Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky

Manufacturing Consent
2 hr 47 min 37 sec - Mar 27, 2007
Average rating: (208 ratings)

The classic Canadian documentary Manufacturing Consent based on the Noam Chomsky/Edward Herman book by the same name. Explores the propaganda model of the media.

Noam Chomsky... Well, to be honest, this is not a person that I claim to know much about. Nevertheless, his work came up during the course of my research.

It would seem that everybody has an opinion about Noam - much as is the case with David Ickie. In other words, some bits of his will be good - some not so kosher. However, ultimately he has made a number of really good observations and these resonated with many people.

The reason I like this movie is because it is a classic with a lot of excellent points about media bias and the way our minds are shaped by those in power. By now, you have probably noticed that these sorts of issues are the prevailing theme in my blog.

The reason to like it slightly less is the dryness. There are plenty of excellent moments - but at times, they do get repetitive. Nevertheless, the content is spot on and really enlightening as to the true nature of modern propaganda.

Do yourself a favour and make an honest effort to see this one. It is filled with juicy excerpts from newsmedia and various public talks.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia regarding the documentary:

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992) is a documentary film that explores the political life and ideas of Noam Chomsky, a linguist, intellectual, and political activist. Created by two Canadian independent filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, it expands on the ideas of Chomsky's earlier book, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, which he co-wrote with Edward S. Herman.

The film presents and illustrates Chomsky's and Herman's propaganda model, the thesis that corporate media, as profit-driven institutions, tend to serve and further the agendas of the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society. A centerpiece of the film is a long examination into the history of The New York Times's coverage of Indonesia's invasion and occupation of East Timor, which Chomsky claims exemplifies the media's unwillingness to criticize an ally.

Until the release of The Corporation (2003), made by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott and Joel Bakan, it was the most successful documentary in Canadian history, playing theatrically in over 300 cities around the world; winning 22 awards; appearing in more than 50 international film festivals; and being broadcast in over 30 markets. It has also been translated into a dozen languages.

Chomsky's response to the film was mixed;

in a published conversation with Achbar and several activists, he stated that film simply doesn't communicate his message, leading people to believe that he is the leader of some movement that they should join.

In the same conversation, he criticizes the New York Times review of the film, which mistakes his message for being a call for voter organizing rather than media critique.


Added 12 April 2008

And so the video has made the rounds around the Internet. In fact, Manufacturing Consent has caused quite a stir. Except, the controversy never really focused on the topic at hand but the credibility of Chomsky and his associates. Again.

It's different this time though, Noam. Now it's the Truth movement turning against you and beginning to question your credibility. It's questioning your selective attention to the Facts.

When this post was first released back in October 2007, I claimed not to know very much about Noam Chomsky and what he represented. I also complained about the dryness of his approach. I still stand by that.

Of course, this could be a result of slight mental retardation on my behalf - after all, lots of people love his stuff. And lots of people seek out pages about him, including this one.

So why on Earth, would I bother to flap my wings about it? Well, obviously, not all of it is crap. In fact, there is a lot of good content in the movie. Hell, nowadays you tend to grasp at straws when it comes to Seeking the Truth.

Not very many people say anything at all about the current state of planetary affairs. You kind of have to put on a good pair of weeding gloves, validate everything, explore multiple sources - and eventually, you would hope that everything falls into place.

Except, with Chomsky - you will get a good dose of the standard set of "issues" and then he refuses to go any further with that. The 9/11 inside job is a good example - it is inconceivable in his opinion that there could be a problem with the involvement of Neocons.

What an odd thing to say...

And so now it is coming back to bite Mr. Chomsky in the proverbial behind. Of course, this is not a criticism of the movie as presented to the audience. It's about Complicity with Evil.

If you are selective about Truth and then present it in a way that serves your own agenda - you are guilty of spreading Lies.

In conclusion, allow me to quote from one particularly interesting source, followed by some more research material.

Where Noam will not roam:
Chomsky manufactures consent, supports the official stories of 9/11 and JFK

"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."
- Noam Chomsky

"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11.

At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc

Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps he could visit them and learn why it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be.

The truth is that Chomsky is very good in his analysis within certain parameters of limited debate -- but in understanding the "deep politics" of the actual, secret government, his analysis falls short.

Chomsky is good at explaining the double standards in US foreign policies - but at this point understanding / exposing the mechanics of the deceptions (9/11 isn't the only one) the reasons for it (Peak Oil / global dominance / domestic fascism) and what we can do (war crimes trials / permaculture to relocalize food production / paradigm shifts) is more important than more repetition from Chomsky.

Professor Chomsky was apparently part of a study group in the late 1960s that was investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront.

Maybe Chomsky gets more media attention these days than most other dissidents BECAUSE he urges people not to inquire into how the secret government operates.



Noam Chomsky Debunks 9/11 and JFK Murder


hy·poc·ri·sy (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
  1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
  2. An act or instance of such falseness.

[Middle English ipocrisie,
from Old French,
from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense,
from Greek hupokrisis,
from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krnesthai, to explain,
middle voice of krnein, to decide, judge;
see krei- in Indo-European roots.]











No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)