the unseen environment through the mass communication media.
The irony is that although the public’s opinion is important they must pay for its
acceptance; They must be in the elite group to get the acceptance.

9. Conspiracy resemblance

Some critics explained the propaganda model as a model that resembled in

explaining what it believes conspiratorial activities than trying to show the effect
and solution areas.
10. Later research and evidence

And finally, a repeated and powerful critic towards the propaganda model is that
the authors E. Herman and N. Chomsky have not attempted to conduct later
researches and evidence once they publish the first one in 1988. They say “many
attempts we discuss are from the past decade (which means 1970s), when the
liberal media were allegedly in confrontation with a “conservative” administration
that they would have been expected to oppose vigorously.

Lippman’s, who is the father of the ‘Agenda Setting’ mass communication,

views exemplify what was referred to above as the first phase (that of all-
powerful media) in the evolution of thinking about the power of the media, and
the weakness of Herman and Chomsky’s position is that they take so little
account of later research and evidence. (Klaehn, 2002)

13
Conclusion

Manufacturing consent: The political-economy of Mass Media by Edward Herman and

Noam Chomsky is a book of media behavior and performance, not the effects. They gave
‘Manufacturing consent’ as a title of their book, the words that traced back to 1920s,
when first used by Walter Lipmann. (the founder of ‘Agenda setting’, a profound mass
media theory).

In the book primarily ’Propaganda model’ with a number of instances is presented.

Present and Clear Danger. Recognizing the use of dominant media by the few wealthy
elites ( people, corporations, advertisers and government body to manipulate the mass.
Scholars forward their assertions opposing the rise of this nature of the media. Robert
Mcshesney and Edward Herman put the idea succinctly in 1997 in the “Global Media”
as;

“…Such a ( Global) concentration of media power in organizations dependent on

advertisers support and responsible primarily to shareholders is a clear and present
danger.” to citizens participation in public affairs, understanding of public issues, and thus
to the effective working environment.

14
Thus, what shall be done? Various suggestions have been put forth by different scholars
of the area. Let’s see one for our purpose here;

Propaganda analysis; academicians felt that by publicizing their findings about how and
why the media work, they could help citizens to protect themselves from the undue
power of media organizations. This activity of the academicians is referred to as
propaganda analysis. This activity is basically the assignment of every audience that it’s
concerned with developing a habit to critically examining the content of the news from
those prominent media.

15
Bibliography

Mass Communication Theory---/ McQuail, Denis---5 th ed---London; Thousand Oaks, CA;

Sage publications, 2005

Media today: an introduction to mass communication/ Joseph Turow---3 rd ed--

-London; New York; Routledge,2009.

Journalism: critical issues/ edited by Stuart Allan---maidenhead; Open University press,

2005.

Journalism: concepts, approaches and global impact/ by Jaya Chakravarty--- New Delhi;
sarup and sons, 2007

Journalism/ edited by Howard Tumber---London; New York; Routledge, 2008

Journalism: a very short introduction/ Ian Hargreaves.---Oxford, (England) ; New York:

Oxford press, c 2005