Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman’s Manufacturing Consent (1988) introduced the “propaganda model” to explain how mass media serves elite interests by filtering information through mechanisms like ownership, funding, and ideological constraints. This framework remains crucial in analyzing how media operates in contemporary society. From social media algorithms to corporate-owned news outlets, the dynamics of consent manufacturing have evolved but persist in shaping public discourse. This essay explores these ideas through modern examples of media and communication.
Algorithms and the Ownership Filter
Ownership, one of the original filters, is reflected today in the algorithms that govern digital media. Social media platforms like Facebook and TikTok, owned by profit-driven corporations, prioritize engagement to maximize advertising revenue. This economic incentive shapes what users see, often amplifying sensational or divisive content.
For instance, during the 2020 U.S. presidential election, platforms like Facebook were criticized for allowing misinformation and partisan content to dominate feeds. Algorithms boosted polarizing material because such content generated higher user interaction. By privileging profitability over factual accuracy, these platforms act as modern gatekeepers, subtly shaping public discourse and reinforcing existing power structures (Hao, 2021). This phenomenon reflects how ownership impacts not just what information is shared but also how it is framed and consumed.
Online Flak: A New Form of Silencing
The concept of flak—negative responses aimed at discrediting dissenters—has intensified in the digital era. Journalists, activists, and independent thinkers now face online harassment campaigns that discourage dissent and independent reporting.
A vivid example is the coordinated trolling faced by journalists covering sensitive issues like environmental degradation or political corruption. These attacks often involve bots or paid campaigns designed to intimidate and discredit critics. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, investigative reporters uncovering corporate misconduct faced waves of online harassment that undermined their credibility and stifled their voices (Bradshaw & Howard, 2019). This contemporary form of flak ensures that dissent remains marginalized, aligning with Chomsky and Herman’s argument that dissenting narratives face systemic suppression.
Ideology in Media: The Evolution of Filters
In the original propaganda model, anti-communism served as a key ideological filter. In modern times, this has morphed into broader ideological campaigns, such as anti-environmentalism or the backlash against so-called “woke culture.”
One example is the portrayal of climate activism. Figures like Greta Thunberg and organizations like Extinction Rebellion are often framed by certain media outlets as extremists or threats to social order. Such coverage delegitimizes their calls for systemic change, diverting attention from urgent issues like climate policy failures (Boykoff & Boykoff, 2007). This shift in ideological filters underscores how media adapts to contemporary power dynamics, maintaining narratives that support elite interests while marginalizing dissent.
Media Consolidation and Framing Bias
Ownership concentration remains a powerful filter in today’s media environment. A few conglomerates control the majority of mainstream media, enabling them to influence narratives in ways that align with corporate and political interests.
For example, the 2023 Hollywood writers’ strike was framed by corporate-owned media in terms of inconvenience to viewers rather than as a fight for fair labor rights. This narrative downplayed workers’ grievances, focusing instead on the economic disruptions caused by the strike (Lobato, 2023). Such framing exemplifies how ownership shapes public understanding of labor disputes, subtly reinforcing pro-corporate perspectives.
The principles outlined in Manufacturing Consent remain crucial for analyzing how modern media operates. Whether through algorithmic curation, digital harassment, ideological framing, or media consolidation, the mechanisms of manufacturing consent have adapted to new technologies while maintaining their core function: to serve elite interests. By critically engaging with these dynamics, we can better navigate a media landscape that continues to shape public perception in powerful ways.
References:
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2007). Climate change and journalistic norms: A case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum, 38(6), 1190-1204.
Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2019). The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organized social media manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute.Hao, K. (2021). How Facebook got addicted to spreading misinformation. MIT Technology Review.
Lobato, R. (2023). Media and labor strikes: Ownership, framing, and public perception. Journal of Media Studies, 35(2), 145-160.
