My first encounter with Noam Chomsky was through his theory of Manufacturing Consent and the Propaganda Model; the latter co-authored with Edward Herman, some months back. Though these ideas were formulated decades ago, it was somewhat radical for me. I felt like a fish in an aquarium that had been told: Think about the environment you are swimming in. There are pebbles and plants and a constant and sure supply of food; there is no lack. But the fish does not realise that it has been lulled into believing that the aquarium is its real home when it was meant for the ocean. It is living in a controlled environment and to a certain extent, is being manipulated for its owners' pleasures.
Though the film Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the media does not go in-depth into the theories that thrust Chomsky into the public spotlight, I enjoyed it because it revealed the heart behind the intellectual mind. In one segment, Chomsky shared his adolescence experience of not standing up for the underdogs, and how the shame stuck with him for a long time. It drove him to give up a comfortable academic career and symbols of a successful modern life to pursue what he believed to be right and moral.
The film revealed Chomsky to be a firm believer of partisan common sense – he believes that people have the ability to see through the deceit i.e. the techniques that the elites are using to manufacture content with a view of furthering their political and economic interests, and his theories are signposts towards greater awareness of such tactics. For Chomsky, the equanimity and detachment with which people can observe events like genocide made them as bad as, or worse, than dictators.
While the film was about Chomsky's work and had a pro-Chomsky slant, it also offered contrary perspectives of how his thoughts were ridiculed and put down by critics and other scholars. One such critic said such oppositional theories were "a fashion, a way of making intellectuals feel like they are a clergy, there has to be something wrong."
To a certain extent, a film like this is an example of what it was illustrating i.e. in any media product – and this film is certainly one such product – there are perspectives that the producers are trying to portray. These perspectives are never value-neutral; they have a function to inform and to persuade. One could argue that this film, like other media products, has a narrative to sell, albeit it deals with more controversial themes.
While I think Chomsky's perspectives certainly have value in helping me to see the world with a more critical lens, there are areas that I am unclear about. For instance, Chomsky speaks about societal transformation but does not paint an adequate picture of what that transformed society looks like – who are the actors, what are its structures etc. In the film, he speaks about the "dominant elites" in broad terms e.g. media, government, PR institutes but does not make the link between the individuals who run these organizations – their personal goals, interests and impulses – and how they collectively come together to drive a corporate motive.
When audiences asked Chomsky what they could do to fight against the dominant narrative and the system of indoctrination and convenient myths, Chomsky encouraged them to search for alternative sources of information vis-à-vis mainstream media and to cultivate an independent and inquiring mind. This is perhaps my greatest takeaway from the film – that it was important, essential to survival even, to question what has been said, think about what has not been said and the implications of what it means. And to ask: What can I affect to make a change and when necessary, being willing to swim upstream against the tide of popular conventions and beliefs, and to speak without fear or favour.
Though the film Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the media does not go in-depth into the theories that thrust Chomsky into the public spotlight, I enjoyed it because it revealed the heart behind the intellectual mind. In one segment, Chomsky shared his adolescence experience of not standing up for the underdogs, and how the shame stuck with him for a long time. It drove him to give up a comfortable academic career and symbols of a successful modern life to pursue what he believed to be right and moral.
The film revealed Chomsky to be a firm believer of partisan common sense – he believes that people have the ability to see through the deceit i.e. the techniques that the elites are using to manufacture content with a view of furthering their political and economic interests, and his theories are signposts towards greater awareness of such tactics. For Chomsky, the equanimity and detachment with which people can observe events like genocide made them as bad as, or worse, than dictators.
While the film was about Chomsky's work and had a pro-Chomsky slant, it also offered contrary perspectives of how his thoughts were ridiculed and put down by critics and other scholars. One such critic said such oppositional theories were "a fashion, a way of making intellectuals feel like they are a clergy, there has to be something wrong."
To a certain extent, a film like this is an example of what it was illustrating i.e. in any media product – and this film is certainly one such product – there are perspectives that the producers are trying to portray. These perspectives are never value-neutral; they have a function to inform and to persuade. One could argue that this film, like other media products, has a narrative to sell, albeit it deals with more controversial themes.
While I think Chomsky's perspectives certainly have value in helping me to see the world with a more critical lens, there are areas that I am unclear about. For instance, Chomsky speaks about societal transformation but does not paint an adequate picture of what that transformed society looks like – who are the actors, what are its structures etc. In the film, he speaks about the "dominant elites" in broad terms e.g. media, government, PR institutes but does not make the link between the individuals who run these organizations – their personal goals, interests and impulses – and how they collectively come together to drive a corporate motive.
When audiences asked Chomsky what they could do to fight against the dominant narrative and the system of indoctrination and convenient myths, Chomsky encouraged them to search for alternative sources of information vis-à-vis mainstream media and to cultivate an independent and inquiring mind. This is perhaps my greatest takeaway from the film – that it was important, essential to survival even, to question what has been said, think about what has not been said and the implications of what it means. And to ask: What can I affect to make a change and when necessary, being willing to swim upstream against the tide of popular conventions and beliefs, and to speak without fear or favour.