3 ms·

Among people familiar with the book, "Has the propaganda model been invalidated by the social media media giants?" is a regular question. Chomsky's initial repl

Among people familiar with the book, "Has the propaganda model been invalidated by the social media media giants?" is a regular question. Chomsky's initial reply is most of what needs to be said. Information production is a vital part of the media industry and the landscape of information producers by volume is more or less the same as it was back then — dominated by state institutions and corporations. It was so interesting to read that section in Manufacturing Consent; the hard numbers really helped get a proper sense of the scale imbalances in information production. The marking out of the symbiotic relationship between reliable information producers and journalists is also vital to understanding the media system. A reliable, centralised stream of new information content is the life blood of journalism organisations, with a strong emphasis on _reliable_ and _centralised_. This particular need that journalists have sees them often becoming dependent on state institutions and corporations at the expense of minority groups and labor. An example being the journalists 'on the beat' that used to hang out around the local courthouse because that's where the 'feeding trough' is. Or the reports so nicely formatted and condensed produced by the state departments such that journos merely have to copy-paste the information straight into their papers. Easy-peasy. Fascinating book.

rstuart4133 7y ago
> the landscape of information producers by volume is more or less the same as it was back then It's not quite the same. Before fact checking anything took an impossible amount of time and not a few resources - a very good library for a start. Now, or even a decade ago it suddenly became possible for everyone. I vividly remember when the Iraq was announced, and you could see the "information producers" in full swing. I was amazed when my local radio station announcer, well known for his resistance for being bullshitted asked someone he was interviewing in a disbelieving voice if they didn't agree Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The point being that by then I had already done my own homework (we were going to war, my fellow citizens were going to be killed and I wanted to know why), and knew full well Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The reports and opinions of the UN weapons inspectors was easily available on the internet, along with numerous dumbed down pieces from the mass media. Anyone willing to waste a few hours could easily get past the propaganda smokescreen. Yet this news interviewer who up until then I assumed to be a master of his craft had been pulled in hook, line and sinker. It changed the message in Chomsky's books from an interesting theoretical discussion to distressingly real. But it also created another puzzle: why didn't the Internet fix it? Why didn't people immediately put this bullshit filter to good use? I still don't know the answer. There have now been numerous studies into the phenomenon of people continuing to loudly defend bullshit despite the facts being easily available in just about anywhere you look (cue: climate change). Apparently it has to do with people preferring to signal they are part of a particular tribe over acting in their best interest. Or something. I guess I'll never understand, as they aren't people like me.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- thundergolfer 7y ago
  Not that I disagree with what you've said, but I put "producers by volume" in there. Thus talking about fact-checking isn't really a counterpoint. Did changes in fact-checking change the proportion of information produced by state and corporate actors?
- dangerface 7y ago
  > it has to do with people preferring to signal they are part of a particular tribe over acting in their best interest. > I guess I'll never understand, as they aren't people like me. I see what you did there, welcome to the tribe. Conforming to the tribe is often in the persons best interest as most tribes like mob justice.

rstuart4133 7y ago

> the landscape of information producers by volume is more or less the same as it was back then It's not quite the same. Before fact checking anything took an impossible amount of time and not a few resources - a very good library for a start. Now, or even a decade ago it suddenly became possible for everyone. I vividly remember when the Iraq was announced, and you could see the "information producers" in full swing. I was amazed when my local radio station announcer, well known for his resistance for being bullshitted asked someone he was interviewing in a disbelieving voice if they didn't agree Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The point being that by then I had already done my own homework (we were going to war, my fellow citizens were going to be killed and I wanted to know why), and knew full well Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The reports and opinions of the UN weapons inspectors was easily available on the internet, along with numerous dumbed down pieces from the mass media. Anyone willing to waste a few hours could easily get past the propaganda smokescreen. Yet this news interviewer who up until then I assumed to be a master of his craft had been pulled in hook, line and sinker. It changed the message in Chomsky's books from an interesting theoretical discussion to distressingly real. But it also created another puzzle: why didn't the Internet fix it? Why didn't people immediately put this bullshit filter to good use? I still don't know the answer. There have now been numerous studies into the phenomenon of people continuing to loudly defend bullshit despite the facts being easily available in just about anywhere you look (cue: climate change). Apparently it has to do with people preferring to signal they are part of a particular tribe over acting in their best interest. Or something. I guess I'll never understand, as they aren't people like me.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
thundergolfer 7y ago
Not that I disagree with what you've said, but I put "producers by volume" in there. Thus talking about fact-checking isn't really a counterpoint. Did changes in fact-checking change the proportion of information produced by state and corporate actors?
dangerface 7y ago
> it has to do with people preferring to signal they are part of a particular tribe over acting in their best interest. > I guess I'll never understand, as they aren't people like me. I see what you did there, welcome to the tribe. Conforming to the tribe is often in the persons best interest as most tribes like mob justice.