Talk:Manufacturing Consent/Archive 1

Authors
My copy (ISBN 0-09-953311-1 Vintage UK) lists Herman before or above Chomsky whenever the authors are mentioned: on the spine, cover, i, iii, and back cover. Is there a reason why it's different in the article? - Jeandré, 2004-04-24t20:24+02:00
 * I guess it's just because Chomsky is more popular, but you're probably right. On Amazon they list Chomsky first, but if you zoom in on the cover, Herman is first. --GD 19:19, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Date
It doesn't even have the data published. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.202.187.209 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 October 2004  (UTC)

Some added clarity, please?
"If a particular outlet is in disfavor with a government, it can be subtly 'shut out', and other outlets given preferential treatment."

Does the book say how this "shutting out" is done? It's a bit unclear as it is, I felt the same about the movie :\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.181.231.36 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 21 March 2006  (UTC)

One of Ed Herman's chapters in the book does list a number of factors which have the combined effect of shutting out the "incorrect" viewpoints - things like advertising revenue, editorial control, 'flak' from media watch groups and so forth. The book doesn't go into detail, preferring to use empirical evidence to show that the propaganda model actually does apply, rather than theorising how it works. The documentary film isn't really a book-of-the-film - though the doc has a 'companion volume' which is also, confusingly, called "Manufacturing Consent". --82.35.240.214 05:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Trojan Horse
One of the points made in the work is a rhetorical technique. Say you want to sell an idea, call it A. You then produce two viewpoints B and C which both assume A, yet oppose eachother. As the argument goes back and forth, B vs C, A is implicitely advocated to the point that A is taken for granted, and not to accept A is foolish. The issue of "Ronald Reagan won the cold war" reminded me of this: I've seen a lot of arguments for and against which tacitly acknowledge the same dubious 'truths'. And there's a bias: based on these 'truths' the arguments for are stronger. For example, it was all the result of Reagan era military spending and activity. Why then, wasn't the space race to blame? How about Korea and Viet Nam? How about China breaking with the Soviet Union back in the fifties? How about Stalin being an ass? - excuse my french. None of the complexities of the fall of super-power are brought to bear on the question of how the soviet union fell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.127.58.250 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 June 2004  (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate on this with something specific (passages, pages?) from the book. I have no idea what you're talking about -- Autumninjersey 20:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manugactorinconsent2.jpg
Image:Manugactorinconsent2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

New edition to the book?
The end of this seems ambiguous. Is the book going to be re-released in 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.247.202 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Will Hunting: Irrelevant
The fact that there was a one line name drop of this book in Good Will Hunting is an irrelevant reference. 99.224.3.36 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that it doesn't fit into a Recent Relevance section, but I think it adds something to the article. If I were reading this article I'd be interested in following a link to Howard Zinn and especially A People's History. Whether or not that makes it worth keeping, I don't know. Carlsotr (talk) 10:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Help Cleaning Up the References
I figured that The Journalist from Mars deserved to be listed at the end of the article rather than given a full citation in the body, so I went ahead and turned it into a reference. I thought I'd understood the editing help on footnotes and references, but evidently I've done something wrong, because now many of the notes are repeated and the numbering's gone wrong. Could someone clean it up? If you could also explain where I've gone wrong, that would be even better. My apologies for making extra work for someone. Ricklaman (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

German Translation
The German translation of this page is about the documentary, not about the book. The translation of the German page however leads to the English page about the documentary correctly. --JohKar (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Image in article
Why does the image appear to have a T cut out where an S should be? A copy in my university library has the same, and I think it's a statement from opponents of Chomsky, in essence saying he is manufacturing the content in the book... (Manufacturing Content, instead of Consent). I think we should change it to a non edited cover. ValenShephard (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Lippmann or Burawoy?
I noticed that the article references the phrase "Manufacturing Consent" as originating with Walter Lippmann. However, i was curious if anyone knew of a possible connection to Michael Burawoy's 1979 study Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Monopoly Capitalism -anyone know? Teetotaler 29 May, 2007

I suggest that [citation needed] tag is to be removed. The phrase "Manufacturing Consent" is 100% certainly borrowed from Lippmann. Chomsky said himself: "Another member of the Creel Commission was Walter Lippmann, the most respected figure in American journalism for about half a century (I mean serious American journalism, serious think pieces). He also wrote what are called progressive essays on democracy, regarded as progressive back in the 1920s. He was, again, applying the lessons of the work on propaganda very explicitly. He says there is a new art in democracy called manufacture of consent. That is his phrase. Edward Herman and I borrowed it for our book, but it comes from Lippmann." Quote is from his speech: "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream" source: Z Magazine, October, 1997. Full speech available here: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.243.220 (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Examples?
Can we list some examples as an added section other than what is talked about in the book (which is over 20 years old now)? One off the top of my head was the russian-georgian crisis in 2008. Georgia was clearly the agressor but russia was played in the US media as it if it was the bad guy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.34.247.101 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What really happened in South Ossetia?

“The United States, Britain and other Western governments offered Georgia strong diplomatic support, accusing Russia - South Ossetia's ally - of aggression and massive over-reaction. But now mounting evidence is casting doubt on Georgia's account of the origins and course of the war. It suggests that Georgia played a bigger role than it admits in provoking the conflict, and that it may have violated the rules of war in the first days of the fighting. The latest evidence comes from the international community's chief observer in Georgia at the time, former British army officer Ryan Grist”

NewsNight, BBC2, Wednesday, 12 November 2008

78.147.81.34 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"Manufacturing Consent": The term, the book or the film?
To avoid any misunderstanding, is this section in question about the term: Manufacturing Consent, or the book/film Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988)? 78.147.81.34 (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manufacturing Consent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627191223/http://www.chomsky.info//onchomsky/198901--.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/198901--.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violations removed

 * 4 lines at least 10 words long from this, a recurring problem for the editor who added the material.

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism section
The Criticism section was recently removed by another editor, and while I agree that the section had enough poorly worded unsourced statements that it shouldn't be restored, there is likely enough scholarly criticism of the book available to merit a section; it would just require collecting the major critiques. Brian Gorman, in a book review of a different book, says that there are important factors in the past development of today's media environment that the book does not take into account; see: If I remember correctly, I have seen a similar argument elsewhere, but I can't recall the source. This seems to deserve further investigation and a new Criticism section, if enough relevant material can be found. Biogeographist (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Would like to improve the book's summary
I think this book deserves a better summary, so I will be adding bits and pieces here until it's complete. let me know what you think.

Part 2: Worthy and Unworthy Victims
The authors in this chapter discuss the different treatment that US media affords victims of repressive state violence. Victims of repressive violence in enemy states are deemed “worthy” by the propaganda model; as they help demonize the enemies of the US, and justify its actions against them. On the other hand, victims of violence of friendly administrations are deemed “unworthy”; as they undermine the government’s credibility. The authors specifically contrast the media’s treatment of the murder of the Polish dissident Jerzy Popieluszko, with the murder of hundreds of dissidents in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Jerzy Popieluszko
Jerzy Popieluszko was an activist priest who was part of the anti-communist Solidarity union. He was abducted, beaten, and killed by the Polish secret police in 1984. The police who committed the crime were soon arrested, put on trial, and sentenced with strict sentences. American media quickly picked up on the case, and the story received widespread coverage. The New York Times alone wrote 3 editorials and 78 articles about the case, 10 of which of were on the front page.

The authors allege that the quality of coverage was designed to serve a political purpose. Descriptions of trial were dramatized and often repeated in order to humanize Jerzy and generate maximum sympathy and disgust. Furthermore, the media constantly tried to tie the murder to the Polish administration and raised questions about how high up the act was approved of. Everybody knew of Popieluszko, and that he was brutally murdered in a communist state.

The rest of the chapter details the way the media ignored or minimized the extent of repression in US-sponsored forces in El Salvador and Guatemala. The authors paid much attention to the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, due to its similarities with the Popieluszko case.

Oscar Romero
Romero became the most prominent critic of the military junta after his friend was killed along with 71 other priests, and his assassination by the ruling military junta could not be ignored. In their coverage of the story, the authors allege that US media acted exactly as a propaganda model would predict. The new government was framed as reformist and moderate, and the killing as a result of the failure of the moderate government’s struggle to contain elements of the “extreme left and right”. Romero himself was portrayed as a man who condemned violence by independent far-left or far-right groups. This, according to the authors, was not true; Romero was very clear in his condemnation of the government and the army (and the USA’s support). By blaming a vague group, the media could avoid pinpointing the blame on a specific entity. Unlike the coverage Popieluszko, the authors analysis found that little to no questions were raised about any possible connection between the murderer and the government, let alone questioning the USA’s support. Finally, evidence began to emerge that Roberto D’Aubuisson, an ex-member of the military secretly working for senior military commanders, was responsible for the assassination. Documents were found in his home with evidence of his involvement, after which he was subsequently arrested. Senior members of the military secured his release, and the documents disappeared. In the media, these events were afforded very little attention and were never brought up when he ran for president 4 years later.

Part 3: Legitimizing vs Meaningless Third World Elections
The authors allege that In Guatemala and El Salvador, the conditions for fair elections were virtually non-existent. Freedom of assembly was officially banned in 1980 in El Salvador, whereas in Guatemala, it was effectively banned by heavy police presence in villages. Private organizations, groups, and trade unions were dissolved and suppressed in the 70s, while journalists critical of the government were summarily killed and labelled “traitors”. Although the goal of elections was supposed to be an end to the violence, rebel factions were not allowed to run. Consequently, there were no presidential candidates offering plans for negotiated peace. Finally, thousands of dissenters were murdered in the years leading up to the election, and the state was mired in a constant sense of fear and terrorism.

As expected by a propaganda model, US media of the elections was positive. The narrative was that the elections were held under miraculous circumstances, and it was a great triumph that the army allowed them to take place. US observers declared the elections fair and free, completely ignoring the horrific conditions prior to the elections. The high voter turnout was touted as evidence that the elections were a success. What the media ignored was that voting was actually mandated by law in both countries, and the government warned that refusing to vote is “treasonous”. In addition, proof of voting was required as a stamp on ID cards, and ballot boxes were transparent, ensuring that the people would be afraid enough to vote for the incumbents. Finally, instead of citing local human rights organizations and other foreign observers, the media almost exclusively cited the State Department or the military juntas themselves.

By contrast, in Nicaragua the conditions for a free election were at least partially met. People could speak freely without fear of state repression, and most newspapers were privately owned - many of them heavily critical of the Sandinistas (The leftist ruling party), albeit with some censorship. Unions, private organizations, and political parties existed in large numbers, and there were no reported government killings. Finally, the authors argue that since the fighting was largely not internal (as with El Salvador and Guatemala), but against US backed contras, there was no need for a heavily repressive state.

Over 400 qualified observers declared the elections fair and free, including a delegation from Ireland and the Latin American Studies Association (LASA). The US media, however, displayed a double standard in their treatment of these elections. As soon as they were announced, elections were dismissed as a sham and criticized for being held too early during a conflict. Although the turnout was higher in Nicaragua, this was used as evidence that the government was coercing its citizens. Interestingly, it was not reported that it was nearly impossible for citizens to be coerced, as voting was not required, ballot boxes were dark, and there was no method to prove that somebody has voted. The media also gave intensive coverage to Arturo Cruz, who falsely alleged that the Sandinista government would not allow him to run. Cruz was touted as the “main opposition” although he was an expat who was not popular in Nicaragua, and it later emerged that he was on the CIA payroll. Finally, on the night before the election, the media dedicated most of the Nicaragua coverage to a false story about an alleged shipment of MiG aircraft to Nicaragua, and speculated about what the US would do if the story turned out to be true, drowning the elections in alarmist and dismissive rhetoric.

According to the authors, the emphasis on elections by the media are a method to placate the American people and assure them that their money is going towards saving democracy and preventing communism. This is evidence, the authors allege, that the media in the US is in fact subservient to, and not a check on, state power.

Zqib (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * My impression is that what you propose is to present the viewpoint of the book on some particular events (though I have not checked that what you wrote is verifiable in the book). This article should take a viewpoint on the book, how it was received, the general idea, etc. and not go into the details of its content, which is best covered in separate pages. For example, there is already a page for Óscar Romero, which has room for how his life was covered. There is also a page about the subject of the book: Propaganda model. My point is that Wikipedia should have a modular structure where each article have its specific purpose and we avoid duplication of content. Also, anything controversial (i.e, that is not a simple fact such as the title, etc.) that is written about the book and its content, should be verifiable in notable sources about the book.


 * I would refer to No_original_research and this note No_original_research.


 * Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your reply. As you may have noticed I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor and I appreciate your response. I see what you mean about content that is already in other pages. Perhaps instead of writing about Romero's life here, I should expand slightly on the part discussing the book on his page. I a sense, "decentralizing" the summary I'm writing. I also did not bring any info that was outside the book, and tried to add stuff like "the authors allege", or "according to the author" to make that clear. As I understand, I do not need to cite controversial claims from the book, because I am trying to present it as the viewpoint of the book, not as objective fact. For example, if an author claims that the earth is flat, I should not have to try to find a reputable source to back that up. I think the problem might be the length of the summary, where it would be quite messy for me to keep adding "the authors say, allege, etc..". Maybe I should condense it to be a bit like This, just a few lines for each part.
 * Zqib (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have found an example of a page for a book by Chomsky that was rated as a "Good Article", it looks like it's a good format to emulate,.
 * Zqib (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Occupy is a good model. Regarding your point about the earth is flat, in general, you would have to find a source, because you need to show that "Joe Bloe says that the earth is flat" is noteworthy. Verification serves also this purpose. But OK, in this case, the book is noteworthy, so a synopsis is fine. But note how balanced is the sypnosis in Occupy_(book). No point is especially emphasized and the goal is always to let people know what each chapter of the book is about. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Opposing Viewpoints are Needed.
What in particular is in need of an opposing viewpoint?

Why are opposing viewpoints needed?

In my opinion, opposing viewpoints will never be very pertinent unless the reason for which they are "needed" is first focused upon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.68.121.10 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 September 2003  (UTC)


 * The thesis of the book, as described by the article is not universally accepted as fact. There is a significant body of contrary view which should be represented. -- Daran 14:58, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I've been seeing a lot of knee-jerk conservatism lately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.104.47 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 December 2005  (UTC)


 * That's a coherent criticism. More pertinent that while a person may disagree with the book, the article here summarizes the books points, not stating that these points are true. Now whether these points are to be debated here in the article is a matter of opinion, but I'm inclined to say no. Robovski 23:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd tend to agree. If there has been criticism specifically of this book that's notable (if someone wrote a well-known rebuttal book, for example), then we should cover it.  We shouldn't debate the points of the book ourselves or dig up other people who happen to have made different points, though; it's trivially obvious that not everyone agrees with Chomsky, so it doesn't really add much to the article to say so. --Delirium 03:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree also. It seems like there's been no notable criticism written of this book; as with most of the things Chomsky is involved with any attacks have been pretty much exclusively ad hominem. This was exemplified with the reaction to the Faurisson case.  I'd be interested to see any cogent rebuttals though, since the analysis was pretty tight in my opinion. -- Autumninjersey 20:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree. The article isn't a debate on the arguments presented in the book; it's simply a description of the book. Ricklaman (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the section « Influence and impact »definitely needs to be expanded and opposing viewpoints since this is part of the influence category  Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kharishmachang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Youranw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)