A review by wellworn_soles
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman, Noam Chomsky

informative medium-paced

4.5

On this day in 1995, the Mexican government cancelled the peace proposal with indigenous Zapatista rebels and invaded their Chiapas strongholds following demands by an adviser to the US Chase Manhattan Bank that the government take action. A leaked memo from Chase bank stated, “While Chiapas, in our opinion, does not pose a fundamental threat to Mexican political stability, it is perceived to be so by many in the investment community. The government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy.” The memo went on to say that the governing party should “consider carefully whether or not to allow opposition victories if fairly won at the ballot box.” Source: https://anarchyinaction.org/index.php?title=Zapatista-run_Chiapas#cite_note-57

While the scandal was briefly touched upon in the media of the time, it was interestingly muted - focused on back pages and tucked behind larger headlines. When the story did take prominence, it was peculiarly focused on the individual writer of the memo, not asking questions about what could lead a Bank to allegedly encourage authoritarian suppression on sovereign citizens. 

This is the crux of Manufacturing Consent's thesis: the United States media serves to telescope the available items of discourse through either a) refusing to cover "uncomfortable" news; b) covering stories with downplayed language to deflect and mask the uncomfortable event(s); or c) blatantly disregards contrary evidence to encourage a U.S.-centric narrative. The clearest example for this is the extreme bias in the handling of atrocities from countries not aligned with the U.S. versus coverage of ally or client states. Genocide, political coups, and election rigging are called out in enemy nations, but in client states they are glossed over and forgotten. This serves to keep the populace uninformed and unable to form a strong body of accountability for the U.S. government/corporate apparatus. 

Here in 2023, the term "mainstream media" has been overused by right-wing pundits and conspiracy theorists to lambast anything that they feel is "too liberal". But Herman shows that much of this bias in reporting is not the result of evil cabals, but rather institutional and structural issues. Moneyed interests are not interested in spending money to make people question what they purchase and how companies work internationally. Nor are reporters often choosing this 'mainstream' path consciously. Much of the philosophic roots of this type of news is baked in; once you've grown up inside that limited scope, it is hard to even ask the right questions to break it.

This book is filled with ample evidence to show the disparity mentioned above, citing specific cases in South America and Southeast Asia specifically. A great companion piece to this would be White Malice which denotes the CIAs involvement in Africa about 25 years prior to this book. Many of the narratives struck down by this text are still generally assumed to be true today including the U.S.'s involvement in Vietnam, Laos, and Nicaragua. The biggest note for me was seeing how much this has continued to spin out of control in the last 30+ years since this book was initially published. Fears concerning the limited time given to news stories on television have only gotten worse since the late 80s, and the Internet has seen the rise of all sorts of "alternative news" sources - some with potential promise, and many with dangerous propensities toward extremism. 5 stars - and a definite to-own.