One question that you don't hear nearly enough is why did Americans, and only Americans, support the invasion of Iraq. I was in Mexico at the time and it was clear from abroad that the overwhelming sentiment across the planet was anti-invasion. Are Americans simply not as bright as the rest of the world?
I won't argue that here. People are stupid .... and smart ... everywhere.
So then was the consent by the American people, to use that only Chomsky thesis, 'manufactured'? Clearly it some way it was. And for all of Chomsky's outrageous statements on such areas of the world as Cambodia and Bosnia I've always thought his media critique has been very accurate and informative. Hell even Micheal Berube would support Chomsky on the media "22/7" (read two comments and two replies by Berube here on this issue). Berube does, though, argue that there is much more to it - and apparently does this as well in a book coming out soon that looks to be quite interesting - mentioning at least in this thread that the 'manufacturing consent' contention overlooks the competing interests within the elite. I don't doubt he makes a very strong case. I think of Greg Palast's depiction in Armed Madhouse of the two facets of the pro-invasion group, one that looked for control over world oil prices while the other advocated for war for mostly geo-political reasons. (Btw while I don't always agree with Berube he is certainly one the most intelligent and humourous commentators out there). Nevertheless if you are looking for a strong argument for the theory last week one appeared.
So for any of you who aren't familiar with the NYTimes story documenting how the media simply used paid ex-generals as supposed neutral commentators in the lead up to the war the following video does an excellent job in explaining the story (via Greenwald). It shows how, if not always the result, when the chips are down consent will be manufactured.
So watch it.
Recent Comments