Manufacturing Consent

Key Takeaways

1. The propaganda model explains media behavior in democratic societies

The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news "filters," fall under the following headings: (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism.

Structural factors shape news. The propaganda model posits that news coverage is influenced by institutional structures and relationships rather than individual journalistic decisions. Large media corporations, dependent on advertising revenue and official sources, tend to promote viewpoints that align with elite interests.

Filters constrain content. The model identifies five key filters that news must pass through:

1. Ownership
2. Advertising
3. Sourcing
4. Flak
5. Anticommunism/ideology

These filters systematically shape media content to serve powerful societal interests, often without overt censorship. The model helps explain patterns of coverage that consistently favor elite perspectives while marginalizing dissent.

2. Media ownership and advertising influence shape news content

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 corporate control. A small number of large corporations dominate mass media ownership. These firms are profit-driven businesses with close ties to other powerful institutions. Their owners and managers move in elite circles and share many interests with government and corporate leaders.

Advertising shapes content. As the primary funding source for most media, advertising exerts a strong influence:

• Outlets cater to affluent audiences attractive to advertisers
• Controversial content that might offend corporate sponsors is avoided
• Consumer culture and business-friendly ideologies are promoted
• Ad-free or ad-critical media face major economic disadvantages

This creates a media environment aligned with corporate and consumer values rather than democratic ideals of diverse public discourse.

3. Reliance on official sources skews media coverage

The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest.

Official sources dominate. Government and corporate sources provide a steady stream of reliable, low-cost news content. Journalists depend on these sources to meet deadlines and fill news holes. This creates a symbiotic relationship that shapes coverage:

• Official perspectives frame issues and set the agenda
• Dissenting voices are marginalized or excluded
• Government secrecy and deception often go unchallenged
• Corporate misconduct receives minimal scrutiny

Experts reinforce elite views. The media rely heavily on experts whose views align with power structures:

• Think tanks and academic institutions funded by elites
• Former government officials turned pundits
• Corporate-sponsored research and commentary

This further narrows the range of debate and reinforces establishment narratives.

4. Flak and anticommunism act as control mechanisms for media

The anti-Communist control mechanism reaches through the system to exercise a profound influence on the mass media.

Flak disciplines media. Negative responses to media statements—including complaints, lawsuits, petitions, and withdrawal of advertising—serve to keep media in line with elite interests. Well-funded right-wing monitoring organizations generate flak to pressure media and chill critical reporting.

Anticommunism as ideology. During the Cold War, anticommunism served as a powerful ideological weapon to discredit dissent and justify foreign interventions. In the post-Cold War era, antiterrorism plays a similar role:

• Provides a framework for interpreting world events
• Justifies military spending and foreign interventions
• Discredits social movements and reform efforts
• Narrows the scope of acceptable debate

These mechanisms help maintain ideological discipline in media institutions without need for overt censorship.

5. Case studies demonstrate systematic media bias favoring elite interests

The propaganda model fits well the media's treatment of this range of issues. We will show that the media's practical definitions of worth are political in the extreme and fit well the expectations of a propaganda model.

Selective outrage. The authors present numerous case studies demonstrating how media coverage systematically favors U.S. government and corporate interests:

• Intense focus on abuses by enemy states
• Minimal coverage of equal or worse abuses by U.S. allies
• Framing of U.S. interventions as benevolent and justified
• Exclusion or marginalization of dissenting voices

Worthy vs. unworthy victims. Media give extensive, sympathetic coverage to victims of enemy states while largely ignoring victims of U.S. and allied actions. This pattern holds across many conflicts and time periods.

The consistency of these findings across diverse issues and outlets strongly supports the propaganda model's explanatory power. Rather than occasional lapses or individual bias, the authors argue this reflects deep structural forces shaping media performance.

6. The Vietnam War coverage exemplified media subservience to state power

The U.S. government and the media began with the assumption that the United States had the right to intervene in Vietnam to maintain a government of its choice there, and that therefore the resistance to this effort was aggression.

Framing the conflict. Media coverage overwhelmingly adopted the U.S. government's framing of the Vietnam War:

• U.S. defending South Vietnam from communist aggression
• Ignoring popular support for the Viet Cong in the South
• Minimizing U.S. atrocities and destruction
• Focusing on tactical debates rather than fundamental questions

Limited critique. Even at the height of antiwar sentiment, media criticism focused on the war's winnability and cost to the U.S., not its fundamental injustice or illegality.

Rewriting history. Post-war narratives continued to obscure U.S. aggression and atrocities, portraying the war as a "tragedy" or "noble failure" rather than a crime against peace. This demonstrates the media's ongoing complicity in shaping historical memory to serve state interests.

7. Media treatment of elections in allied vs. enemy states reveals propaganda function

In sponsored elections, the media do not seek to determine whether the basic conditions exist for a free election; in elections held in disfavored or enemy states, the media do just that.

Double standards. The authors contrast media coverage of elections in U.S.-allied states (El Salvador, Guatemala) with an enemy state (Nicaragua):

• For allies: Focus on procedural aspects, turnout as validation
• For enemies: Scrutiny of underlying conditions, questioning legitimacy
• Ignoring state terror and constraints on opposition in allied states
• Amplifying minor irregularities in enemy states

Propaganda service. This stark double standard reveals the media's propaganda function in support of U.S. foreign policy goals:

• Legitimizing client regimes regardless of actual democratic practices
• Delegitimizing governments targeted for regime change
• Shaping public perceptions to align with state objectives

The authors argue this performance goes beyond mere bias, amounting to active collusion in state propaganda efforts.

8. Coverage of wars in Laos and Cambodia illustrates media complicity in atrocities

The U.S. attack on Cambodia was simply suppressed in 1969 and 1970, and later treated apologetically, if at all, in the U.S. media.

Ignoring U.S. aggression. Media largely ignored or downplayed massive U.S. bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia:

• Failing to report on the scale and impact of bombing
• Uncritically accepting government denials and justifications
• Minimizing civilian casualties and long-term consequences

Selective outrage. Later coverage focused intensively on atrocities by the Khmer Rouge while continuing to ignore or minimize U.S. responsibility:

• Treating the Khmer Rouge period as isolated from prior U.S. actions
• Failing to examine how U.S. bombing contributed to their rise
• Ignoring ongoing U.S. support for Khmer Rouge remnants

This pattern of coverage obscured U.S. culpability for mass atrocities while reinforcing narratives of communist brutality. The authors argue this amounted to active media complicity in war crimes and historical distortion.

Last updated: January 22, 2025

Report Issue