Average Rating: 
Rating:  - The Common Person's Review (for the non-intellectual)
If you're looking for a very scholarly and academic review of this book thats laden with a bunch of big words, etc., read one of the other reviews.This is for the interested kid or student or person inclined towards radical politics who maybe doesn't have a Phd degree, or who doesn't sit around discussing the scholarly implications of books for the sake of showing off their superior intellect. First of all, don't be scaired by the 400 pages of the book. Its actually just barely above 300, with about 100 pages of appendixes and footnotes. It is a very readable book for anyone who has at least a vague idea of recent world affairs (of the past 3 decades or so). And even if you don't have much familiarity, after finishing this book, you certainly will. Some parts may be a bit overwhelming, but they are few and far between. The basic premise of the book is that the mainstream American corporate media (the big networks, the big newspapers, news magazines, etc)serve to uphold the interests of the elites in this country (political and economic). Chomsky and Herman acknowledge that we do have a "liberal" press, (what does it really mean to be 'liberal' in America today anyways?), but that the liberalness is kept within acceptable boundaries. Basically, the mainstream press may give a liberal slant on what the dominant institutions and systems are doing...but they will not question the very nature of the institutions and systems themselves. For example, today's Los Angeles Times (January 6,2003) had a page 2 story on the U.N sanctions against Iraq. Now, the typical reader may see the story, and figure that since the LA Times is even reporting on the impact of sanctions against Iraqi civillians, this is demonstrative of their 'liberal' leanings. However, the story leaves untouched the most crucial issues regarding UN sanctions against Iraq, such as:
1)the U.S. and U.K. are the sole countries who sit on the UN Secutity Council who refuse to lift the sanctions against Iraq, despite the pleas of the other member nations (such as Russia, France, China, etc).
2)UN estimates have put the death toll from the sanctions at nearly one million civillians.
3)Two consecutive UN Humanitarian Coordinators have resigned in the past five years in protest of the effect of the sanctions, with the first stating "We are in the process of destroying an entire society." Basically, the mainstream corporatized press will leave the most crucial questions unanswered, if they portray American power in a bad light. The last chapter on Laos and Cambodia are a bit tedious and confusing, but by the time you get to that chapter, the previous ones will have more than made their case. Overall, this is an excellent book, even for the non-academic, and will fundamentally alter the way you look at the media, and the 'facts' they are reporting.
Rating:  - Full Marks to Chomsky and Herman
As an avid Chomsky reader (cf. my other reviews), it is not surprising that I am fascinated with this book. Chomsky et al. confidently and carefully disect the actual construction of the media outlets. They ask questions I am yet to see elsewhere: who OWNS the media? Who PAYS for the words you see on a newspaper or hear on the tube? This book changed my views radically when I first read it (the book can be read 2-3 times a year for life in my opinion). Until I read this book, I assumed that the product of a newspaper was just that, the newspaper. However, as the authors point out this is not the case. The product of a newspaper is the reading audience, who are then sold by the newspaper to advertisers. As Chomsky has pointed out, newspapers do not make money from the 30 or 40pence you pay for a paper, after all, they are happy to post it on the internet for free. The media institutions are answerable to the advertisers who ultimately pay for the media and thus allow it to continue.Through diligent examination of various case studies, Chomsky and Herman demonstrate other factors which influence and blur news reporting. My advice is as follows: buy the book, read it, consider the arguments and the case studies presented, and then apply the principles of the propaganda model to your own favourite newspaper or TV news programme. Don't be surprised however if you never believe a word you read or are told again. For this book is about critical thinking. It deals with awakening your innate skills of critical analysis. Chomsky and Herman do not ask, nor expect, you just to accept what they tell you; rather they request you look at the evidence yourself and come to your own conclusion. Walter Lippmann said that when everyone is thinking the same, then no one is thinking. Think about that.
Rating: - A tour de force
A tour de force, co-authored by one of the world's leading experts on language and meaning.@In this book, Herman and Chomsky put forward a "propaganda model" to explain the bias in Western (mostly US) media on international affairs. Their thesis is that, although the US is not a dictatorship where a single leader can censor the press, the very market forces that lead people to believe in the freedom of their press actually work to create a self-imposed censorship which creates a biased media, more intent on delivering audiences to their advertisers and vital corporate sponsors than in providing their readers with balanced and informed news.@The authors back up their theory with a large number of examples, and focus on 3 main topics: Latin America, Vietnam and the attempt on the life of the Pope in 1981. Using extensive quotations from US contemporary media reports, and comparing them with official sources such as government documents, White House memos, State Department press releases, as well as reports in non-US-based media, Herman and Chomsky are able to bolster their thesis of a propaganda model, and show that US media reports are nearly always skewed to show the US and its allies as the "good guys", and other (enemy) states as the "bad guys". When "they" do it, it's called "terrorism", when "we" do it, it's called "fighting for democracy and freedom." Such a statement seems too blatantly simplistic to require serious consideration; nevertheless, the authors do give it very serious consideration, and the evidence they have scrupulously collected is hard to refute. Moreover, their propaganda model helps to explain why and how this can be so, even (indeed, particularly) in a "free democracy": a number of filters act to screen out unwelcome aspects of news. A startling eye-opener, very well researched and cogently, passionately argued. These authors care intensely about lives lost due to state-sponsored violence, whether that state is the US or the Soviet Union or anywhere else. A must-read for students of media and communication, and indeed any intelligent reader curious about the forces that shape what actually appears in their newspapers and television news.
|
