Tow ard the end of Manufacturing Consent, you conclude that “the
societal purpose of the media is to...defend the economic, social and
political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic
society and the state.” Anything you’d w ant to add to that?
It’s such a truism that it’s almost unnecessary to put it into
w ords. It w ould be amazing if it weren’t true. Assuming virtually
nothing except that there’s a free market—or something resembling
one—virtually forces you to that conclusion.
In Z magazine, Ed Herman discussed the persistence of the idea that
the media are liberal.
Ed’s main point is perfectly valid—w hat really matters is the
desires of the people w ho ow n and control the media. But I may
slightly disagree w ith him about w hether they’re liberal. In my view ,
national media like the Washington Post and the New York Times
probably meet the current definition of the w ord liberal. Sometimes
they even run things I approve of.
For instance, to my amazement, the New York Times actually
had an editorial in favor of greater w orkers’ rights in Indonesia (as
opposed to the right-w ing view that it’s OK to strangle Indonesian
w orkers if you can make more money that w ay). T he Times also has
columnists—Bob Herbert is one example—that I don’t think you
w ould have seen there forty years ago, and they often w rite very
good stuff.
But in general, the mainstream media all make certain basic
assumptions, like the necessity of maintaining a w elfare state for
the rich. W ithin that framew ork, there’s some room for differences
of opinion, and it’s entirely possible that the major media are tow ard
the liberal end of that range. In fact, in a w ell-designed propaganda
system, that’s exactly w here they should be.
T he smart w ay to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly
limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively
debate w ithin that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and
dissident view s. T hat gives people the sense that there’s free
thinking going on, w hile all the time the presuppositions of the
system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the
debate.
So you’re allow ed to discuss w hether the Mideast “peace