This docu-film is an adaption from the book which he co-authored with Edward Herman in 1988. In the book and also in this 167 minute film, Noam Chomsky analyses the mainstream media and provides evidence that the information provided merely transmitted the views of the elites or the government in the country (in this context, the United States of America).
Manufacturing Consent is divided into two parts with the first explaining and providing evidence of Noam Chomsky's theories that "thought control" exists even in the "democratic society". He believed that the mainstream media such as the national press and the television has been used as a propaganda tool to control (and seek subconscious consent of) masses in a democratic society; in a fashion similar to how violence has been used as the tool in a dictatorship.
I have never viewed the media as a tool used to shape our opinion, but after watching this film, I began to realise that there are always many sides to information; with the side presented to us being aligned to a certain agenda through possible manipulation or omission of facts. Noam Chomsky called this, "all the news that is fit to print". Throughout the film, the viewer has been constantly challenged by Naom Chomsky to critically review all mainstream media and reflect if the information presented are the complete facts or otherwise. In my opinion, this is a main draw to continue watching.
Naom Chomsky supported his opinion with the example of how two similar events (atrocities in East Timor and Cambodia) happening at the same point of time has been given significantly different coverage by the mainstream media. He theorised that this is due to agenda setting by the media driven by political and economic interests of the elites in the society.
Part two of the film presents the various debates and opposing opinions that Naom Chomsky has been exposed to. Chomsky's criticism of the media was not welcomed by many; Manufacturing Consent effectively shows the skepticism many have towards him through video footages of events such as conferences and media interviews Chomsky attended. In my opinion, this part is interesting as it shows how Noam Chomsky argues his point of view and provides examples in support of his theories.
Although the film is interesting to watch, it seems, in my opinion, to be a carefully wrapped package used by Noam Chomsky to promote his values system and opinions in addition to informing audiences of how the media construct versions of reality. It seems ironical to see the film edited in such a way to show more of Noam Chomsky's opinions of the media, his seemingly intellectual responses to the debates and calm-logical demeanour; rather than choosing a more balanced standpoint by providing more clarity about the oppositions he received and allowing the audiences to judge for themselves. People who opposed his opinions seemed to be portrayed either as less intellectual or unreasonable through video editing of the complete conversations or screening of their rowdy behaviours.
Moreover, a portion of the film is dedicated to the controversy of a French intellectual Robert Faurison, who was suspended from his university for his opinions that there are no Nazi death camps in WWII. Noam Chomsky has been accused of supporting Faurison's opinions which Chomsky denies, citing that he only supports the freedom of speech. This is where I feel the film has been used to stress his innocence.
The internet and social media have opened increasingly more avenues for dissemination of thoughts and alternative view points. Moreover, with the ease of transmitting information, each and every netizen is now a broadcaster. However, the propaganda model remains relevant to the mainstream media as presently such thoughts and alternative viewpoints only remains within the social media.
Manufacturing Consent is divided into two parts with the first explaining and providing evidence of Noam Chomsky's theories that "thought control" exists even in the "democratic society". He believed that the mainstream media such as the national press and the television has been used as a propaganda tool to control (and seek subconscious consent of) masses in a democratic society; in a fashion similar to how violence has been used as the tool in a dictatorship.
I have never viewed the media as a tool used to shape our opinion, but after watching this film, I began to realise that there are always many sides to information; with the side presented to us being aligned to a certain agenda through possible manipulation or omission of facts. Noam Chomsky called this, "all the news that is fit to print". Throughout the film, the viewer has been constantly challenged by Naom Chomsky to critically review all mainstream media and reflect if the information presented are the complete facts or otherwise. In my opinion, this is a main draw to continue watching.
Naom Chomsky supported his opinion with the example of how two similar events (atrocities in East Timor and Cambodia) happening at the same point of time has been given significantly different coverage by the mainstream media. He theorised that this is due to agenda setting by the media driven by political and economic interests of the elites in the society.
Part two of the film presents the various debates and opposing opinions that Naom Chomsky has been exposed to. Chomsky's criticism of the media was not welcomed by many; Manufacturing Consent effectively shows the skepticism many have towards him through video footages of events such as conferences and media interviews Chomsky attended. In my opinion, this part is interesting as it shows how Noam Chomsky argues his point of view and provides examples in support of his theories.
Although the film is interesting to watch, it seems, in my opinion, to be a carefully wrapped package used by Noam Chomsky to promote his values system and opinions in addition to informing audiences of how the media construct versions of reality. It seems ironical to see the film edited in such a way to show more of Noam Chomsky's opinions of the media, his seemingly intellectual responses to the debates and calm-logical demeanour; rather than choosing a more balanced standpoint by providing more clarity about the oppositions he received and allowing the audiences to judge for themselves. People who opposed his opinions seemed to be portrayed either as less intellectual or unreasonable through video editing of the complete conversations or screening of their rowdy behaviours.
Moreover, a portion of the film is dedicated to the controversy of a French intellectual Robert Faurison, who was suspended from his university for his opinions that there are no Nazi death camps in WWII. Noam Chomsky has been accused of supporting Faurison's opinions which Chomsky denies, citing that he only supports the freedom of speech. This is where I feel the film has been used to stress his innocence.
The internet and social media have opened increasingly more avenues for dissemination of thoughts and alternative view points. Moreover, with the ease of transmitting information, each and every netizen is now a broadcaster. However, the propaganda model remains relevant to the mainstream media as presently such thoughts and alternative viewpoints only remains within the social media.