RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Lee writes: "Three decades ago, Professor Noam Chomsky, who is seen by some as the most brilliant and courageous intellectual alive and by others as an anti-US conspiracy theorist, penned his powerful critique of the Western corporate media in his seminal book Manufacturing Consent, with co-author Edward S Herman."

Prof. Noam Chomsky, linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and activist. (photo: Va Shiva)
Prof. Noam Chomsky, linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and activist. (photo: Va Shiva)

Noam Chomsky: Are the Media Still 'Manufacturing Consent'?

By Seung-Yoon Lee, Byline

25 May 15


hree decades ago, Professor Noam Chomsky, who is seen by some as the most brilliant and courageous intellectual alive and by others as an anti-US conspiracy theorist, penned his powerful critique of the Western corporate media in his seminal book Manufacturing Consent, with co-author Edward S Herman. The book had a profound impact on my perception of the mainstream media in my teenage years, and was crucial in some ways to my decision to start Byline with my co-founder Daniel Tudor. By cutting out the advertiser and political bias of the proprietor, we believed that crowdfunding had the potential to democratise the media landscape and support independent journalism.

In “Manufacturing Consent,” Noam Chomsky posits that Western corporate media is structurally bound to “manufacture consent” in the interests of dominant, elite groups in society. With “filters” which determine what gets to become ‘news’ – including media ownership, advertising, and “flak”, he shows how propaganda can pervade the “free” media in an ostensibly democratic Western society through self-censorship. However, lot has changed since then. We now have the Internet. The so-called legacy media organisations which have been “manufacturing consent” according to Chomsky are in massive financial trouble. Has any of his analysis changed? I recently interviewed Noam Chomsky at his MIT office, to find out his views on the current media landscape.

Seung-yoon Lee: Twenty-seven years ago, you wrote in ‘Manufacturing Consent’ that the primary role of the mass media in Western democratic societies is to mobilise public support for the elite interests that lead the government and the private sector. However, a lot has happened since then. Most notably, one could argue that the Internet has radically decentralised power and eroded the power of traditional media, and has also given rise to citizen journalism. News from Ferguson, for instance, emerged on Twitter before it was picked up by media organisations. Has the internet made your ‘Propaganda Model’ irrelevant?

Noam Chomsky: Actually, we have an updated version of the book which appeared about 10 years ago with a preface in which we discuss this question. And I think I can speak for my co-author, you can read the introduction, but we felt that if there have been changes, then this is one of them. There are other [changes], such as the decline in the number of independent print media, which is quite striking.

As far as we can see, the basic analysis is essentially unchanged. It’s true that the internet does provide opportunities that were not easily available before, so instead of having to go to the library to do research, you can just open up your computer. You can certainly release information more easily and also distribute different information from many sources, and that offers opportunities and deficiencies. But fundamentally, the system hasn’t changed very much.

Seuny-yoon Lee: Emily Bell, Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School, said the following in her recent speech at Oxford: “News spaces are no longer owned by newsmakers. The press is no longer in charge of the free press and has lost control of the main conduits through which stories reach audiences. The public sphere is now operated by a small number of private companies, based in Silicon Valley.” Nearly all content now is published on social platforms, and it’s not Rupert Murdoch but Google’s Larry Page and Sergei Brin and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who have much more say in how news is created and disseminated. Are they “manufacturing consent” like their counterparts in so-called ‘legacy’ media?

Noam Chomsky: Well, first of all, I don’t agree with the general statement. Say, right now, if I want to find out what’s going on in Ukraine or Syria or Washington, I read The New York Times, other national newspapers, I look at the Associated Press wires, I read the British press, and so on. I don’t look at Twitter because it doesn’t tell me anything. It tells me people’s opinions about lots of things, but very briefly and necessarily superficially, and it doesn’t have the core news. And I think it’s the opposite of what you quoted - the sources of news have become narrower. So for example, take where we are now, Boston. Boston used to have a very good newspaper, The Boston Globe. It still exists but it’s a pale shadow of what it was twenty or thirty years ago. It used to have bureaus around the world, fine correspondents, and some of the best journalism on Central America during the Central American wars, and good critical journalism on domestic events and on many other topics. Go to a newsstand and have a look now. What you see is local news, pieces from the wire services, some pieces from The New York Times, and very little else.

Now that’s happened around the country, and in fact, around the world. And it’s a narrowing of these sources of journalism about what’s happening on the ground. That doesn’t mean that reports in the NYT have to be read uncritically, or those in The Guardian or The Independent or anywhere else. Sure, they have to be read critically, but at least they’re there. There are journalists there on the scene where major events are taking place and, now there are fewer of them than before, so that’s a narrowing of the sources of news. On the other hand, there is a compensating factor. It’s easier now to read the press from other countries than it was twenty years ago because of instead having to go to the library or the Harvard Square International Newsstand, I can look it up on the Internet. So you have multiple effects. As far as Silicon Valley is concerned, say Google, I’m sure they’re trying to manufacture consent. If you want to buy something, let’s say, you look it up on Google. We know how it works. The first things on the list are the ones that advertise. That doesn’t mean that they’re the most important ones. But it’s a reflection of their business model, which is of course based on advertising, which is one of the filters [in our model], in fact.

I use Google all the time, I’m happy it’s there. But just as when I read The New York Times or the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal knowing that they have ways of selecting and shaping the material that reaches you, you have to compensate for it. With Google, and others of course, there is an immense amount of surveillance to try to obtain personal data about individuals and their habits and interactions and so on, to shape the way information is presented to them. They do more [surveillance] than the NSA.

Seung-yoon Lee: In his essay “Bad News about News,” Robert G. Kaiser, former Editor of the Washington Post says, “News as we know it is at risk. So is democratic governance, which depends on an effective watchdog news media. Both have been undermined by changes in society wrought by digital technologies—among the most powerful forces ever unleashed by mankind.” Not only are the biggest news organisations like the New York Times, and the Washington Post (which was sold to the founder of Amazon for US$250 million, a small fraction of its worth just a few years before), and others are financially suffering and lack a clear roadmap for survival, but also numerous local newspapers across the United States and United Kingdom are shutting down every week. I know you see some of these organisations as “manufacturers of consent,” but how can we fund quality journalism in this new digital age?

Noam Chomsky: How is the BBC funded?

Seung-yoon Lee: By the public.

Noam Chomsky: And take the United States. When the United States was founded, there was an understanding of the first amendment that it has a double function: it frees the producer of information from state control, but it also offers people the right to information. As a result, if you look at postwar laws, they were designed to yield an effective public subsidy to journals in an effort to try to provide the widest range of opinion, information, and so on. And that’s a pretty sensible model. And it goes back to the conception of negative and positive liberty. You have only negative liberty, that is, freedom from external control, or you have positive liberty to fulfill your legitimate goals in life - in this case, gaining information. And that’s a battle that’s been fought for centuries. Right after the Second World War, in the United States, there was major debate and controversy about whether the media should serve this double function of giving both freedom from x amount of control – that was accepted across the board - and additionally, the function of providing the population with fulfilling its right to access a wide range of information or opinion. The first model, which is sometimes called corporate libertarianism, won out. The second model was abandoned. It’s one of the reasons why the US only has extremely marginal national radio businesses compared to other countries. It relates to what you’re asking--an alternative model is public support for the widest possible range of information and analysis and that should, I think, be a core part of a functioning democracy.

Seung-yoon Lee: In the absence of a good business model, new media organisations from Buzzfeed to Vice have pioneered so-called “native advertising,” a form of online advertising that seeks to fool the consumer into believing that they are reading "editorial" content rather than paid advertisements. Basically, they are advertorials. Ironically, even a progressive newspaper like The Guardian publishes sponsored content from Goldman Sachs. What’s your view on native advertising?

Noam Chomsky: This [native advertising] is exaggerating and intensifying a problem that is serious and shouldn’t even exist in the first place. The reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially determines what is presented to the public. Again, if you go back to our book, it’s one of the filters. And if you look back, the very idea of advertiser reliance radically distorts the concept of free media. If you think about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they are businesses. And a business produces something for a market. The producers in this case, almost without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses - advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or viewers), so these are basically major corporations providing audiences to other businesses, and that significantly shapes the nature of the institution. You can determine by common sense that it would, but if you investigate it up front as well, it does [bear out], so what you’re now talking about is an intensification of something which shouldn’t exist in the first place.

Seung-yoon Lee: I was shocked to see that the global PR firm Edelman did some research on whether readers can actually tell whether what they are reading is an advertisement or an article... and 60% of readers didn’t notice that they were reading adverts.

Noam Chosmky: And that’s always been true. The effect of advertiser reliance and public relations firms is noticeable in the nature of what the media produce, both in their news and commentary. And how could it be otherwise, that’s the market.

Seung-yoon Lee: Recently, The Guardian and The Washington Post revealed widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency through Edward Snowden. Such reporting surely undermines the idea of what you would call the ‘elite interest’ that dominates the government and private sector. Does this case undermine your propaganda model or is it an exception to the rule?

Noam Chomsky: For the propaganda model, notice what we explain there very explicitly is that this is a first approximation - and a good first approximation - for the way the media functions. We also mention that there are many other factors. In fact, if you take a look at the book ‘Manufacturing Consent’, about practically a third of the book, which nobody seems to have read, is a defence of the media from criticism by what are called civil rights organisations - Freedom House in this case. It’s a defence of the professionalism and accuracy of the media in their reporting, from a harsh critique which claimed that they were virtually traitors undermining government policy. We should have known, on the other hand, that they were quite professional.

The media didn’t like that defence because what we said is – and this was about the Tet Offensive - that the reporters were very honest, courageous, accurate, and professional, but their work was done within a framework of tacit acquiescence to a propaganda system that was simply unconscious. The propaganda system was ‘what we’re doing in Vietnam is obviously right and just’. And that passively supports the doctrinal system. But on the other hand, it was also undermining the government. It was showing that government claims are false. And take, say, the exposure of Watergate, or the exposure of business corruption. One of the best sources of information on business corruption is the businessperson. The media do quite a lot of very good exposes on this, but the business world is quite willing to tolerate the exposure of corruption. The business world is also quite willing to tolerate exposure of governments intervening in personal life and business life in a way that they don’t like, as they don’t want a powerful and intrusive state. That’s not to criticise The Guardian and The Post for providing an outlet for the Snowden/Greenwald material - of course they should have, they’re professional journalists. There are a lot of factors, but we picked out factors we think are very significant but not all-inclusive, and as a matter of fact, we gave counter-examples.

Seung-yoon Lee: And do you think this is a counter-example, in some sense

Noam Chomksy: It’s not a counter example, it’s a demonstration that there are other things. That in addition to the major factors, there are also minor factors which we discussed, like professionalism and professional integrity, which is also a factor.

Seung-yoon Lee: Do you think that crowdfunding can help make journalism more independent? Noam Chomsky: I think it’s a good general principle that almost anything that increases the variety and range of available media is beneficial. Of course, this particular approach will have its own problems. Every approach does. There’s no ideal type with no problems connected with it, but in general the wider the range of variety of what’s available, the better off you are.

Seung-yoon Lee: Can I ask your opinion on Charlie Hebdo? What do you think of this ‘freedom of speech no matter what’ principle?

Noam Chomsky: Well, I think we should strongly support freedom of speech. I think one of the good things about the United States, incidentally, as distinct from England, is that there is much higher protection of freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not mean a lack of responsibility. So for example, I’m in favour of freedom of speech, but if somebody decided to put up a big advertisement in Times Square, New York, glorifying the sending of Jews to gas chambers, I don’t think it should be stopped by the state, but I’m not in favour of it.

Seung-yoon Lee: Also, regarding the specific incident of Charlie Hebdo, do you think the cartoonists lacked responsibility?

Noam Chomsky: Yes, I think they were kind of acting in this case like spoiled adolescents, but that doesn’t justify killing them. I mean, I could say the same about a great deal that appears in the press. I think it’s quite irresponsible often. For example, when the press in the United States and England supported the worst crime of this century, the invasion of Iraq, that was way more irresponsible than what Charlie Hebdo did. It led to the destruction of Iraq and the spread of the sectarian conflict that’s tearing the region to shreds. It was a really major crime. Aggression is the supreme international crime under international law. Insofar as the press supported that, that was deeply irresponsible, but I don’t think the press should be shut down. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+31 # wantrealdemocracy 2015-05-25 14:47
The question, "Are the media still "manufacturing consent", should have been answered with one word. YES.

The United States is preparing to go to war against Russia and China. We see the preparations and we hear the lies about these two nations being a threat to our national interests. These lies are told again and again---like the 'weapons of mass destruction' and the Muslim attack on 9/11. These lies get the people to wave their flags and hang yellow ribbons on trees and to "support our troops". We never ask what in hell are the troops doing in those foreign nations in the first place!.
+1 # futhark 2015-05-25 17:13
Noam Chomsky himself is one of the most insistent defenders of the orthodox neo-con generated hypothesis that 19 Islamic Radicals With Box Cutters planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. In this particular case, he is greatly assisting the appearance of a wide public consent of an explanation seen by many as deviating in many respects from rational analysis of available evidence.
-2 # anarchteacher 2015-05-25 17:49

Meet Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper

Is Noam Chomsky an anarcho-syndica list or proponent of the Federal Reserve? A fearless political crusader or defender of the Warren Commission JFK orthodoxy? A tireless campaigner for justice or someone who doesn't care who did 9/11? Join us this week on The Corbett Report as we examine some of the subjects that Chomsky would prefer you didn't think about.

(Published on Oct 26, 2013)
+6 # Douglas Jack 2015-05-25 20:23
futhark & anarchteacher. Wonderful Corbett report web-link looking at Chomsky's evolving work over his lifetime with positions on such as: Vietnam, Federal Reserve, JFK's assassination & 911. The film is incorrect to deify Chomsky as a Gatekeeper, losing the value of his important research methodology & legacy. Chomsky is not large enough to be infallible. He's mortal like us all on finite life-lines. At 87 years old, the key is for us to pick up on his & other research methodology, evolve/synergiz e them further to new systems of analysis & restore the world. Its not a matter of gaining approval from Noam about current events or for such as 911 Truth, but of recognizing him as one fallible foundation of many for going forward. This one hour video makes a great contribution for seeing Noam's limitations & critically taking human & ecological work to realization.

Noam has in a couple of emails encouraged Indigene Community's work towards 1st Nation sovereignty & 'Indigenous' (Latin 'self-generatin g') worldview. We appreciate Noam reaching out to us as part among 7 billion. He can only give any body of work a cursory look at this point. Its up to the rest of us to create economic cultures of welcome & inclusion as our indigenous ancestors before us for recapturing popular culture, economy & society. Noam's work gives importance to humanity's indigenous roots distinct from colonial worldview.
0 # lewagner 2015-05-26 04:21
Chomsky starts to mumble and mutter and talk with authoritative-s ounding non sequiturs whenever he talks about the JFK assassination or 9/11 ...
He's clear and logical enough when he addresses other subjects. Why??
And why does the author of this article write (and RSN accept): "... Noam Chomsky, who is seen by some as the most brilliant and courageous intellectual alive and by others as an anti-US conspiracy theorist ...", and TOTALLY LEAVE OUT AS THOUGH WE DON'T EXIST those of us who see Chomsky as one who covers UP "conspiracy theories" and tries his damned best to shill for the "official story", no matter how ridiculous?
I'll say it again: Bah. We DO exist, even though we get mostly thumbs-down on RSN.
+6 # Douglas Jack 2015-05-26 05:49
lewagner, Again, maybe Noam is a crotchety old geezer. The gift & problem with age is literally billions of memories crammed into the same old brain. Just don't put him into the impossible position of being 'the' authority no matter how much he may have mastered this tone of voice from decades of trying to speak truth to power. Take his place by joining with others & becoming the truth which we want to see in the world. Noam is ready to pass the torch.
+2 # A_Har 2015-05-27 09:53
The Term Conspiracy Theory Was Created By The CIA In 1967

August 4, 2014 Nathan Laurenson

Propaganda....psyops levelled at the population of the USA? You bet!
+2 # CelticNavigator 2015-05-26 09:34
The problem goes FAR beyond the media in our modern military industrial financial media academic congressional judicial executive complex. Interesting Pando article about David Koch and anti pension billionaire Arnold influencing two major PBS stations:
+13 # Sunflower 2015-05-25 14:59
Sadly, the idea of public funding of the press is certainly no panacea. PBS can't get enough of glorification of war and propaganda for whatever the elite wants said, be it about Bin Laden or 9-11, or
many other topics. They see their role as
comforting the comfortable, smoothing away objections to US defense spending, empire building and general sense of entitlement to running the rest of the world.

+19 # lfeuille 2015-05-25 16:46
But PBS is lately less dependent on government funding and more dependent on corporate donations in exchange for what looks suspiciously like advertising even though they don't call it that.
+2 # Pancho 2015-05-25 23:16
Most unfortunate, of course. At least Burlington Northern isn't trying to sell us anything.
+3 # Salus Populi 2015-05-26 09:08
Unfortunately, the public media in this country are dependent on government, which helps fund them; on advertisers, and corporate money, if somewhat more hidden than is the case with private media; and on viewer/listener contributions, which tend to come from status quo centrist liberals who can afford them. This reality almost guarantees that they will not rock the boat unless it is already rocking from either major upheavals or splits within the ruling elite.

In a study about two decades ago, in fact, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting found that the then-McNeil-Leh rer News Hour actually relied on the establishment and conservative think tanks even more than the private network news shows, including Ted Koppel, and were even more hostile to environmentalis ts, labor, women's issues, etc.

The ostensible reason this model was adopted is that when Congress set it up in 1967, it didn't include the funding, which was supposed to be based on a tax on the privately held electronic media [which was given free and exclusive use of the limited public airwaves], which would be turned over to the independent public radio and TV. By the following year, when Congress was supposed to revisit the issue and finish the job, the Vietnam War was higher priority, so the presently existing model was cobbled together instead.

I used "ostensible" in the previous paragraph, because the Official Story may well be camouflage for corporate scheming, as is often the case.
0 # A_Har 2015-05-27 09:56
I listened to NPR for a very long time but then I figured out that NPR actually means *National Propaganda Radio* so I tuned OUT.

I stopped watching PBS and ALL TeeVee around the year 2000. I started to see it all as annoying and worthless.
0 # grandma lynn 2015-05-27 22:26
NPR's talk shows like The Diane Rehm Show let us hear unscripted conversation that is unavailable anywhere else on a regular basis. I value that. My NHPR station shifts to being BBC all night, and there, too, I hear some Canadian radio voices. Enriching, altogether.
0 # Salus Populi 2015-06-04 09:14
Sorry, but I have to disagree about Rehm's show.

It is true that it is unscripted, and once in a blue moon she actually has a genuine leftist among the gaggle of common 'taters that infest the show, but for the most part, no one left of Democrat, which in this day and age means neo-con lite or fascism with a human face, is invited onto the show.

My adult disabled son listens to local talk public radio, including Diane Rehm, so I hear it at least three or four times a week.

To be fair, the other public station -- there are two here in Albuquerque -- features Democracy Now every day, and both Counterspin and Alternative Radio once a week, so it's not a completely barren wasteland -- unlike public TV -- but the so-called news shows are uniformly reicht-wing in their presentations, and part of the mediated Beltway consensus when it comes to items important to the National Insecurity Estate, such as Ukraine, Serbia, Syria, Putin, etc.

The original meme was a "voice for the voiceless"; with the overwhelming domination of the mainscream tedia by the fascist reicht these days, the voiceless, who were always on the left of the political spectrum, are still largely silenced from the air waves and cable.
+10 # David Peterson 2015-05-25 15:33
Friends: In one of the questions, Seuny-yoon Lee asks NC: "Nearly all content now is published on social platforms, and it’s not Rupert Murdoch but Google’s Larry Page and Sergei Brin and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who have much more say in how news is created and disseminated. Are they 'manufacturing consent' like their counterparts in so-called ‘legacy’ media?"

Seuny-yoon Lee's question is very badly phrased. -- Any person participating in so-called "social media" whose thoughts are already possessed by a prior, deeply held, false belief that has taken up sovereignty and control of his or mind will repeat this false belief on the "social media," and neither the proprietors nor stockholders of Google, Facebook, or Twitter need play any role in it.

Never forget: Ideology requires the contribution of the gray matter, too.
+14 # Annette Saint John Lawrence 2015-05-25 16:04
Our so call "journalists" of today are nothing more than sleazy low life ambulance chasers. They have sold their souls to the Company Store.
We don't really have freedom of speech. Ask the ones who protest (peacefully I might add) who have been tasseled, clubbed and hauled of to jail.Meanwhile, the most odious people that have run this country - the cartels, most in every government office, certainly Cheney /Bush and friends skip merrily on their way. Kid yourself not, they violated their oath and took down a Nation in which everyone had the chance under "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I remember when we had that. "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
+1 # grandma lynn 2015-05-27 22:29
The journalists who write for Progressive Populist, for The Nation, for In These Times, for The Progressive, to name a few, don't deserve this broad-brush negativism and can be thanked.
+5 # anarchteacher 2015-05-25 16:06

Read this brief article above on the recent White House Correspondents Dinner.

It addresses many things Chomsky left unsaid concerning the Establishment presstitute media.

Protestant Martin Luther took Guttenberg’s revolutionary printing technology and launched the Reformation (“the priesthood of all believers” supposedly bypassing the centuries old authoritative organizational structure and dogma of the Roman Catholic Church).

The world, ecclesial or secular, has never been the same since this disruptive attack on European Christendom. Yet after Luther came Leviathan and the growth of the centralized nation-state. Over the centuries it has morphed into the dominant corporatist model of the welfare-warfare state, with a public Madisonian element and a covert Trumanite core.

The American Deep State

The Welfare State

The Internet today, as James Corbett has superbly illustrated, is fostering a similar reformation. It is the virtual community of the global village predicted by media visionary Marshall McLuhan, bypassing the antiquated gatekeepers of the regime media and its court intellectual apologists, with interconnected independent networks of Open Source research and dissimilation of vital information once suppressed.
+9 # Johnny 2015-05-25 16:28
Which explains why congress and the FCC will turn total control of the internet over to the big corporate interests. It's just a matter of time.
+4 # Douglas Jack 2015-05-25 17:05
Noam, RE: "Are the media still manufacturing consent?" YES.

Media is the 4th estate. Analysis needed is economic i.e. 'follow the money'. The Finance-Media-E ducation-Milita ry-Industrial-L egislative-Comp lex is owned in essence by 3 worldwide 'trillionaires' = '# seconds in 32,000 years' (Windsor, Jesuit & Rothschild) along with their bevies of about 3000 'billionaires' = '# sec. 32 yr. Oligarchs follow a Jetson vision of an almost dead world with lots of toys for survivors in plastic homes.

Oligarchs have pathological craving for 'Money' originally from the Greek 'Mnemosis' means 'Memory' but is perverted from its original time-based human-resource accounting practice. Economic confusion is universal on the right & left (both sides of the same coin),

Since colonialism has invaded & subjugated the world we haven't reconsidered 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generatin g') 'community' (L. 'com' = 'together' + 'munus' = 'gift or service') 'economy' (Greek 'oikos' = 'home' + 'namein' = 'care-&-nurture '). Let's reorganize ourselves & estates such as our media according to humanity's worldwide ancient indigenous economy practices. Let's organize reporter, publishing, distribution teams in 100 person multihome (apartment, townhouse & village) dwellings where 70% of humanity now lives. This is part of the Kaianerekowa (Great-good-way -of-kindness) worldwide.
+4 # Dale 2015-05-25 17:32
In AmeriKa Inc.
Big Money continues to inspire economic suicide
While Fox News glorifies the perverse
And CNN presents Big Lies as balanced journalism,
Most all the media offering views that fit system maintenance
And Pentagon programmed militarism
To torture reason, degrade the noble, imprison the valiant
And strain to devour what remains of civilization.
Big Money monopolizes the media
To frame acceptable thought, to privatize public consciousness,
With the end of substituting trivia for substance,
Thought hegemony for critical appraisal, stupidity for rationality.
Media commentary promulgates indefensible speech
To corrupt rational thought, to make lies appear truthful,
To make police murder only self-defense.
Electronic surveilance of citizen´s private thoughts is the property of the Thought Police.
The media glorify war.
On the rare occasions presented, the media demonize reasoned dissent.
The media censor news that does not fit the paradigm of limits.
The media promote falsity.
The media portray Official Terrorism as a legitimate means of promoting National Security—
With the effect that fearful insecurity is diffused within the citizenry.
In this omnipotence of deceit truth telling is terrorism to the Oppressors,
Jail whistle-blowers , end independent journalism!
But truth telling and straightening shrunken heads is revolu
+5 # Polisage 2015-05-25 17:32
Open source includes access to consent" media as well as "dissent" media. Criticism is the enemy of fascism, but only to the extent that it spreads. If RSN is truly independent, that is its value and virtue. We need to free ourselves from the warmongers, and that won't happen with a Hillary/ Bush election. We need better choices and more criticism. Speak up, you mothers!
+4 # Pancho 2015-05-25 23:19
I arrived in the Philippines during the Marcos era, in 1981. At customs, I worried if I was going to put back on plane and out of there, because I had the two-volume "Political Economy of Human Rights," by Chomsky and Hermann.

Reading that, in that time and place, was a revolutionary act.
+6 # reiverpacific 2015-05-26 09:22
It doesn't take a progressive icon like Chomsky (Who @ his critics, has pushed against the mainstream tide, especially the many US wars, invasions and usurpations, since his early days of maturity, including being prosecuted for proposing and leading a tax revolt in the 1960's -what have YOU lot done???) to bear witness to what "Izzy" Stone wrote in 1963 "The fault I find with most American newspapers is not the absence of dissent. it is the absence of news. With a dozen or so honorable exceptions, most American newspapers carry very little news. Their main concern is advertising".
+1 # bibi 2015-05-26 10:19
Mr. Chomsky says, "Say, right now, if I want to find out what’s going on in Ukraine or Syria or Washington, I read The New York Times, other national newspapers, I look at the Associated Press wires, I read the British press, and so on."
But the media is almost silent about what is happening in Yemen by Saudi Arabia. Also, do we hear the truth of what is really happening in Syria and Ukraine?
+1 # Douglas Jack 2015-05-26 10:57
bibi, We hear nothing about the massacres which US, Canada, NATO & Israel are facilitating by arming mercenaries in Syria & overthrowing Yanukovych's democratically elected government. Of course the Finance-Media-E ducation-Milita ry-Industrial-l egislative-Comp lex do not cover our criminal activity. As a Canadian, I'm shocked to know how Canadians know nothing about our international criminal exploitation of resources & governments worldwide.
+1 # bibi 2015-05-26 11:14
Thanks for the link, it's really an eye-opener.
+1 # bibi 2015-05-26 13:40
Also this is worth watching, roots of Islamic terrorism and one particular Muslim sect that is to blame, and Britain's role in creating the terrorists.
+2 # bibi 2015-05-26 10:22
But as I read more of the interview, he also has said, ". But just as when I read The New York Times or the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal knowing that they have ways of selecting and shaping the material that reaches you, you have to compensate for it."
+2 # Pipester 2015-05-26 13:51
Douglas Jack, in his initial post here, has offered a rational view of NC's work and life. To my knowledge his book "Manufacturing" represents the only application of the scientific method in analyzing the U.S. media. It was an eye opener to what most thoughtful people sensed about the press at the time but did not fully understand. It falls to the citizens of today to carry on his brilliant work. One thing we can say about NC is that he uses reason and operates from a basis of fact. Conspiracy theories not grounded in facts are not likely to gain his support.
+1 # Douglas Jack 2015-05-26 20:32
Pipester, thanks for expressing the scientific method which Noam uses throughout his work. Process is the real message here. I would not call much of the 911 Truth research as conspiratorial as it represents many pieces from many different perspectives in the process of being assembled. I would better call it a gathering storm, but for Noam at 87 it is beyond his years in terms of bringing mature 'fact-based' research to maturity. It will still take years, but the pattern is now established for the rest of us. I say this with much appreciation for those who are devoted to this task, but surprised that 9/11 truthers don't understand the temporal context of their work-in-process .

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.