How Media Lies to You

"Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see"

-Edgar Allen Poe

Propaganda is a term that is typically attributed to authoritarian states, North Korea, China, Russia, etc. In the West, we are under the impression that democracy is all and that our interests are protected by governments and corporations. But, what if I told you that this idea of democracy is an illusion? That media is not a check on power and that critical journalism takes second place to the needs of the establishment? That propaganda runs rampant in our society?

To explore these questions we need to look at a guy called Noam Chomsky. He defined the framework for analyzing how media, governments, and corporations are connected.

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is an American professor, philosopher, and linguist. He is well known for his work in linguistics, social criticism, and political activism. He first rose to prominence during the cold war where he published critiques of U.S. Foreign Policy in Korea and Vietnam. In 1988, he co-authored Manufacturing Consent, a book that postulates his media framework where he outlines the propaganda model. This propaganda model consists of five filters, through which, the establishment exerts its power. These filters act as a way to control public opinion and maintain control. The medium? The mainstream media.

Filter 1: Ownership/Profit:

We think that the purpose of media companies is to give us unbiased, objective information. This is a false notion. In reality, Media companies are owned by large corporations whose primary objective is generating profit. This ownership structure influences what stories get covered and how they are presented.

This creates a conflict of interest and an inherent bias in reporting. If a media company's priority is to make money, it will run the stories that get the most attention and profit. Because of this, stories that are less profitable or that challenge powerful interests are downplayed or completely ignored.

For example, a news network will avoid reporting on issues or stories that go against the parent company's interest. Or, more deviously, news networks will avoid reporting on stories that go against the official narrative. Think COVID and think about the current political climate in the United States. Media Companies are divided between the Left and the Right. They run the same stories almost everyday because these stories get the most attention and maximize profit.

It is incredibly important to recognize the inherent nature of bias in media. Through this understanding we can develop a healthy amount of skepticism when it comes to the stories we read. This skepticism alone does not give us the ability to see through each story or each narrative, but it can give us cause to seek out all information, not just the mainstream.

Filter 2: Advertising

The purpose of advertising is to promote a brand, product, or service. In mass media the product that is being sold is not the story, it's us, the audience. The real customers of the media are the businesses and corporations that purchase ad space within it. The media sells it's audiences' interests to advertisers. The news and stories they provide are just tools to keep audiences engaged, with the primary goal of serving the advertisers' interests. This creates a conflict of interest. Media companies need to produce content that attracts advertisers, which compromises their ability to maintain objectivity.

It is not a coincidence that the same types of stories are being told each day. Advertisers rely on these stories to advertise their products. Media companies rely on stories that are sensational, emotionally charged, or broadly appealing because these stories generate maximum viewership. In turn, advertisers capitalize on this because they have an avenue to reach the maximum number of people. This creates a cycle where the content that generates the most viewership--and advertising revenue are continuously produced and promoted. Furthermore, stories that go against the cycle are often discredited or ignored entirely. Objective journalism takes second place to the economic dependency of the media/advertising system.

A real world example is political campaigns. Candidates that control the most ad space have the greatest likelihood of successfully swaying public opinion in their favor. If a candidate heavily advertises on a particular network, that network will provide more favorable coverage to that candidate. This can and will directly influence not only public perception, but, by extension, election outcomes.

Filter 3: The Media Elite

Mass media and powerful sources of information like governments and high tiered corporations are in a symbiotic relationship with one another, the elite. To make their money, media requires a steady, reliable flow of news. Even large corporations like Fox or Comcast cannot have reporters on the ground at all times everywhere on earth collecting stories. So where do they get that steady flow of news? The White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department in Washington D.C..

With constant media coverage in their backyard, government officials have a means to mass distribute their information. Often times, this information is not the truth, merely a narrative that generates profits for the parties involved. We see this in action when government accounts from "experts" are later redacted themselves, or refuted by the scientific community and whistleblowers. It is the government sources that hold all of the information and reporters merely get that information. The credibility of this information will, by definition be biased because of the conflict of interests at play. Media companies want stories that generate profit. If a narrative pushed by officials generates profit, regardless of the truth, media will go with that narrative.

Media is not, and cannot be a check on power. In fact, it is the other way around. Corporations and governments check and hold media to certain standards that push the narratives and stories that align with their interests. It is in the media companies' best interest to comply because if they do not, they risk losing access to steady sources of revenue, easy news. As a result, media companies are reluctant to run stories that will go against the interests of official sources because these sources provide them with the resources they need to maintain profitability.

Filter 4: Flak

When media, journalists, and whistleblowers go against the official narrative, they get flak. Flak refers to discrediting sources, trashing stories, and diverting the conversation. The reason objective news is so hard to come by is that stories that tell the truth are under bombardment from the flak machine.

There are numerous examples of the flak machine in action. First, we will look at Edward Snowden. Edward Snowden is a whistleblower that, in 2013, leaked classified documents that revealed the existence of secret information-gathering and surveillance programs by the NSA. Snowden gave us the truth that we are constantly under surveillance. He released his statement and story to the New York Times and fled to Russia to seek political asylum. Numerous films and documentaries about him were made that received little to no advertising. I wonder why.

In 2019 he released his memoir, Permanent Record, detailing his accounts of what happened during his time at the NSA. The same day he released his work outlining crimes committed by the state, the U.S. Justice Department sued him on the grounds that he "violated his nondisclosure agreements with the CIA and NSA by not submitting the work to them for a prepublication review".

Another example is Robert Kennedy Jr.. He is regarded as a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer by the mainstream media because he represents a threat to the current political system. He is well renowned for his criticisms of the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, lies and narrative shifts of the COVID vaccine*.

In addition, he is known for bringing to light extensive corruption by the both the government, and pharmaceutical companies regarding the opioid crisis and aids epidemic. In both cases, the counter argument goes against the main narrative. Because it goes against the main narrative, companies' best interest to give flak to sources like these that threaten the official story. By giving flak to these stories, media protects its resource stream, fresh news, and its profits.

Another illustration of flak can be seen in the case of the Boeing whistleblower "suicides"*. In addition to being the biggest player in the aviation industry, Boeing is under government contracts to manufacture planes for the U.S. Military. Boeing's interests are closely intertwined with those of the government. Therefore, media sources reliant on official sources for news intentionally avoid critical coverage to safeguard their access and revenue streams.

Be constantly on guard and aware of the flak machine. The media will support the most mainstream stories and narratives and disregard anything that goes against the official story.

Filter 5: The Common Enemy

Forces in power exploit fears by corralling public opinion around a common enemy. Presenting and unifying around a common enemy diverts attention away from internal problems and in turn, rallies support for government policies. Focusing on external threats allows the media to create a narrative that justifies the actions of those in power, be it military action, increased security, or suppression of dissent.

Media sensationalizes stories to heighten fear and urgency. When fears are heightened, the public is easier to control because fear destroys critical thinking. Complex geopolitical situations are diminished into a good/evil dichotomy. "The West vs Communism" or "NATO vs Terrorism". Constant repetition enforces the narrative and conditions the public to not ask questions and to remain on the side of good.

Think directly post 9/11*. Terrorism and in particular, Islamic extremist groups became the common enemy. The media's focus on terrorist threats helped justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the implementation of the Patriot Act, and the widespread surveillance programs Snowden told us about.

In 2010, wiki-leaks mass published thousands of classified documents. These documents showed numerous war crimes committed by the U.S. Military. Directly following this leak, the publisher, Julian Assange, became the common enemy. Making him the common enemy turned the focus from criticism of the war, to the demonization of "antidemocratic" journalists, like Assange.

The common enemy is a powerful means of control. Understanding how the common enemy narrative is pushed equips us with the capacity to critically evaluate each and every story. By doing this we are able to discern propagandized information from objective information.

Final Thoughts*

In a "free" democracy, dissent should be welcomed. Dissent is a means for common people to question and criticize those in power when the interests of the people and that of the powerful are not aligned. In the current climate, people are afraid to go against the narrative for fear of being casted out, labeled, or demonized. People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

What can be done? There are two choices. The easy choice is taking everything at face value and assuming that everything told to us is true. The hard choice is seeking out every piece of information. The hard choice is viewing the same story from every angle to discern the maximum amount of unbiased information. Many of us don't want to do the work because it is hard. But nothing good ever comes easy. This is true in work, fitness, life, and it is true in this case. To be informed in the modern world is hard work. But is our responsibility to be informed. If we aren't informed, how can we expect any changes to happen? Do your duty to yourself, your fellow human beings, and your country. If you don't, who will?

---

REFERENCES

FOOTNOTES*