Talk:Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Opposing Viewpoints are Needed. 2 Authors 3 Trojan Horse 4 Date 5 Some added clarity, please?

[edit] Opposing Viewpoints are Needed.

What in particular is in need of an opposing viewpoint?

Why are opposing viewpoints needed?

In my opinion, opposing viewpoints will never be very pertinent unless the reason for which they are "needed" is first focused upon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.68.121.10 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 September 2003 (UTC)

The thesis of the book, as described by the article is not universally accepted as fact. There is a significant body of contrary view which should be represented. -- Daran 14:58, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've been seeing a lot of knee-jerk conservatism lately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.104.47 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a coherent criticism. More pertinent that while a person may disagree with the book, the article here summarizes the books points, not stating that these points are true. Now whether these points are to be debated here in the article is a matter of opinion, but I'm inclined to say no. Robovski 23:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. If there has been criticism specifically of this book that's notable (if someone wrote a well-known rebuttal book, for example), then we should cover it. We shouldn't debate the points of the book ourselves or dig up other people who happen to have made different points, though; it's trivially obvious that not everyone agrees with Chomsky, so it doesn't really add much to the article to say so. --Delirium 03:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. It seems like there's been no notable criticism written of this book; as with most of the things Chomsky is involved with any attacks have been pretty much exclusively ad hominem. This was exemplified with the reaction to the Faurisson case. I'd be interested to see any cogent rebuttals though, since the analysis was pretty tight in my opinion. -- Autumninjersey 20:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Authors

My copy (ISBN 0-09-953311-1 Vintage UK) lists Herman before or above Chomsky whenever the authors are mentioned: on the spine, cover, i, iii, and back cover. Is there a reason why it's different in the article? - Jeandré, 2004-04-24t20:24+02:00

I guess it's just because Chomsky is more popular, but you're probably right. On Amazon they list Chomsky first, but if you zoom in on the cover, Herman is first. [1] --GD 19:19, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trojan Horse

One of the points made in the work is a rhetorical technique. Say you want to sell an idea, call it A. You then produce two viewpoints B and C which both assume A, yet oppose eachother. As the argument goes back and forth, B vs C, A is implicitely advocated to the point that A is taken for granted, and not to accept A is foolish. The issue of "Ronald Reagan won the cold war" reminded me of this: I've seen a lot of arguments for and against which tacitly acknowledge the same dubious 'truths'. And there's a bias: based on these 'truths' the arguments for are stronger. For example, it was all the result of Reagan era military spending and activity. Why then, wasn't the space race to blame? How about Korea and Viet Nam? How about China breaking with the Soviet Union back in the fifties? How about Stalin being an ass? - excuse my french. None of the complexities of the fall of super-power are brought to bear on the question of how the soviet union fell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.127.58.250 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 20 June 2004 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this with something specific (passages, pages?) from the book. I have no idea what you're talking about -- Autumninjersey 20:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date

It doesn't even have the data published. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.202.187.209 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 October 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some added clarity, please?

"If a particular outlet is in disfavor with a government, it can be subtly 'shut out', and other outlets given preferential treatment."

Does the book say how this "shutting out" is done? It's a bit unclear as it is, I felt the same about the movie :\ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.181.231.36 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One of Ed Herman's chapters in the book does list a number of factors which have the combined effect of shutting out the "incorrect" viewpoints - things like advertising revenue, editorial control, 'flak' from media watch groups and so forth. The book doesn't go into detail, preferring to use empirical evidence to show that the propaganda model actually does apply, rather than theorising how it works. The documentary film isn't really a book-of-the-film - though the doc has a 'companion volume' which is also, confusingly, called "Manufacturing Consent". --82.35.240.214 05:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)