PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.
Twenty-five years ago, a book titled Manufacturing
Consent, written by Noam Chomsky and his
coauthor Edward S.&nbsp;Herman, the book broke
new ground in analyzing the media and what
they called the propaganda model.
Now joining us to talk about the significance
of the book then and now is Edward S.&nbsp;Herman.
Edward is an economist, a media analyst, a
prolific author.
For many years he was a professor at the Wharton
School at Penn.
Among his many books are Manufacturing
Consent, also Corporate Control, Corporate
Power, The Politics of Genocide.
Thanks very much for joining us, Edward.
EDWARD S. HERMAN: Good to be with you, Paul.
JAY: Why do you think the book made such a
splash?
And I wonder if you expected it when you wrote
it.
It wasódid you think it was more an academic
piece?
Because it became essentially a very popular
book.
It inspired a documentary film.
And it's one of the landmark books of the
last 25&nbsp;years.
HERMAN: It didn't make a big mark in the mainstream
media.
It did make a mark on the left.
But even there there was quite a bit of debate,
because the idea of a structural model that
shows that the media do what they do because
of deep structural factors and the idea that
it wasn't going to be easy to change ran counter
to what a lot of leftists or liberals thought.
They thought that you could reform the media
rather easily by rather modest legislation
that would make for a fairness rule.
But the propaganda modelóManufacturing
Consent argues that there are deep-seated
factors at work here, and these aren't going
to be changed by simple liberal reforms.
JAY: And talk a bit about what you consider
those deep-seated factors.
And to what extent do they still exist?
Or have they changed?
HERMAN: The propaganda model is a structural
model.
Its features areóit features ownership, who
owns the media, the fact that it is based
on advertising as the main funding source.
The main sources for the media are powerful
people in the United StatesóPentagon officials
and corporate officials and so on.
Another factor in the model is the extent
to which negative feedback, flak, comes also
from powerful people.
And then another element in the model is that
there's a basic ideology in the United Statesóanticommunism,
the belief in the free marketóand these are
accepted by the mainstream media people.
So we have this set of factors that make up
the propaganda model, and they are powerful
factors.
They still are relevant today.
Some people think that the new media, which
has somewhat displaced the old media, is going
to make for change.
But the interesting fact is that the old media
did a lot of journalism.
It wasn't good journalism, but the old mediaónewspapers,
magazines especiallyóhad investigative journalists.
And with the rise of the new media, the new
media's absorbing a lot of the advertising,
so the old media, the newspapers are well
known to be in a crisis.
They're losing ads and they're cutting back
journalistic staff on a huge scale, and the
new media's not picking up the slack.
But I thought and a lot of people thought
that the new media meant they were going to
have to do more democratic media.
But media concentration has grown in the new
media.
And a lot of new media is what is called social
media.
It involves a lot of personal connections
and ego-building, and it doesn't do investigative
journalism.
Google, Facebook, these outfits are not veryóthey
don't do investigative journalism to any significant
degree.
They gather stuff from others and they sell
it, and they want to sell it to advertising.
So in the new media, you've had a competition
for advertising with the old media, and the
new media spent an awful lot of time figuring
out how to place ads.
JAY: If you go back to the mainstream newsroomsóand
I've been inóyou know, I've worked in them
and around them for many years, and one of
the things that always hit me, especially
in American newsrooms, is that there seems
to be a fundamental belief amongst the journalists
themselves that American foreign policy always
had at its root a good intent.
It was for some kind of democratization, it
was against some form of tyranny, and that
all the sort of terrible things that happened
along the way were, like, mistakes at the
level of some individuals made policy mistakes,
or one particular administration, maybe the
Bush administration, did some awful things,
but essentially from Truman on there's good
intent.
And to what extent do you think that's linked
to the sort of structural factors you're talking
about?
HERMAN: I think it's very deeply connected,
because those structural factors mean that
on, say, sourcing, on where you get your news,
you go to the officials, you go to the State
Department, you go to the Pentagon to find
out the truth.
And the owners are conservative folks.
They're very rich folks.
And the flak, the flak, the negative feedback
comes mainly from officials, Pentagon officials
and powerful right-wing sources, and the underlying
ideology which arises from the power structureócommunism
is really bad, free markets are really good;
we're supporting those things, those are our
objectives, and therefore we're good.
Actually, I think it goes back a long way,
Paul.
But I think that the idea of we were good
and superior, you go back and read Teddy Roosevelt
and his views, we're the natural superior.
This has been an ingrainedópretty much ingrained,
but it's part of ideology, and the whole power
structure reflects it.
And as we become an empire, well, of course
we must be trying to do good.
The media are simplyóthey're part of the
political economy.
They're reflecting what the deeper forces,
the transnational corporations, the government
officials, what they want.
JAY: And you see a situation where even to
this day Dick Cheney can go on television
shows and be interviewed and say, oh, all
the intelligence agencies thought there were
weapons of mass destruction, as if it wasn't
a deliberate deception.
And we know so much now, both the Downing
Street Memoóthe British intelligence in fact
didn't think there were weapons of mass destruction,
and, in fact, even the American intelligence
agencies didn't think [incompr.] they're essentially
bullied into it.
But the media still allows him to say these
things, and not just him.
And then with President Obama, you know, after
critiquing the war because it was a stupid
war, there's no accountability in the media
towards President Obama, how he didn't call
Cheney, Bush into account for an illegal war
and kind of adopted it as his own and carried
on the same policy now.
And the media justóyou know, Gore Vidal had
this line about U.S.A. being the United States
of Amnesia.
The media so plays along with that, although
individual journalists you talk to, they certainly
know better.
HERMAN: A lot of the individual journalists
do know better, but the ones that really rise
to the top are the ones that will read or
accept the dominant view.
So you're quite right.
They actually have been amazing.
You know.
In spite of the new media and this supposed
development of the democratic order, when
Bush wanted to go to war in 2003, he could
lie, and the lies would not be contested.
I mean, The Times and The Post
both sort of apologized for not having been
more critical, but there were lots of people,
Paul, who had an alternative view, and it
was extremely easy to show that the Bush claims
of weapons of mass destruction probably held
by Iraq were invalid.
But the people who could say that were kept
away.
JAY: So in terms of developing the new mediaóand
I guess we're part of that at The Real Newsóthere
is an opening here that didn't exist before.
I mean, the internet does make possible The
Real News and other independent news outlets
who are saying these sorts of things that
won't get said on mainstream television.
But I think what you're sayingóand I think
it's true it's still a very small segment
of the population that we get access to.
But, I mean, the challenge, I think, for us
is that we'reóyou know, have to accept this
world isn't going to change, like, mainstream
news isn't going to change, and it is up to
us to figure out how to get to large numbers
of people.
HERMAN: Absolutely so.
But I think you're doing an important job,
because the mainstream media does not allow
alternative viewpoints.
It's true that we need more investigative
journalism, and The Real News Network probably,
if it had more money, would do so.
But the next best thing is to get on the program
people who maybe have done investigative work,
or at least have a viewpoint that can't get
in The New York Times.
That's where Real News Network can be very
constructive and is very constructive.
JAY: Yeah, I agree with that.
In fact, we're just discussing now with creating
a sort of little conglomerate of independent
news outlets, where we're all going to collaborate
and try to raise some money to create an investigative
fund for doing just what you're talking about.
HERMAN: Good.
That will be wonderful.
JAY: So just final thoughts 25&nbsp;years
after the book.
Any other reflection you have?
HERMAN: Well, I think things don't look good,
Paul, because we're in a war system and have
war mixed with patriotism.
The government is very powerful and aggressive.
Concentration in the media keeps increasing.
The internet has proved to be a disappointment,
but it still has some potential.
But I think still, Paul, what we really need:
a rise of democracy.
I mean, we need a democratic order.
The sad fact, the tragic fact is that we've
gotóhad more inequality, and that has affected
the political system.
So we have moved to the right.
And the right-wingers don't want a more democratic
media.
They don't even want a fairness doctrine,
let alone a system that I think would be good
of actually subsidizing an independent media.
That would be a terrific thing, but I'm afraid
it's still in the distance.
Underlying it all we need a more democratic
order, where the public's interests can actually
feed into the political process.
The trouble is that there's an interaction:
if you have a lot of media, they won't allow
more democratization.
And without more democratization, it's hard
to get a better media.
But we have to still keep fighting for that
end.
JAY: Alright.
Thanks very much for joining us, Edward.
HERMAN: Thank you, Paul.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real
News Network.
