this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
39 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

23218 readers
231 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
PorkrollPosadist@hexbear.net
replaceable@hexbear.net
VILenin@hexbear.net
SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net
khizuo@hexbear.net
Wakmrow@hexbear.net
39
Is it wrong to like Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent"? (hexbear.net)
submitted 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) by Wisconcom@hexbear.net to c/askchapo@hexbear.net
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Considering all the recent attention surrounding Noam Chomsky and his connections to Jeffery Epstein, I thought I might ask this question.

I personally think Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a good book and makes a lot of good points regarding the bourgeois media which few other left-wing authors have made, at least not in such a concise and easily-explained way. When I shared this book with new leftists, they seem to appreciate and comprehend its contents rather quickly. The only part which I found myself majorly disagreeing with was the conclusion in which Chomsky suggests that "American democracy" is "under threat," as opposed to being non-existent in the first place.

With that being said, I consider Chomsky's work to be a pearl in an ocean of bad takes. I think that Chomsky, particularly recently, is an anti-communist propagandist and apologist for the bourgeois system, basically a left-liberal.

Is my take incorrect?

Edit: I failed to mention how this book was co-authored by someone else who is not on the Epstein files. Thank you to all those who mentioned that.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] micnd90@hexbear.net 4 points 12 hours ago

I would argue that network news (NBC, CBS, ABC) are not as relevant as they are in shaping public opinion, their viewership have been tanking compared to the 80/90s. People don't watch network news for news, except for really old boomers in retirement homes. A one-on-one interview with the sitting President back in the 80s or 90s would give the network news show big scoop and translate to big ratings, these days not so much. Most working people these days get their news online from social media, from a very fragmented media landscape. People want to watch a short "take" on interview with the President from someone they trust, not the whole interview itself.

The "manufacturing consent" in fragmented media landscapes these days in my opinion are largely done via class-based exclusion, mainly in primary (written) news, e.g., NYT, AP, Reuters, Politico, WaPo. The clearest example here is that a famous White House Correspondent in the past was maybe Dan Rather. He was a son of manual laborer and both of his parents were highschool dropouts. Now the NYT White House Correspondent is Maggie Haberman, her dad Clyde Haberman was already a big shot NYT writer, and her father-in-law ran Carnegie Corporation. These days journalism is a white collar job and there's barely any class representation in mainstream news media.