I had heard and read both good and bad material from Noam Chomsky on alternative media outlets. But since I knew he was a significant figure in critiquing the US media, I picked up his most famous work, Manufacturing Consent, written over a decade ago. I got off to a rough start with the introduction which went on and on about how the authors were going to present their "Propaganda Model". Basically they were saying that if the media were following a propaganda model, they would, in general, promote the government point view. I found it almost annoying, perhaps because I already know that the Media is the Establishment. Does anyone think that the controlling interests in media today, AOL Time Warner, Disney, and General Electric represent any a bastion of progressive or liberal views? What I would recommend is to skip both the introduction and the first chapter. Things do get better.
Chapter 2 starts the meat of the book with a comparison of coverage about the murder of two priests. The first was Polish priest and Solidarity activist Jerzy Popieluszko killed in 1984 by Polish Police. The second was Father Rutilio Grande by Guatemalan security forces in 1977. Chomsky's contention is that the media, in its effort to portray the official point of view, will talk up killings by an enemy (in this case the Soviet Union) and downplay killings by client states. The statistics on the number and content of the articles on both subjects bear this out. In fact the murder of this one Polish priest received more coverage in the US than the deaths of a hundred religious workers in Latin America. The murder of Popieluszko was portrayed as a symbol of the evil of the Soviet Union. Murders of priests by the government in El Salvador received little attention. One detail hardly covered at all in the press is that the Soviet-backed Polish state arrested, tried, and convicted the officers of murder. Grande's murder by US-backed forces remains unsolved.
The second major topic is the contrast in coverage of elections in Guatemala verses Nicaragua. There are some interesting points, such as the US media discussing how the high turnout at Guatemalan polls in 1982 and 84 was a sign of success, but not mentioning that the citizens were required to vote and could be arrested if their ID papers were not stamped at a voting booth. In addition, the main opposition group, the rebels, were not allowed on the ballot. When Nicaragua held elections, the US sent no observers but many other countries did. The US media ignored the reports of these observers and based its reporting on US government press releases.
In the last major topic, Chomsky takes on the notion that media coverage of the war in Vietnam contributed to the US "losing" the war. By surveying articles of the time, he found that in 62-67, articles were very pro war. Only months after the Tet Offensive did they take a different tact. Through the Pentagon Papers he shows that after Tet, Johnson's own advisors said the war could not be won outright, and the US should consider a political solution. Basically the media followed the administrations view of the war throughout the process, although it took them several months after Tet to catch up. Chomsky also talks about how most of the war took place in South Vietnam. That a large percentage of the bombings took place over South Vietnam and most use of chemical weapons (agent Orange) also took place in the South. One thing I've come away from reading book after book by soldiers who were in Vietnam, is that the Viet Cong (officially called the National Liberation Front) were everywhere. This backs up Chomsky's assertion that the majority of people in South Vietnam wanted a negotiated settlement, while the US insisted on a military victory. Personally I've come to realize that the US "lost" Vietnam because the majority of Vietnamese did not want a war. The only way to win would have been to slaughter the entire population. The cost of the US doing so was too high, so we withdrew.
Chomsky and Herman's last topic is an assertion that the killings by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia were exaggerated in the west. And that the actual numbers were comparable to deaths from the US bombing campaign prior to the Khmer rising to power. This I had trouble accepting at face value (at least the first part) and will have to research further.
Overall the book was interesting, although I still strongly encourage you to start at chapter 2. If the authors are right, you can expect the American media to portray Iraq just as the Bush administration wants.
