Manufacturing Consent

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" is one of the most important works to reveal the workings of the mass media in democratic societies. The authors present a model of propaganda that explains how the media shape public opinion in favour of power elites. Rather than serving as a watchdog of democracy, the media often function as a tool to maintain the status quo, controlling the flow of information and selectively filtering news. Through five key filters - ownership, advertising funding, resource dependence, pushback, and ideology - the authors show how news is tailored to reinforce dominant power structures. This analysis offers a critical look at how the media is used to manipulate the public, from legitimizing elections to discrediting opponents to double standards in news coverage.

The mass media is often considered a pillar of democracy because it provides information that enables citizens to make informed decisions. But Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky show that behind this facade of independence lies a set of filters that subjugate the media to the interests of powerful corporations and political elites. This model of propaganda helps us understand why the media does not function as an impartial voice of truth, but rather as a tool to control public opinion. The first filter is media ownership. In modern society, the media market is dominated by huge corporations whose main motivation is profit. This concentration of power means that news coverage is often tailored to protect the interests of the owners. For example, in the 1980s, when companies such as General Electric owned major television networks, it was unlikely that these networks would report critically on the environmental impacts of the parent company's activities. The second filter is media advertising funding. The mass media cannot afford to lose their advertisers because advertising is their main source of revenue. This leads to indirect censorship of topics that could undermine corporate interests. For example, reports on the harmful effects of tobacco have been suppressed in the past because the tobacco industry was one of the largest advertisers. The third filter is sources of information. The media rely on official channels, such as government institutions and corporations, because these sources provide information quickly and cheaply. This dependent relationship means that news is often one-sided and favours the perspective of the powerful. During the 2003 Iraq War, the U.S. media relied heavily on information from the Pentagon, ignoring the voices of opponents of the war. A fourth filter, known as "flak," represents negative feedback to the media from governments, advertisers, or lobbyists. Journalists who cross unwritten boundaries can face pressure, loss of access to sources, or even threats of lawsuits. This mechanism incentivizes the media to avoid controversial topics. The final filter is ideology. During the Cold War, it was anti-communism that served as a framework to discredit opponents. Today, it may be other ideological battlegrounds, such as the 'war on terror' or 'economic competition with China'. These frameworks help to create a climate of fear and reinforce elite narratives. The propaganda model shows that even in democratic societies the media can function as a tool of manipulation. Each of the filters contributes to the public receiving selective, tailored information that reinforces the interests of the powerful. This process is not the result of a direct conspiracy, but rather of a complex system in which the various components work harmoniously to maintain the status quo.

News reporting, which is supposed to be an objective mirror of reality, often mirrors the interests of the powerful rather than the truth itself. One of the most striking manifestations of this phenomenon is the double standard in news coverage - the unequal coverage of events based on geopolitical or economic interests. The media differentiate between so-called 'valuable' and 'worthless' victims, systematically favouring certain groups of people or countries. Valuable victims are those whose suffering is portrayed by the media with compassion and in detail. Often these are victims of hostile regimes or countries that oppose the interests of Western powers. An example is the intense coverage of the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s, where blame was attributed to local governments that were not favourable to Western economies. However, similar conflicts in friendly countries, such as in Turkey against the Kurdish population, have remained in the media's background. On the other hand, the "worthless" victims are those whose plight is often ignored or minimized by the media. Their suffering is usually the result of the actions of allies or friendly regimes. For example, civil wars in Latin American countries supported by US military intervention, as in the case of El Salvador or Nicaragua, have received only marginal media attention. This selectivity did not arise by accident - the media must maintain access to resources and protect its economic interests. The language used by the media to describe events is also an important factor. Emotionally charged language is often used for high-value victims: expressions such as 'innocent children' or 'brutal killings'. In the case of non-value victims, however, the news is neutralised: 'loss of life' or 'unfortunate incidents'. This subtle difference in words creates a different emotional response in viewers and readers. The double standard is also evident in the portrayal of military conflicts. During the Vietnam War, the US media highlighted the brutality of North Vietnamese troops, while portraying its own military interventions as interventions to protect democracy. The same principle is evident today in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, where Russian casualties are minimally mentioned, while the suffering of Ukrainians is a central theme for the media. This selective approach is not just the result of the bias of individual journalists, but rather of systemic pressure on the media to align their coverage with dominant geopolitical interests. The consequence is a distorted picture of reality that shapes public opinion and legitimises the actions of power elites. For the ordinary viewer or reader, this means that he or she must be vigilant, distinguish between official rhetoric and the real state of affairs, and seek information from a variety of sources. Only in this way can the barrier of double standards be overcome and the truth be approached.

Elections are often seen as the cornerstone of democracy, a symbol of citizens' free choice about the direction of their country. But through media coverage, elections can be legitimized or, conversely, discredited based on the geopolitical and ideological interests of power elites. This process of legitimisation is not just about informing the public, but about creating a narrative that supports a particular political agenda. In the media, elections in friendly countries are often portrayed as transparent and democratic, when the reality may be quite different. An example is the elections in Saudi Arabia, where political pluralism is limited and women have only recently gained the basic right to vote. Despite this, the Western media have often highlighted the 'positive steps' taken by the Kingdom, thereby legitimising the regime as reformist and modernising. In contrast, elections in countries designated as hostile regimes are portrayed as rigged, undemocratic or meaningless. For example, during the Cold War, elections in socialist states were automatically discredited as formal and controlled by government propaganda, while similar practices in authoritarian regimes of U.S. allies, such as in Chile under Augusto Pinochet, received minimal criticism. The media also has the ability to influence perceptions of elections through selective news choices. When news coverage emphasises high turnout, plurality of candidates and freedom of expression, it creates an image of a successful democratic process. If, on the contrary, it focuses on low turnout, shortcomings in organisation or suppression of the opposition, it undermines confidence in the legitimacy of the results. An example is the media coverage of the 2020 presidential elections in Belarus, where reports focused on protests against Alexander Lukashenko and allegations of electoral fraud, while friendly regimes in similar situations often faced milder assessments. The way in which the media present candidates also plays an important role. The leader of an allied country is often portrayed as pragmatic and pro-reform, while candidates in hostile states are labelled as populists, dictators or threats to stability. Such rhetoric shapes not only the view of domestic audiences, but also international perceptions of the legitimacy of these elections. The legitimization of elections through the media is not just a matter of rhetoric, but of strategically shaping the perception of democracy as a concept. For the ordinary citizen, this means that he or she should be wary of how the media present elections in different parts of the world. Diversification of information sources and a deeper understanding of local contexts are key to being able to detect when elections are being used as a tool to advance the interests of those in power, rather than as a genuine expression of the will of the people.

One of the most prominent tools used by the mass media to perpetuate the power interests of elites is the discrediting of opponents. This process involves systematically portraying critics of the dominant system as incompetent, dangerous or illegitimate. Discrediting is not just an incidental part of media discourse, but a carefully thought-out strategy that helps to keep public opinion on the side of the status quo. The media use a variety of methods to marginalise opponents. One of the most common is the selective choice of information that highlights weaknesses or controversial aspects of their personalities or agendas. For example, during Jeremy Corbyn's campaign in the UK, the media often exaggerated his alleged inability to lead the party and highlighted his historical links with radical groups, while his policy proposals to tackle inequality received minimal attention. Another strategy is the use of linguistic frames that shape a negative image of opponents. Critics of the dominant narrative are often labelled 'populists', 'extremists' or 'conspiracy theorists'. Such labels automatically delegitimise their views without the need for detailed analysis. For example, Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate activist, has faced ridicule and labelling as an 'immature child' by some media, thereby suppressing the seriousness of her message. Historically, these practices were common during the Cold War period, when socialist movements and their leaders were systematically portrayed as threats to national security in Western countries. This allowed not only the elimination of political competition but also the enforcement of repressive measures against opposition groups, often with public support. The modern media also have sophisticated technological tools at their disposal that allow them to disseminate a negative image of opponents on a massive scale. Social networks are used to disseminate disinformation that can be designed to provoke fear or resentment against specific individuals or groups. During the 2016 US presidential election, Hillary Clinton's campaign was undermined by the systematic dissemination of false claims that significantly influenced public opinion. However, discrediting opponents is not just about manipulating the public. It also serves as a warning to other potential critics to think twice about opposing the system. This tactic creates an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship that prevents open dialogue and stifles alternative views. It is crucial for the public to become aware of these mechanisms and to learn to distinguish between objective criticism and manipulation. Seeking information from independent sources, examining the facts and ignoring emotionally charged attacks are essential steps to understanding the true intentions of those who are the targets of media discredit. Only in this way can we avoid becoming part of mass manipulation.

"Manufacturing consent" reveals that the mass media, which should be the backbone of democracy, often functions as a tool to advance the interests of the powerful. The model of propaganda presented by Herman and Chomsky shows that control of the media takes place in subtle but systematic ways that shape the public's perception of events and opinions. From selective news coverage to the discrediting of opponents, the media becomes an arena where power and control over society is fought over. This book highlights the importance of critical thinking and the need to diversify sources of information in order to recognize manipulative techniques and seek the truth behind propaganda. Ultimately, it challenges every reader to become an active and informed participant in a democratic society, resistant to the manipulative tactics of power structures. Do you have feedback for us? We'd love it if you let us know your opinion on our content! Just send an email to feedback@rewio.app with the title of this book in the subject line and share your impressions!