The Manufacturing Of Consent

ISBN 0679720340 (Book by Edward S. Herman and NoamChomsky)
ISBN 1551640023 (Book about Chomsky)
ISBN 6303295576 (Video of above book)

NoamChomsky's premise that, through subtle and insidious methods, dissenting political forces are rendered irrelevant by the apathy, anxiety and uncertainty created by mass media and the interests they serve.

This is one mechanism by which hegemony is maintained, wherein the ruling class constrains not only what answers may be given, but also what questions may be asked.

One Michael D. Dorsher claims that online communication is the most potent medium for furthering hegemony yet invented, and has the PhD dissertation to "prove" it [http://www.uwec.edu/mdorsher/ica2001/hegemony_online.htm].

I've read it. What it seems to prove is that most people like to visit web sites that relate to the dominant culture (defined as: white, male, upper/middle income, judeo-christian, capitalist and two-party political system) and that there is a positive correlation between the desire to visit such sites (as opposed to counter-cultural or pluralistic sites) and a sense of alienation.

As far as I can tell his dissertation proves that people like to visit websites that are based on popular culture. Or more generally that people like popular things (you can get a Phd for this?). There was no evidence, nor even a hypothesis, that such sites actually work to change the thinking of those that visit them in the portion of the dissertation that is online.

Furthermore there was no comparison between online media and other media. So there is no proof that online media is a particularly "potent" media nor that it "furthers hegemony" presented in the dissertation. I'm not, necessarily, saying that it's not true. Just that the dissertation that I read doesn't prove it. -- PhilGoodwin

Sounds to me like most people like to visit web sites that are like themselves.

Yes, just like they read newspapers that confirm their prejudices. I agree with your analysis Phil. I wonder if Mr. Dorsher is still just mister (but not enough to find out) -- KeithBraithwaite

People generally don't have selves. Not in any strong sense of the word. Instead, they only buy things, watch things, read things that people tell them will give them a sense of self. Quote from real TV: This is the hottest item of the season. It says you're unique. Of course, that's a complete contradiction because you could hardly be unique if many, many duplicates have been sold. -- SunirShah

Easy there, bucko. I'm the resident WikiCynic and I won't have you going around stealing my thunder. Kapish? [RefactorNotMyPunctuation]

I have to disagree, Sunir. Yes it is, indeed, true that most of us (in the United States anyway) identify far too strongly with the things we buy. But how many of us think of ourselves as being like "most people" in any strong way? We might look at our lives and see that we fit a number of statistical profiles that could make us seem pretty average, yet we know we are unique ... because we know ourselves. Isn't this a tiny window to the very sense of self that you assert we generally lack? --EricHerman

Brian: "Look, you're all different."

Crowd (together): "Yes, we are all different."

Dissenter: "I'm not."

People generally don't have selves. How would it be possible to know this? By introspection, perhaps?

Of course, that's a complete contradiction because you could hardly be unique if many, many duplicates have been sold. This analysis fails to consider permutations and combinations. Given a million products, there are 2^1000000 combinations of things you could have, more than enough to ensure uniqueness. Left to the reader is the calculation of the probability that your combination is unique given the number of things you have.

Does the size of the things also matter?

It's not so much a premise as one of his conclusions -- he provides evidence for it. He also covers some much more intentional and directed manipulation of public opinion (the term manufacturing consent doesn't originate with Chomsky; he borrowed it from Walter Lippman (?), whom he criticizes heavily).

Not only is it not a premise, I have yet to read anything resembling an effective rebuttal of his main points...

I don't know if rebuttal is required, Is it possible to list the main points? - I Haven't read the book.

Rebuttal is required, reading the book would help. The question is not whether or not you give an informed consent, the question is the degree to which this is possible.

Active citizens who are not affected by what they see and read do exist, but you can bet they are a strong minority.

I have some difficulty conceiving of an active citizen not (at all) affected by what they see and read. Possibly what's meant here is active citizens (as in "politically active" ?) who do not let their opinions be formed exclusively from (demonstrably) biased media reports, but also apply critical reasoning to what they see and read.

One of the best ways to recognize bias and manipulation is to recognize a pattern of distortion (spin) and the existence of cooperation among newsmanufacturers (news went downhill fast when they began to call themselves "newsmakers" instead of reporters and journalists). There has been a decided shift of emphasis from reporting of the what, when, where, why, and how of an event making news to the new style of interpreting and "making" the news. Choosing to report on an event where 25 people are doing something which matches the agenda pattern, and neglecting to even mention 3000 people who are doing something which does not reinforce the agenda patterns. This is certainly the attempt to manufacture consent.

There is no (serious) dissent as to whether or not the mechanisms described as 'manufacturing consent' exist; they do. The only interesting/controversial question is how effective they are.

CategoryOffTopic