Manufacturing Consent
My first encounter with Noam Chomsky was an article forwarded to me immediately after Sept. 11. In it he argues the importance of asking why the attacks occurred, in full anticipation that this question would be all but ignored by the mainstream media in the aftermath of the attacks, as the flags starting waving and the war drums started beating. While not completely ignorant to Chomsky's subject matter - I had read quite a bit about the CIA's activities around the world during the past few decades as a teenager - the article was definitely an eye-opener for me, as I had remained mostly apathetic toward politics and world affairs the entire time I was in college. [I'm unable to find the article anymore, but this short piece on his website sums up the main points.]
After that article I read his "Rogue States", an excellent critique of this most misused term. I then went on to read "Necessary Illusions", "Understanding Power", and "The Chomsky Reader". Although I haven't read it, Chomsky makes many references to his earlier "Manufacturing Consent" in his later books, when he needs to refer to examples of willful media manipulation.
Inspired by a Nicaraguan roommate of a friend of Ladan's, we've decided to visit Nicaragua during Thanksgiving this year. After having bought plane tickets a month ago, we're having some trouble getting Ladan's visa processed and are considering canceling the trip if it doesn't work out. Today the friend mentioned that if Sandinista leader "El Comandante" Daniel Ortega wins the presidential election tomorrow, there is a slight chance that her family, who is apparently part of the very small elite business class who are vehemently against him, could face some "difficulties" in the near future. The bottom line is that we may be able to convince the airline to let us cancel the tickets due to "political unrest", which supposedly prevents them from penalizing us.
The irony here is that, based on what I've read about Ortega in the past, and on my general world outlook, I wholeheartedly support him becoming president. How can I not be behind a guy who proclaims, "The poor cannot wait and on November 5, they will bury savage capitalism in Nicaragua." When we first starting considering the trip, although I was excited about the prospect of staying with a family there, I was suspicious of their place within the society and whether, as their guests, we might be presented with a view of the country distorted by the proverbial rose-tinted glasses. And so it seems my misgivings were well-founded.
Curious about the international view on the elections (admittedly, this was the first I'd heard about them), I checked out both CNN and BBC for articles covering it. As usual, BBC has a whole series of pretty impartial articles about the elections and the country in general. CNN has one news story and one extremely anti-Ortega piece that should qualify more as op-ed than news.
The BBC's Duncan Kennedy, talking with Ortega's conservative opponent Eduardo Montealegre, quotes him as follows:
Or could it be ... that Raman ganked the quote from somewhere else, and somebody at CNN decided that trying to link bin Laden with Ortega was a little too ridiculous to be taken seriously, but, hmmm, what other bad guy can we use? Ooo, ooo, I know, how about Ahmadinejad? And just like that, the name gets changed. And rather than risk anyone, maybe even Montealegre himself, from protesting the incorrect quote, the speaker is simply referred to as "one of his opponents". Montealegre is the only one of the other four candidates who is believed to have any chance of winning - why wouldn't you mention him by name?
This feels like outright manipulation to me: manufacturing consent. Inserting a little barb that links, rightly or not, the evils of Islamic Iran and Sandinista Nicaragua. History, even very recent history, has shown quite convincingly that if you say something enough, people just start to assume it's true. And the American public has more than proven itself incapable of making informed decisions or paying undue attention to pesky facts, so why not throw that link in there?
Here's another interesting discrepancy. CNN's Raman writes "an estimated 70 percent of Nicaraguans want him nowhere near the presidency." The BBC's Kennedy writes that "Mr Ortega will be hoping for support from the 80% of Nicaraguans who live on at most $2 a day." Everyone agrees that Ortega's support comes overwhelmingly from the poor. So mathematically, how on earth is it possible that 80% of the population lives on $2 a day - the CIA's own World Factbook claims that 50% of the population lives below the poverty line - and yet somehow, 70% of the population is against Ortega? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
If CNN can try to pull this crap off, I shudder to think how Fox is demonizing Ortega right about now.
[By the way, guess who's leading the US's anti-Ortega campaign? None other than convicted felon Oliver North.]
After that article I read his "Rogue States", an excellent critique of this most misused term. I then went on to read "Necessary Illusions", "Understanding Power", and "The Chomsky Reader". Although I haven't read it, Chomsky makes many references to his earlier "Manufacturing Consent" in his later books, when he needs to refer to examples of willful media manipulation.
Inspired by a Nicaraguan roommate of a friend of Ladan's, we've decided to visit Nicaragua during Thanksgiving this year. After having bought plane tickets a month ago, we're having some trouble getting Ladan's visa processed and are considering canceling the trip if it doesn't work out. Today the friend mentioned that if Sandinista leader "El Comandante" Daniel Ortega wins the presidential election tomorrow, there is a slight chance that her family, who is apparently part of the very small elite business class who are vehemently against him, could face some "difficulties" in the near future. The bottom line is that we may be able to convince the airline to let us cancel the tickets due to "political unrest", which supposedly prevents them from penalizing us.
The irony here is that, based on what I've read about Ortega in the past, and on my general world outlook, I wholeheartedly support him becoming president. How can I not be behind a guy who proclaims, "The poor cannot wait and on November 5, they will bury savage capitalism in Nicaragua." When we first starting considering the trip, although I was excited about the prospect of staying with a family there, I was suspicious of their place within the society and whether, as their guests, we might be presented with a view of the country distorted by the proverbial rose-tinted glasses. And so it seems my misgivings were well-founded.
Curious about the international view on the elections (admittedly, this was the first I'd heard about them), I checked out both CNN and BBC for articles covering it. As usual, BBC has a whole series of pretty impartial articles about the elections and the country in general. CNN has one news story and one extremely anti-Ortega piece that should qualify more as op-ed than news.
The BBC's Duncan Kennedy, talking with Ortega's conservative opponent Eduardo Montealegre, quotes him as follows:
"Ortega hasn't changed," he says. "He still has the same friends like Castro, Gaddafi, Chavez and Bin Laden."Now check this out. CNN's Aneesh Raman writes:"Osama Bin Laden?" I ask.
"Yes," comes the unflinching reply. "Everyone knows it".
As one of his opponents told me, "Ortega hasn't changed, same man with the same politics. His friends haven't changed. He's friends of Castro, he's friends of Chavez, of the president of Iran."Wait, what the ... ? Surely Raman is talking about Montealegre here, right? What are the chances that this guy would feed the same few lines to two different reporters, apparently at different times, but say "the president of Iran" instead of "bin Laden" to the latter?
Or could it be ... that Raman ganked the quote from somewhere else, and somebody at CNN decided that trying to link bin Laden with Ortega was a little too ridiculous to be taken seriously, but, hmmm, what other bad guy can we use? Ooo, ooo, I know, how about Ahmadinejad? And just like that, the name gets changed. And rather than risk anyone, maybe even Montealegre himself, from protesting the incorrect quote, the speaker is simply referred to as "one of his opponents". Montealegre is the only one of the other four candidates who is believed to have any chance of winning - why wouldn't you mention him by name?
This feels like outright manipulation to me: manufacturing consent. Inserting a little barb that links, rightly or not, the evils of Islamic Iran and Sandinista Nicaragua. History, even very recent history, has shown quite convincingly that if you say something enough, people just start to assume it's true. And the American public has more than proven itself incapable of making informed decisions or paying undue attention to pesky facts, so why not throw that link in there?
Here's another interesting discrepancy. CNN's Raman writes "an estimated 70 percent of Nicaraguans want him nowhere near the presidency." The BBC's Kennedy writes that "Mr Ortega will be hoping for support from the 80% of Nicaraguans who live on at most $2 a day." Everyone agrees that Ortega's support comes overwhelmingly from the poor. So mathematically, how on earth is it possible that 80% of the population lives on $2 a day - the CIA's own World Factbook claims that 50% of the population lives below the poverty line - and yet somehow, 70% of the population is against Ortega? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
If CNN can try to pull this crap off, I shudder to think how Fox is demonizing Ortega right about now.
[By the way, guess who's leading the US's anti-Ortega campaign? None other than convicted felon Oliver North.]
posted by GregP at 11:31 PM
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Good point about the video accompanying the story - I didn't notice that. I suppose I went a bit overboard with the conspiracy theories, although I'd argue that this type of thing has happened enough before that it isn't out of the realm of possibility.
More than anything, though, I'd say that video casts even more doubt on Montealegre's credibility: claiming links between Ortega and Osama AND Ahmadinejad? How can he say that with a straight face? I'm sure even Oliver North hasn't made *that* ridiculous accusation yet.
Second, regarding the math, I don't see how you've disproven what I wrote. If 80% of the population is poor, and we assume (for lack of better data) that equal percentages of poor and non-poor voted, then 80% of the voters were from the poor classes and 20% from non-poor. Pretty much everyone agrees that almost no non-poor support Ortega. So if he got 38% of the vote, and that 38% (or at least the vast majority of it) came from the poor population, then doesn't that mean that roughly half of the poor voter population voted for him (38 of 80 percent)? That doesn't seem like a small portion to me.
"although I'd argue that this type of thing has happened enough before that it isn't out of the realm of possibility."
That's a total BS throw-in statement. You'd argue with no evidence? That sounds very Fox News to me.
You always go overboard with the conspiracies. Its way more likely that if there are mistakes, it more likely was just a mistake of poor writing, editing, and fact checking, not some media conspiracy.
"80% of Nicaraguans who live on at most $2 a day."
Is it possible this should read:
"of the Nicaraguans that live on $2 a day, he expects support from 80% of them"?
Also, aren't we just arguing about bad polling data in a thirdworld country, and not massive media conspiracy?
I'd urge you to read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" or "Necessary Illusions". He cites example upon example of media willfully avoiding certain stories, changing crucial details, etc. No, I don't believe there's some massive, all-consuming conspiracy going in at major media corporations; but I believe wholeheartedly that editors have biases, and are often urged to change their reporting based on government sensitivities.
Case in point: in 1986 Nicaragua accused the United States of terrorism for their support of the Contra rebels. The World Court ruled in their favor and ordered the US to immediately stop these activities and pay reparations to Nicaragua. The US refused. Nicaragua then went to the UN Security Council and sponsored a resolution calling on all member nations to obey international law rulings; the US alone vetoed it. The entire incident was almost completely ignored at the time in the US mainstream media, even though this was a major event.
His two books point out probably a hundred episodes like this.
Regarding the 80%/$2 question, no, I don't think it's at all possible that they meant what you suggested. That would have to have been a terrible editing job if "80% of those who earn $2 a day" changed to "the 80% who earn $2 a day".
Post a Comment
<< Home