Los guardianes de la libertad (The Guardians of Liberty) is the Spanish title of a 1990 book that Noam Chomsky, together with Edward S. Herman, published originally in English in 1988. The original title was Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media, a title much more in line with the book’s content although certainly more prosaic.
Noam Chomsky needs no introduction. For several decades he has been one of the world’s most relevant intellectuals. In 1979, The New York Times journalist Paul Robinson said of him: “Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty, and influence of his thought, he is arguably the most important intellectual alive today.”
Although Chomsky is still professor emeritus of linguistics at MIT and one of the undisputed leaders in that science, he has also written on philosophy and politics.
Recently, he has come back to public attention for two reasons: his Ukrainian origins and the fact that he was one of the best-known signatories of “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” published by Harper’s magazine in July 2020. In my opinion, this letter is one of the most important documents written in recent years in favor of free speech and against political correctness—not because it states anything new, but because it is signed by leading leftist thinkers.
When Chomsky and Herman published Manufacturing Consent, they did so against the Reagan administration and against the media that then supposedly controlled public opinion. Obviously, this book contributed to Chomsky’s high recognition among left-wing movements and to his fame as a political activist.
The main thesis of the book is that mass media acts as a system for transmitting messages and symbols to the average citizen. Its function is to amuse, entertain, and inform, “as well as to inculcate in individuals the values, beliefs and codes of behavior that will make them integrate into the institutional structures of society.” However, just as the first function of “amusing, entertaining and informing” is usually expressly recognized by such media, the second function of indoctrinating or inculcating citizens with values, beliefs, and codes of conduct (the ‘political correctness’ of the moment) is denied on the basis of the alleged objectivism and impartiality of the general media.
This denial does not necessarily mean that the media is intentionally lying, because, as Chomsky argues, “the domination of the media by the elite, and the marginalization of dissent that results from the performance of the filters used by the media themselves, takes place so naturally that people who work in the media, and who often act with absolute integrity and good will, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news in an objective and professional manner.”
Thus, even some honest and serious journalists do not realize that they are avoiding or putting off certain information or opinions because the atmosphere in which they work is imbued with the values and codes of conduct that the system as a whole tries to impose.
However, this is unfortunately not the only reality, as there are also many people who manage and work in the media who are fully aware and in favor of imposing a certain bias on society, either because they are simple mercenaries who do whatever they are told to do, or simply because they share the ideology of the media.
In addition to what has been said so far, there are other ideas in Chomsky and Herman’s book that deserve to be highlighted. One is the propaganda work carried out by the mass media. As the authors point out, “it is not our intention to claim that the mass media are only concerned with propaganda, but we believe that propaganda activity is one of the most important aspects of their task.”
Manufacturing Consent is not only part of the original title of Chomsky’s and his colleague’s book; it is—in the opinion of one of the classic authors on the subject, Walter Lippmann—the main function of propaganda. Therefore, following Lippmann, Chomsky, and Herman, whether they admit it (and are aware of it) or not, propaganda is the most important function performed by the media. It just so happens that the media do so while claiming that they only “entertain, amuse, and inform.” Obviously, as Jacques Ellul, a leading French sociologist, argues, “the propagandist cannot reveal the true intentions of the one under whose orders he works … on the contrary, propaganda must mask its true intention.”
Self-censorship is another important factor. There are two levels of self-censorship: that which the professional applies to himself and that which is exercised internally by the editor within a media organization. As Chomsky warns, “it is not necessary for the editor of a newspaper or any other media outlet to censor any journalist to comply with the guidelines imposed by the owners and other centers of power, both market and governmental; however, if the journalist is distracted, that is what the editor is there for, placed there precisely to ensure that those guidelines are complied with.” It is not easy to discover media bias, as Chomsky himself points out, “one needs a macrovision, and also a microvision (issue by issue), of the actions of the media to perceive the pattern of manipulation and systematic bias.”
Finally, the principle of bureaucratic affinity should not be forgotten. Following Mark Fishmann, author of another interesting book on the subject, Manufacturing the News (1980), “only other bureaucracies can satisfy the initial needs of an information bureaucracy.” The media needs news. Government is the main source of information. It is reasonable, therefore, that the media feel indebted to the one who provides them with most of the news and, therefore, act in a condescending way towards power. Journalists need to maintain a good relationship with those in power, otherwise their sources of information will close to them, and they will not be able to do their work.
So, who are the real ‘guardians of liberty’ today? Obviously not the mass media, controlled by the globalist oligarchies and by governments that also bow—as Georges Soros acknowledges—to the only real sovereignty: that of the markets. Only independent media that defend the nation and the rights and the true sovereignty of the people are the true guardians of freedom.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is right when he says that to safeguard democracy it is necessary to counteract media indoctrination. A manipulated and pacified populace can never be free.
It is not necessary to read Chomsky to realize just how far the media’s bias can go. One need only analyze the propaganda surrounding COVID-19 or their attitude towards the widespread phenomenon known as political correctness. Regardless, it is good that Chomsky reminds us of this threat.
