In the wake of global challenges ranging from war, crimes against humanity, misinformation, and the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, our ability to critically examine the information  we are presented, has become increasingly vital. In the west, we are often warned about misinformation that comes from outside sources, particularly from adversarial regimes with which our governments have little affinity. Conversely, much less effort is devoted to informing us about the dangers of propaganda and bias emanating from our own institutions and media outlets.

Worries about misinformation first spiked when Donald Trump made “fake news” a buzzword during his early presidential campaign. Now, eight years down the road, we’re grappling with the rise of deepfakes created by AI. Misinformation has become the plague of our time and the concerning part is, we don’t find it objectionable when our own government takes part in spreading it.

The idea that governments, particularly those that uphold progressive values, are in some way misleading their citizens is all too often dismissed  as mere conspiracy in public discussions. Yet, it has historically been the case that dissenting voices get suppressed in the media more frequently than we care to admit. Noam Chomsky’s and Edward S. Herman’s seminal work Manufacturing Consent shines a light on the intricate ways in which media can influence public opinion, and often does so by functioning as a propaganda system for the interests of the powerful elite.  

In their book, the authors introduce a propaganda model that outlines five filters acting as barriers between a newsworthy event and its dissemination to the general public. In their own words: “A propaganda model focuses on this inequality of wealth and power and its multilevel effects on mass-media interests and choices. It traces the routes by which money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public”. The five filters include:

1. Size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media
2. The advertising license to do business
3. Sourcing mass-media news
4. Flak and the enforcers
5. Anticommunism as a control mechanism

The first two filters emphasize how financial factors can have a key role in determining what information gets published. Owners, investors and advertisers have powerful incentives to filter out the kinds of information that invites criticism and risks losing their audiences’ interest. The third filter points out the limitations of only relying on established sources for gathering information, demonstrating how neglecting critical perspectives can result in a biased interpretation of events. Flak refers to criticism that critical viewpoints can garner if published, and as a result, keeps journalists from challenging the status quo or reporting on contentious topics. And the last filter has to do with fear tactics that are meant to influence public opinion and justify certain policies or actions by those in power.

In essence, the propaganda model breaks down the underlying framework by which profit driven media companies influence public opinion. This is done by deliberate editorial choices concerning how information is presented: what is emphasized, versus what is downplayed or omitted altogether. What’s more, the primary reason for news stories undergoing a filtration process of this sort is because the interests of corporations and advertisers must be prioritized since they are the main sources of revenue for media outlets. This then leads journalists to inadvertently prioritize revenue generation at the expense of genuine objectivity.

Exploring this skewed process of how news stories are presented to the public, this article delves into the concept of manufacturing consent using Chomsky’s framework and other rhetorical tools. It prompts readers to ponder: What does it really mean when there’s a systematic, deliberate effort to manufacture consent? This includes scenarios like rallying support for war, justifying state aggression, minimizing human rights abuses, or dehumanizing a particular group of people.

From recent events, it has become blatantly clear that the rules-based international order can be easily circumvented by powerful states whenever there is a need for it. Still, to justify why deviating from the rules ought to be permitted, the public must be presented with reasons that resonate with our logic, our emotions, and our sense of justice and what we consider the right thing to do. This is where propaganda comes in and where dissenting voices are silenced or discredited.

While in our age of social media and artificial intelligence, the landscape for spreading misinformation has changed, the protocols have remained the same. The intricacies of propaganda need not be described here, but suffice it to say that it often employs the three most powerful rhetorical devices: ethos, pathos and logos. This essentially means that the messaging is constructed in a way that appeals to our sense of ethics and what we deem credible, our emotions and what moves us internally, and lastly, to our logic and capacity to reason.

Even outside the framework of a propaganda model, appeals to our sense of morality and justice requires that certain information be presented in a positive light while opposing views are made to look immoral, lacking discernment, and misaligned with our values. It is also obvious that if information comes from credible sources with respected professionals presenting logically sound arguments that align with our moral values, we’re likely to give it credence. It doesn’t have to work on everyone or 100% of the time, but convincing the majority most of the time is enough for a certain narrative to become prevalent in society.

Powerful figures, celebrities and even social media influencers have the ability to manufacture the consent of the general public through their use of language and how they present themselves and their message. We have witnessed how charismatic leaders use language that appeals to our emotions by touching something deep within us to incite social change, or conversely, by stroking fear and hatred to create division and animosity.  

Considering for instance, the media coverage of Gaza after the October 7^th attacks, how were appeals to logic, emotion and ethics made? In the early days and weeks, condemning the attackers and labeling them as terrorists was a prerequisite for any meaningful discourse to take place. It is important to really consider why this was the case, instead of fixating on how Hamas fits the definition of a terrorist group. The propaganda model can explain the shortcomings in the news coverage of Gaza especially by media outlets that are susceptible to issues mentioned above. If it wasn’t obvious before, it has surely become clear now why events were portrayed a certain way and why the notion of condemning and labeling came before every discussion and public statement made.

The international community is waking up to the fact that condemning and labeling the attackers was not only meant to discredit them but that it also prohibited us from questioning why such a group exists to begin with. What has happened in the past that has allowed such extreme violence and hatred to take root? Keeping in mind that searching for the root cause is not the same as excusing the violence that took place on October 7^th. Also, in hindsight, it is clear that deliberate attempts were made to dehumanize Palestinians in an effort to garner consent for the upcoming, horrific war crimes committed against them.

Using Chomsky’s and Herman’s terms, the treatment of Palestinians in the media coverage was that of worthy victims. In the initial stages of the conflict, their suffering and victimization received little attention, sympathy and support from the media or the international community. On the other hand, the unworthy victims, i.e. the victims of the October 7^th attack, were treated in quite the opposite manner. The reason for this difference is that victimizing one group over the other aligns with dominant narratives, geopolitical interests, or the agenda of powerful groups. This narrative has of course changed drastically now that South Africa has presented a genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice.

All of this underscores the importance of looking at world events through a critical and informed lens that is meant to enrich our understanding, so that we are not easily swayed by superficial narratives. Needless to say, a healthy dose of criticism towards authority and apprehension to accept things at face value, is necessary in a world where everything can be commodified and where seeing is no longer believing. Whenever there is reason to question a narrative, the ability and willingness to deconstruct and criticize makes us better equipped to uncover the truth.

I also realize that cognitive dissonance can be a factor when it comes to conflicting viewpoints and uncomfortable truths. It is understandable that people want to protect themselves from psychologically damaging information that starkly contradicts how they view themselves, their history and the stories they grew up with. While overcoming this barrier is not an easy thing to do, there are so many inspiring examples of people that have faced their discomfort with the truth and quite literally made the world a better place. As Plato wisely said, ignorance is the root of all evil, which is why promoting a culture of informed curiosity and critical thinking is key to making sense of our world.