Manufacturing Consent in the modern media landscape
Introduction
When Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman published Manufacturing Consent in 1988, they argued that media in liberal democracies do not function as neutral watchdogs, but rather as powerful institutions that shape public opinion in line with elite interests.
The “propaganda model” they outlined is still strikingly relevant today – perhaps even more so in the age of 24/7 news cycles, social media platforms, and information wars.
The 5 Filters of the Propaganda Model
Chomsky and Herman describe five structural “filters” that determine what becomes mainstream news:
- Ownership – Media outlets are large corporations, often part of even bigger conglomerates. Profit and shareholder interests shape editorial lines.
- Advertising – Audiences are not the real customers; advertisers are. Content that threatens advertising revenue rarely sees daylight.
- Sourcing – Journalists rely heavily on official sources (governments, corporations, think tanks). Those who control access control the narrative.
- Flak – Organized backlash (lawsuits, PR campaigns, smear tactics) disciplines journalists and outlets that deviate from the consensus.
- Ideology – During the Cold War, anti-communism; today, frames like “War on Terror” or “defending democracy” fill this role.
Anti-communism as a tool
A deeply related construction in Western media during the Cold War was the Red Scare: an intense anti-communist narrative that framed geopolitics in absolute moral dichotomies.
The West was portrayed as the realm of freedom, democracy, and prosperity, while communism was depicted as inherently brutal, totalitarian, and barbaric.
This ideological filter simplified a complex world into a binary struggle: good versus evil.
It provided the moral justification for U.S. interventions, coups, and wars in places like Vietnam, Guatemala, or Chile – while ensuring that atrocities committed by “our side” were minimized or ignored.
Although the Cold War has ended, this logic of dichotomization did not vanish. Today, the ideological filter often reappears in the form of the “War on Terror,” or in the framing of rising powers such as China and Russia as existential threats to the Western order.
The strategy of reducing complex issues to simple binaries is still widely applied in politics, ideology, and public discourse. Topics such as the climate crisis, contemporary wars, or social debates are often presented in stark opposites. This approach is highly effective in mobilizing support: by lowering the cognitive threshold, it allows more people to join discussions that would otherwise be too complex. The recruiting of such “repeaters” further amplifies the narrative, as individuals reproduce slogans and claims without engaging in critical or independent inquiry, sometimes not even for a single day.
Worthy vs. Unworthy Victims: another tool
One of the book’s most striking observations is the distinction between “worthy” and “unworthy” victims. U.S. mass media, according to Herman and Chomsky, consistently grants disproportionate attention to victims whose suffering aligns with elite interests. These worthy victims are highlighted to manufacture public sympathy and to legitimize foreign policy decisions.
Crucially, the authors emphasize that these victims do indeed deserve recognition. The problem lies not in their coverage, but in the stark asymmetry that emerges when compared with the treatment of unworthy victims: those who suffer under U.S.-backed regimes or allied powers. Their stories are often minimized, sidelined, or ignored altogether, precisely because they do not serve any useful function in shaping the public agenda or framing the narrative in ways favorable to U.S. policy.
This asymmetry illustrates how media do not simply report facts, but select and amplify certain realities while suppressing others — a process that powerfully shapes public perception of who deserves empathy and who remains invisible.
Two prime examples from the book
- Vietnam vs. Cambodia
- Coverage of atrocities committed by official enemies (Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge) was intense, while equally devastating U.S. bombing campaigns in Indochina received far less scrutiny.
- Central America (1980s)
- Atrocities committed by U.S.-backed regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala were downplayed, while crimes in Nicaragua (under the Sandinistas) were heavily amplified.
Modern information wars
The modern era of information wars offers new channels of distribution, one of the most pervasive being social media, which is integrated into the daily routines of almost every young person and accessed multiple times a day.
While the fundamental strategies described in Manufacturing Consent have not changed substantially, the tools used to implement them have evolved dramatically.
Where mass media in the late 20th century operated like blunt instruments — broadcasting uniform narratives to entire populations — today’s algorithm-driven platforms act more like surgical tools: tailoring content, micro-targeting specific groups, and reinforcing engagement through personalized feeds.
This transformation does not replace the propaganda model but rather enhances its precision. Consent is still manufactured, but now with data analytics, recommendation systems, and targeted campaigns that can influence individuals on a far more granular level than ever before.
Conclusion
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion,
but allow very lively debate within that spectrum—even encourage the more critical and dissident views.
That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions
of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.”
— Noam Chomsky
I highly recommend reading this book, as it deepens the understanding of how our perception of reality is shaped by the channels of information we consume. It serves as a training ground to recognize patterns, to question dominant narratives, and to reflect on personal beliefs that have — without doubt — been at least partly shaped by such institutions.