Watched an earlier film by Mark
Achbar which won several awards sometime back.
Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media shows
Noam Chomsky at his best making speeches, interviews and generally explaining his opinions and viewpoints. It was loosely based on his book
Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_the_Mass_Media with
Edward S. Herman. Cited in the film is also Chomsky's book
Necessary Illusions.
His assertion that the media's role is to serve the private interests of special groups and not the people is constantly repeated throughout the film. In fact, he mentions that it is the role of the media to create "necessary illusions" for the people so as to "manufacture consent". Chomsky cites this catchphrase by
Walter Lippman's in the book and
Achbar's film.
His intellectual arguments are so powerful and strong that most of people that engaged him were in my opinion no match at all. He is so often described as a leading intellectual alive today, but I do not argue with that. Chomsky's contributions to the world in the field of linguistics and as a social activist has been nothing short of incredible. In the film, I particularly find his quote about sports quite amusing:
"Now there are other media too whose basic social role is quite different: it's diversion. There's the real mass media-the kinds that are aimed at, you know, Joe Six Pack -- that kind. The purpose of those media is just to dull people's brains. This is an oversimplification, but for the eighty percent or whatever they are, the main thing is to divert them. To get them to watch National Football League. And to worry about "Mother With Child With Six Heads," or whatever you pick up on the supermarket stands and so on. Or look at astrology. Or get involved in fundamentalist stuff or something or other. Just get them away. Get them away from things that matter. And for that it's important to reduce their capacity to think. Take, say, sports -- that's another crucial example of the indoctrination system, in my view. For one thing because it -- you know, it offers people something to pay attention to that's of no importance. [audience laughs] That keeps them from worrying about -- [applause] keeps them from worrying about things that matter to their lives that they might have some idea of doing something about. And in fact it's striking to see the intelligence that's used by ordinary people in [discussions of] sports [as opposed to political and social issues]. I mean, you listen to radio stations where people call in -- they have the most exotic information [more laughter] and understanding about all kind of arcane issues. And the press undoubtedly does a lot with thisYou know, I remember in high school, already I was pretty old. I suddenly asked myself at one point, why do I care if my high school team wins the football game? [laugbter] I mean, I don't know anybody on the team, you know? [audience roars] I mean, they have nothing to do with me, I mean, why I am cheering for my team? It doesn't mean any -- it doesn't make sense. But the point is, it does make sense: it's a way of building up irrational attitudes of submission to authority, and group cohesion behind leadership elements -- in fact, it's training in irrational jingoism. That's also a feature of competitive sports. I think if you look closely at these things, I think, typically, they do have functions, and that's why energy is devoted to supporting them and creating a basis for them and advertisers are willing to pay for them and so on." Source of the above was from Manufacturing Consent, but I pulled it out from hereI did some research on Chomsky in the
Internet and found he has a
website that features all his article and he contributes to a
blog by
Z Magazine (one of the independent magazines interviewed in the film). I find his suggestions for people to try to obtain access
alternative media to be coming true in the
Web 2.0 era of the
Internet.
Blogs,
Wikis and other forms of collaborative content by peer communities in this phase of the
Internet is in my opinion a source of alternative media that he had advocated. I wonder what he thinks of this considering he made his comments on the
film in 1992, some fifteen years ago.
I even found a Wiki called
Wiki News; that has readers contributing to its articles. However, I see that some of the sources cited by the contributors are still from the mainstream media like
The New York Times and other syndicated news feeds like
Reuters. Does not sound convincing, but as with all free and open collaboration initiatives, it will continue to grow and evolve its way.
Then later, I also found from google an
Activism.net website that cites several links to alternative media. I was abit surprised to find
BBC News in the list. Z Magazine also recommends links
here.
Well, so hopefully, after watching this film, or reading the books, the "stupid" people would be able to see through the illusions and make an informed consent on the important issues that affects their lives.
