Manufacturing consent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, proposes that the mass communication media of the U.S. "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.[1] The title, 'Manufacturing Consent', derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent," employed in the book Public Opinion (1922), by Walter Lippmann (1889–1974).[2]

Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom he and co-author E.S. Herman dedicated the book.[3] Four years after publication, Manufacturing Consent: The political Economy of the Mass Media was adapted to the cinema as Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992), a documentary presentation of the propaganda-model of communication, the politics of the mass-communications business, and a biography of Chomsky.

Recent developments

• In 1993, the documentary film Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992), directed by Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, partly based upon the book, presents the propaganda model and its arguments, and a biography of Chomsky.
• In 2006, the Turkish government prosecuted Fatih Tas, owner of the Aram editorial house, two editors and the translator of the revised (2001) edition of Manufacturing Consent for "stirring hatred among the public" (per Article 216 of the Turkish Penal Code) and for "denigrating the national identity" of Turkey (per Article 301), because that edition’s introduction addresses the Turkish news media’s reportage of governmental suppression of the Kurdish populace in the 1990s; they were acquitted.[7][8]
• In 2007, at the 20 Years of Propaganda?: Critical Discussions & Evidence on the Ongoing Relevance of the Herman & Chomsky Propaganda Model (15–17 May 2007) conference at the University of Windsor, Ontario, Herman and Chomsky summarized developments to the propaganda model, followed by the publication of the proceedings of a commemoration of the twentieth publication anniversary of Manufacturing Consent in 2008.
• In 2008, Chomsky replied to questions concerning the ways internet blogs and self-generated news reportage conform to and differ from the propaganda model. He also explained how access to information is not enough, because a framework of understanding is required.[9][clarification needed]

References

1. Herman, Edward S.; Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books. p. 306.
2. p. 13, Noam Chomsky, Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda, Paradigm Publishers 2004.
3. Noam Chomsky, Class Warfare, Pluto Press 1996, p. 29: "Ed Herman and I dedicated our book, Manufacturing Consent, to him. He had just died. It was not intended as just a symbolic gesture. He got both of us started in a lot of this work."
4. James Curran and Jean Seaton, Power without responsibility : the press and broadcasting in Britain (First edition 1981, with many subsequent editions).
5. to: a b Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent.
6. Noam Chomsky, Media Control, the Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda (1997).
7. Butler, Daren (2006-07-04). "Turkish publisher faces prosecution over Chomsky book". Reuters. Retrieved 2006-07-12.
8. "Turks acquitted over Chomsky book". London: BBC News. 2006-12-20. Retrieved 2006-12-20.
9. Authors@Google: Noam Chomsky". 2008-05-02.

http://hope.journ.wwu.edu/tpilgrim/j190/Chomsky.summary.html

Key points in "Manufacturing Consent"
a video about Noam Chomsky and American democracy

Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent arguments about mass media in America and their relation to culture, society and the existing power structure.

Background from Pilgrim: Hegemony refers to predominance or the preponderant influence of one state over another. A ruling or elite class dominates at the level of ideas, thus undermining any consciousness of change. According to Antonio Gramsci, hegemony ccounts for why people are willing to find a niche in existing society rather than rebel in the manner predicted by Karl Marx. In America, these constraints are inherited in the following: 

1) from social structure, and
2) in governmental organization 

-- and together they discourage alternative strategies of action. In effect, people participate in their own domination. Media provide the information.]

The video shows Chomsky's guiding belief to be that a decent society should maximize human need for creative work -- not treat people as cogs in a machine so that the power elite can maintain control, continue private ownership of public resources and increase profits -- all the while managing media content (while preserving the myth of a free press).

This deprives a community of what Walter Lippmann called "the means to detect lies." (Recall Postman's quote in "Amusing Ourselves to Death," Chapter 7).

Real democracy, he believes, would be one in which people participate in the political decision-making and in related economic decisions.

Chomsky asserts that America has a system of indoctrination (including a system of propaganda imposed largely by media).

He believes that the hope lies with ordinary people and in the understanding that all changes in history have come because people build a foundation for change at the grassroots level.

Ordinary people are very capable of understanding the world yet must work TOGETHER to get beyond the imposed information and strive to act in accordance with their own decent interests and develop independent minds.

concision -- Noam Chomsky's concept describing how mainstream media content is structured so that it forces those with dissenting voices to limit scope of answers to brief thoughts and soundbites that fit easily between two TV ads

Regarding Thought Control in a Democratic Society, Chomsky makes these points:

1) Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.

2) Ordinary people have remarkable creativity.

3) People have a fundamental need for creative work, which is not being met in systems where people are like cogs in a machine.

4) What would make more sense as a way to govern is a form of rationalist-libertarian socialism -- not one that increasingly functions without public input. Chomsky advocates a system where a community and its members run things in a democratic fashion and whose people do not function as some sort of wage slaves.

5) People need to be able to detect forms of authority and coercion and challenge those that are not legitimate.

6) The major form of authority that needs challenging is the system of private control over public resources.

7) The First Amendment means that democracy requires free access to ideas and opinions.

8) Democracy in America is not functioning in an ideal sense but more in the sense that Lippmann noted in Public Opinion (where a specialized class of about 20 percent of the people -- but who are also a target of progaganda -- manages democratic functioning) and, in effect, are under control of a power elite, who more or less own the institutions. The masses of people (80 percent) are marginalized, diverted and controlled by what he calls Necessary Illusions.

9) Manufacturing consent is related to the understanding that indoctrination is the essence of propaganda. In a "democratic" society indoctrination occurs when the techniques of control of a propaganda model are imposed -- which means imposing Necessary Illusions.

Chomsky's Propaganda Model says American media have "filters" -- ownership, advertising, news makers, news shapers -- which together emphasize institutional memory, limited debate and media content emphasizing the interests of those in control.

Chomsky used a CASE STUDY of how American media covered two foreign atrocities, Cambodia and East Timor, to illustrate the propaganda model at work -- mainstream media (New York Times was the example used) showed bias in favor of the status quo and power elites and did not covered both atrocities in the same manner, by paying extensive attention to the one (Cambodia 1975-79) and ignoring the other (East Timor 1975-79). If media were not an instrument of propaganda, they would have covered each equally.

When media news coverage of issues is bias in favor the status quo, these are the results:

1. ownership of media is held by major corporations with interests and goals similar to power elite elements of society

2. people with different views, "dissenting voices," are not heard much

3. the breadth of debate is limited

4. the official stance and institutional memory prevail and become history

5. people's interest and attention are often diverted away from issues about which they could become concerned

These attributes come to limit a society in part because mainstream mass media play their part by imposing what Chomsky calls Necessary Illusions, which make certain the masses of the populace won't become curious and involved in the political process and will continue submitting to the "civil rule" of the power elite (maintaining the status quo) -- thus, the masses (80%) are marginalized and diverted while the political class (20% who vote and participate in democracy) are indoctrinated into the status quo.

This "system" is not a Conspiracy but is a HEGEMONIC system of sorts, working with propaganda, wherein people do not get all the important information that may arouse that curiosity and prompt them to get involved and create changes.

Chomsky's concept of NECESSARY ILLUSIONS is linked to power elites dominating how life happens, with part of the population -- about 20% who make up the political class and are expected to participate as cultural managers in a limited fashion -- are indoctrinated, and most people -- the other 80% of the population -- are marginalized, diverted from political awareness and participation in self-governing, and reduced to apathy so they don't vote or take charge. Media are a tool of society's power elites and owned and controlled by them and are used to impose those iIllusions that are Necessary to keep people diverted from the political process.

[David Hume asserted hundreds of years ago that the power always rests with the people but that they don't act because they are oppressed or manipulated]

Thus, indoctrination of the political class and diversion of the masses make up the essence of the democracy practiced in the U.S. (Chomsky notes also that there is no correlation between the internal freedoms in a society and violent external behavior -- and that all governments are ruthless to the extent that they are powerful.)

Major media (New York Times, Washington Post, TV networks, AP) shape our perception of the world by serving as Agenda Setters, Chomsky says.

Media allow some dissenting voices but marginalize them via constraints such as CONCISION, Chomsky's concept saying in mainstream media content, ideas must be stated briefly so it can fill up the TV content between commercials or fit in the print media newshole). Thus, dissenting views are mostly disallowed because they take longer to explain and need more complete evidence.

Chomsky asserts that in order to break free,

citizens must take 2 actions:

1. They must seek out information from ALTERNATIVE MEDIA (media outside the mainstream and usually having a particular point of view)

2. they must move toward change by becoming engaged in community action -- because people can use their ordinary intelligence to make changes in their lives and communities. Grassroots movements begin there.

People can organize to begin grass roots momentum to bring about wider change -- but Chomsky says people must realize soon that the world is not an infinite resource and an infinite garbage can. In these ways, people can fight society's tendency to isolate them from collective action and activism.

Chomsky says it is "profoundly contemptuous of democracy" when the American political system has stage-managed elections and uses manipulation such as testing phrases to determine their likely effect on audiences.

Chomsky argues that people need to work to develop independent minds -- maybe in part by forming COMMUNITY action groups with others with parallel interests and values, not in isolation, which is where the present system tends to keep people.

Chomsky says the present conventional MYTH is that individual material gain is praiseworthy. Instead, people must concern themselves with COMMUNITY INTERESTS [which now suggests the global community] -- and that may mean a spiritual transformation to help people to conceive of themselves differently.

Chomsky argues that America and the world are in deep trouble and that

2 POSSIBILITIES EXIST regarding America's future and the future for a global community held hostage:

1. The general population will take control of its own destiny

2. Or -- there will be no destiny to control.

_______________

In Chomsky's words concluding "Manufacturing Consent":

"The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided [as they have been until now]. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are ... essential to survival."

"The driving force of modern industrialized civilization has been individual material gain. It has long been understood that a society based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist with whatever suffering and injustice it entails as long as it is possible to pretend that the destructive forces humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, [and] is an infinite garbage can.

"At this stage of history, one of two things is possible: Either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community interests guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others, or alternativ ely there will be no destiny to control.

"As long as some specialized class is in position of authority, it is going to set policy in the special interest it serves. But, the conditions of survival and justice require rational, special planning in the interest of the community of the whole (and by now that means the global community).

"The question is whether privileged elites should dominate mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely to impose NECESSARY ILLUSIONS to manipulate and deceive [whom THEY believe are] the stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. "The question, in brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured; they may be essential to survival."

So, Chomsky says all states are violent to the extent they are powerful and that there is little correlation between internal "freedoms" in a society and violent external behavior. The modern American industrial civilization and the media system (which suggests a propaganda model) work because people don't have the time to work and carry out the research to get the information necessary to create change. But, the information is present.

He says he does not have the answers but we should consider moving toward some sort of libertarian-socialist democracy in which our economic institutions would be run by the people. In this way, we would end private control over public resources -- which are finite.

To achieve change AND OVERCOME THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROPAGANDA MODEL, Chomsky says we need to rely in part on activism and alternative media. We must develop means of intellectual self-defense. We must develop independent minds. We need to review a wide range of press (or do so in conjunction with others), including alternative media -- and work at the community level in organizations that may have different focuses but that have similar values.

We must become human participants in our social and political system and work to make a difference. Given full information, ordinary people acting on their best impulse can govern themselves.

Note: Chomsky's ideas that touch on solutions such as alternative media sources, collective action, media literacy, and use of the intellect have similarity to solutions offered by other Media Education Foundation videos seen this quarter in J190.

Fact and/or fantasy

French sociologist Bruno Latour suggests that the widespread popularity of conspiracy theories in mass culture may be due, in part, to the pervasive presence of Marxist-inspired critical theory and similar ideas in academia since the 1970s.[Latour 2004]

Latour notes that about 90% of contemporary social criticism in academia displays one of two approaches which he terms "the fact position and the fairy position."[Latour 2004]:237 The fact position is anti-fetishist, arguing that "objects of belief" (e.g., religion, arts) are merely concepts onto which power is projected; Latour contends that those who use this approach show biases towards confirming their own dogmatic suspicions as most "scientifically supported." While the complete facts of the situation and correct methodology are ostensibly important to them, Latour proposes that the scientific process is instead laid on as a patina to one's pet theories to lend a sort of reputation high ground. The "fairy position" argues that individuals are dominated, often covertly and without their awareness, by external forces (e.g., economics, gender).[68] Latour concludes that each of these two approaches in Academia has led to a polarized, inefficient atmosphere highlighted (in both approaches) by its causticness. "Do you see now why it feels so good to be a critical mind?" asks Latour: no matter which position you take, "You’re always right!"[Latour 2004]

Latour notes that such social criticism has been appropriated by those he describes as conspiracy theorists, including climate change denialists and the 9/11 Truth movement: "Maybe I am taking conspiracy theories too seriously, but I am worried to detect, in those mad mixtures of knee-jerk disbelief, punctilious demands for proofs, and free use of powerful explanation from the social neverland, many of the weapons of social critique."[Latour 2004]

Latour, Bruno (Winter 2004), "Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern." (PDF), Critical Inquiry, 30 (2): 225–248, doi:10.1086/421123, retrieved 9 September 2015

On this day in 1969 Neil Armstrong became the first to step onto the lunar surface six hours later on July 21 at 02:56:15 UTC; Aldrin joined him about 20 minutes later.

They spent about two and a quarter hours together outside the spacecraft, and collected 47.5 pounds (21.5 kg) of lunar material for return to Earth. The third crew member, Michael Collins, piloted the Command Module Columbia alone in lunar orbit while they were on the Moon's surface. Armstrong and Aldrin spent just under a day on the lunar surface before rendezvousing with Columbia in lunar orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

There are conspiracy theories which claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA with the aid of other organizations. The most notable claim is that the six manned landings (1969–72) were faked and that twelve Apollo astronauts did not actually walk on the Moon. Various groups and individuals have made claims since the mid-1970s, that NASA and others knowingly misled the public into believing the landings happened, by manufacturing, tampering with, or destroying evidence including photos, telemetry tapes, radio and TV transmissions, Moon rock samples, and even some key witnesses.

According to James Longuski (Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering at Purdue University), the conspiracy theories are impossible because of their size and complexity. The conspiracy would have to involve more than 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, the 12 men who walked on the Moon, the six others who flew with them as Command Module pilots, and another six astronauts who orbited the Moon. Hundreds of thousands of people—including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers—would have had to keep the secret. Longuski argues that it would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings. To date, nobody from the United States government or NASA who would have had a link to the Apollo program has said the Moon landings were hoaxes. Penn Jillette made note of this in the "Conspiracy Theories" episode of his contrarian television show Penn & Teller: Bullshit! in 2005. With the number of people involved, and noting the Watergate scandal, Jillette noted that someone would have outed the hoax by now.

According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others.

Some psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulation of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part. Some research carried out at the University of Kent, UK suggests people may be influenced by conspiracy theories without being aware that their attitudes have changed. After reading popular conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, participants in this study correctly estimated how much their peers' attitudes had changed, but significantly underestimated how much their own attitudes had changed to become more in favor of the conspiracy theories. The authors conclude that conspiracy theories may therefore have a 'hidden power' to influence people's beliefs.

A study published in 2012 also found that conspiracy theorists frequently believe in multiple conspiracies, even when one conspiracy contradicts the other. For example, the study found that people who believe Osama Bin Laden was captured alive by Americans are also likely to believe that Bin Laden was actually killed prior to the 2011 raid on his home in Abottabad, Pakistan.

In a 2013 article in Scientific American Mind, psychologist Sander van der Linden argues there is converging scientific evidence that (1) people who believe in one conspiracy are likely to espouse others (even when contradictory); (2) in some cases, conspiracy ideation has been associated with paranoia and schizotypy; (3) conspiracist worldviews tend to breed mistrust of well-established scientific principles, such as the association between smoking and cancer or global warming and CO2 emissions; and (4) conspiracy ideation often leads people to see patterns where none exist. Van der Linden also coined the term The Conspiracy-Effect.

Humanistic psychologists argue that even if the cabal behind the conspiracy is almost always perceived as hostile, there is often still an element of reassurance in it for conspiracy theorists. This is in part because it is more consoling to think that complications and upheavals in human affairs are created by human beings rather than factors beyond human control. Belief in such a cabal is a device for reassuring oneself that certain occurrences are not random, but ordered by a human intelligence. This renders such occurrences comprehensible and potentially controllable. If a cabal can be implicated in a sequence of events, there is always the hope, however tenuous, of being able to break the cabal's power – or joining it and exercising some of that power oneself. Finally, belief in the power of such a cabal is an implicit assertion of human dignity – an often unconscious but necessary affirmation that man is not totally helpless, but is responsible, at least in some measure, for his own destiny.