Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

Noam Chomsky was Institute Professor of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology until 2017, when he joined the faculty of the University of Arizona. He is “one of the most cited scholars in modern history” (Arizona.edu). His groundbreaking work in the field of Linguistics includes the books Syntactic Structures, Language and Mind, and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. He has received the Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences, the Helmholtz Medal, and the Ben Franklin Medal in Computer and Cognitive Science. Apart from his academic scholarship, Chomsky is one of the most outspoken critics of capitalism and American foreign policy. Critiquing the fragility of so many working-class lives under a ruthless economic system, Chomsky sees activism as not only important but necessary, encouraging young people to “reverse the damage that is destroying society” (“Fordham News,” Fordham.edu). If knowledge is indeed power, then an informed citizenry is an empowered citizenry, and an integral part of that equation is a responsible media. It makes sense that Chomsky would be an important voice in exposing media censorship. 

Ronald Reagan looms large over many of the events discussed in Manufacturing Consent: interference in Central America, deregulation, consolidation of media conglomerates, and anticommunism. Following what many perceived as a disastrous four years under Jimmy Carter, Reagan swept into office on a tide of patriotism, bravado, and nostalgia. Suddenly, government regulation and labor unions were the new domestic enemies, while communism threatened the world abroad. Reagan championed free markets and trickle-down economic theory while simultaneously vowing to confront the Soviets and their “Evil Empire.” The damage, according to his critics, was twofold: Deregulation and a frenzy of corporate mergers forced news outlets to focus more on the bottom line and less on the public good, and Reagan’s foreign policy—his need to present an image of a tough America to the outside world—facilitated greater interventionism and support for oppressive dictators. These two forces worked in tandem; the ideology of anticommunism guided much of Reagan’s foreign policy, and a compliant media filtered its news through that same lens. Certainly, other presidents have consorted with despots, but the Reagan years as Herman and Chomsky depict them were a perfect storm of unfettered capitalism and aggressive militarism. 

Although only cited a few times in Manufacturing Consent, Bagdikian’s work informs many of Herman and Chomsky’s ideas. An Armenian American journalist and media critic—and later the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California Berkeley—Bagdikian cautioned against the concentration of media ownership in the hands of fewer and fewer corporations. His 1983 book The Media Monopoly argues that consolidation of the news media is a threat to independent journalism and democracy. Interestingly, Simon & Schuster initially rejected the book because one of its editors felt “it made all corporations look bad” (Lamb, Gregory. “Bagdikian book stirs censorship controversy.” The Christian Science Monitor, 3 June 1983). Simon & Schuster was owned by Gulf+Western at the time. In his book, Bagdikian noted that 29 “media systems” control over half the output of newspapers, magazines, film, TV, and radio. He referred to these monolithic concentrations of power as “a new Private Ministry of Information and Culture that can set the national agenda” (4). As Herman and Chomsky frame things, Bagdikian’s fears were prescient. 

Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were the three consecutive presidents responsible for America’s involvement in Vietnam. Beginning with “advisors” sent by Kennedy, the military role escalated under Johnson and Nixon until it became a full-fledged war. These presidents are noteworthy because of their use of the “Domino Theory” as justification for a declaration of war on a country that had little national security importance. What started out as mere political interference grew into a military commitment vastly out of scale with the country’s actual security value. It was also the beginning of a widespread media campaign to sell the war as a humane effort by the U.S. to save a fledgling democracy from a tyrannical, oppressive enemy. As the war spun out of control, those justifications became pillars of sand no longer able to support the war effort or Johnson’s continuing tenure in office. Notably, these three presidents belonged to different political parties; Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats, while Nixon was a Republican. The fact that they all shared more or less the same foreign policy—and that the media supported them in it—therefore demonstrates how widespread and entrenched the U.S.’s governing ideology is, at least as Herman and Chomsky see it.