Manufacturing Consent

1. The Propaganda Model: Media as a System of Elite Control

The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace.

Systemic propaganda. The authors propose a "Propaganda Model" to explain how mass media, despite appearing independent, function to "mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity." This model argues that media choices, emphases, and omissions are best understood by analyzing them through the lens of power dynamics. It suggests that in societies with concentrated wealth, media naturally serve the powerful interests that control and finance them, shaping public opinion without overt censorship.

Filters of influence. The model identifies five "filters" that systematically bias news coverage:

• Ownership and profit orientation of media firms.
• Advertising as the primary revenue source.
• Reliance on official and "expert" sources.
• "Flak" as a means of disciplining media.
• Dominant ideologies, such as anticommunism.
  These filters interact, ensuring that news aligns with elite agendas, marginalizing dissent, and allowing powerful interests to convey their messages effectively.

Natural conformity. Media personnel, often acting with integrity, internalize these constraints, leading to self-censorship and a belief in their own objectivity. The system's power is so fundamental that alternative news choices are often unimaginable. This macro-level analysis reveals patterns of manipulation and systematic bias that are not apparent from a story-by-story examination.

2. Filter 1: Ownership, Profit, and Corporate Integration

The dominant media firms are quite large businesses; they are controlled by very wealthy people or by managers who are subject to sharp constraints by owners and other market-profit–oriented forces; and they are closely interlocked, and have important common interests, with other major corporations, banks, and government.

Concentrated ownership. The first filter highlights that major media outlets are large, profit-seeking corporations, often controlled by wealthy individuals or subject to intense market pressures. Historically, rising capital costs in media enterprise, from the 19th century onward, have limited ownership to the affluent, a trend that has intensified with media centralization and conglomeration. For example, in 1990, 23 firms dominated most mass media, a number that further shrank to nine transnational conglomerates by the early 2000s.

Interlocking interests. These media giants are deeply integrated into the broader corporate and financial system through:

• Boards of directors composed of corporate executives and bankers.
• Dependence on commercial and investment bankers for credit and financial services.
• Significant stock ownership by institutional investors.
  This integration ensures that media policy aligns with the interests of the corporate community.

Government ties. Media companies also rely on government for licenses, policy support, and a favorable business climate. Large, diversified corporations like General Electric (owner of NBC) and Westinghouse (owner of Group W) have extensive international reach and stakes in controversial areas like weapons production and nuclear power, creating a symbiotic relationship where media policy is carefully aligned with government interests.

3. Filter 2: Advertising's Dominance and Influence on Content

Indeed, the eclipse of the national radical press was so total that when the Labour Party developed out of the working-class movement in the first decade of the twentieth century, it did not obtain the exclusive backing of a single national daily or Sunday paper.

Advertising as a "license." Advertising serves as a powerful mechanism that shapes media content and viability. Historically, papers attracting ads could afford lower copy prices, disadvantaging those reliant solely on sales revenue. This "de facto licensing authority" means advertisers' choices significantly influence media prosperity and survival, often marginalizing working-class or radical publications whose audiences may not be attractive to advertisers.

Audience "quality." Media outlets prioritize attracting affluent audiences with buying power, not just large audiences. This focus on "audience quality" means that programs or content that might alienate advertisers or disrupt the "buying mood" are avoided. For example, corporate advertisers rarely sponsor programs that critically examine corporate activities or environmental degradation.

Content homogenization. The need to appeal to advertisers leads to a preference for light entertainment over serious, complex, or controversial public affairs content. This commercial imperative, intensified by market pressures and deregulation, results in a gradual marginalization or elimination of programming that challenges the status quo. This process ensures that media content remains within acceptable ideological boundaries, reinforcing the commercial and political values favored by advertisers.

4. Filter 3: Sourcing Bias Towards Official and Powerful Interests

Government and corporate sources also have the great merit of being recognizable and credible by their status and prestige.

Symbiotic relationship. Mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful information sources due to economic necessity and mutual interest. Media outlets require a steady, reliable flow of news to meet daily demands and schedules, and cannot afford to have reporters everywhere. Consequently, they concentrate resources where significant news often originates: government agencies, major corporations, and trade groups.

Credibility and cost. Official and corporate sources are deemed credible due to their status and prestige, which is crucial for media outlets aiming for "objectivity" and protection from libel suits. Relying on these sources reduces investigative costs, whereas material from less credible or critical sources requires extensive, costly verification. For example, the Pentagon's vast public information services, with thousands of employees and millions in spending, dwarf the resources of any dissenting group, ensuring privileged access and influence.

"Co-opting the experts." The dominance of official sources is further reinforced by the co-optation of "experts." Governments and corporations fund research, hire consultants, and establish think tanks to produce and disseminate messages that align with their interests. This creates a skewed supply of experts who confirm official narratives, marginalizing independent voices. For instance, a study of the "McNeil-Lehrer News Hour" showed that over half of its experts on terrorism and defense were current or former government officials, with a significant portion from conservative think tanks.

5. Filter 4: "Flak" as a Disciplinary Mechanism for Media

If flak is produced on a large scale, or by individuals or groups with substantial resources, it can be both uncomfortable and costly to the media.

Negative responses. "Flak" refers to negative responses to media content, ranging from letters and phone calls to lawsuits and advertiser withdrawals. This pressure can be costly and uncomfortable for media organizations, forcing them to defend their positions and potentially lose advertising revenue. The prospect of flak acts as a deterrent against reporting that challenges powerful interests.

Power-driven flak. The ability to generate significant flak is directly related to power. Powerful entities, including government and corporations, can exert direct pressure through complaints or threats. They also work indirectly by funding right-wing monitoring groups and think tanks specifically designed to attack media perceived as deviating from the corporate agenda. For example, organizations like Accuracy in Media (AIM) and the Media Institute are organized to produce flak, harassing media outlets for insufficient patriotism or criticism of corporate activities.

Media's complicity. Despite being targets of these flak machines, mainstream media often treat them respectfully, publishing their diatribes and giving their spokespersons platforms as "experts." This reflects the power of the sponsors and the entrenched position of the right wing within the media landscape. This dynamic reinforces political authority and ensures that media content largely conforms to the established line, even when it means suppressing inconvenient facts or alternative viewpoints.

6. Filter 5: Dominant Ideologies (e.g., Anticommunism) as Control

Communism as the ultimate evil has always been the specter haunting property owners, as it threatens the very root of their class position and superior status.

Ideological control. A final, powerful filter is the dominant ideology, historically anticommunism. This ideology mobilizes the populace against a perceived enemy, and its fuzzy nature allows it to be deployed against anyone advocating policies that threaten property interests or support radicalism. It serves as a political-control mechanism, fragmenting left and labor movements and rationalizing support for authoritarian regimes abroad as a "lesser evil."

Shaping discourse. Anticommunism profoundly influences mass media by framing issues in terms of a dichotomized world of Communist versus anti-Communist powers. Gains and losses are allocated to contesting sides, and supporting "our side" is considered legitimate news practice. This ideology ensures that debate remains within acceptable bounds, excluding views that challenge fundamental premises.

Charlatans as experts. When anti-Communist fervor is aroused, the demand for serious evidence is suspended, allowing charlatans and opportunists to thrive as "experts." Defectors and ex-radicals, whose previous work was often ignored, are elevated to prominence if they align with the anti-Communist narrative. This process provides a steady supply of voices that reinforce establishment views, further solidifying ideological control over media content.

7. Worthy vs. Unworthy Victims: A Politicized Double Standard

A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemy states as worthy victims, whereas those treated with equal or greater severity by its own government or clients will be unworthy.

Selective outrage. The media's definition of a "worthy" victim is highly political, aligning with state interests. Victims in enemy states receive intense, indignant coverage, while those suffering equal or worse atrocities at the hands of the U.S. or its allies are deemed "unworthy" and largely ignored. This double standard is crucial for mobilizing public support against enemies and allowing U.S. policies to proceed unburdened by inconvenient moral concerns.

Case in point: Popieluszko vs. Latin American religious. The murder of Polish priest Jerzy Popieluszko by Polish police in 1984 received massive, emotional coverage in the U.S. media, including ten front-page articles in the New York Times. In stark contrast, the aggregate of one hundred religious figures murdered in U.S. client states in Latin America, including Archbishop Oscar Romero and four American churchwomen, received significantly less attention.

• Popieluszko's murder was detailed with gory specifics, repeated frequently, and accompanied by expressions of outrage and demands for justice, with questions raised about high-level responsibility.
• The murders of Latin American religious figures were reported concisely, with minimal emotional impact, and without sustained demands for justice or inquiries into high-level complicity.
• The New York Times published three editorials condemning the Polish state for Popieluszko's murder but none for the murderers of the unworthy victims.

Geographic and national bias. This bias is not due to distance or cultural unfamiliarity; Poland is farther than Central America, and even American victims in El Salvador received less attention than Popieluszko. The media's selective focus and framing serve to demonize enemy states while protecting U.S. allies, illustrating an "extremely effective propaganda system."

8. Elections: Legitimizing Allies, Delegitimizing Enemies

The U.S. government therefore went to great pains to cast the Nicaraguan election in an unfavorable light.

Dichotomous treatment. The propaganda model predicts that media will legitimize elections in friendly client states, regardless of facts, while discrediting those in disfavored or enemy countries. This was evident in the coverage of elections in El Salvador (1982, 1984) and Guatemala (1984-85) versus Nicaragua (1984). The former were portrayed as steps toward democracy, while the latter was deemed a "sham."

Client-state elections: Superficiality and suppression. In U.S.-sponsored elections, media focus on superficialities like voter turnout, long lines, and candidate personalities, while suppressing critical context:

• El Salvador/Guatemala: Elections were held amidst severe state terror, mass killings, and legally mandated voting. The media ignored these conditions, the exclusion of opposition parties, and the lack of genuine peace candidates. The army was portrayed as "protecting" elections, and high turnout was celebrated as a triumph of democracy.
• Example: The New York Times heavily featured rebel disruption claims in El Salvador, despite no evidence, to frame the election as a struggle between democracy and anti-democratic forces.

Enemy-state elections: Scrutiny and denigration. For disfavored states, the media reverse their standards, scrutinizing basic conditions and highlighting alleged flaws:

• Nicaragua: Despite a more open electoral environment, no mass killings, and voluntary voting, the media focused on alleged Sandinista coercion, limited choices, and the withdrawal of U.S.-backed opposition figures like Arturo Cruz.
• Example: The New York Times ignored the superior secrecy of the Nicaraguan ballot and the absence of compulsory voting, while amplifying claims of Sandinista pressure and "sham" elections.

Observer bias. Official observers, chosen for their reliability, consistently praised client-state elections while dismissing Nicaraguan elections. The media amplified these biased reports, ignoring independent observers who found the Nicaraguan election "a model of probity and fairness" by Latin American standards.

9. The Bulgarian Connection: A Case of Manufactured Disinformation

The Bulgarian Connection, however, although no less absurd, met the criterion of utility.

Fabricated narrative. The 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II by Mehmet Ali Agca, a Turkish rightist, became a prime example of media-driven disinformation. Despite Agca's clear right-wing ties, a narrative emerged, largely initiated by Claire Sterling and Paul Henze, linking the plot to the KGB and Bulgaria. This "Bulgarian Connection" served the Reagan administration's agenda of demonizing the Soviet bloc and justifying its anti-Communist policies.

Uncritical acceptance. The mainstream media, including Reader's Digest, NBC-TV, Newsweek, Time, and the New York Times, uncritically adopted this narrative. They amplified Agca's belated and inconsistent confessions, which conveniently emerged after 17 months in prison and exposure to media reports on the alleged plot. The media ignored:

• The implausibility of the Soviet motive (e.g., weakening NATO by implicating Turkey, or quelling Solidarity by assassinating its symbol).
• Agca's known right-wing affiliations and prior threats against the Pope.
• The lack of credible evidence beyond Agca's assertions.
• The extraordinary incompetence attributed to the KGB in the alleged plot.

Suppression of counter-evidence. The media actively suppressed or ignored information that challenged the narrative:

• Reports of Agca's loose prison conditions, access to media, and potential coaching by Italian intelligence or Vatican emissaries.
• Evidence of corruption within Italian intelligence (SISMI), which had a history of disinformation and ties to right-wing terror.
• The eventual dismissal of the case against the Bulgarians for lack of evidence, which the media framed as "unresolved" rather than a failure of the prosecution.

Propaganda triumph. The "Bulgarian Connection" campaign successfully instilled a message of Soviet guilt in the public mind, demonstrating how a dubious narrative, if politically useful, can be sustained by media complicity, selective reporting, and the suppression of inconvenient truths.

10. Indochina Wars: Media's Unquestioning Support for Aggression

The United States was “defending South Vietnam” in the same sense in which the Soviet Union is “defending Afghanistan.”

Framing aggression as defense. The media's coverage of the U.S. wars in Indochina consistently framed American intervention as a noble effort to "defend South Vietnam from aggression and terrorism," despite overwhelming evidence of U.S. aggression and subversion of political settlements. This narrative mirrored official Washington's stance, ignoring the perspective of the Vietnamese victims or the indigenous resistance.

Suppression of critical facts:

• Geneva Accords (1954): The U.S. undermined the accords, which called for countrywide elections, because it knew Ho Chi Minh would win. The media largely ignored this subversion.
• Diem regime: The U.S.-imposed Diem dictatorship, which killed tens of thousands and lacked popular support, was portrayed as a "democratic government."
• NLF (Viet Cong): The National Liberation Front, recognized as the only "truly mass-based political party in South Vietnam," was consistently demonized as "Communist aggressors" or "terrorists," even when fighting in their own country.
• U.S. atrocities: Mass killings, strategic hamlets, and devastating bombing campaigns against South Vietnamese civilians were downplayed, sanitized, or justified as necessary to "protect" the population from the NLF. The My Lai massacre, when finally reported, was treated as an aberration rather than a reflection of broader policy.

"Adversarial stance" myth. The notion that the media "lost the war" due to an "adversarial stance" is refuted by the evidence. Media support for U.S. policy was near-total in the early years, and later "pessimism" reflected elite tactical disagreements, not a challenge to the war's fundamental legitimacy. The media's unwavering acceptance of the state propaganda system ensured that the true nature of U.S. aggression remained largely invisible to the public.

11. Post-War Propaganda: Rewriting History and Sustaining Control

The primary task facing the ideological institutions in the postwar period was to convince the errant public that the war was “less a moral crime than the thunderously stupid military blunder of throwing half a million ground troops into an unwinnable war.”

Curing the "Vietnam syndrome." After the Vietnam War, ideological institutions faced the task of reconstructing public opinion, which had largely concluded the war was "fundamentally wrong and immoral." The goal was to replace this sentiment with the idea that the war was a "tragic mistake" or a "blunder" due to excessive costs, not a moral crime. This effort aimed to overcome the "Vietnam syndrome"—public aversion to military intervention—and restore faith in elite benevolence.

Erasing devastation and responsibility:

• Indochina's ruin: The immense devastation wrought by the U.S. in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia (millions dead, land ravaged by chemicals and bombs) was largely expunged from mainstream media narratives.
• "Mutual destruction": President Carter's claim that "the destruction was mutual" (equating U.S. devastation of Indochina with Vietnamese actions) was accepted without challenge, absolving the U.S. of responsibility.
• Victim inversion: The U.S. was portrayed as the victim, with focus on American POW/MIA issues, while Vietnamese suffering was ignored or attributed to Communist brutality.

"Silence" over Pol Pot. The media propagated the myth of "silence" over Khmer Rouge atrocities (Phase II of the Cambodian genocide), despite extensive contemporary reporting. This narrative served to:

• Justify earlier U.S. actions in Indochina.
• Distract from U.S. responsibility for Phase I of the genocide.
• Demonize the Vietnamese for overthrowing Pol Pot, leading to U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge in Phase III.

Unthinkable truths. Principled opposition to the war as criminal aggression remained inexpressible in mainstream discourse. The media's postwar narratives reinforced the idea that U.S. interventions are always well-intentioned, even if flawed, ensuring that the public could not meaningfully challenge future acts of state violence.

12. The Propaganda Model Endures: Iraq, Iran, and the "Second Superpower"

Regrettably, the propaganda model still works well, with the MSM performance before and during the Iraq invasion-occupation, and in readying the U.S. public for an attack on Iran, showing them to be reliable members of the war-making team, even in these cases where the wars are based on lies and threat inflation.

Iraq War: WMD and "democracy promotion." The propaganda model's applicability strengthened in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War. The Bush administration's primary justification—Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD)—was amplified by the mainstream media (MSM) despite thin evidence and compelling counter-evidence from inspectors like Scott Ritter and Hans Blix.

• Media complicity: The New York Times and Washington Post funneled pro-war propaganda, often based on anonymous official sources and dubious defectors (e.g., Ahmad Chalabi), which was then cited by officials like Dick Cheney to bolster their claims.
• Shifting justifications: When no WMD were found, the narrative smoothly shifted to "liberating Iraq" and "democracy promotion," ignoring earlier statements and the administration's actual imperial objectives (e.g., oil control, military bases).
• Public ignorance: Polls revealed widespread public belief in WMD and Al-Qaeda links, demonstrating the effectiveness of the propaganda campaign in shaping public perception.

Iran: Nuclear threat and demonization. The same pattern emerged with Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. The MSM adopted the official narrative of an Iranian "threat," ignoring:

• The U.S.'s own violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its encouragement of the Shah's nuclear program.
• Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal.
• The fact that any Iranian nuclear weapon would primarily serve as a deterrent, not an offensive threat.
• The misrepresentation of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's statements to inflate the threat.

The "second superpower." Despite the enduring power of the propaganda model, the rise of the internet and a "new blue media" (e.g., MoveOn.org, critical blogs) has created a "second superpower" of public opinion. However, this dissenting force remains outmatched by the dominant media and right-wing echo chambers, which continue to serve elite interests in promoting militarization and neoliberal policies.

Last updated: December 27, 2025