For those who take a particular interest in media and communications issues, Noam Chomsky may not be an unfamiliar name. "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" is a documentary that takes a long, serious look at Chomsky's thoughts about the mass media in the US, especially those ideas that were eventually reflected in the seminal book he co-authored with Edward S. Herman. Through a mish-mash of interviews and news footage about real events, Chomsky talks about the Propaganda Theory, giving examples and explaining the role of the mass media in imposing, in the words of the man himself, "necessary illusions ... on the stupid majority" so as to maintain the special interests of an elite group. He brings in several ideas, such as how the media is owned by a specific group of people and conglomerates.
What was especially intriguing for me was the detailed example that Chomsky gave about the US media coverage of the atrocities that took place in Cambodia and East Timor separately in the 1970s. In juxtaposing the different types and amounts of media coverage of the two events, he argued how the interests of particular groups in the US came into influencing how much people knew and what they knew about the situations in the two countries. Could Chomsky be right about this? Or is there something else that we do not know about?
It is quite obvious that the ideas that Chomsky espoused in the documentary are important, and they do serve to push people to critically consider the media-saturated world that we live in. However, I wonder if it is simply too easy to blame the mass media for being specially motivated to get involved in agenda setting. After all, there is a very real limitation on resources, even for major media organisations like The New York Times - there is no way that a 10,000-page paper can be printed day to day. There will be, and there must be, editorial selections and cuts: some information will be in while some will be left out.
Moreover, it may be too simplistic to think that readers cannot think for themselves. This is even truer in today's context, when the number of alternative media and social media is growing steadily everyday. With this range of issues and perspectives reported, people have the freedom to pick up new topics and ideas and, as a result, form opinions of their own.
As it is, the great thing about Chomsky's ideas are that they remind us that nothing is truly objective and simple. Thus, they also remind us to be media literate and to probe into the media that we encounter daily.
Overall, the documentary is an insightful, detailed film about Chomsky's thought processes and the Propaganda Theory. However, there are a few sections in the film that can get rather repetitive; running at almost 3 hours long, this documentary would probably best suit those who are eager to better understand "Manufacturing Consent" and the man behind the book.
What was especially intriguing for me was the detailed example that Chomsky gave about the US media coverage of the atrocities that took place in Cambodia and East Timor separately in the 1970s. In juxtaposing the different types and amounts of media coverage of the two events, he argued how the interests of particular groups in the US came into influencing how much people knew and what they knew about the situations in the two countries. Could Chomsky be right about this? Or is there something else that we do not know about?
It is quite obvious that the ideas that Chomsky espoused in the documentary are important, and they do serve to push people to critically consider the media-saturated world that we live in. However, I wonder if it is simply too easy to blame the mass media for being specially motivated to get involved in agenda setting. After all, there is a very real limitation on resources, even for major media organisations like The New York Times - there is no way that a 10,000-page paper can be printed day to day. There will be, and there must be, editorial selections and cuts: some information will be in while some will be left out.
Moreover, it may be too simplistic to think that readers cannot think for themselves. This is even truer in today's context, when the number of alternative media and social media is growing steadily everyday. With this range of issues and perspectives reported, people have the freedom to pick up new topics and ideas and, as a result, form opinions of their own.
As it is, the great thing about Chomsky's ideas are that they remind us that nothing is truly objective and simple. Thus, they also remind us to be media literate and to probe into the media that we encounter daily.
Overall, the documentary is an insightful, detailed film about Chomsky's thought processes and the Propaganda Theory. However, there are a few sections in the film that can get rather repetitive; running at almost 3 hours long, this documentary would probably best suit those who are eager to better understand "Manufacturing Consent" and the man behind the book.