Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992)

User Rating:

8.1/10   

Directors:

Mark Achbar
Peter Wintonick

Release Date:

6 November 1992 (Australia)

Genre:

Documentary | War

Tagline:

A Primer In Intellectual Self-Defense

Plot:

A film about the noted American linguist/political dissident and his warning about corporate media's role in modern propaganda.

Plot Keywords:

Media | Propaganda | Chomsky | Analysis | East Timor

Awards:

4 wins

Cast

Mark Achbar	...	Himself - Interviewer
Noam Chomsky	...	Himself
Edward S. Herman	...	Himself

Runtime:

167 min

Country:

Australia | Finland | Norway | Canada

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White | Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

Australia:M

Filming Locations:

American University - 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

Company:

Humanist Broadcasting Foundation

Trivia:

For all the onscreen text - title cards, name and location information, etc. - all the letters 's' were converted to $ and all the letters 'c' were converted to ¢. This occurs not just in the end credits, but throughout the entire movie.

Quotes:

[first lines]
[title card: They who have put out the peoples eyes reproach them of their blindness. - John Milton, 1642. ]
EMTV video host: Three, two, one, take two. Good morning!... My name is Kevin Flook, and I'm your video host all day here at EMTV.

Movie Connections:

Referenced in The Corporation (2003)

Soundtrack:

People Get Ready

A fascinating, important, and eye-opening film

If you want to understand how the world works, watching this film won't do it for you. But it's a great place to start. I've read over ten of the prolific Chomsky's thirty-odd political works, and the movie "Manufacturing Consent" does a good job capturing the essence of the media analysis done by Chomsky (and frequent co-author Edward Herman), as well as giving insights into Chomsky's personality.

As Chomsky says in the movie, understanding the machinations of power in the world requires an "intellectual course of self-defense." You must first understand that the U.S. mainstream media are corporate entities, owned by larger corporate entities. They are businesses selling a product (viz., audiences) to a market (viz., advertisers) which consists of other businesses. Moreover, the media sellers and advertising buyers are looking for relatively privileged audiences who have more disposable income. There's not a conspiracy dictating how major media outlets operate -- it's just a natural concomitant of basic, structural market forces. These market forces shape the news product we see in mainstream media in predictable ways.

The movie gives examples drawn from Chomsky's (and Herman's) work demonstrating this. Chief among them are a comparison of the generous media coverage of atrocities in Cambodia, and the all-but-nonexistent coverage of atrocities in East Timor during essentially the same period of time in the 1970s. The difference between the two is that the killings in East Timor occurred with the generous support of the Ford and Carter administrations (and continuing to varying degrees through Reagan, Bush, and Clinton), while Cambodian atrocities occurred without U.S. support. Hence, one was the right story (Cambodia) and thus could be covered by U.S. media, while the wrong story (support by the U.S. of terror in East Timor) was dutifully ignored by the disciplined and pliant U.S. corporate media. The film continues to detail media propaganda in favor of official U.S. positions up through the Persian Gulf war.

To escape the thick fog of propaganda heaped upon the U.S. public on a daily basis, an understanding of Chomskyian media analysis and the mountains of evidence it's based upon is vital, in my opinion. But by itself, neither this film nor Chomsky's work generally is enough -- as Chomsky himself will tell you. You should seek out multiple people with noncommercial viewpoints, and preferably people with which to share ideas, if possible. A few possibilities are given by Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent," including Z Magazine and books published by South End Press. But this list is by no means exhaustive, as Chomsky notes.

As great as Chomsky is (and he is easily my single favorite political thinker), no one can be totally comprehensive in their work. Chomsky comes as close as anyone with whom I have first-hand experience, but even his great work has shortcomings. Chomsky doesn't delve deeply enough into the way economies (and especially economies whose method of allocation is market-based, as the U.S. economy is) function structurally, nor does he spend enough time doing fundamental class analysis. He also doesn't offer many specifics as to what he thinks a more just society might look like, keeping instead to broad generalizations.

But this is really picking nits. The depth and breadth of his work isn't even approached by anyone else, let alone equaled. Personally, I find Chomsky to be an invaluable resource to anyone who wants a serious understanding of the way our society functions. This movie is a great introduction to Chomskyian media analysis. A few points about the movie "Manufacturing Consent" (as well as the book of the same name by Chomsky and Herman, from which the film's title was taken) should be made though: As Chomsky has said on many occasions, many of the ideas expressed in both the book and film actually originated with Herman. If you look at the book, you'll note that Herman's name is listed first. For most of the books Chomsky and Herman co-author, Chomsky's name is listed first since "Chomsky" precedes "Herman" alphabetically. But Chomsky specifically wanted Herman's name first on the book, since so much of its material was actually Herman's.

Chomsky himself had nothing to do with the making of the movie "Manufacturing Consent" In fact, Chomsky's never watched the movie, nor will he, partly because, in his own words, "[N]o matter how much [filmmakers Wintonick and Achbar] try, and I'm sure they did try, the impression [the movie] gives, and I can tell that from the reviews, is the personalization of the issues . . . People say, 'How can I join your movement?' I know the filmmakers don't want to give that impression, but it's somehow implicit in the medium." Chomsky further says, "[I]f the impression is given that there's some leader or spokesman or something like that organizing, galvanizing things, that's absolutely the wrong lesson. The lesson there is follow your leader. The lesson ought to be: Take your life into your own hands." On a more personal level, Chomsky is simply uncomfortable seeing and hearing himself, and thinking about how he should have done certain things differently. But Chomsky knew the movie was being made, and gave his tacit permission despite his discomfort with the project. And he has acknowledged that, "It certainly energized a lot of people. I think did a tremendous amount of good just for East Timor alone and it's had a good impact in other respects."

Finally, this movie has a companion book with the same name as the movie (but not to be confused with the book by Herman and Chomsky). If you like the movie, the book is worth checking out also. It's a sort of transcript of the movie, with some fascinating additional material thrown in.

Star ratings don't do a movie like this justice, but on sheer filmmmaking acumen alone, it's definitely **** (out of ****). It's a must-see, whether you're a diehard Chomsky fan or have never even heard of him. I give it my highest recommendation. Prepare to have your eyes opened....