Was it better when we were manufacturing consent?

Anyone with a slight interest in political science has heard about Noam Chomsky's and Edward S. Herman’s book, Manufacturing Consent. In their writings, the two authors, present a groundbreaking analysis of the role of traditional media in shaping public opinion by introducing the concept of the "propaganda model," which asserts that large media outlets, despite claims of independence, often serve the interests of powerful elites.

Noam Chomsky

To validate their point they identify a set of variables (that they call filters) that influence the creation of news content, favoring narratives that align with corporate and governmental agendas.

The first is ownership: Establishing a media company with significant reach necessitates a substantial amount of capital, and investors typically seek returns on their investment. Consequently, news content is influenced by affluent individuals and profit-driven motives. Quoting directly from the book “The dominant media firms are quite large businesses; they are controlled by very wealthy people or by managers who are subject to sharp constraints by owners and other market-profit-oriented forces; and they are closely interlocked, and have important common interests, with other major corporations, banks, and government. This is the first powerful filter that will affect news choice”.

Then comes advertising: Advertisers essentially hold de facto licensing authority over established news corporations, thereby exerting influence on the news. Indeed, without the income obtained from running ads, news outlets cease to be economically viable. Advertisers “ buy and pay for the programs -they are the"patrons" who provide the media subsidy. As such, the media compete for their patronage, developing specialized staff to solicit advertisers and necessarily having to explain how their programs serve advertisers’ needs”.

The third filter Chomsky and Herman identify is sourcing. Sourcing refers to the selection of news sources and the reliance on official sources. Established news organizations -partly to maintain the image of objectivity, but also to protect themselves from criticisms of bias and the threat of libel suits- need material that can be portrayed as presumptively accurate, so they usually rely on government statements or corporate press releases. Directly from the book: “This is also partly a matter of cost: taking information from sources that may be presumed credible reduces investigative expense, whereas material from sources that are not prima facie credible, or that will elicit criticism and threats, requires careful checking and costly research.”

Flak is the fourth force that influences news choice. Flak refers to negative responses or criticism that media organizations can face from powerful entities or interest groups, “Flak from the powerful can be either direct or indirect. The direct would include letters or phone calls from the White House to Dan Rather or William Paley, or from the FCC to the television networks asking for documents used in putting together a program, or from irate officials of ad agencies or corporate sponsors to media officials asking for reply time or threatening retaliation. The powerful can also work on the media indirectly by complaining to their own constituencies (stockholders, employees) about the media, by generating institutional advertising that does the same, and by funding right-wing monitoring or think-tank operations designed to attack the media”.

The final filter is fear ideology, a cohesive and self-perpetuating fuzzy creed that serves as the Face of Evil. It aids media organizations in presenting news in a manner that opposes the fear ideology and helps brand the radicals. In the initial edition of the book, the fear ideology was identified as anticommunism, while in the 2002 revised version, it took the form of the war on terror.

Through case studies, Chomsky and Herman illustrate how these filters operate, shaping the news and limiting the diversity of perspectives presented to the public.

Upon revisiting the book in preparation for this article, I found myself nodding along in agreement with its explanations supporting the central claim: established media is subject to structural constraints that inherently bias it in favor of the government and large institutions.¹ The mainstream media does not merely enable the public to assert meaningful control over the political process by providing them with the information needed for the intelligent discharge of political responsibilities, it guides the public towards some views rather than others. Yet, something was troubling me deeply.

Nowadays a powerful competitor of traditional media has emerged: alternative media. Alternative media works outside the mainstream tradition providing perspectives and content that diverge from the conventional narrative presented by established news organizations.

Alternative media is frequently generated by private individuals or small independent organizations with minimal initial capital requirements, utilizing platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. As a result, the -typically modest- ownership is liberated from most internal pressures.

Sourcing is not a concern for most alternative media, as the only constraints on what might be deemed newsworthy are the preferences of the alternative media 'reporter' and their personal code of ethics.

Flak is a less significant force and is often welcomed under the motto 'any publicity is good publicity.' The costs of doing business are so low that some creators even try to boost engagement through negative feedback.

Moreover, alternative media is not driven by a unifying fear ideology; instead, it tends to span the political spectrum, especially at the radical ends, engaging in fringe and often opposing political theories.

The only filter that meaningfully exerts its influence on alternative media is advertisement, which usually manifests its presence through the community guidelines for inappropriate content adopted by sharing platforms. But even in the case of ads, there are now online venues like Rumble, Kick, and X that tolerate political views outside the establishment's overtone window, and crowdfunding sites like Patreon that allow alternative media to bypass the advertising bottleneck.

An alternative media channel

Unburdened by the constraints that often shape mainstream media, one might expect alternative media to serve as a highly beneficial force in the information landscape. Freed from the chains of the establishment, online political commentators have the potential to deliver information unbiasedly and impartially, enabling the audience to make informed decisions in a democratic society. But, the reality is different. Alternative media entities thrive based on the appeal and entertainment value of their reporting, not its accuracy. Views, money, and influence are garnered in proportion to how engaging their content is rather than how closely it matches the truth -distorting the information landscape. ²

This is something Socrates warned us about; in the free marketplace of ideas it is not always the honest truth-teller that prevails but, more often than not, it’s the more charismatic rhetorician. In a landscape dominated by key performance indicators for engagement as, essentially, the sole filter for political commentary, it's unsurprising that sophists, adept at manipulating our System 1 biases, outshine those committed to honesty and truth. The Greeks would hardly be surprised by the fact that the use of the internet as a source of political information has been linked to voting for populist parties. Perhaps it is not by chance that, globally, we have been electing a string of fascinating leaders with questionable haircuts, only time will tell if our democracies can survive an information space that promulgates content based on how engaging it is.

Javier Gerardo Milei, the newly elected president of Argentina.

Chomsky and Herman, in their analysis of the forces that govern traditional media, did not focus on the filters concerning ethical journalism practices (adopted by many large news organizations) such as steering clear of conflicts of interest, offering context, and promptly correcting or retracting information. Many mainstream news outlets also employ dedicated fact-checking teams, providing a certain level of assurance that their reporting adheres to reality - and that is more than can be said for alternative media.

Here, a disquieting thought emerges: at a certain level, specific filters dictating who can report the news and the manner in which news is conveyed may be a positive. Perhaps not everyone should have unrestricted access to the podium in the public square. In order for a democratic society to function effectively without filters on news production, it is essential to rapidly instill good epistemic practices and enhance the metacognitive abilities of all citizens. Given that the majority of the public is occupied with 9-5 jobs in an ever-complex world, achieving this task is challenging and time-consuming. However, time is a dwindling resource. On the 18th of November, the polls weren’t looking too good.

And It’s unclear, in the case of a Trump victory in the 60th presidential election, if democracy is going to be committing Harakiri again as it did once before in the 20th century.

1. Although I did have some doubts about some of the case studies presented- but that is another story.

2. For further evidence of this fact see the “we are not news, we are entertainment” defense utilized by alternative media characters like Alex Jones and Andrew Tate.