Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media by Sophia Southam On January 2nd at the Ridge Theatre, Frank Freeman, a Vancouver freelance writer, introduced the Canadian made documen- tary Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. He said that watching the film would probably change the lives of many of its viewers. I’m sure that he was right. The documentary makes accessible the ideas of “possibly the most important intellectual alive”. And underlying Chomsky’s disturbing exposé of the media’s constant filtering and censoring of facts to present biased, propagan- dist information, is an inherent belief that average human beings possesses far greater thinking capacities than most intellectuals give them credit for. The two directors, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, spent seven years following Chomsky around the world filming interviews, debates and lectures that he participated in. They also filmed interviews with several of the media elite discussing Chomsky and his ideas as well as interviewing average Americans informally, question- ing them about many of the issues that he raises to try to feel out the common consensus. They have boiled all this information down into a two part documentary, the first, “Thought Control in a Democratic Society”, introduces us to Chomsky and his ideas, the second, ” Activating Dissent”, begins to present guidelines for creating a truly free and democratic society. The ideas are developed in the film in much the same manner as Chomsky develops his ideas in a lecture. A thesis is presented and then proven with facts and statistics, often visual information. Of course the general thesis is that the media filters and censors informa- tion to present biased views, properly termed propaganda. The way they’ ve done this is to create formats that are conducive to presenting oversimplified and misleading statements. For instance, television news shows that have discussion groups run on such tight schedules that they will only allow speakers about five minutes if not less to express their views on any given subject. Therefore, in choosing speakers they will find people who are able to make highly general- ized statements that can summarize one side of an issue. Inviting any controversial speaker would complicate matters because it takes longer to refute a controversial point of view, arguments ensue, why take the trouble? By filming Chomsky’s interviews, particularly his television interviews, we are able, through the camera behind the camera, to see him in the hands of the media. We see him being cut off by a commercial breaks half way through a sentence, we see him rudely insulted by interviewers who have no facts to prove their refutations but manage to time their jabs so that they will have the last word thereby trying to make his views seem like the mad raving of a lunatic. The press’s system of propaganda is even more subtle. It is understood that the New York Times is the most important newspaper in America. The New York Times faxes all of its headlines to smaller city papers the night before it goes to press thereby advising as to what is the important news of the day. Thus ONE newspaper is setting the agenda for most of the other newspapers in America. Another disturbing fact is that the New York Times is informed by the New York Times. All historical data is gathered from the huge archives that contain every issue ever published. History is being recorded in the daily newspaper. In an interview with the editor of the paper he pleads innocence to the accusation that anyone is filtering or censoring the information printed. He points to daily deadlines and space restrictions that guide the printing of “everything that’s fit to Print’. And yet sixty percent of the newspaper is advertising. What does get printed is information about stories of international interest often wherein the United States government has direct involvement, the Gulf War for instance. What doesn’t get printed are the smaller stories like the story of East Timor, an island off the coast of Australia whose indigenous people liberated themselves from the colonial rule of the Portuguese only to be invaded and subjected to massive genocide by the Indone- sian army. This story was only briefly mentioned in the New York Times even though the U.S. and Canada for that matter are also directly involved in it. Both countries voted against a U.N. resolution demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Indonesian troops. Throughout the expose of sources that many of have come to trust, the directors provide a few moments of comic relief; the dissection of a previously published British article in an operating room to demonstrate the “editing “ practices of the New York Times. The ironic broadcasting of Noam Chomsky talking about the media manipulating people into thinking that sports are important on a screen in the Olympic Stadium while the local football team practices. The parallel editing of Chomsky and the Dutch minister of defence debating and two decrepit feather- weights boxing. The loser (Dutch defence minister) can’t take a punch and starts yelling at the other (falling back on rhetoric). This peppering of humour is meant to remind us that the learning process can be fun but sometimes reminds us of the very methods of propaganda that we should be wary of. A striking achievement of the film is to present a portrait of a great intellec- tual without deifying him achieved by concentrating on his ideas rather than imbuing his every movement with supreme importance. Biographical information is kept to a bare minimum mostly seeking the sources of his education and his moral values. The finest quality of this man and the root of philosophy is his belief in the intelligence and creativity of the human mind. He sees himself as an informer, a man who understands the world’s working and is able to process the vast amount of informa- tion available about it in a cohesive and unbiased fashion. He expects his listeners, the common people to reach their own conclusions about what is right and wrong. The decision to do something about the gross injustices that many in the world are subjected to because of our capitalist ideals, that decision must come from within. The overriding message though a bleak view of the world is not pessimistic. Chomsky believes that the world is increasingly at the mercy of large corporations that control its resources and whose only concern is to increase profits. Democracy is certainly not a system wherein every four years the people are consulted on who of the presented candidates should run the country but who are never consulted about how the country is run. This is George Bush’s view of democracy when he says that political philosophers need no longer search to find a perfect form of government as one is already in place in the United States of America. Chomsky is encouraging a new revolution before the propagandist use of the appeal to nationalism completely obscures the people’s view of the corrupt system they support. A brief rant regarding that movie about NOAM CHOMSKY By David C. Franson A month or two ago I had the privilege of viewing “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media”. I was prepared for one of those important films, but what I found instead was a film that, despite being political and informative, was also entertaining, witty, and clever. Rather than give you all the reasons why watching this documentary is a good use of three hours of your life, I’ll just say that you should discover this for yourself. Go see it, if it’s around. Really, you shouldn’t have to go to the theatres to see it. It’s entertaining, informative, and even made by Canadians. Just the sort of thing that the CBC should be airing, but for some reason (probably the usual reasons: stupidity, sloth, conspiracy, and inertia in govern- mental agencies), they won’t. Stupid bastards; it would be better programming than “Street Legal” or the usual crap that they pollute the public airwaves (that’s right: your airwaves) with. Australian television is not only interested, but also wants footage added. The CBC, on the other hand, is interested in no footage. I guess it’s important to them that good Canadian products be ignored and suppressed at home. But then again, maybe if everyone asked really nicely, the holy programmers might throw the public a scrap or two of quality television. According to the producers of “Manufacturing Consent’, the bureaucrat identified below is responsible for the CBC’s documentary programming. Notify him of your interest in viewing this film: a stamp costs less than a ticket. Mark Starowicz Executive Producer, Documentaries CBC Box 500 Station A F I LM “Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media by Sophia Southam ‘On January 2nd atthe Ridge Theatre, Frank Freeman, a ‘Vancouver freelance writer, introduced the Canadian made documen- {ary Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. He suid that watching the film would probably change the lives of many ofits viewers, I'm sure that he was right. The documentary makes accessible the ideas of “possibly the most important intellectual alive”, And underlying Chomsky’s disturbing exposé ofthe media's ‘constant filtering and censoring of facts to preset biased, propagan- ist information, is an inerent belief that average human beings [ossesses far greater thinking capacities than most intellectuals give ‘them eredit for. The two directors, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, spent seven years following Chomsky around the world flming interviews, ‘debates and lectures that he participated in. They also filmed interviews with several ofthe media elite discussing Chomsky and bis ideas as well as interviewing average Americans informally, question ing them about many ofthe issues that he raises to try to feel out the ‘common consensus. They have boiled all his information down into ‘two part documentary, te fis, “Thought Control in a Democratic Society”, introduces us to Chomsky and his ideas, the second, "Activating Dissent”, begins to present guidelines for creating a trly fee and democratic society. ‘The ideas ae developed in the film in much the same manner as Chomsky develops his ideas in a lecture. A thesis is presented and then proven with facts and statistics, often visual information. Of course the general thesis is thatthe media filters and censors informa- tion o present biased views, properly termed propaganda. The way they've done ths isto create formas that are conducive to presenting ‘oversimplified and misleading statemens. For instance, television ‘news shows that have discussion groups run on such tight sehedles that they will only allow speakers about five minutes if not lss to ‘express their views on any given subject. Therefore, in choosing speakers they will ind people who are able to make highly generl- ‘ed statements that can summarize one side ofan issue. Inviting any controversial speaker would complicate matters because it takes longer to refute a controversial point of view, arguments ensue, why {ake the trouble? By filming Chomsty’s interviews, particularly his {television interviews, we are able through the camera behind the ‘camer, to see im in the hands ofthe media. We see him being cut ‘off by a commercial breaks half way through a sentence, we see him rudely insulted by interviewers who have no facts to prove their ‘eftations but manage to time their abs so that they will have the last word thereby tying to make his views seem like the mad raving of a lnati. ‘The press's system of propaganda is even more subtle. Itis understood thatthe New York Times isthe most important newspaper in America. Tae New York Times faxes all of its headlines to smaller city papers the night before it goes to press thereby advising as to ‘hati th important news ofthe day. Thus ONE newspaper is seating the agenda for most of the other newspapers in America. ‘Another disturbing facts thatthe New York Times i informed by the New York Times. All historical data is gathered from the huge archives that contain every issue ever published. History is being recorded in the ally newspaper. In an interview with te editor ofthe paper he pleads innocence to the accusation that anyone is filtering or censoring the information printed. He points to daily dealnes and space restrictions that guide the printing of “everything that's fitto Print”. And yet sity percent of the newspaper i advertising. What does get ‘Printed is information about stories of international interest often wherein the United Sates government has direct involvement, the Gulf War for instance. What doesn't ‘get printed ae the smaller stores like the story of East Timor, an island off the coast ‘of Australia whose indigenous people liberated themselves from the colonial rule of, the Portuese only o be invaded and subjected to massive genocide bythe Indone- sian army. This story was only briefly mentioned inthe New York Times even though the U.S. and Canada for that matter are also directly involved init Both ‘countries voted agninst aU.N. resolution demanding the ‘immediate withdrawal of the Indonesian troops. ‘Throughout the expose of sources that many of have come to trust, the sirectors provide afew moments of comic relief; the dissection ofa previously published British article in an operating oom to demonstrate the “editing "practices ofthe New York Times. The ironic broadcasting of Noam Chomsky talking about the media manipulating people into thinking that sport are important on asereen in the Olympic Stadium while the local football team practices. The parallel editing of Chomsky and the Dutch minister of defence debating and two decrepit feather- ‘eights boxing. The loser (Dutch defence minister) can't take a punch and starts yelling atthe other (alling back on rhetoric). Ths peppering of humour is meant to remind us that the learning process canbe fun but sometimes reminds us of the very ‘methods of propaganda that we should be wary of. ‘A striking achievement of the film is o present a portrait of a great intellec- tual without deifying him achieved by concentrating on his ideas ratber than imbuing his every movement with supreme importance. Biographical information is kept to a ‘bare minimam mostly seeking the sources of his education and his moral values. The finest quality ofthis man and the rot of philosophy is his belie in the intelligence ‘and creativity of the buman mind. He sees himself as an informer, aman who ‘understands the world’s working and is able to process the vast amount of informa- tion available abou itn acobesive and unbiased fashion. He expects his listeners, ‘the common people to reach ther own conclusions about what is right and wrong. ‘The decision to do something about the gross injustices that many inthe world are subjected to because of our capitalist deals, that decision must come from within “The overriding message though a bleak view ofthe world i not pessimistic ‘Chomsky believes thatthe word is increasingly atthe merey of large corporations that conto its resources and whose only concem is to increase profits. Democracy is ‘certainly not a system wherein every four years the people are consulted on who of the presented candidates should run the country but who are never consulted about how the country is run. This is George Bush's view of democracy when be says that politcal philosophers need no longer search to find a perfect form of government 25, ‘one is already in place inthe United States of America. Chomsky is encouraging @ ‘new revolution before the propagandist use ofthe appeal to nationalism completely obscures the people's view of the corrupt system they support. A brief rant regarding that movie about NOAM CHOMSKY By David C. Franson ‘A month or two ago I had the privilege of viewing “Manufacturing ‘Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media". I was prepared for one of ‘those important films, bt what I found instead was afl that,