Carlen's Blog
As I write this review of Noam Chomsky’s film, Manufacturing Consent (1992), I am also following the contemporary events of the world in 2025: Donald Trump’s inauguration and actions, the explosion of blatant propaganda in social media apps, and the media’s coverage (or lack thereof) around Israel’s continued actions against Palestinians and other Muslim countries in the Middle East.
As an informed, politically engaged, and active citizen, I know where to look for media sources I can trust, though that trust is always subject to change. Chomsky highlights the issues with media outlets—particularly mainstream media—showing how capitalistic desires have the power to corrupt or manipulate media and bend to the will of shareholders or advertisers. When a newspaper or news station makes its money from selling advertising space or time, its focus shifts away from distributing the news and toward capturing an audience to sell things to them.
A good example of combating this issue is the consistent Canadian government funding of the CBC. While it is true that the funding rates can fluctuate between parties and leaders, this funding helps ensure the sanctity of news and reduces the potential for control by external forces, like the wealthy class.
Critics claim Chomsky oversimplifies his argument, disregarding the independence of journalists, the diversity of viewpoints, and the agency of the public to critically analyze the media they consume. Chomsky righteously refutes this, arguing that it should not be the job of the public to put in the hours and years required to research, debunk, and analyze everything in front of them. While I believe media literacy is an essential skill to develop and teach to both younger and older generations, there should also be protections in place to keep news and media accountable and truthful.
Media manipulation of the public is not only possible but an everyday reality. A primary example of this is in the reporting language used around Israel’s occupation and attacks on Palestinians, as well as attacks in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. There is a clear agenda being pushed to dehumanize the attacked groups and countries, while sympathy is disproportionately given to the Israeli side.
Looking at the United States, it is equally concerning to see how corporate tech billionaires control the media. Non-American platforms are essentially forced to sell their companies to American corporations. Social media apps are being bought and acquired by billionaires and monopoly-holding corporations—META/Mark Zuckerberg owning Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp; Elon Musk acquiring Twitter/X. News media is not safe from billionaire predators either, as seen with former Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ 2013 acquisition of The Washington Post.
When three of the most powerful and wealthy men—who own a large majority of the media or services we use—not only control what we can access or see but also become central actors in a presidential cabinet or wield influence in high places with interests directly opposed to the rest of society, how can we trust the media or services they supply us?
While the internet has democratized much of the acquisition and dispersion of information in the present day, it also provides far more opportunities for the ignorant spreading of misinformation and disinformation. When corporations or billionaire oligarchs get to decide what content is pushed to us or allowed on their platforms, the platforms become tools to serve their interests. Rather than solely relying on advertisers, they can bypass those influences and make their platforms wholly serve their self-interests.
Paradoxically, this has led to a backsliding of democracy. While people have louder voices and larger platforms, those platforms are moderated by individuals or groups with sway over who sees what or what is allowed. Foreign interference on vulnerable platforms, such as Russian interference in U.S. elections, is a clear issue that threatens democratic integrity. Claiming that such breaches are “necessary illusions” is a blatant excuse for undemocratic control and societal manipulation. Democracy only works when the public has all the information to make informed decisions. Based on trust, democracy cannot be truly democratic unless the barriers or perversions of information cease to exist.
The film, while slow at times, was compelling and thought-provoking. Its strong message does not sugarcoat or simplify anything—the words spoken are deliberate and meant to be taken as they are. Misinterpreting the message, or misunderstanding the position from which it is being said, risks drawing the same flawed conclusions as Chomsky’s critics or detractors, who accused him of supporting a Nazi sympathizer when that was not true.
As an educator, I recognize that while words and phrasing may have specific intentions, they can also be misrepresented or misunderstood. There should be caution when addressing contentious areas such as the defence of free speech brought up in the documentary. It is admirable of Chomsky to be so steadfast in his beliefs and stand by them to the extent he does. However, it is hardly surprising that people would find the things he says or stands his ground on controversial, and it seems naïve to act as though such a reaction could be unexpected. I would never suggest compromising on your morals or values, but exercising greater caution and care in these kinds of actions could better navigate the political landscape and garner more support than criticism. In conclusion, Manufacturing Consent forces us to reckon with the influence that media has on shaping our worldviews. Chomsky’s argument about the power of corporate media to manipulate public opinion feels even more relevant today, with tech giants and billionaires controlling the flow of information on the internet and social media. While it’s crucial to be aware of these forces and cultivate the ability to critically analyze the media we consume, there’s also a need for greater protection around how news is delivered to us. Democracy can’t thrive when the information people receive is shaped by those with interests in keeping the status quo. As a society, we need to push for more accountability in our media systems—only then can we truly say that democracy is working as it should.