5 ms·

It's been about 15 years since I read Manufacturing Consent, but- the weak version of his thesis is fine, sure. An NBCUniversal media property, say, is probably

It's been about 15 years since I read Manufacturing Consent, but- the weak version of his thesis is fine, sure. An NBCUniversal media property, say, is probably not going to report critically on something that NBCUniversal has a financial stake in. The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple, though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the military or the US government. This, um, doesn't track reality. While it's easy for me to just dismiss this obviously incorrect hypothesis as 'dumb' (which it is), I think on a deeper level Chomsky is influenced by Marx who was influenced by other 18-19th century philosophers like Hegel. Who used extremely, overly broad handwavey concepts like Elites or The Powerful as part of their totally academic, abstract, philosophical explanation for How Society Works. As someone who read a bunch of Chomsky books when I was 20 years old- part of his worldview is that nothing happens by accident, but every major moment in history is part of a Hegelian Battle Between Forces (like elites vs. the working class or something). It's still a childishly unrealistic way of looking at how society actually functions, but it comes from a super super abstract philosopher's worldview where he can handwave Big Business/the Military/the Government as one unit with identical interests. If that makes sense at all. Sort of reminds me of ancient philosophers theorizing about how physics or medicine works without conducting any empirical tests whatsoever

nerdponx 7y ago
The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple, though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the military or the US government. This, um, doesn't track reality. Is that really his thesis? It seems to me that it's more about how incentives for all these organizations are aligned towards those same interests. Only the very "top" of the power pyramid needs to be deliberately trying to manufacture consent; everyone else falls into line because of the incentives set up by those one level of power above.
- hash872 7y ago
  But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. Empirical observation over abstract philosophizing, please. Society is much more complex & interesting than Chomsky imagines, with many more nuances. Even the actual federal government and military have many competing factions with different interests, different goals, etc. It's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level of analysis. I don't think it's particularly deep or interesting, and I read a great deal of Chomsky back in the day
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    This reads like an undergrad's hot take. No offense, and there are plenty of valid criticisms of Chomsky, but this is the laziest reading and interpretation of Chomsky that you are arguing with. >t's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level of analysis. Irony.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    > (there are) incentives for all these organizations are aligned towards those same interests. > But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. That isn't the same thing. I'm not sure how you connect these. This is better illustrated in specific countries, where the incentives are fierce and immediate. You still see dissent there too, but that's not relevant to the point ("I don't see it all the time so it's not true", missing the point).
    - hash872 7y ago
      The thesis of the book is that mass media acts or editorializes on behalf of the powerful in society- not just that their 'incentives are aligned'. The book is about the specific actions that media companies supposedly take. So, pointing out all of the times that mass media has acted orthogonally to powerful interests in society (publishing the Pentagon Papers, publishing the Snowden revelations, the current run of publishing ultra-critical pieces about tech companies, etc.) would be relevant counter-examples. Zooming out slightly, handwaving everyone who's wealthy or powerful in the US into 'elites' that are sort of one fused organic unit with identical interests is just bad, sloppy thinking, sorry. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the military, Fortune 500 corporations, Hollywood, New York/DC-media companies, Ivy League universities- they're all 'elites' and they are competing, at times hostile power centers to each other. I don't take any analysis that smushes them into 'elites' or 'the 1%' or whatever seriously. (For example, the 'mass media' that Chomsky handwaves- a more precise description would be New York/DC media moguls- is actively hostile to Silicon Valley these days. Many of these power centers actively compete. His categories are absurdly broad)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fit2rule 7y ago
>how society actually functions You know a better answer to this question than a 91 year old philosopher, so .. lets hear it.
ska 7y ago
That's not a fair reading of the central thesis to my memory (which is going back more than 15 years, to be fair). This is meant constructively: Some of the rhetorical devices you've chosen ("childish", "dumb", etc.) nearly always read to me as coming from someone who hasn't understood the work they are commenting on, so I suspect you might communicate more effectively with different choices.
pizza 7y ago
Judging from Chomsky’s critique of Žižek I really doubt you can call his position Hegelian
thundergolfer 7y ago
> The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple, though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the military or the US government. This, um, doesn't track reality. That's, a bad misreading. Can you quote relevant sections that support this statement? The laying out of the propaganda model is only about 50 pages in entirely so you shouldn't need walls of text to show some evidence.
tsimionescu 7y ago
That is not his thesis at all. He is claiming that in most cases mainstream media will be supportive of American imperialism (it applies more broadly than the US, but let's limit it for now). Of course there are factions within the most powerful, but there are also universal interests. For example, there are no rich or powerful groups in the US who are pro unionization in tech or pro worker's co-ops (there may be individuals, sure, but you won't find a PAC or lobby group). There are no rich or powerful groups in the US who would accept unilateral nuclear disarmament. There are no rich or powerful groups in the US which consider the US has no legal or moral rights to intervene militarily unilaterally anywhere in the world. Of course, there are sometimes 'dissident' groups, like the currently surprisingly popular Bernie Sanders movement. If they do get a foothold, some popular opinions may also change. But such moments are a good time to test the hypothesis, and you can easily see how much the media, 'left' or right, is against the Bernie campaign, and considers it naive or pie-in-the-sky. Overall, going on the empirical path, you'll be really hard-pressed to find any US mainstream media critical of US actions, or often even reporting on relevant events, if they put the US in a bad light.

nerdponx 7y ago

The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple, though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the military or the US government. This, um, doesn't track reality. Is that really his thesis? It seems to me that it's more about how incentives for all these organizations are aligned towards those same interests. Only the very "top" of the power pyramid needs to be deliberately trying to manufacture consent; everyone else falls into line because of the incentives set up by those one level of power above.

hash872 7y ago
But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. Empirical observation over abstract philosophizing, please. Society is much more complex & interesting than Chomsky imagines, with many more nuances. Even the actual federal government and military have many competing factions with different interests, different goals, etc. It's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level of analysis. I don't think it's particularly deep or interesting, and I read a great deal of Chomsky back in the day
- streb-lo 7y ago
  This reads like an undergrad's hot take. No offense, and there are plenty of valid criticisms of Chomsky, but this is the laziest reading and interpretation of Chomsky that you are arguing with. >t's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level of analysis. Irony.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > (there are) incentives for all these organizations are aligned towards those same interests. > But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. That isn't the same thing. I'm not sure how you connect these. This is better illustrated in specific countries, where the incentives are fierce and immediate. You still see dissent there too, but that's not relevant to the point ("I don't see it all the time so it's not true", missing the point).
  - hash872 7y ago
    The thesis of the book is that mass media acts or editorializes on behalf of the powerful in society- not just that their 'incentives are aligned'. The book is about the specific actions that media companies supposedly take. So, pointing out all of the times that mass media has acted orthogonally to powerful interests in society (publishing the Pentagon Papers, publishing the Snowden revelations, the current run of publishing ultra-critical pieces about tech companies, etc.) would be relevant counter-examples. Zooming out slightly, handwaving everyone who's wealthy or powerful in the US into 'elites' that are sort of one fused organic unit with identical interests is just bad, sloppy thinking, sorry. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the military, Fortune 500 corporations, Hollywood, New York/DC-media companies, Ivy League universities- they're all 'elites' and they are competing, at times hostile power centers to each other. I don't take any analysis that smushes them into 'elites' or 'the 1%' or whatever seriously. (For example, the 'mass media' that Chomsky handwaves- a more precise description would be New York/DC media moguls- is actively hostile to Silicon Valley these days. Many of these power centers actively compete. His categories are absurdly broad)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fit2rule 7y ago

>how society actually functions You know a better answer to this question than a 91 year old philosopher, so .. lets hear it.

ska 7y ago

That's not a fair reading of the central thesis to my memory (which is going back more than 15 years, to be fair). This is meant constructively: Some of the rhetorical devices you've chosen ("childish", "dumb", etc.) nearly always read to me as coming from someone who hasn't understood the work they are commenting on, so I suspect you might communicate more effectively with different choices.

pizza 7y ago

Judging from Chomsky’s critique of Žižek I really doubt you can call his position Hegelian

thundergolfer 7y ago

> The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple, though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the military or the US government. This, um, doesn't track reality. That's, a bad misreading. Can you quote relevant sections that support this statement? The laying out of the propaganda model is only about 50 pages in entirely so you shouldn't need walls of text to show some evidence.

tsimionescu 7y ago

That is not his thesis at all. He is claiming that in most cases mainstream media will be supportive of American imperialism (it applies more broadly than the US, but let's limit it for now). Of course there are factions within the most powerful, but there are also universal interests. For example, there are no rich or powerful groups in the US who are pro unionization in tech or pro worker's co-ops (there may be individuals, sure, but you won't find a PAC or lobby group). There are no rich or powerful groups in the US who would accept unilateral nuclear disarmament. There are no rich or powerful groups in the US which consider the US has no legal or moral rights to intervene militarily unilaterally anywhere in the world. Of course, there are sometimes 'dissident' groups, like the currently surprisingly popular Bernie Sanders movement. If they do get a foothold, some popular opinions may also change. But such moments are a good time to test the hypothesis, and you can easily see how much the media, 'left' or right, is against the Bernie campaign, and considers it naive or pie-in-the-sky. Overall, going on the empirical path, you'll be really hard-pressed to find any US mainstream media critical of US actions, or often even reporting on relevant events, if they put the US in a bad light.