In the modern world, people feel as if they are living in a world where information circulates freely, and there’s an open competition between opinions. But the theory of Manufacturing Consent, introduced by the research work of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, provides a rather more disturbing view in this respect, as it asserts that even in the most open democratic societies, the opinion-forming process might be performed in a way that no one even notices. The most important thing here is, of course, that this process isn’t accomplished in an open manner.
Herman & Chomsky describe how the media operates under the influence of pressures and incentives, which in time shape the way audiences view information in a particular manner. These pressures include the structure of media ownership, the marketplace of advertisements, the government communication networks, ideological needs, as well as the media reaction directed at them if the media cover information in a way that challenges the established interests. The selective process, as mentioned, offers a quality of consent that occurs not because of coercion, but due to media practices.
So, to explain how this currently operates, we might examine a recent example of this process operating in the world of social media. In the context of international crises, users of TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) can quickly be presented with radically divergent accounts of the same reality by the algorithm, based upon the pre-existing emotional response to that reality, as well as the political views, of the individual consumer. In this way, two people might claim confidently that they are viewing “real footage of the crisis,” but in reality be presented with a carefully constructed, emotional, and distorted representation of reality, chosen to draw upon the consumer’s existing emotional response, rather than upon accuracy. They might each view only the suffering, for example, of the actions of one party in a crisis, when the other party might view the suffering of the other. Each might feel well-informed, while in reality, the information has been constructed to appeal to the greatest number, rather than to construct a clear reality.
This algorithmic curation marks the beginning of a new way of manufacturing consent. Unlike the existing world of consent, where all people were brought under one single dominant discourse, it generates alternate realities for each set of people. They all start believing that the reality they live in is the objective reality, but in the process, they overlook the fact that they are being led into a vicious loop of information. This happens in a natural way, as the users of the platform do not realize that the commercial imperative of the platform—that is, the goal of earning the most attention—is driving this process.
Another example that came to light in the wake of the pandemic was the way in which the media in several nations reported risks in a way that highlighted some while downplaying others, frequently using the sort of emotional language that urged support for or resistance to particular government measures. This, in turn, was fueled by social media, where the algorithm pushed people to share content that communicated outrage, fear, or indignation, as this sort of content was frequently clicked upon more. The way in which people were daily exposed to content that reinforced what they believed, rather than presenting a diverse view, made them all the more sure, not necessarily because they knew more about it, but because the information stream had subtly molded around them.
Awareness of the process of consent in manufacturing means no dismissal of the media as a whole, no assumption that information is intentionally distorted for nefarious purposes. Rather, it inspires a level of informed, thoughtful, deliberate consideration. The dissemination of information is never objective but always involves selection, framing, and systemically embedded power structures related to profit. Awareness of this dynamic helps us ponder the bigger implications of the information that gets disseminated. In today’s information overload, algorithm-driven conformity, and decreasing attention span, the importance of Manufacturing Consent can never be overstated. If we, as citizens, want to continue to be thoughtful, it becomes imperative that, when it comes to information, the following questions be asked constantly in our minds: Why am I reading this information? For whom has this piece of information been written? What other perspectives might this information filter out?
Reference：
Chomsky, N. (1997). Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. Seven Stories Press.
Kaiser, B. (2019). Targeted: The Inside Story of Cambridge Analytica and How Trump Got His Win. HarperCollins.
BBC News – Cambridge Analytica Explainer (2018).
