Have you ever asked yourself why some news stories are all over your feed while others barely appear? The concept of “Manufacturing consent” explains how the general public has managed to be deceived into agreeing to things we may not want, sometimes without us noticing. In this blog, I’ll draw on theories from Lippmann, Chomsky, and Herman to explore this theme and examine how the mass media may still play a role in the digital age.
The definition of “Manufacturing consent” literally means to “produce agreement”. It helps us understand how governments, corporations, and the media systems around the world shape public opinion, so that citizens agree with the agendas they push, ultimately benefiting them. This raises the question of whether public judgment is truly reflected in the democratic system, a question first posed by Walter Lippmann in the 1920s.
The political commentator and American journalist, Walter Lippmann, published a book titled “Public Opinion”. He stated a variety of points, but the main one was that the world is too complex for ordinary people, which is why the Media provides a simplified version of our reality. He called the idea that society needs experts to guide public opinion, “the manufacture of consent”.
In 1988, a book by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman was published, it was titled “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media”. They chose to use Lippmann’s phrase, but instead of paying homage to the theory, they criticised it. Instead, the two claimed that the media protects elite interests as opposed to informing the public. To illustrate their point further, they introduced the “Propaganda Model”. This is a structure of “five filters” that help shape the type of information that reaches the public.
Although Chomsky and Herman developed their model in the late 1980s, its fundamental message remains relevant in today’s world. In the present day, algorithms decide what appears on our feeds more than traditional news outlets did in the past. Social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, X, and even Snapchat filter content based on metrics such as shares, likes, and saves, which reinforces specific narratives while disregarding others. As the Aeon video suggests, this creates a modernised version of the “manufactured” agreement, in which we believe we’re freely choosing what we consume, but the majority of what we see has actually been curated for us. This raises many questions about the independence of our opinions, because if we only see one side of the coin, how can we make informed decisions?
During the last election, my feed showed only one side of the debate, and if the other side was shown, it was typically accompanied by criticism of the policies represented by that group. This helped to reinforce what I already knew to be true, but if I had truly seen the other side, would I still hold the same opinions I do now? I’m not too sure.
In conclusion, I still believe the concept of “manufacturing consent” rings true in today’s world. It reminds us to question who benefits from the stories we’re shown and why. In the age of AI and a digital world heavily shaped by algorithms and the corporations that control them, critical thinking and awareness are more important than ever.
REFERENCES:
- Is mass media still ‘manufacturing consent’ in the internet age? | Aeon Videos. (2022). Available at: https://aeon.co/videos/is-mass-media-still-manufacturing-consent-in-the-internet-age.
- Hardy, J. (2014). Critical Political Economy of the Media | Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203136225
- Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. (1988)Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. | Available at: https://files.libcom.org/files/2022-04/manufacturing_consent.pdf
This is a fantastic read. I really appreciated the pictures you put in to bring your argument to life. You draw a strong and relevant connection between Chomsky and Herman’s Propaganda Model and today’s algorithm-driven media environment. The explanation of how platforms filter content based on engagement metrics is clear and effectively illustrates the idea of a “modernised” form of manufactured consent. Your personal example about the election adds depth and shows real-world consequences of algorithmic filtering. I would advise adding more to the conclusion, but other than that, a phenomenal job was done.
The title of yours is so attractive. It is suitable that you cited your own experience about last election, making me clearly understand the concept of manufacturing consent. Maybe it could be interesting to briefly discuss whether digital platforms create opportunities to resist or disrupt manufactured consent.