Consent, manufacture ofA B C D E F G H IJKL M N O P R S T U VXYZWas the Arab-Israeli confl ict, or with regard to
Central American politics, is rigorously commit-
ted to one side or the other, alternative options
which the public might be interested in consid-
ering, are declared out of bounds – through what
Chomsky describes as ‘suppression, falsifi cation,
and Orwellian manipulation’.
Th e process of consent manufacture is most
comprehensively analysed in Manufacturing
Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass
Media (Pantheon, 1988; Vantage paperback,
1994) by Edward S. Herman and Chomsky.
They pose a model of propaganda, and that
propaganda issues from the media on behalf of
the interests of the power elite in any society.
Essentially this is a gatekeeping model in the
sense that the media select and shape material
that aligns with the interests and values of
those who exercise control; in turn, the media
censor material which may run counter to those
interests and values.
Because the media are largely owned,
controlled and run by institutions, it follows that
the media ‘toe the line’ with the ideologies
of those institutions and those who run them.
Herman and Chomsky argue that the propa-
ganda model describes ‘the forces that cause
the mass media to play a propaganda role’ and
assert that ‘the workings of the media ... serve
to mobilize support for the special interests that
dominate the state and private activity’.
Leaders of the media ‘claim that their news
choices rest on unbiased professional and
objective criteria, and they have support for the
contention within the intellectual community. If,
however, the powerful are able to fi x the premises
of discourse, to decide what the general populace
is allowed, to see, hear, and think about, and to
“manage” public opinion by regular propaganda
campaigns, the standard view of how the system
works is at serious odds with reality’.
Herman and Chomsky refer to fi ve intercon-
necting fi lters in the processing of mass commu-
nication news which serve to regulate and
constrain. Th ese are: (1) ‘the size, concentrated
ownership, owner wealth and profi t orientation
of the dominant media fi rms; (2) advertising as
the primary income source of the mass media;
(3) the reliance of the media on information
provided by government, business, and “experts”
funded and approved by these primary sources
and agents of power; (4) “fl ak” as a means of
disciplining the media [see flak]; and (5) “anti-
communism” as a national religion and control
mechanism’. Such fi lters ‘interact and reinforce
one another’.▶Roland Barthes, Mythologies (Paladin, 1973).
Consensus Th at which is generally agreed; an
area or basis of shared agreement among the
majority. Th ree elements crucial to the function
of consensus are: common acceptance of laws,
rules and norms; attachment to the institutions
which promulgate these laws, rules and norms;
and a widespread sense of identity or unity, of
similar or identical outlook. Th e opposite term
is dissensus.
The elements of consensus obviously vary
independently, yet the strength of any one helps
to strengthen the others. Consensus, states the
International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences
(ed. D.L. Sills; Macmillan and Free Press, 1968),
‘operates to restrict the extension of dissensus
and to limit confl ict ...’. Beliefs about consensus
‘usually concern the rightness and the qualifi ca-
tions of those in authority to exercise it’ and
thus relate to the legitimacy of institutions,
accepted standards and practices, and dominant
principles.
Such beliefs tend to affi rm existing patterns
of the distribution of authority. Consensus,
therefore, is largely defi ned by those who have
the power and the means to disseminate their
definition; and the definition is employed as
a means of acknowledging and reinforcing the
legitimacy of the powerful. Equally important
in this context is the close affi nity of outlook
of the central cultural system with the central
institutional system. Stuart Hood in Hood on
Television (Pluto, 1980) says, ‘It is the essence
of the idea of consensus that it attempts, at a
conscious and unconscious level, to impose the
view that there is only one “right” reading. Th is
assumption derives from the view that we – that
is the audience and the broadcaster – are united
in one nation in spite of class or political defi ni-
tion.’ See cultural apparatus; hegemony;
impartiality; newcomb’s abx model of
communication, 1953.
Consent, manufacture of Noam Chomsky has
defi ned the manufacture of consent as a complex
process whereby powerful interests inside
democracies such as the US and the UK create
in the public mind patterns of acceptance. In an
article written for Index on Censorship, 1 (1987)
entitled ‘No anti-Israeli vendetta’, Chomsky
refers to ‘devices of thought control’ in demo-
cratic societies ‘which are more pertinent for us
than the crude methods of totalitarian states’.
The devices arise from such aspects of the
media process as control over resources and the
locus of decision-making in the state and private
economy. Where state policy on an issue such