Manufacturing Consent

[Gary Childress]

In the 1980s, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman co-authored a book titled "Manufacturing Consent" which is a term coined by American journalist Walter Lippmann in his 1922 book titled "Public Opinion".

The Chomsky/Herman book makes the case that media in a Capitalist society which is controlled by the wealthy and powerful owners of capital, is used to shape public opinion in their favor. It made the case for independent media that was not controlled by capital (or at least not controlled by the few to shape the opinion of the many).

One question I have is whether the Internet has changed any of that?

While it's true that prominent independent "podcasts" and alternative sources of information do exist, does the corporate media and those with money to back their opinions still play a significant role in "manufacturing" public opinion? And if so, then what is it that corporate media want people to think? And is what they want people to think, something that is true or the "right" way to think? And if not, then what is the "right" way for a human being who is a citizen of a democracy to think? Or, if that's not fundamental enough, what is the "right" way for a human being to think? Or is there no "right" way for a human being to think? Can we or should we think whatever comes to our minds?

[Immanuel Can]

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman co-authored a book titled "Manufacturing Consent" which is a term coined by American journalist Walter Lippmann in his 1922 book Public Opinion.

The Chomsky/Herman book makes the case that media in a Capitalist society which is controlled by the wealthy and powerful owners of capital, is used to shape public opinion in their favor. It made the case for independent media that was not controlled by capital.

The question I have is whether the Internet has changed any of that?

While it's true that prominent independent "podcasts" and alternative sources of information do exist, does the corporate media and those with money to back their opinions still play a significant role in "manufacturing" public opinion? And if so, then what is it that corporate media want people to think? And is what they want people to think, something that is true or the "right" way to think? And if not, then what is the "right" way for a human being who is a citizen of a democracy to think? Or, if that's not fundamental enough, what is the "right" way for a human being to think?

That's an old, old book now. And there's an accompanying film. But both are severely dated, and most of Chomsky's complaints have not proved out, so the internet didn't "change" anything. He was never right in the first place.

His chief problem was to naively think the "manufacturing" was being done in the name of "capitalism." What we find now is that all the "manufacturing" of the mainline media has been Socialist propaganda for the masses, so as to bilk them on behalf of Big Business and Big Government. And the Socialists have all proved patsies in this ponzi scheme. Chomsky, without realizing it, by sponsoring Marxist kinds of analysis, was deflecting attention away from the real culprits and the real plan, pointing instead to an imaginary bogeyman called "capitalism." All along, it was totalitarian Socialism that was the true enemy of people.

Chomsky's just a naive Marxist. His ability to analyze is horribly truncated by the fact of his ideological possession by class-based explanations. Socialist analysis today accepts that "class" analysis just didn't play out. Now, instead, it touts Neo-Marxist causes, like "racism," and "sexism" and "homophobia" and "Islamophobia" and "fat phobia," among other canards, as a way of sponsoring the same totalitarian, Big Government, Big Business control that Chomsky imagined he was fighting. He sold everybody on the dumb idea that their biggest enemy was their economic independence and freedom of choice, and that Socialism was benign and would champion their interests in its place. How wrong he was, as we can now see.

Chomsky's well past the height of his intellectual powers, now, and is generallly regarded as yesterday's man and a crank.

But he did do some good work in linguistics, at one time. He just hasn't done anything of note in several decades now.

[Gary Childress]

Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman co-authored a book titled "Manufacturing Consent" which is a term coined by American journalist Walter Lippmann in his 1922 book Public Opinion.

The Chomsky/Herman book makes the case that media in a Capitalist society which is controlled by the wealthy and powerful owners of capital, is used to shape public opinion in their favor. It made the case for independent media that was not controlled by capital.

The question I have is whether the Internet has changed any of that?

While it's true that prominent independent "podcasts" and alternative sources of information do exist, does the corporate media and those with money to back their opinions still play a significant role in "manufacturing" public opinion? And if so, then what is it that corporate media want people to think? And is what they want people to think, something that is true or the "right" way to think? And if not, then what is the "right" way for a human being who is a citizen of a democracy to think? Or, if that's not fundamental enough, what is the "right" way for a human being to think?

That's an old, old book now. And there's an accompanying film. But both are severely dated, and most of Chomsky's complaints have not proved out, so the internet didn't "change" anything. He was never right in the first place.

His chief problem was to naively think the "manufacturing" was being done in the name of "capitalism." What we find now is that all the "manufacturing" of the mainline media has been Socialist propaganda for the masses, so as to bilk them on behalf of Big Business and Big Government. And the Socialists have all proved patsies in this ponzi scheme. Chomsky, without realizing it, by sponsoring Marxist kinds of analysis, was deflecting attention away from the real culprits and the real plan, pointing instead to an imaginary bogeyman called "capitalism." All along, it was totalitarian Socialism that was the true enemy of people.

Chomsky's just a naive Marxist. His ability to analyze is horribly truncated by the fact of his ideological possession by class-based explanations. Socialist analysis today accepts that "class" analysis just didn't play out. Now, instead, it touts Neo-Marxist causes, like "racism," and "sexism" and "homophobia" and "Islamophobia" and "fat phobia," among other canards, as a way of sponsoring the same totalitarian, Big Government, Big Business control that Chomsky imagined he was fighting. He sold everybody on the dumb idea that their biggest enemy was their economic independence and freedom of choice, and that Socialism was benign and would champion their interests in its place. How wrong he was, as we can now see.

Chomsky's well past the height of his intellectual powers, now, and is generallly regarded as yesterday's man and a crank.

But he did do some good work in linguistics, at one time. He just hasn't done anything of note in several decades now.

That's an interesting take on the book. Thank you for providing it. What do you make of Chomsky's comments about the wealthy or powerful controlling public opinion through the everyday use of their wealth and power? Is that not true? Or should the wealthy, being the successful people that they are, have such control because they are successful? Or does wealth not play a role in shaping public opinion? Or perhaps, should wealth play a role in shaping public opinion?

[Immanuel Can]

That's an interesting take on the book. Thank you for providing it.

You're welcome.

What do you make of Chomsky's comments about the wealthy or powerful controlling public opinion through the everyday use of their wealth and power? Is that not true?

Yes, it's true, of course: but as that words it, it's pretty much an empty truism. Of course the wealthy and powerful use their media to shape public opinion: but who are these "wealthy and powerful" persons, and by what means does this "shaping" go on?

What Chomsky he missed is that the wealthy and powerful find Socialism their most useful tool in shaping the masses; and that it's things like freedom, individualism, family and faith that create resistance to the very tyranny he claimed to deplore. After all "consent" aims at making all opinions conform to one -- that is, it aims at the creating of "Socialist man," who cannot think for himself but must think as his overlords tell him. That's exactly what Socialism aims at, too: the subsuming of individual identities into a "new man," a "collectivist man," or what Communists call "the People."

Or should the wealthy, being the successful people that they are, have such control because they are successful?

Should Nancy Pelosi be allowed to do it? You mean? Or did you mean George Soros, or Larry Fink? Or the Clintons and Barak Obama? Or the Hollywood and Wall Street elites of the WEF? Or is in only bad if somebody who shades conservative does it?

But then, how many of the major media companies are pro-conservative? All the major ones are leaning Left.

But that also raises a question: if Leftism, or Socialism is actually against "the wealthy and powerful," how come the media companies controlled by these same "wealthy and powerful" people are all pushing Leftism and Socialism? What do they know about Socialism that the average Socialist follower doesn't yet understand? How did Socialism turn into the tool of the ruling class? These are good questions, but apparently, not ones that the average Socialist has the courage to ask himself.

Or does wealth not play a role in shaping public opinion? Or perhaps, should wealth play a role in shaping public opinion?

Why? Why should people who have money also be allowed to manipulate public opinion? What makes them so great?

[Gary Childress]

That's an interesting take on the book. Thank you for providing it.

You're welcome.

What do you make of Chomsky's comments about the wealthy or powerful controlling public opinion through the everyday use of their wealth and power? Is that not true?

Yes, it's true, of course: but as that words it, it's pretty much an empty truism. Of course the wealthy and powerful use their media to shape public opinion...

So you agree with Chomsky that wealth and the power that comes from it play a significant role (perhaps disproportionate one) in shaping public opinion. However, where you disagree with Chomsky is that you don't think there's any reasonable way to adjust or offset that power? Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

That's an interesting take on the book. Thank you for providing it.

You're welcome.

What do you make of Chomsky's comments about the wealthy or powerful controlling public opinion through the everyday use of their wealth and power? Is that not true?

Yes, it's true, of course: but as that words it, it's pretty much an empty truism. Of course the wealthy and powerful use their media to shape public opinion...

So you agree with Chomsky that wealth and the power that comes from it play a significant role (perhaps disproportionate one) in shaping public opinion.

Everybody knows that. It doesn't take any genius to realize it. Of course the rich control the media. Who else can afford to?

However, where you disagree with Chomsky is that you don't think there's any reasonable way to adjust or offset that power? Is that correct?

Nothing like what I said, actually. I was pointing out that whereas Chomsky imagines "capitalism" is the problem, the truth is that autocrats leveraging Leftism to their own benefit, and foisting it on the masses propagandistically through the mass media has turned out to be the real threat to freedom and individual rights.

[Impenitent]

You're welcome.
Yes, it's true, of course: but as that words it, it's pretty much an empty truism. Of course the wealthy and powerful use their media to shape public opinion...

So you agree with Chomsky that wealth and the power that comes from it play a significant role (perhaps disproportionate one) in shaping public opinion.

Everybody knows that. It doesn't take any genius to realize it. Of course the rich control the media. Who else can afford to?

However, where you disagree with Chomsky is that you don't think there's any reasonable way to adjust or offset that power? Is that correct?

Nothing like what I said, actually. I was pointing out that whereas Chomsky imagines "capitalism" is the problem, the truth is that autocrats leveraging Leftism to their own benefit, and foisting it on the masses propagandistically through the mass media has turned out to be the real threat to freedom and individual rights.

don't say that- they'll take away your food stamps...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

You're welcome.
Yes, it's true, of course: but as that words it, it's pretty much an empty truism. Of course the wealthy and powerful use their media to shape public opinion...

So you agree with Chomsky that wealth and the power that comes from it play a significant role (perhaps disproportionate one) in shaping public opinion.

Everybody knows that. It doesn't take any genius to realize it. Of course the rich control the media. Who else can afford to?

However, where you disagree with Chomsky is that you don't think there's any reasonable way to adjust or offset that power? Is that correct?

Nothing like what I said, actually. I was pointing out that whereas Chomsky imagines "capitalism" is the problem, the truth is that autocrats leveraging Leftism to their own benefit, and foisting it on the masses propagandistically through the mass media has turned out to be the real threat to freedom and individual rights.

Do autocrats not also "leverage" conservatism to their own benefit at times?

[Immanuel Can]

So you agree with Chomsky that wealth and the power that comes from it play a significant role (perhaps disproportionate one) in shaping public opinion.

Everybody knows that. It doesn't take any genius to realize it. Of course the rich control the media. Who else can afford to?

However, where you disagree with Chomsky is that you don't think there's any reasonable way to adjust or offset that power? Is that correct?

Nothing like what I said, actually. I was pointing out that whereas Chomsky imagines "capitalism" is the problem, the truth is that autocrats leveraging Leftism to their own benefit, and foisting it on the masses propagandistically through the mass media has turned out to be the real threat to freedom and individual rights.

Do autocrats not also "leverage" conservatism to their own benefit at times?

Sometimes they try. But it doesn't really work. Conservatism resists utopian dreams and social engineering projects. It emphasizes things like family, faith, truth, rationality, logic, science, facts, history, law traditions, individual rights, meritocracy, sexual norms, hierarchy, responsibility, ethics and morality...all things that interfere with the effort to reengineer society according to some ideology.

[Gary Childress]

Everybody knows that. It doesn't take any genius to realize it. Of course the rich control the media. Who else can afford to?

Nothing like what I said, actually. I was pointing out that whereas Chomsky imagines "capitalism" is the problem, the truth is that autocrats leveraging Leftism to their own benefit, and foisting it on the masses propagandistically through the mass media has turned out to be the real threat to freedom and individual rights.

Do autocrats not also "leverage" conservatism to their own benefit at times?

Sometimes they try. But it doesn't really work. Conservatism resists utopian dreams and social engineering projects. It emphasizes things like family, faith, truth, rationality, logic, science, facts, history, law traditions, individual rights, meritocracy, sexual norms, hierarchy, responsibility, ethics and morality...all things that interfere with the effort to reengineer society according to some ideology.

And what does the left and liberalism "emphasize"?

[Immanuel Can]

Do autocrats not also "leverage" conservatism to their own benefit at times?

Sometimes they try. But it doesn't really work. Conservatism resists utopian dreams and social engineering projects. It emphasizes things like family, faith, truth, rationality, logic, science, facts, history, law traditions, individual rights, meritocracy, sexual norms, hierarchy, responsibility, ethics and morality...all things that interfere with the effort to reengineer society according to some ideology.

And what does the left and liberalism "emphasize"?

Liberalism isn't Leftist. Classical Liberalism is centrist. The Left is just a tool of Big Business, now. Guys like Soros and Fink, the ultra rich, use it for their own purposes. At the street level, it's just a bunch of Lenin's "useful idiots." That's the irony we see today: Marx's "class struggle" turns out to be the greatest opportunity for the ultra wealthy to take over and destroy basic democratic institutions, individual rights, private enterprise and, through their media, free thought as well. And Socialists are just going along with it, like mythical lemmings to the cliff.

[Gary Childress]

Sometimes they try. But it doesn't really work. Conservatism resists utopian dreams and social engineering projects. It emphasizes things like family, faith, truth, rationality, logic, science, facts, history, law traditions, individual rights, meritocracy, sexual norms, hierarchy, responsibility, ethics and morality...all things that interfere with the effort to reengineer society according to some ideology.

And what does the left and liberalism "emphasize"?

Liberalism isn't Leftist. Classical Liberalism is centrist. The Left is just a tool of Big Business, now. Guys like Soros and Fink, the ultra rich, use it for their own purposes. At the street level, it's just a bunch of Lenin's "useful idiots." That's the irony we see today: Marx's "class struggle" turns out to be the greatest opportunity for the ultra wealthy to take over and destroy basic democratic institutions, individual rights, private enterprise and, through their media, free thought as well. And Socialists are just going along with it, like mythical lemmings to the cliff.

Wealthy individuals seem to flock to finance things like the Tea Party and Turning Point as well. The wealthy will support whoever looks good in the public eye. It's public relations 101. Probably some of them even intellectually buy into what they are backing. But when it comes to money, profit driven businesses will meet the bottom line, otherwise, they won't stay in business. That's economics 101.

[Immanuel Can]

And what does the left and liberalism "emphasize"?

Liberalism isn't Leftist. Classical Liberalism is centrist. The Left is just a tool of Big Business, now. Guys like Soros and Fink, the ultra rich, use it for their own purposes. At the street level, it's just a bunch of Lenin's "useful idiots." That's the irony we see today: Marx's "class struggle" turns out to be the greatest opportunity for the ultra wealthy to take over and destroy basic democratic institutions, individual rights, private enterprise and, through their media, free thought as well. And Socialists are just going along with it, like mythical lemmings to the cliff.

Wealthy individuals seem to flock to finance things like the Tea Party and Turning Point as well.

"The Tea Party"? I don't think they even exist anymore, do you? And I don't know anybody who's on the level of a Bezos, a Soros, or a Fink who's doing anything but funding the Left.

But when it comes to money, profit driven businesses will meet the bottom line, otherwise, they won't stay in business. That's economics 101.

You'd think so: but things are different today. Today, the uber-rich have decided that just having money isn't enough. They seem to feel that their affluence entitles them to engineer all of society, even on a global scale...not just to mess around in national or international politics, but to manipulate things so that ordinary folks are forced to give up more and more of their freedom to these elitists, and yield themselves to be made cogs in the social engineers' mad global machine.

The European Union or the WEF are perfect examples, as are the Finks and Soros's of the world, and the Hollywood movers and shakers: these unelected megalomaniacs think they have a right to tell you what you can own, what services you can have, where you can live, where you can go, what you can eat, who you can associate with, what you can say, and even what you're allowed to think. And for them, control of the major mass media is not just a future hope; it's a present reality. The only question left is, just how much of what they are trying to sell us are we willing to buy?

I don't think Chomsky had, or even has now, the faintest idea that this was possible. But maybe he should have.