5 ms·

I'm currently reading Manufacturing Consent which to me shows how dangerous blindly following the mass media can be in a rigorous manner without requiring one t

by cjslep 8y ago

I'm currently reading Manufacturing Consent which to me shows how dangerous blindly following the mass media can be in a rigorous manner without requiring one to become a conspiracy theorist. There's certain ways to effectively critically read newspaper articles that I was taught at a young age and it's definitely a learned skill that I wish the US education system did better with.

wongarsu 8y ago
> without requiring one to become a conspiracy theorist. People conspire all the time, so shouldn't any sane person suspect some conspiracies? Hijacking the word "conspiracy theorist" to mean nut job seems like exactly the twisting of reality you are advocating to avoid.
- omeid2 8y ago
  counterconspiracy (noun) : a conspiracy to oppose or undermine something (such as another conspiracy) The big agencies are pretty well versed on this, look at the system approach they take on this one: https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Countering-Warren-critics-040167.pdf https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Countering-W... It is not the details of this specific conspiracy that is interesting, but the systematic approach to tackling it.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  In this context, I interpret "conspiracy theorist" as someone who thinks there are relatively large groups of people conspiring, without the majority of people being aware of that. A small conspiracy when playing Diplomacy is believable, but e.g. one in which everyone behind mass media has agreed to put forward a certain message is not. Thus (not having read it myself), Manufacturing Consent could show how emergent properties of mass media might lead to them pushing a certain incorrect world view, rather than proposing a theory that requires the teams behind them to all agree to conspire and none of them to make that public knowledge.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I haven't read it either but I know the insidious thing about many conspiracies is that they aren't even technically conspiracies - they may collude but that isn't a crime in itself or even when all combined. Look at the increasingly blatantly selective and hypocritical tech hit jobs - you would think one of Google, Amazon, or Facebook were the most hated companies in America given the coverage. Nope it is Comcast who has earned that distinction. The same one who while technically a rival to them advertises heavily with them. The same one whose past actions have made net neutrality not a theoretical matter. Nothing illegal but their actions are flagrantly self-interested.
  - herbstein 8y ago
    > Thus (not having read it myself), Manufacturing Consent could show how emergent properties of mass media might lead to them pushing a certain incorrect world view, rather than proposing a theory that requires the teams behind them to all agree to conspire and none of them to make that public knowledge. That is right. Chomsky proposes 5 filters through which this process happens. These filters operate, according to Chomsky, not just in media, but in all of society. From kindergarten to our deadbeds. I think this was best illustrated with Chomsky's 1996 interview in "The Big Idea" on BBC by Andrew Marr. Chomsky is outlining how the filters make sure certain viewpoints are popularized, and Andrew Marr asks "How can you know that I'm self-censoring?". To which Chomsky replies "I'm not saying you're self-censoring. I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting." The 30 minute episode[1] is well worth a watch, but the three minute clip of the above exchange is also available[2]. [1]: https://youtu.be/GjENnyQupow https://youtu.be/GjENnyQupow [2]: https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU
- pjc50 8y ago
  Suspicion is not evidence.
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    And common use the word theory describes something unproven or speculative. Evidence is great, but in the presence of undisputable evidence we wouldn't call it a consiracy theory but simply a conspiracy.
- Bjartr 8y ago
  > Hijacking the word "conspiracy theorist" to mean nut job seems like exactly the twisting of reality you are advocating to avoid. The term "conspiracy theory" has always always been derogatory[1] [1] https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_always_already_wrong https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_alwa...
Veen 8y ago
There is a problem with blindly following the mass media, but there is no less of problem with blindly following any media. I’m often surprised that people who denounce the Mainstream Media as biased and under the thumb of vested interests are quite happy to uncritically absorb any old crap from obviously biased and frequently insane “independent” sources they happen to agree with.
- mistermann 8y ago
  There's a big difference between a collection of hodge podge of websites and youtube channels run by often anonymous people that happen to be mostly in agreement on various theories, and the well oiled mainstream media orgnizations that wear fancy clothes, are allowed direct access to the president, have their words broadcast internationally on TV & newspapers, elevators, etc. It doesn't take high intelligence to spot lies in the former, whereas it often takes significant intelligence and a long history of following the news from a broad selection of sources to spot lies in the latter. One group are hobbyists, the other are professionals.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    And yet many people swear by the former while rejecting the latter out of hand.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      Indeed "many" people do, and the vast majority of people consider them nutters. The more worrying part is the orders of magnitude larger group that essentially considers ~everything that the MSM prints is true, at least to the best of their ability. For most people (including smart people on sites like HN), the mere suggestion that this may not be the case will typically get you categorized as a member of the former group, regardless of the facts of the individual point of disagreement. This seems to be simply the default nature of human psychology that is independent to some degree from intelligence. Changing it would require a significant organized effort of teaching people critical thinking skills, and the state seems uninterested in anything of the kind, despite their stated concerns about the crisis of fake news.
mc32 8y ago
I think their hypothesis is too narrow. Manufacturing consent is more than only gov + media creating a narrative. Pretty much any significant interest with some kind of ideology is manufacturing consent. Let’s build toilets. If traditionally a locality has no toilets and you come in and want to do good and bring sanitation you’re still manufacturing consent, albeit for the good. Grassroots also manufactures consent if you have a main outside driver.
- rdtsc 8y ago
  Exactly. Any power structure will do it. The interesting aspect is how it is an emerging property through individual rewards, expectation, advertisement revenue (Not sure if I want to criticize P&G when they buy millions of dollar worth of ads from us?), going against ownership (How willing will WaPo be criticize Bezos). It's not necessary for there to be a conspiracy where people all meet on some secret island decide what to publish next. And it's not as much about the individual power structures, but how they influence the media to do it. The new players since the last publication are the tech companies and how they have tremendous power to selectively give voice or silence to push a certain narrative. They are slowly replacing the traditional media companies as primary player that manufacture consent. It seems there is a current battle between the two and I think the tech companies are winning so far.
- herbstein 8y ago
  I think Chomsky himself is very aware of this, even if the book has a more narrow focus. Keep in mind that Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist with deep sympathy for anarcho-syndicalist movements.
  - mc32 8y ago
    I’m sure he and the co author are aware of this. My complaint is that by focusing on big media + gov many readers or people who hear this phrase then often don’t think about the other aspects of this phenomenon (that it’s pervasive and kind of natural) but that we should be aware none the less.
    - 8y ago
rdtsc 8y ago
It's a great book and it was really eye opening. I think it was relevant when it was written and it is just as relevant today. I think in the past some of the news outlets sort of pretended to be unbiased. They could fool more people into believing that. Sure Fox News was mostly a one-party outlet, but others kept their bias behind the curtain. Since about 5-7 years ago, they stopped pretending as much. At the same time, I think there is a perception that traditional media companies have failed to manufacture consent properly. There was this void created in that space and tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and others rushed in to fill that void. Their message is "come to us, we'll manufacture consent better than these old crusty companies". Then you can see some of the traditional media hitting back at Facebook and others. And there is this sort of a battle between them as to who is a better player at manufacturing and controlling "truth".

by cjslep 8y ago

wongarsu 8y ago

> without requiring one to become a conspiracy theorist. People conspire all the time, so shouldn't any sane person suspect some conspiracies? Hijacking the word "conspiracy theorist" to mean nut job seems like exactly the twisting of reality you are advocating to avoid.

omeid2 8y ago
counterconspiracy (noun) : a conspiracy to oppose or undermine something (such as another conspiracy) The big agencies are pretty well versed on this, look at the system approach they take on this one: https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Countering-Warren-critics-040167.pdf https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Countering-W... It is not the details of this specific conspiracy that is interesting, but the systematic approach to tackling it.
Vinnl 8y ago
In this context, I interpret "conspiracy theorist" as someone who thinks there are relatively large groups of people conspiring, without the majority of people being aware of that. A small conspiracy when playing Diplomacy is believable, but e.g. one in which everyone behind mass media has agreed to put forward a certain message is not. Thus (not having read it myself), Manufacturing Consent could show how emergent properties of mass media might lead to them pushing a certain incorrect world view, rather than proposing a theory that requires the teams behind them to all agree to conspire and none of them to make that public knowledge.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I haven't read it either but I know the insidious thing about many conspiracies is that they aren't even technically conspiracies - they may collude but that isn't a crime in itself or even when all combined. Look at the increasingly blatantly selective and hypocritical tech hit jobs - you would think one of Google, Amazon, or Facebook were the most hated companies in America given the coverage. Nope it is Comcast who has earned that distinction. The same one who while technically a rival to them advertises heavily with them. The same one whose past actions have made net neutrality not a theoretical matter. Nothing illegal but their actions are flagrantly self-interested.
- herbstein 8y ago
  > Thus (not having read it myself), Manufacturing Consent could show how emergent properties of mass media might lead to them pushing a certain incorrect world view, rather than proposing a theory that requires the teams behind them to all agree to conspire and none of them to make that public knowledge. That is right. Chomsky proposes 5 filters through which this process happens. These filters operate, according to Chomsky, not just in media, but in all of society. From kindergarten to our deadbeds. I think this was best illustrated with Chomsky's 1996 interview in "The Big Idea" on BBC by Andrew Marr. Chomsky is outlining how the filters make sure certain viewpoints are popularized, and Andrew Marr asks "How can you know that I'm self-censoring?". To which Chomsky replies "I'm not saying you're self-censoring. I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting." The 30 minute episode[1] is well worth a watch, but the three minute clip of the above exchange is also available[2]. [1]: https://youtu.be/GjENnyQupow https://youtu.be/GjENnyQupow [2]: https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU
pjc50 8y ago
Suspicion is not evidence.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  And common use the word theory describes something unproven or speculative. Evidence is great, but in the presence of undisputable evidence we wouldn't call it a consiracy theory but simply a conspiracy.
Bjartr 8y ago
> Hijacking the word "conspiracy theorist" to mean nut job seems like exactly the twisting of reality you are advocating to avoid. The term "conspiracy theory" has always always been derogatory[1] [1] https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_always_already_wrong https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_alwa...

Veen 8y ago

There is a problem with blindly following the mass media, but there is no less of problem with blindly following any media. I’m often surprised that people who denounce the Mainstream Media as biased and under the thumb of vested interests are quite happy to uncritically absorb any old crap from obviously biased and frequently insane “independent” sources they happen to agree with.

mistermann 8y ago
There's a big difference between a collection of hodge podge of websites and youtube channels run by often anonymous people that happen to be mostly in agreement on various theories, and the well oiled mainstream media orgnizations that wear fancy clothes, are allowed direct access to the president, have their words broadcast internationally on TV & newspapers, elevators, etc. It doesn't take high intelligence to spot lies in the former, whereas it often takes significant intelligence and a long history of following the news from a broad selection of sources to spot lies in the latter. One group are hobbyists, the other are professionals.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  And yet many people swear by the former while rejecting the latter out of hand.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    Indeed "many" people do, and the vast majority of people consider them nutters. The more worrying part is the orders of magnitude larger group that essentially considers ~everything that the MSM prints is true, at least to the best of their ability. For most people (including smart people on sites like HN), the mere suggestion that this may not be the case will typically get you categorized as a member of the former group, regardless of the facts of the individual point of disagreement. This seems to be simply the default nature of human psychology that is independent to some degree from intelligence. Changing it would require a significant organized effort of teaching people critical thinking skills, and the state seems uninterested in anything of the kind, despite their stated concerns about the crisis of fake news.

mc32 8y ago

I think their hypothesis is too narrow. Manufacturing consent is more than only gov + media creating a narrative. Pretty much any significant interest with some kind of ideology is manufacturing consent. Let’s build toilets. If traditionally a locality has no toilets and you come in and want to do good and bring sanitation you’re still manufacturing consent, albeit for the good. Grassroots also manufactures consent if you have a main outside driver.

rdtsc 8y ago
Exactly. Any power structure will do it. The interesting aspect is how it is an emerging property through individual rewards, expectation, advertisement revenue (Not sure if I want to criticize P&G when they buy millions of dollar worth of ads from us?), going against ownership (How willing will WaPo be criticize Bezos). It's not necessary for there to be a conspiracy where people all meet on some secret island decide what to publish next. And it's not as much about the individual power structures, but how they influence the media to do it. The new players since the last publication are the tech companies and how they have tremendous power to selectively give voice or silence to push a certain narrative. They are slowly replacing the traditional media companies as primary player that manufacture consent. It seems there is a current battle between the two and I think the tech companies are winning so far.
herbstein 8y ago
I think Chomsky himself is very aware of this, even if the book has a more narrow focus. Keep in mind that Chomsky is a self-described libertarian socialist with deep sympathy for anarcho-syndicalist movements.
- mc32 8y ago
  I’m sure he and the co author are aware of this. My complaint is that by focusing on big media + gov many readers or people who hear this phrase then often don’t think about the other aspects of this phenomenon (that it’s pervasive and kind of natural) but that we should be aware none the less.
  - 8y ago

rdtsc 8y ago

It's a great book and it was really eye opening. I think it was relevant when it was written and it is just as relevant today. I think in the past some of the news outlets sort of pretended to be unbiased. They could fool more people into believing that. Sure Fox News was mostly a one-party outlet, but others kept their bias behind the curtain. Since about 5-7 years ago, they stopped pretending as much. At the same time, I think there is a perception that traditional media companies have failed to manufacture consent properly. There was this void created in that space and tech companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and others rushed in to fill that void. Their message is "come to us, we'll manufacture consent better than these old crusty companies". Then you can see some of the traditional media hitting back at Facebook and others. And there is this sort of a battle between them as to who is a better player at manufacturing and controlling "truth".