Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by American linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky and political economist Edward S. Herman. It argues that the mass media in the United States “serve to maintain the existing socioeconomic and political order by manufacturing consent among the public for the dominant elite’s class interests”.
The book presents a Propaganda Model to explain how the media serve this purpose. The model is based on five filters:
Ownership: The media are owned by a small number of corporations that have vested interests in maintaining the status quo.
Profit: The media are profit-driven businesses that must attract and retain audiences in order to survive. This can lead to the suppression of news that is not commercially viable, or that is critical of the media’s owners or advertisers.
Sources: The media rely heavily on government and corporate sources for information. These sources have a vested interest in maintaining their own reputations, and they often provide information that is self-serving or that supports the status quo.
Anti-Communism: The media have a long history of anti-communist bias, which has led to the demonization of communism and the suppression of news that is favorable to left-wing or anti-establishment groups.
“Going Along” Norm: Journalists are socialized into a culture of conformity and deference to authority. This can lead to a reluctance to challenge the status quo, or to report on news that is critical of the government or the media’s owners.
The authors argue that the Propaganda Model is a better explanation for the media’s behavior than alternative models, such as the “market model” or the “responsibility model”. The market model argues that the media simply respond to the demands of consumers, while the responsibility model argues that the media have a moral obligation to provide accurate and unbiased information.
Chomsky and Herman argue that the Propaganda Model is more consistent with the evidence, and that it provides a more accurate explanation for why the media often serve to reinforce the status quo rather than to challenge it.
Manufacturing Consent has been praised by many scholars for its insights into the media, and it has been influential in the development of critical media studies. However, it has also been criticized by some for its oversimplification of the media and its reliance on a small number of case studies.
Overall, Manufacturing Consent is an important and thought-provoking book that has made a significant contribution to our understanding of the media. It is a must-read for anyone who is interested in the role of the media in society.
Propaganda model
In the first chapter of “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky introduce their concept of the “propaganda model” and outline the five filters that, they argue, shape media content in the United States.
The Propaganda Model
Herman and Chomsky define the propaganda model as a “systematic process for manufacturing consent” (p. 1). They argue that the mass media, rather than being neutral purveyors of information, are active participants in shaping public opinion in ways that align with the interests of the dominant elite. This is achieved through a set of filters that systematically limit the diversity of perspectives presented in the media and ensure that the media’s portrayal of events aligns with the interests of the ruling class.
The Five Filters
Herman and Chomsky identify five key filters that operate within the propaganda model:
Concentration of ownership: The concentrated ownership of media outlets by powerful corporations and individuals limits the diversity of voices and perspectives presented in the media. This concentration of ownership allows for the consolidation of power and influence, enabling the dominant elite to exert control over the flow of information.
Profit orientation: The profit motive drives media outlets to cater to the tastes of the most lucrative audience segments, often resulting in a focus on sensationalized and uninformative content. This emphasis on sensationalism and entertainment often comes at the expense of in-depth reporting and critical analysis.
Sourcing: Reliance on official sources and experts with close ties to the establishment ensures that the media’s portrayal of events aligns with the interests of the ruling class. These official sources often have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and may provide information that is biased or misleading.
Anticommunism: The persistent legacy of the Cold War and the fear of communism have instilled a bias in the media against dissenting voices and ideologies. This anticommunist bias has led to the demonization of certain groups and ideologies, while others are presented as more favorable or trustworthy.
“Going along”: The desire to maintain access to sources and avoid jeopardizing professional standing leads journalists to self-censor and conform to prevailing norms. This self-censorship can stifle critical reporting and prevent journalists from challenging the dominant narrative.
Implications of the Propaganda Model
Herman and Chomsky argue that the propaganda model has significant implications for public opinion and society as a whole. They contend that the manufactured consent generated by the media serves to maintain the power and wealth of the ruling class and ensure social control. By limiting the diversity of perspectives and framing events in ways that favor the establishment, the media helps to maintain the status quo and discourage dissent.
The first chapter of “Manufacturing Consent” provides a concise and thought-provoking introduction to the propaganda model and its implications for media and society. It challenges the notion of media objectivity and highlights the power of the media to shape public opinion. Herman and Chomsky’s work has been influential in the field of media studies and continues to be relevant in today’s media landscape.
First Filter: size, ownership and profit orientation of the mass media
In the first chapter of their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky identify the “size, ownership, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms” as the first of five filters that shape media content. They argue that the concentrated ownership of media outlets by powerful corporations and individuals limits the diversity of voices and perspectives presented in the media, and that the profit motive drives media outlets to cater to the tastes of the most lucrative audience segments, often resulting in a focus on sensationalized and uninformative content.
Here are some of the key points made by Herman and Chomsky about this filter:
The mass media are big businesses: The dominant mass-media firms are large corporations with significant financial interests. These corporations are primarily concerned with profitability, and their decisions about what content to produce and how to present it are often driven by this goal.
Media ownership is concentrated: A small number of corporations control a large majority of media outlets in the United States. This concentration of ownership allows for the consolidation of power and influence, enabling the dominant elite to exert control over the flow of information.
Media ownership is often intertwined with other powerful interests: Media corporations are often owned by or have close ties to other powerful corporations, such as financial institutions and defense contractors. These relationships can further limit the diversity of perspectives presented in the media.
The profit motive shapes media content: The need to generate profits drives media outlets to cater to the tastes of the most lucrative audience segments. This often results in a focus on sensationalized and uninformative content, such as tabloid journalism and reality television.
The profit motive discourages critical reporting: Critical reporting can be costly and time-consuming, and it may not always attract large audiences. As a result, media outlets are often reluctant to invest in this type of reporting.
Herman and Chomsky argue that the concentration of ownership, the profit motive, and the intertwined interests of media corporations all contribute to a system of manufacturing consent. They contend that these factors limit the diversity of perspectives presented in the media and ensure that the media’s portrayal of events aligns with the interests of the dominant elite.
Here are some of the implications of this filter:
The public is exposed to a limited range of perspectives: The concentration of ownership and the profit motive limit the diversity of voices and perspectives presented in the media. This can lead to a narrow and unrepresentative view of the world.
The media may not be reporting the most important stories: The focus on sensationalized and uninformative content may mean that important stories are not being adequately covered.
The media may be biased in favor of the dominant elite: The intertwined interests of media corporations and other powerful interests may lead to a bias in favor of the status quo.
Herman and Chomsky’s analysis of the first filter in the propaganda model highlights the significant influence that the size, ownership, and profit orientation of media corporations have on the content we consume. It is important to be aware of these factors when consuming news and information, and to seek out diverse sources of information to get a more complete understanding of the world around us.
Second filter: The advertising License to do business
In the second chapter of their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the “advertising license to do business” as the second of five filters that shape media content. They argue that the reliance on advertising revenue by media outlets creates a system of dependency that further limits the diversity of perspectives and ensures that the media’s portrayal of events aligns with the interests of advertisers.
Here are some of the key points made by Herman and Chomsky about this filter:
Advertising is a major source of revenue for the mass media: Advertising accounts for a significant portion of the revenue for many media outlets, particularly television and newspapers. This reliance on advertising revenue creates a system of dependency that can influence editorial decisions.
Advertisers have a significant influence on media content: Advertisers are not simply passive buyers of airtime or print space. They often have specific demands about the content that is aired or published, and they may threaten to withdraw their advertising if their demands are not met.
Advertisers may prefer content that aligns with their interests: Advertisers are more likely to support media outlets that produce content that is consistent with their values and target demographics. This can lead to a bias in favor of certain perspectives and the marginalization of others.
The fear of offending advertisers can lead to self-censorship: Media outlets may be reluctant to produce content that could offend or alienate advertisers, even if they believe that the content is important or newsworthy.
Herman and Chomsky argue that the advertising license to do business is a powerful force that shapes media content. They contend that this filter further limits the diversity of perspectives presented in the media and ensures that the media’s portrayal of events aligns with the interests of advertisers, which often coincide with the interests of the dominant elite.
Here are some of the implications of this filter:
The public may be exposed to a more limited and biased range of perspectives: The influence of advertisers may lead to a media landscape that is less diverse and more biased in favor of certain interests.
The media may be less likely to report on issues that are sensitive to advertisers: Media outlets may be hesitant to cover issues that could offend or alienate advertisers, even if those issues are important to the public.
The media may be more likely to promote consumerism and materialism: Advertisers are often interested in promoting products and services, which can lead to a focus on consumerism and materialism in media content.
Herman and Chomsky’s analysis of the second filter in the propaganda model highlights the significant influence that advertising revenue has on the content we consume. It is important to be aware of this factor when consuming news and information, and to seek out diverse sources of information that are not heavily reliant on advertising revenue.
Third Filter: Sourcing mass-media News
In the third chapter of their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the “sourcing mass-media news” as the third of five filters that shape media content. They argue that the reliance on official sources and experts with close ties to the establishment ensures that the media’s portrayal of events aligns with the interests of the ruling class.
Here are some of the key points made by Herman and Chomsky about this filter:
The mass media rely heavily on official sources: Media outlets often rely on official sources, such as government agencies, corporations, and military officials, for information about current events. This reliance on official sources can limit the diversity of perspectives presented in the media.
Official sources often have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo: Official sources may have a vested interest in presenting information in a way that supports their own agendas or policies. This can lead to biased or misleading information being presented as objective fact.
Experts with close ties to the establishment are often given more credibility: Experts with close ties to the establishment, such as academics and think tank researchers, are often given more credibility than experts who are not as closely connected to the establishment. This can further limit the diversity of perspectives presented in the media.
The reliance on official sources can lead to a narrowing of the range of acceptable opinion: The media’s reliance on official sources can create an environment in which only a narrow range of perspectives is considered legitimate. This can stifle dissent and discourage critical thinking.
Herman and Chomsky argue that the sourcing of mass-media news is a crucial filter that shapes the information that is presented to the public. They contend that the reliance on official sources and experts with close ties to the establishment ensures that the media’s portrayal of events aligns with the interests of the ruling class, and that this filter further limits the diversity of perspectives presented in the media.
Here are some of the implications of this filter:
The public may be exposed to a more limited and biased range of information: The reliance on official sources and experts with close ties to the establishment can limit the diversity of perspectives presented in the media and lead to a more biased portrayal of events.
The media may be less likely to challenge the status quo: The fear of losing access to official sources or being labeled as unpatriotic may make media outlets less likely to challenge the status quo.
The public may be less informed about important issues: The media’s focus on official sources may lead to the neglect of important issues that are not being prioritized by the establishment.
Herman and Chomsky’s analysis of the third filter in the propaganda model highlights the importance of critical thinking and media literacy in today’s world. It is important to be aware of the biases that can exist in media reporting, and to seek out diverse sources of information that are not heavily reliant on official sources.
Fourth filter, Anticommunism
n the fourth chapter of their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the “anticommunism” as the fourth of five filters that shape media content. They argue that the persistent legacy of the Cold War and the fear of communism have instilled a bias in the media against dissenting voices and ideologies.
Here are some of the key points made by Herman and Chomsky about this filter:
-
Anticommunism has been a dominant ideology in the United States since the Cold War: The Cold War created a climate of fear and suspicion around communism, which has had a lasting impact on American society. This anticommunist sentiment has been reflected in the media, where dissenting voices and ideologies have often been labeled as communist or un-American.
-
The media has played a role in perpetuating anticommunism: The media has often portrayed communism in a negative light, emphasizing its authoritarian nature and its threat to individual liberty. This negative portrayal has helped to shape public opinion and make it more difficult for communist or socialist ideas to be taken seriously.
-
Anticommunism has been used to justify a variety of policies: The fear of communism has been used to justify a wide range of policies, including the Vietnam War, the McCarthy era, and the Reagan administration’s intervention in Central America.
-
Anticommunism has had a chilling effect on free speech: The fear of being labeled as a communist has led many people to self-censor and avoid expressing dissenting views. This has chilled free speech and made it more difficult for people to challenge the status quo.
Herman and Chomsky argue that anticommunism is a powerful filter that has shaped media content and public opinion in the United States for decades. They contend that this filter has limited the diversity of perspectives presented in the media and has made it more difficult for people to challenge the dominant ideology.
Here are some of the implications of this filter:
-
The public may be less likely to be exposed to alternative perspectives: The media’s focus on anticommunism may have made it less likely to present alternative perspectives on important issues.
-
The public may be more likely to support policies that are harmful to others: The fear of communism may have led people to support policies that are harmful to others, such as the Vietnam War and the McCarthy era.
-
The public may be less likely to question authority: The fear of being labeled as a communist may have made people less likely to question authority, which can lead to a more compliant and less democratic society.
Herman and Chomsky’s analysis of the fourth filter in the propaganda model highlights the importance of critical thinking and media literacy in today’s world. It is important to be aware of the biases that can exist in media reporting, and to seek out diverse sources of information that are not heavily reliant on the dominant ideology.
Fifth Filter: Going Along
In the fifth chapter of their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the “Going Along” filter as the fifth of five filters that shape media content. They argue that the desire to maintain access to sources and avoid jeopardizing professional standing leads journalists to self-censor and conform to prevailing norms.
Here are some of the key points made by Herman and Chomsky about this filter:
Journalists need to maintain access to sources: Journalists rely on access to sources in order to do their jobs. If they are seen as being too critical or challenging of the status quo, they may lose access to these sources, which can make it difficult to report effectively.
Journalists need to maintain their professional reputations: Journalists want to be respected by their peers and their employers. If they are seen as being too radical or out of line, they may damage their professional reputations and make it difficult to find work.
Journalists are socialized into the media culture: Journalists are trained and socialized into the culture of the media, which includes a set of norms and expectations about how they should behave and report the news. These norms can discourage journalists from challenging the status quo or reporting on controversial issues.
Journalists are often rewarded for conforming and punished for dissent: Journalists who are seen as being reliable and easy to work with are more likely to be promoted and rewarded. On the other hand, journalists who are seen as being too critical or challenging of the status quo may be marginalized or even fired.
Herman and Chomsky argue that the “Going Along” filter is a powerful force that shapes media content. They contend that this filter leads journalists to self-censor their work and conform to prevailing norms, which further limits the diversity of perspectives presented in the media and ensures that the media’s portrayal of events aligns with the interests of the dominant elite.
Here are some of the implications of this filter:
The public may be exposed to a more limited and biased range of information: The self-censorship and conformity that result from the “Going Along” filter can lead to a media landscape that is less diverse and more biased in favor of certain interests.
The media may be less likely to report on important issues that are not aligned with the dominant ideology: Journalists who fear losing access to sources or damaging their professional reputations may be less likely to report on important issues that are not aligned with the dominant ideology.
The public may be less likely to trust the media: The perception that the media is biased and self-serving can lead to a loss of trust in the media, which can make it more difficult for the media to fulfill its role as a watchdog and a source of information for the public.
Herman and Chomsky’s analysis of the fifth filter in the propaganda model highlights the importance of an independent media. It is important to have a media that is not afraid to challenge the status quo and report on the truth, even when it is unpopular. We need to support media outlets that are committed to independent journalism and to hold the media accountable for its reporting.
Worthy and Unworthy victims
In their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky introduce the concept of “worthy” and “unworthy” victims to describe the way in which the mass media portrays victims of violence and human rights abuses. They argue that the media’s portrayal of victims is often biased and politically motivated, and that this bias can have a significant impact on public opinion.
Worthy Victims
Herman and Chomsky define “worthy victims” as victims of violence or human rights abuses that are committed by regimes or groups that are perceived as enemies of the United States or its allies. These victims are often portrayed as innocent and deserving of sympathy, and their suffering is given extensive coverage in the media.
Unworthy Victims
In contrast, “unworthy victims” are victims of violence or human rights abuses that are committed by the United States or its allies, or by regimes that are not perceived as enemies. These victims are often portrayed as less deserving of sympathy, and their suffering may be ignored or downplayed in the media.
Examples of Worthy and Unworthy Victims
Herman and Chomsky provide several examples of how the media has portrayed worthy and unworthy victims. For example, they note that during the Cold War, victims of Soviet human rights abuses were often portrayed as worthy victims, while victims of U.S. human rights abuses in Latin America were often portrayed as unworthy victims.
Impact of the Worthy/Unworthy Victim Dichotomy
Herman and Chomsky argue that the media’s portrayal of worthy and unworthy victims can have a significant impact on public opinion. They argue that by portraying certain victims as more deserving of sympathy than others, the media can shape public attitudes towards different countries and regimes.
Conclusion
The concept of worthy and unworthy victims is a valuable tool for understanding how the media portrays violence and human rights abuses. By recognizing this bias, we can become more critical consumers of media information and make more informed judgments about the world around us.
Legitimizing versus Meaningless Third World
El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua
In their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the concept of “legitimizing” and “meaningless” Third World elections, arguing that the media’s portrayal of elections in developing countries often serves to legitimize the rule of authoritarian regimes and discourage opposition movements.
Legitimizing Third World Elections
Herman and Chomsky define “legitimizing” Third World elections as elections that are portrayed in the media as being free and fair, even though they may be deeply flawed or rigged. The media’s portrayal of these elections as legitimate can help to solidify the rule of authoritarian regimes and make it more difficult for opposition movements to gain traction.
Meaningless Third World Elections
In contrast, “meaningless” Third World elections are elections that are portrayed in the media as being so flawed or rigged that they are essentially meaningless. The media’s portrayal of these elections as meaningless can discourage people from participating in the electoral process and can lead to a sense of cynicism and apathy among the public.
Examples of Legitimizing and Meaningless Third World Elections
Herman and Chomsky provide several examples of how the media has portrayed legitimizing and meaningless Third World elections. For example, they note that the media’s coverage of the 1981 election in El Salvador was widely criticized for being biased in favor of the U.S.-backed government, despite the fact that the election was widely seen as being flawed.
Impact of Legitimizing/Meaningless Dichotomy
Herman and Chomsky argue that the media’s portrayal of legitimizing and meaningless Third World elections can have a significant impact on public opinion and policy. By portraying certain elections as legitimate, the media can help to prop up authoritarian regimes, while portraying other elections as meaningless can discourage people from participating in the democratic process.
El Salvador
The 1981 Salvadoran election was a crucial moment in the country’s civil war, which began in 1979. The U.S.-backed government of El Salvador was facing a growing insurgency from the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), and the election was seen as a way to legitimize the government and show that democracy was alive in El Salvador.
The media’s coverage of the election was widely criticized for being biased in favor of the government. The New York Times, for example, published a series of articles that downplayed the flaws in the election and focused on the violence that the FMLN was committing. The coverage of the election helped to solidify support for the government in the United States and to discourage people from supporting the FMLN.
Guatemala
The 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état was a CIA-backed operation that overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán. The coup was motivated by the U.S. government’s fear that Árbenz was a communist sympathizer and that he would nationalize the country’s United Fruit Company (UFC) holdings.
The media’s coverage of the coup was also highly biased. The New York Times, for example, published a series of articles that falsely accused Árbenz of being a communist and that justified the coup. The coverage of the coup helped to shape public opinion in the United States and helped to legitimize the U.S. government’s role in overthrowing the Guatemalan government.
Nicaragua
The 1980s Nicaraguan Revolution was a protracted conflict between the U.S.-backed Contras and the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), which overthrew the U.S.-backed Somoza dictatorship in 1979. The Reagan administration provided billions of dollars in funding to the Contras in an attempt to overthrow the Sandinista government.
The media’s coverage of the Nicaraguan Revolution was highly polarized. Many U.S. media outlets were critical of the Sandinistas and supported the Contras. For example, the Washington Post published a series of articles that accused the Sandinistas of human rights abuses. The coverage of the Nicaraguan Revolution helped to shape public opinion in the United States and helped to justify the U.S. government’s support for the Contras.
Plot to Kill the Pope: Free-Market Disinformation as “news”
In their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the “KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Kill the Pope: Free-Market Disinformation as ‘News’,” arguing that the media’s coverage of the alleged plot was an example of how the media can be used to spread disinformation and to advance the interests of powerful groups.
The Alleged KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Kill the Pope
In 1981, Italian intelligence officials released a report alleging that the Soviet KGB and the Bulgarian government were planning to assassinate Pope John Paul II. The report was based on the testimony of two Bulgarian defectors, Sergei Antonov and Sergei Zhigalov.
The media quickly picked up on the story, and it was widely reported in the Western press. However, there was little evidence to support the allegations, and many experts questioned the credibility of the defectors.
The Media’s Role in Spreading Disinformation
Herman and Chomsky argue that the media’s coverage of the alleged KGB-Bulgarian plot was an example of how the media can be used to spread disinformation and to advance the interests of powerful groups. They contend that the media was more interested in sensationalizing the story than in investigating its veracity. They also argue that the media’s coverage of the story helped to demonize the Soviet Union and Bulgaria and to solidify Western support for the Cold War.
Conclusion
The “KGB-Bulgarian Plot to Kill the Pope” is an example of how the media can be used to spread disinformation and to advance the interests of powerful groups. The media’s coverage of the story was based on flimsy evidence, and it helped to demonize the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. This case highlights the importance of critical thinking and media literacy in today’s world.
https://aninjusticemag.com/we-need-to-investigate-whether-the-whole-republican-party-is-guilty-of-treason-8af7c1cc3d25
Indochina Wars (I): Vietnam
In their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the “Indochina Wars (I): Vietnam” as an example of how the media can be used to manufacture consent for war. They argue that the media’s coverage of the Vietnam War was biased in favor of the U.S. government and that it helped to shape public opinion in a way that supported the war.
Background
The Vietnam War was a protracted conflict that lasted from 1955 to 1975. The war pitted the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese government against the communist North Vietnamese government. The war was also a proxy war between the United States and the Soviet Union, as each superpower sought to exert its influence in Southeast Asia.
The Media’s Coverage of the Vietnam War
The media’s coverage of the Vietnam War was highly polarized. Many U.S. media outlets were supportive of the war, while others were more critical. However, even the most critical outlets were often constrained by the norms and expectations of the media culture, which made it difficult to challenge the war in a truly radical way.
Herman and Chomsky argue that the media’s coverage of the Vietnam War was characterized by several key biases. These biases included:
- The reliance on official sources: The media often relied on official government sources for information about the war. These sources often provided misleading or inaccurate information, but the media was often unwilling to challenge their authority.
- The focus on individual heroism: The media often focused on stories of individual heroism, such as soldiers who had been awarded medals of valor. This focus on heroism helped to dehumanize the war and to make it more palatable to the public.
- The demonization of the enemy: The media often portrayed the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong as brutal and uncivilized. This demonization helped to justify the war and to make it seem like a necessary evil.
The Media’s Role in Manufacturing Consent for War
Herman and Chomsky argue that the media’s coverage of the Vietnam War helped to manufacture consent for the war. They contend that the media’s biases and its focus on official sources and sensational stories helped to shape public opinion in a way that supported the war. They also argue that the media’s coverage of the war helped to create a climate of fear and suspicion, which made it more difficult for people to challenge the war.
Conclusion
The Vietnam War was a long and bloody conflict that had a devastating impact on both the United States and Vietnam. The media’s coverage of the war played a significant role in shaping public opinion and in manufacturing consent for the war. Herman and Chomsky’s analysis of the media’s role in the Vietnam War is a valuable contribution to our understanding of how the media can be used to shape public opinion and to support war.
The Indochina Wars (II): Laos and Cambodia
In their book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media,” Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the “Indochina Wars (II): Laos and Cambodia” as an extension of the Vietnam War and how the media’s coverage of these conflicts was shaped by the same biases and constraints as the Vietnam War coverage.
Background
The Laotian Civil War, also known as the Secret War in Laos, was a covert war fought by the United States government and its allies against the communist Pathet Lao and their North Vietnamese supporters from 1955 to 1975. The war was closely linked to the Vietnam War and was intended to prevent the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.
The Cambodian Civil War was a conflict between the U.S.-backed government of Lon Nol and the Khmer Rouge, a communist guerrilla group, from 1970 to 1975. The war was also linked to the Vietnam War and was largely fueled by U.S. intervention.
The Media’s Coverage of the Laotian and Cambodian Civil Wars
The media’s coverage of the Laotian and Cambodian Civil Wars was similar to its coverage of the Vietnam War. The media was largely supportive of the U.S. government’s interventions in these countries and often relied on official sources for information, which was often misleading or inaccurate. The media also focused on stories of individual heroism and demonized the enemy, portraying the Pathet Lao and the Khmer Rouge as brutal and uncivilized.
Herman and Chomsky argue that the media’s coverage of the Laotian and Cambodian Civil Wars was also characterized by a lack of coverage. These conflicts were often overshadowed by the Vietnam War, and the media devoted much less attention to them. This lack of coverage helped to obscure the true nature of these conflicts and to make them less salient to the American public.
The Media’s Role in Manufacturing Consent for Intervention
Herman and Chomsky argue that the media’s coverage of the Laotian and Cambodian Civil Wars helped to manufacture consent for U.S. intervention in these countries. They contend that the media’s biases and its focus on official sources and sensational stories helped to shape public opinion in a way that supported intervention. They also argue that the media’s lack of coverage of these conflicts helped to make them less controversial and to make it easier for the government to pursue its interventionist agenda.
Conclusion
The Laotian and Cambodian Civil Wars were two of the most devastating conflicts in Southeast Asia. The media’s coverage of these conflicts played a significant role in shaping public opinion and in manufacturing consent for U.S. intervention. Herman and Chomsky’s analysis of the media’s role in these conflicts is a valuable contribution to our understanding of how the media can be used to shape public opinion and to support foreign intervention.