All Anime Applications Games Movies Music TV shows Other

MANUFACTURING CONSENT - PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY AND THE MEDIA 1992 VIDEO

    Seeders : 0      Leechers : 0

Note :

Please Update (Trackers Info) Before Start "MANUFACTURING CONSENT - PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY AND THE MEDIA 1992 VIDEO" Torrent Downloading to See Updated Seeders And Leechers for Batter Torrent Download Speed.

Trackers List

Torrent File Content (2 files)

Description

Movies : Documentary : DVD Rip : English


  

A
film about the noted American linguist/political dissident and his warning about corporate media's role in modern
propaganda.
Directors: Mark Achbar, Peter Wintonick
Stars: Noam Chomsky, Mark Achbar, Karin Aguilar-San Juan |
See full cast & crew »

Plot
Showing all 2 items
Jump to: Summaries (2)
Summaries
This film showcases Noam Chomsky, one of America's leading linguists and political dissidents. It
also illustrates his message of how government and big media businesses cooperate to produce an effective propaganda
machine in order to manipulate the opinions of their populations. The key examples featured for this analysis are the
simultaneous events of the massive coverage of the communist atrocities of Khmer Rouge regime of Cambodia and the
suppression of news of the US supported Indonesian invasion and subjugation of East Timor.

—Kenneth
Chisholm
A film about the noted American linguist/political dissident and his warning about corporate media's
role in modern propaganda.

—Kenneth Chisholm

10/10
Put on your
thinking caps
enmussak26 December 2002
Chomsky is one of my heroes, so I am a little biased. I consider myself
a moderate, and I see Chomsky as a transcendent of politics. He spouts the truth, and tries to decipher incredibly
complex institutional interactions. This doc will make you think about the world you live in like you've never
thought about it before, being led by one of the premier thinkers of our time. Chomsky will be remembered far beyond the
present, a true maverick and one of the few people intelligent enough to address societal and institutional ills and be
right close to 100% of the time.

Do NOT dismiss Chomsky because you think he's a lefty nut. He's
not a pre-Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore. Noam Chomsky is a distinguished intellectual in the truest sense with a
near 100% accuracy in placing his words properly in sentences. When you hear him speak, try to focus on how clearly and
concisely his ideas are discussed. Then look into his eyes and take note of his demeanor. A human body does not suit a
mind like his. This documentary is a must for truth seekers and lefties. It is long, but you can watch it in parts. If
you wanna have a great discussion, watch it with one or two other people. Its inevitable. 10/10
14 out of 14 found
this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 10/10
Required Viewing for every citizen in the
Free World
aurora7_athena31 July 2001
This movie, like the title suggests is required viewing for every single
person living in the free world. Not many movies can claim to start political and grass-roots movements but this one
has.

If you value your intelligence, if you don't believe a pre-fabricated word of what the media
machine throws at you, if you want to fight to keep your intellect alive and your own individual thinking original, if
you are sick and tired of how this world is NOW and passionately want to change it for the better, then this movie is
for you. The movie and accompanying book claim to be primers in intellectual self-defense, which they certainly are but
beyond that, they also serve to showcase the many talents of linguist/political dissident/writer/philosopher/professor
Noam Chomsky.

I'm surprised the movie didn't win a Best Documentary Oscar, which it certainly
should have, perhaps more than anything it just goes to show you that the contents of this movie probably strike too
close to home and make the media elite squirm in their seats.

Take 3 hours off some Sunday afternoon instead
of watching the football game and WATCH THIS MOVIE, you won't regret it! The movie leaves you with an immense
feeling of hope and a profound sense that each one of us can do something actively and constructively in order to make
this a better world to live in. If you're apolitical now and/or politically inactive, you won't be after you
watch this movie. Guaranteed.
34 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
Chomsky once again blows off the blinders...
james_oblivion29 September 2003
Well, not the blinders of those
who like to cast aspersions like "paranoid" and "delusional" in his direction...but they'll
never escape their tunnel vision, so why should Noam labor against futility?

Let's start by getting
something out of the way. Though he'd laugh at me for saying this, Noam Chomsky is one of the most intelligent and
(an important distinction here) knowledgable human beings on the planet. Not only is he gifted with incredible
intellect...he has used that intellect to absorb volumes upon volumes of information that most people have never been
privy to...let alone memorized and analyzed, as Chomsky has. That said, let's move on.

Chomsky is an
anarchist. And the fact is that while everybody in the world thinks that they know exactly what an anarchist is, in
reality, it seems that, for the most part, the only people who understand anarchism are anarchists. Everything the media
has ever said about anarchists is a lie. Their use of the word "anarchy" to describe chaotic situations and
chaos in general is an utter corruption of the word anarchy, which, from its very roots, means quite simply
"absence of a governing body"...nothing in there about chaos that I can see.

Chomsky subscribes to
many of the ideals put forth by Michael Bakunin, a contemporary (and fierce opponent) of Karl Marx, and the recognized
father of international anarchism. So, because Chomsky is an anarchist, he will obviously be viewed by many as a
delusional paranoid. Then again, those who classify him as such wouldn't recognize Big Brother if he was bulldozing
their homes to build a new shopping center.

What you will find in this film (and in Chomsky's book,
which is far superior) is compelling evidence (based not on delusions, but on facts) that American media is controlled
by a corporate elite who use it essentially for propaganda purposes in order to, if I may lift a phrase from Chomsky,
"control the public mind." Once you realize how consolidated the corporate media really is, and how they twist
the facts in order to pump disinformation into the homes of unsuspecting citizens, you'll never be able to look at
CNN the same way again.

As for the critics, who feel much safer and infinitely more free than they have any
reason to...their dismissals of Chomsky as a left-wing crackpot who doesn't know what he's talking about
(despite the fact that he's studied extensively and most of his critics have gotten the bulk of their information
from the same media sources he proves unreliable) only further strengthen his case. Not only does the corporate media
distort the facts in order to lull the masses into a false sense of security...quite obviously, they're doing a
tremendous job.
43 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
A wide-ranging,
at times glowing documentary on Noam Chomsky's life and views on the American media.
Nick Lucchesi1 July
2004
A wide-ranging, at times glowing documentary on Noam Chomsky's life and views on the American media, both
large and small, mass and alternative, Manufacturing Consent took five years to create and covers Chomsky's life
with over a hundred hours of interviews and lectures spanning 23 cities in seven countries. Directors and producers Mark
Achbar and Peter Wintonick followed around Chomsky in an effort to capture his beliefs on any media they had around
them, including everything from 16 mm film to 8 mm videotape. Manufacturing Consent showcases Chomsky's profound
beliefs and profiles his personality in humorous and thought-provoking ways that compel the viewer to learn about the
topics he broaches with as much vigor Chomsky himself.

An anecdote from Chomsky about his childhood in the
first part of the film sums up his attitudes in a charming elementary school story. Chomsky tells of a time where he
attempted to defend a 'fat kid' in first grade from a group of bullies, but after a while he became frightened
and let the child he was defending fend for himself. Chomsky says he was always ashamed for leaving the side of that
person, and he parallels that instance to his defense of people, free speech and his support of human rights in
third-world nations.

Often in the film, Wintonick appears in the background with camera in hand, or is heard
off camera interviewing subjects familiar with Chomsky's controversial work. However, the most visually appealing
aspect of Manufacturing Consent is the visually creative segments that break up interviews on-screen talking. The
segments appeal to the visual learner not akin to grasping some of the advanced concepts and often detailed (convoluted
at times) speeches of Chomsky. The best example of this learning tool is one problem Chomsky had with the New York Times
after they manipulated a story from London's The Guardian concerning genocides in East Timor. The Times rearranged
the story's paragraphs and cut out entire paragraphs to add a different spin to the story, as the U.S. was
allegedly funneling arms and supporting the occupying Indonesians in order to make U.S. involvement appear minimal, and
at best, positive. Hands appear on screen, with the newspaper article on a mini operating table, and medical
instruments, shiny, reflective and lined up, are ready to dissect and take out pieces of the article. Essentially a pair
of hands in white surgical gloves 'operates' on this news article, all to display the point more effectively.
Similar visual segments are used during the film, all with as much of an impact as this one.

While Achbar and
Wintonick show almost as many dissenters of Chomskys ideas as they do supporters, one could easily infer that the two
are supporters of his ideas. However, they do not interject any of their own political ideas into the fray. The only on
camera activity the two participate in is the acting out of Chomsky's ideas via the aforementioned visual segments.
Although they are only acting out Chomsky's ideas, the pair still help to illustrate those ideas, thereby
implicating their support. While Wintonick had experience doing political films before, they were mostly simple campaign
shorts for Canadian politicians. For Achbar as well as Wintonick, Manufacturing Consent was their crowning achievement,
and the film went on to become the top-grossing feature documentary in Canadian history.

Released in 1992,
the film is only vaguely similar to today's political documentaries. While it is a far cry from the almost
cinematic documentaries of Michael Moore, it laid the groundwork for Moore's films with its approach, full of
archival footage, interviews, and humor. The stock footage, narration over still photos, and interview after interview
are all used in an attempt to get as many of Chomsky's basic ideas across as possible, stretching the film out to
two hours, 45 minutes. 

There are two parts to Manufacturing Consent, the first covering Chomsky's
life-- early background and his foray into protest from his professorship at Massachusetts Institute of Technology--
while the second portion focuses on his dissidence from the mass media's ideologies, or at least his dissidence
with the mass media's way of communicating information. The directors only interview Chomsky directly for a small
portion of the film. Most of the interviews are done by other subjects; everyone from alternative radio news anchors to
talk show hosts to newspaper writers interview Chomsky, and Achbar and Wintonick are right there with their cameras to
capture Chomsky's ideas and often the ensuing arguments. Anyone not familiar with the ideas of Chomsky before
seeing this film need not worry, as this mammoth of a documentary covers the basics of Chomsky's ideas and
writings. Several of his lectures at universities around the country are showcased, not only exposing his ideas but the
personality behind them. While The New York Times lauded Chomsky as the greatest intellectual of our time and one of the
film's visual segments show a group of baseball cards, only with 'philosopher all stars' as the theme
(Chomsky is included), such blatant quotes and visuals are not needed to let the viewer realize Chomsky's genius,
however disputed it may be. The filmmakers profile Chomsky in a way that, while it is not 'Noam Chomsky 101,'
makes for an interesting profile of the man and fully encompasses his ideas on general issues like the mass media, and
more specific ones concerning human rights violations and freedom of speech. Chomsky's detractors are also profiled
in the film, and at one point, his defense of freedom of speech causes the Jewish raised Chomsky to be labeled as an
anti-Semite. His preface for a revisionist book by author Robert Faurisson is a defense of free speech. In a later scene
where Chomsky is surrounded by reporters questioning his preface, he says that only allowing freedom of speech for ideas
that one supports inherently makes that person an adversary to free speech. While the directors make it clear that
Chomsky is no revisionist or Holocaust denier, their inclusion of his willingness to grapple with controversial subject
matter further illustrates Chomsky's daring personality backed by his intellectual prowess. The film does not have
a clear-cut story per se, but rather it is a loose collection of ideas and theories that Chomsky has, all of which fall
under his comments on the media. The directors take their time in illustrating those ideas with a variety of story
telling and learning devices. Perhaps this is why the film is so long. After viewing, it is safe to say that besides a
few of the visual segments, none of this film's content could be cut out to trim the story down. In attempting to
cover the ideas and life of an intensely academic man who wrote dozens of books and articles, it may not be best to
compact it in a single film, but the directors somehow succeed at succinctly conveying his messages. The soundtrack is
similar to ones heard in other political or academic documentaries in that much of the music is reminiscent to that of
the music heard on cable news channels or at worst, game shows. The use of sound effects during visual segments more
often than not is solely provided for humor or to induce a feeling of haste, as most of the segments are played at
double speed. The challenge in this film is to implement just enough background music so that the lengthy interviews and
lectures do not become too monotonous. Most often, the use of music or background noise is used to break up long
interviews. The budget for this film is not immediately discernible. While the directors admitted to not having enough
money to follow Chomsky to Japan for an award he received during the film and they had to 'direct' a local
film crew there for the scene, they still traveled with him to other locales. However, after viewing, it is obvious that
the filmmakers following around Chomsky only had to film his public speaking engagements and interviews not related to
the documentary. They just filmed his pre-arranged interviews with outside news sources and lectures at universities.
The film was shot over four years and that time span can undoubtedly take up much of the budget. The main sources of
tension found in Manufacturing Consent come from Chomsky's ideas themselves. His personality, at times
confrontational when others disagree with him, or even when others merely interrupt him (most notably on news talk shows
such as Firing Line in 1969), can be a proponent of tension between him and others. The other, less obvious sources of
tension, are culled from more abstract issues involving Chomsky as the dissenter to popular, or as he puts it,
'corporate' opinion.
18 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this

10/10
This is Must-See Media for the masses
colbydog21 February 2006
This is one of the five best
educational tools not in use in the United States. A film so deep and full of non-stop, reality-busting evidence that
—what you see ISN'T what you get in America.

Chomsky is arguably the most intelligent political
observer on Earth today. Its easy to be the Plunderer and commit the atrocities... its far more difficult to uncover the
plots, organize the facts, and be vigilant of the actions. This is Must-See Media for the masses!

Americans
are too busy to begin think outside the box. This is 2h46m of intensive training in true democratic responsibility.
Chomsky may favor the social structure of an early 20th century Kibbutz, but certainly his lessons of observation would
stand well for any social structure. If you are not bought and owned by the system... you owe it to your children or
your immortal soul...or karmic rebirth, to wake up and smell the fascism.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this
review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 10/10
Manufacturing One Of The Best Documentaries Ever
Karl Self24
March 2001
The film makers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, achieve the seemingly impossible by turning Noam
Chomsky's dry political theories and persona into a fascinating, entertaining movie, and all on a presumably tight
budget. If you want to gain insight into the workings of the US media system then this movie will give you some food for
thought. Hardly surprising then that Hollywood did not award them an Oscar for this, even thought they sure would have
deserved one.
14 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 10/10
One
of the most important documentaries ever made.
script2Screen1 October 1999
Noam
Chomsky has been called "arguably the most important intellectuals alive" by the New York Times and has been
at the forefront of dissenting intellectual thought and activism for several decades now. This film takes a witty and
intelligent look at Chomsky's well-documented theories on how the media serves the agendas of the
corporate/government power structure - not as a conspiracy theory, but simply as an analysis of the way things
necessarily operate.

This film is bound to polarize audiences. The ideas which are put forward and the facts
which are revealed will shake some people's world. Many will disagree and argue against Chomsky and his ideas.
Good. I think that's much of why this film was made. The disclaimer at the end of the credits states that the film
was made with the intent to promote discussion about the media. If you aren't aroused one way or another by what is
put forward in this film then either you must have been sleeping through it or else you are just plain apathetic.

The film is long. It has to be. Chomsky points out that part of the way in which the mass media manufactures
consent is through concision. Sound-bytes. They don't take a lot of time to look at the facts or to thoroughly
examine both sides of most issues. In order to think outside the paradigm of the mass media and to adequately discuss
and defend views which go against mainstream thought, then you have to take some time. That's exactly what
"Manufacturing Consent" does. However, the filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, keep it interesting.
They keep it from turning into three hours of talking heads.

To do this the filmmakers use some of the very
techniques which Chomsky identifies the mass media as using in order to influence their audiences. It's wonderful
and humorous to see how they speak the very language which they (and Chomsky) are exposing and criticizing. Don't
be fooled, this is a propagandist film in favor of Chomsky and in favor of thinking about the world around you and then
getting off your butt and doing something about it! Keep in mind when I use the term 'propaganda', that
propaganda isn't always necessarily bad (the USA used propaganda to muster support for World War II and
consequently Hitler's genocide was stopped). 'Propaganda' it just basically means that it pretty
blatantly favors one view over another. Don't get me wrong, "Manufacturing Consent" is not completely one
sided. Both sides of the argument are given screen time, but Chomsky's views come out on top.

Watch this
film. Even if you don't agree with it, the discussion of the issues presented is important. It will raise your
consciousness of what is happening to you every day whenever you turn on the TV or the radio, or pick up a newspaper, or
even when you go to a football game. It will change your perspective and maybe even your life. And how many films really
do that? That's why I say it's one of the most important documentaries ever made.
17 out of 19 found this
helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 9/10
Maybe not the best documentary, but surely one of
the most thought-provoking films ever.
Paul Tremblay11 December 2001
Manufacturing Consent attempts to teach
deep social, political and philosophical studies with mainstream and sometimes simplistic filmmaking that edges on a
PowerPoint visual aids strategy. But... it works! The movie is not necessarily targeting MIT intelligentsia, but the
people-in-the-street that the same media depicted in the film are aiming at. If you liked the movie, or if it just left
you wondering, read the book! The film and/or the book will probably be worth your time... more, anyway, than any
Hollywood littering the screens nowadays. In this day and age of political and social polarization, of media playing the
role of king-makers (or king-slayers), of discussions of the very existence or relevancy of democracy in a highly
mediated and influenced political climate, Chomsky's suggestions are as timely as ever.
12 out of 13 found
this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
What do you think?
gpviau17 November 2004
Plain and simple, this was a good movie. At first blush, one may want to say, "Oh, it's kind of like
Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore". Well, sure - you could say that. But you'll quickly see that this isn't
an attack on a president or an administration or a wealthy family. Rather, it's a film that outlines the propaganda
machine among all of our media channels (radio, TV, print, etc.) 

It's long at 2 hours and 45 minutes,
but it's worth it. It will make you think about why you think something, and make you realize that propaganda
isn't something that happens in other countries. We do a great job of it here in the U.S.
9 out of 12 found
this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 6/10
Good, But Takes Too Long to Get to the
Point
Saturday8pm7 January 2007
Having seen Chomsky in other documentaries stoked my desire to pick this one
up. Unfortunately, it focuses a bit too much on the cult of personality rather than quickly summing up who this guy is
and what he's about. I got trigger-finger after the first 20 minutes of this, but I was glad I didn't surf
through the scenes, as I was paid off when it cites the examples the DVD card promised.

Of particular import
are the scenes where Chomsky's views are challenged by heads of state and news commentators and clearly shows us
why we haven't heard or seen more from this controversial man.

Eventually the viewer gets the full range
of Chomsky's purpose, and for that I am glad, I feel the richer for it, I will continue to seek films that
he's part of, but I hope those filmmakers, such as those responsible for "The Corporation", will spare me
the longwindedness of this film and get to the meat in due time.

Cheers: Questions the integrity of state and
corporate sponsored news; we discover how he gets his news.

Caveats: Longwinded ... needs to be edited down
by some 20 minutes; bounces around a lot.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report
this
 10/10
Chomsky is a hero
spazmodeus11 March 2003
Noam Chomsky is probably the most intelligent
person in the world. Nobody alive has furthered science to the degree that he has. But he proves his profound
intelligence in this meticulously-justified yet enlightning conclusions about the current state of politics and the
media. To this day, not one single plausible counterargument to his conclusions has emerged. That's probably
because Chomsky is right again.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 5/10
A deceptive treatment of deception
John Whitehead1 April 2003
Manufacturing Consent is an
immensely frustrating film. The documentary, which showcases Noam Chomsky's anarchist-socialist critique of the
American media, purports to be an expose, a skewering of the deception and manipulation perpetrated on the public by the
corporate-governmental establishment. 

Far from providing the needed antidote of clarity and passionate
honesty, however, the filmmakers(and, perhaps, Chomsky) are guilty of their own manipulation of facts and appearances,
stacking the deck in their own favor and employing tricks and distractions to get away from the important issues.

First, rather than simply presenting Chomsky's biography and philosophy in a straight-forward, focused way,
the film is full of ridiculous little set-pieces and interludes meant to drive home points that the highly articulate
Chomsky already made perfectly clear. To illustrate the New York Times skimpy treatment of the East Timorese genocide
the film gives us two actors in surgical gowns cutting up a newspaper with scalpels. We see Chomsky's face
broadcast on giant banks of TV screens placed within the darkest corners of the Establishment: a mall, a football
stadium. And, of course, we get the usual clips from '50s era educational films, just so we can have a laugh at
those stupid people not as sophisticated as we documentary viewers. 

These cinematic jokes, sneers and
posturing pad the documentary out to an absurd length of three hours, despite its containing only about ninety minutes
of genuine material. 

Worse, the documentary takes a slavishly adoring stance toward its subject, one which
Chomsky himself, to his credit, would find absurd. All critics are shown up as fools or buffoons and all clips of
Chomsky with an opponent are carefully chosen so that Chomsky always bests or one-ups the other guy. 

Further, the film uses innuendo rather than evidence: the key portion of Manufacturing Consent, deals with media
treatment of East Timor and the inadequate nature of the news coverage is amply demonstrated. Chomsky and his supporters
provide no arguments as to why this is the case, however: we are meant to assume that such media failures can only be a
manifestation of social control of the masses by elites. 

Finally, even after hacking through the padding and
the carefully managed presentation, the portrait of Chomsky that emerges is, I think, a misleading one. He comes across
as a kind of intellectual Michael Moore, a populist determined to dispel the lies of the powerful and reveal the plain,
honest truth. 

Nonsense. Chomsky's radicalism is the product not of commonsense decency, but of the very
rigid, extremist philosophy that shapes and constrains his own thought as much, if not more, than the
corporate-dominated media constrains the thought of others. Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, and he is not in rebellion
against the GOP, big business or even capitalism, but against the very idea of authority, of any kind, itself. 

A genuine debate with Chomsky must be one that challenges anarchism per se, and arguing about politics or the media
only leads to the tedium and frustration of Chomsky and his critics talking past each other-as we see again and again
throughout "Manufacturing Consent".
12 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No |
Report this
Get Sad, aka The Dirty Low Down Truth
P.M. Reilich5 February 2002
I wonder how many
conservatives, who disqualify this fine documentary and its book, are financially poor. I wonder if they realize that
their attitude supports the rich folks who are responsible for their dire financial straits. 

I am not an
activist. I admit that I'm a liberal because I was raised by liberals: poor, somewhat intellectual musicians; none
of us, except for one sister, university graduated scholars; all libertarians, the oldest before the term was invented.
We are, I believe, the common people to whom Chomsky is speaking quite directly. The ones who, because we constitute a
fairly large proportion of society, could make a difference if we became activists for his described controlled anarchy,
the purer democracy in which commoners would assume control of the economic, political etc. systems now concentrated
within the control of a relatively small number of moneyed individuals and corporations.

What is liberal? To
me, it's strongest dictionary definition is the one that describes it as ideas that wish/work for change. Most
liberals are for change because: there are many things wrong with the present system. The secondary definition is more
on the idea of leniency. Both are valid, and both are despised by most conservatives. The conservative rejoinder to
liberal ideas: 1) don't fix what's already working, and 2) there's too much moral/ethical leniency in our
society. 

The irony is that many conservatives also think there are things wrong with the system, but they
blame liberals for moral/ethical changes during the past few decades (what we liberals know to be minor, but what
conservatives consider to be drastic) and are therefore for a return to the more distant past, say the Victorian age, as
a resolve. The problem with this conservative resolve, for one perhaps prime example, is that there are several more
times the population of humans alive on Earth than there were during the 19th century. 

The population growth
has consequences. The rules have changed drastically because of technology and population growth. Land is no longer
cheaply bought nor given away; like too many cells crowded, straining against one another for survival inside a small
particle, human competition for survival has become ruthlessly detailed, more aggressive than ever before. Then liberals
become the perfect scapegoat, or smokescreen for denial of this tough reality, like bigotry was once utilized for
denial, killing Indians in the name of a phony over-protection in the wild, uncharted west.

American and
western European conservatives are central to this matter as is evident by tight European border controls and American
`white flight.' One imagines today's heads of state and corporate leaders conferring on attitudinal changes
for our society, one of a return to aggressiveness in the old Machiavellian manner, utilizing the new technological
tools and weapons, but for the same old genocide inflicted upon `Indians,' only now in more distant lands, and for
the same rearmament purposes.

What has changed little, is the economic system. The powerfully rich and their
corporations are ever more powerful, mainly because there is a tremendous amount of power to be wielded by masses of
laboring people. Note how difficult it would be for one extremely wealthy family, say the two Bush presidents and
family, to completely buy out one relatively small town of twenty thousand people. Not possible. This is why persuasion
is so vital to the powers in control of the money and ecopolitical policies. If the people were to attempt to rise up
and overthrow this yoke of corporate power, which considering how few vote in presidential elections doesn't seem
too crazy at first, it could certainly be done. But according to Chomsky, such a revolution is actually very difficult
to achieve, and the reason is that so few common people have the will to do it.

The people's consent, to
not attempt to overthrow their government's economic policies regardless how unfairly these powerful few treat the
masses, has been manufactured through a number of different insidious manipulations. The mass media is controlled by the
powerful corporations who, in agreement with conservative thinking, wish the economy to remain unchanged (status quo)
for obvious reasons: to hang onto their money. Many other people, sometimes called yuppies, who've recently
acquired, or are currently in the process of acquiring, large amounts of money also support the status quo so they
don't miss the boat of riches. What puzzles is how poor conservatives, the largest of demographic groups, are also
for keeping the status quo, since they stand to lose economically at almost every turn. This is one of the strangest of
sociopolitical phenomenon. It's also the most important area of focused propaganda that has ever existed. Such
blatantly fraudulent advertisements are what sickened me to television over the past few decades.

Basically,
the economically powerful, via mass media, utilize faith based ignorance prevalent in these poor conservatives, in an
insidious manipulation of these faithful to harm themselves and everyone else by promoting status quo thus allowing the
super rich to pilfer money that rightfully belongs to all of us in a more equal share of funds. The very idea I put
forth here, and which is at the core of Chomsky's work, is socialistic and therefore to be derided by conservative
capitalists. The conservative poor have therefore allowed the rich to bite off the noses of all the poor (the middle
class no longer exists) so as to spite liberal change, which they traditionally hate. And the super rich are controlling
it all along, which is an old Roman military strategy: divide and conquer.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this
review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 6/10
Manufacturing Consent: Does this hold true in today's age of
the Internet and Social Media?
Preeti Varadarajan11 February 2013
The documentary film, Manufacturing Consent:
Noam Chomsky and the Media made by the two Canadian filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, give us an insight on
the political views and life of Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political critic
and activist.

The 167 min film proves to be long for a documentary, however it goes on to illustrate and
gives a perspective of how the mainstream U.S media works and why they perform as they do. The movie presents
Chomsky's and Herman's theory that the media operates on the basis of set ideological premises and depends
extensively on elite information sources. The corporate media is driven by the quest to making profits and their further
agendas reflect the ideologies and interests of the dominant, elite groups in the society. The movie also asserts
Chomsky and Herman's idea that information in corporate media passes through the five factors --ownership,
advertising, sourcing, flak, and anti - communist ideology— which works as 'filters' and that
individually or additively they have a great influence on media choices. 

The movie emphasizes the fact that
we are today living in a world where the mass media act as an important source of information of the happenings around
the world. It is the most noticeable fact that the media is interested in some news more than the other, and this is
kind of pushed down in the minds of the people consuming that news. It can be ironic to say that news media are just
passively transmitting news and information. The choices of the daily and presentation are a reflection of the
public's perception about the most significant news of the day. This model exemplifies a lot of examples where
media has been biased in reporting. For e.g. there is an integral part in the movie which shows The New York Times'
coverage on of the outrages committed in in the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
This according to Chomsky is the case where Media is unwilling to go against the elite, since the invasion was then
supported by the US. 

On the flip side, the propaganda model might not end up working in many situations and
countries for the matter. The model may apply specifically to the US media where the media are owned and run by the
elites (Corporates, MNC's). However to that effect in a country like India, where media are not necessarily owned
by the elite, the question is that is this model still relevant? The propaganda model also denies the possibility that a
public grown weary of an issue might exert its concern in the mainstream news as a collective voice to be heard. The
model excludes the general public among its filters of news content. However, there are various instances which
demonstrate the role human agency can play outside the formal news making setting. For e.g. An instance where the US
news media reported on public dissent in the U.S./Iraq war campaign which surrounded the congressional midterm elections
and later how public opinion in the form of a social movement born form dissent, actually ended up shaping the news
product. The anti- corruption social movement in India driven by activist Anna Hazare was ridiculed at beginning by the
mainstream media as being unrealistic and dramatic. The media acted as the mouthpiece the ruling party and wanted to
subdue this entire story to protect its integrity. However when the collective voice of the citizens, who this time used
internet and social media to raise their opinion spread like wild fire, the incident turned into a social upheaval, and
in that case the dissent created by public against corruption became the prime news and media had no choice but to cover
it. In this case as well, it was public opinion that ended up shaping the news product.

A further thought can
be that in times of internet and social media, how persuasive or relevant is the Herman and Chomsky propaganda model,
when media content can be almost created by anyone and is at disposal of the public. One can use easy, low-cost tools
and multiple publishing platforms to create content. Now that citizen journalism has gained so much popularity in the
recent, does media really have the power to enforce its set agendas? Today citizens are playing an active role in the
collecting, processing, analyzing and disseminating of news and information. Modern/ New technology, together with
social media and its convergence with different mediums has made citizen journalism accessible worldwide. Citizens have
now the power to break the news well before any mainstream media can. A recent example of this would be the Arab spring
where, youth turned to the unrestricted world of digital and social mediums to voice their concern against the
government. Digital media was the major tool, where videos were shot by mobile phones and were sent to various satellite
channels. Twitter became an alternative and powerful news medium for the youth. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and citizen
journalism empowered young people to challenge the status quo. Today there are even abundant alternative sources to
procure news. People are subjected to these sources, where it then comes back to the power that lies in the minds of the
people to consume news which makes sense and holds true to them. 

After all that is said, the movie still
proves to be stimulating and helps you see things with a perspective. At the end it is important that we as citizens
should not become passive listeners of news, and should be in capacities to question and criticize something that is not
acceptable. We should take efforts in seeking alternative opinions and point of views to be aware of what really is
happening around us, something we end up calling as "NEWS".
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this
review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 10/10
One of the Most Impt Docs Ever -- YES
carolyn-15815 May
2008
Warning: Spoilers
And this movie was released some 16 years ago; and consolidation in corporate
hands of traditional media around the world has greatly intensified since then.

If we don't know
what's really going on, all our other (remaining) civil rights are meaningless. Knowledge is power, and a balance
of knowledge is required for a balance of power; but as things stand, those who govern us know whatever they want to
know about what we do, while we know virtually nothing about what they do.

The main source of hope has been
the internet. We MUST protect net neutrality (among other things) -- not only by warding off legislation that would
permit corporations to charge more for access to selected urls, but ALSO to impose MEANINGFUL PENALTIES for violations.
(Cease-and-desist orders or fines that amount to a hand-slap easily endured as a cost of doing business are NOT
meaningful.

It was 16 years before I came across a documentary as eye-opening for me as Manufacturing Consent
was. It's a 4-part series called "Century of the Self"; you can see Part 1 and find links to the other
parts at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151 .
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this
review helpful? Yes No | Report this
Project Noam
sol-30 July 2017
Lots of interesting ideas abound in
this documentary in which famed linguistics professor Noam Chomsky discusses his views on where contemporary society is
heading. Clocking in at close to three hours long, it is a rambling and unfocused affair, jumping between topics as
diverse as sports coverage and the 'Project Nim' chimpanzee, but several ideas linger in the mind long after
the film is over. Most intriguing is Chomsky's argument that true democracy rarely exists since voters themselves
hardly ever get a say, having to instead just choose between two options. Chomsky also remarkably avoids coming off as
condescending; as he states at one point, enough "people have the common sense", but effort is an issue,
especially after a long and arduous working day, with busy everyday lives being primarily responsible for people
choosing only one media outlet and not considering other options. Intriguing as all this may well be, the three hour
length nearly the sinks the film. There is a lot of time dedicated to biographical details that could have been trimmed;
same goes for arguments regarding East Timor that keep getting repeated again and again. The effective moments are,
however, what shines brightest here and Chomsky is always fascinating to listen to with his intense passion towards
everything he discusses.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 9/10
An electrifying documentary
Frank Falstaff18 April 2017
You know you're watching a well-produced
documentary when it is essentially a 3 hour film of a person sharing their views on the media - and you're actually
intrigued. The minus points for this film are not about my disagreements with Chomsky, some of which are definitely
there, but about the running time which begins to wear on you in the latter stretch of the film. Overall, an
electrifying documentary.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this

7/10
Somewhat incomplete
Tcarts763 January 2015
When it comes to intellectual brilliance we sometimes
come to the conclusion that an intellectual is infallible and unable to make mistakes. They are too smart to mislead.
They are to smart to have their own agendas. That their agenda, and or credentials mean that what they say is the
absolute must. Sorry the world doesn't work that way. Let Einstein get in the ring with a heavy weight boxer and
the only way out for him would be not getting in there in the first place. Chomskey is a bit like that.

I do
agree with most of his theory but it seems too me he missed the mark in one place. He subscribes to the corporate evil
theories out there and it puts his theory in a box which is then punched with holes. It is true that Companies want to
put ads in newspapers that report stories in ways that fall along their way of thinking. That is common sense, and
logic. Where things go astray is the idea that it must follow that because ad money supports newspapers, than those
companies are running the newspapers. That is incomplete.

The incomplete part is to assume the ad money is
used to leverage papers. That sounds good but no paper is going to get ad money if no one is reading it. Not only that
but plenty of companies buy ad space on TV networks that have a seemingly opposing view point.This is not an evil
conspiracy by corporations. The simple fact is that corporations have money and are willing to pay for advertising.
Those companies would like the world to agree with their point of view and be like minded, but they are far more engaged
with making money. You cant make money if they advertise no one is reading/listening/watching where you advertise.

Chomskey is an agenda man just like anyone in politics. Yes, he had an agenda. He wasn't a right wing, or
left wing guy. He was a bit libertarian in many things, but here, is where he slews to the left. He liked social
"justice" (another name for theft) He liked the idea of the government being a bully...as long as it supports
his point of view. So that is where he pushes this off to. He wants to blame corporations because that way he skirts the
left by not saying the government is the bad guy, and skirts the libertarian by saying business is good but undue
influence and cronism needs to go. 

Chomsky, he was mostly a pretty good guy, not all left, not all right,
but Ayn Rand is much better than Chomskey The parts about media having an effect and trying to control the public is on
point though. Just watch MSNBC, NBC, CNN, ABC, or CBS. They pretty much buried anything that could cost Obama and
election....twice.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 8/10
Powerful, interesting and thought provoking
prabumds9 February 2014
The movie is a critical evaluation of
the media practices and journalism standards in many countries and the general trends, all over the world. Viewers are
shown about some of the gripping facts of news making, including what goes behind the scenes. The end-to-end process of
news making as explained in the movie including other elements like vested interests, controlling factors exposes the
audience to several dark truths. After watching the movie, any viewer will be in a better position to judge news and
news making, whether or not they are from the media background. Some of the topics are quite controversial, but it helps
us in understanding the rigor that Prof.Chomsky uses to advocate freedom of expression. For instance in the section on
'Holocaust Denial,' Prof.Chomsky mentions that there is a difference between expressing your own views and
protecting the views expressed. He makes this statement while arguing that he had supported the French intellectual who
published a book to explain that the Holocaust, mass murders actually did not take place. He also emphasizes that he
does not endorse the views of the French intellectual, but supports him, in the context of expressing his own views.
Prof.Chomsky's statement "States are violent institutions," is a connotation, well expressed. There are
chilling evidences to support his statement in the movie. For instance, while analyzing the news articles that appeared
in the media in the United States, during the initial phases of Indonesia's aggression on East Timor, there were
negative reports. He explains that this was on account of the fact that East Timor was a former Portuguese colony.
However, after the invasion of East Timor, U.S supplied arms to Indonesia and there was no coverage of the genocide and
atrocities committed by Indonesia in East Timor. Similarly, he also remarks that every Post-war American president
should be hanged, if Nuremberg laws are to be applied. Some of the definitions and framework put forward by Prof.Chomsky
helps in understanding theories like Manufacturing Consent and Agenda Setting, better. For instance he says that
marginalizing the public is the intention of elite class. Similarly he also explains that elite and big media are agenda
setters and that 80 percent of the population are followers in a democracy and the remaining 80 percent is composed of
the elite and the political class. The movie is a very interesting eye-opener for all audiences, be it a novice or a
historian or a media professional. However, some of the concepts like manufacturing consent and agenda setting are
repeatedly explained. Further editing can improve the quality of the movie and especially remove the repeated
explanations.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 7/10
A
straightforward story about a man, his thoughts and his famous book
Truda K9 February 2014
Warning:
Spoilers
For those who take a particular interest in media and communications issues, Noam Chomsky may not be
an unfamiliar name. "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media" is a documentary that takes a long,
serious look at Chomsky's thoughts about the mass media in the US, especially those ideas that were eventually
reflected in the seminal book he co-authored with Edward S. Herman. Through a mish-mash of interviews and news footage
about real events, Chomsky talks about the Propaganda Theory, giving examples and explaining the role of the mass media
in imposing, in the words of the man himself, "necessary illusions ... on the stupid majority" so as to
maintain the special interests of an elite group. He brings in several ideas, such as how the media is owned by a
specific group of people and conglomerates.

What was especially intriguing for me was the detailed example
that Chomsky gave about the US media coverage of the atrocities that took place in Cambodia and East Timor separately in
the 1970s. In juxtaposing the different types and amounts of media coverage of the two events, he argued how the
interests of particular groups in the US came into influencing how much people knew and what they knew about the
situations in the two countries. Could Chomsky be right about this? Or is there something else that we do not know
about?

It is quite obvious that the ideas that Chomsky espoused in the documentary are important, and they do
serve to push people to critically consider the media-saturated world that we live in. However, I wonder if it is simply
too easy to blame the mass media for being specially motivated to get involved in agenda setting. After all, there is a
very real limitation on resources, even for major media organisations like The New York Times - there is no way that a
10,000-page paper can be printed day to day. There will be, and there must be, editorial selections and cuts: some
information will be in while some will be left out.

Moreover, it may be too simplistic to think that readers
cannot think for themselves. This is even truer in today's context, when the number of alternative media and social
media is growing steadily everyday. With this range of issues and perspectives reported, people have the freedom to pick
up new topics and ideas and, as a result, form opinions of their own.

As it is, the great thing about
Chomsky's ideas are that they remind us that nothing is truly objective and simple. Thus, they also remind us to be
media literate and to probe into the media that we encounter daily.

Overall, the documentary is an
insightful, detailed film about Chomsky's thought processes and the Propaganda Theory. However, there are a few
sections in the film that can get rather repetitive; running at almost 3 hours long, this documentary would probably
best suit those who are eager to better understand "Manufacturing Consent" and the man behind the book.
0
out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 8/10
The heart behind the
intellect
Rachael Lim8 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
My first encounter with Noam Chomsky was
through his theory of Manufacturing Consent and the Propaganda Model; the latter co-authored with Edward Herman, some
months back. Though these ideas were formulated decades ago, it was somewhat radical for me. I felt like a fish in an
aquarium that had been told: Think about the environment you are swimming in. There are pebbles and plants and a
constant and sure supply of food; there is no lack. But the fish does not realise that it has been lulled into believing
that the aquarium is its real home when it was meant for the ocean. It is living in a controlled environment and to a
certain extent, is being manipulated for its owners' pleasures. 

Though the film Manufacturing Consent:
Noam Chomsky and the media does not go in-depth into the theories that thrust Chomsky into the public spotlight, I
enjoyed it because it revealed the heart behind the intellectual mind. In one segment, Chomsky shared his adolescence
experience of not standing up for the underdogs, and how the shame stuck with him for a long time. It drove him to give
up a comfortable academic career and symbols of a successful modern life to pursue what he believed to be right and
moral. 

The film revealed Chomsky to be a firm believer of partisan common sense – he believes that
people have the ability to see through the deceit i.e. the techniques that the elites are using to manufacture content
with a view of furthering their political and economic interests, and his theories are signposts towards greater
awareness of such tactics. For Chomsky, the equanimity and detachment with which people can observe events like genocide
made them as bad as, or worse, than dictators. 

While the film was about Chomsky's work and had a
pro-Chomsky slant, it also offered contrary perspectives of how his thoughts were ridiculed and put down by critics and
other scholars. One such critic said such oppositional theories were "a fashion, a way of making intellectuals feel
like they are a clergy, there has to be something wrong."

To a certain extent, a film like this is an
example of what it was illustrating i.e. in any media product – and this film is certainly one such product
– there are perspectives that the producers are trying to portray. These perspectives are never value-neutral;
they have a function to inform and to persuade. One could argue that this film, like other media products, has a
narrative to sell, albeit it deals with more controversial themes. 

While I think Chomsky's perspectives
certainly have value in helping me to see the world with a more critical lens, there are areas that I am unclear about.
For instance, Chomsky speaks about societal transformation but does not paint an adequate picture of what that
transformed society looks like – who are the actors, what are its structures etc. In the film, he speaks about
the "dominant elites" in broad terms e.g. media, government, PR institutes but does not make the link between
the individuals who run these organizations – their personal goals, interests and impulses – and how they
collectively come together to drive a corporate motive. 

When audiences asked Chomsky what they could do to
fight against the dominant narrative and the system of indoctrination and convenient myths, Chomsky encouraged them to
search for alternative sources of information vis-à-vis mainstream media and to cultivate an independent and
inquiring mind. This is perhaps my greatest takeaway from the film – that it was important, essential to survival
even, to question what has been said, think about what has not been said and the implications of what it means. And to
ask: What can I affect to make a change and when necessary, being willing to swim upstream against the tide of popular
conventions and beliefs, and to speak without fear or favour.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review
helpful? Yes No | Report this
There's nothing new under the sun, Chomsky!
lseah0018 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It might seem that Chomsky was on to something when he postulated what he did in this
documentary. But really, are we surprised? Is it really all that new and revolutionary? Hardly.

Sure,
there's no denying that he spoke out quite openly and bluntly about the dangers of letting a few that constitute
the intellectual elites hold sway over what the rest of the populace gets to read, know and ultimately think. And it
would certainly seem a most noble and desirable thing of him to aspire on behalf of the 'common people' that
we should develop means of intellectual self-defence so that we may not be easily fooled. 

But does he
actually think people are all that clueless? That people are unaware that the messages they daily receive aren't
"doctored"? Seriously?

He seems himself to live in an ivory tower actually, failing to see that
masses all over the world daily face issues that may seem mundane and pedestrian to intellectuals like himself, but they
nevertheless are real issues that all too often go straight to the heart of survival. In such circumstances, how likely
are the masses to persuade themselves to seek deeper understanding when their daily struggle could be as perfunctory as
putting bread on the family table? And just who has the time when deadlines and matters of life and death consume their
daily attention?

Chomsky would also have us believe that if we the ordinary citizens resist what the powers
that be dictate to us via the controlled media, the world would be a better place. Yet he says very little if at all
about just how that can happen. So basically he identifies the problem but offers no clear way ahead that will solve it.


Rather incomplete no?

I contend that knowledge is infinite, but our human capacity to know it all
is finite. So, power will ultimately and almost invariably rest in the hands of a few; even if this 'utopia'
Chomsky hopes for does materialise, it really won't be long before another "regime of intellectuals"
assert itself afresh. 

And then the cycle will simply repeat itself.

So in closing, is what
Chomsky speaks of anything new? No. Does it still apply today? Absolutely. But as the title of my review suggests,
it's been that way throughout the ages so there's no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. 

Tell us how to systemically and conclusively stem it out though, and I'll be all ears.

Final note: The
production quality in this documentary is truly deplorable, even by the-then standards. Pity.
0 out of 0 found this
helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 8/10
Compelling, thought provoking, discomforting
Shilpa M6 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
An excellent piece that forces you to think, and creates a
sense of urgency about it. It is thought provoking and makes a compelling case for keeping your intellect alive. Chomsky
argues that our brain was meant for creative work and not for passive acceptance of anything that the media comes up
with. Even though it is a documentary, the filming style and content keep interest alive. While this was my first
encounter with Naom Chomsky, I now feel I do understand what got him voted the "World's Top Public
Intellectual" in 2005. 

It is bound to polarize and generate strong opinions. The message is strong (and
discomforting) and conveyed in a no holds barred way. But if it does that, it has probably fulfilled its purpose. 

In summary, it is probably best to quote the man himself, 

"I think it only makes sense to seek
out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them;
unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of
human freedom." 

― Noam Chomsky
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Yes
No | Report this
 7/10
Manufacturing consent in modern time, still relevant but not enough.
Trang Tran6
February 2014
This 1992 movie featured Noam Chomsky – well-known American linguist/political dissident and
his sight of corporate media's role in modern propaganda. Through forms of interviews, talk shows, the two Canadian
filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick give us an insight on the political views and life of Chomsky. The
documentary film has successfully portrayed Chomsky as well as his idea of how the U.S. media operates, sets the agenda
and the reasons behind this process.

Honestly, the first 30 minutes of this film is boring and heavy to me,
partly due to the quality of the movie produced more than 20 years ago. However, in the next part when Chomsky explains
his perspective on agenda-setting media, how opinions are shaped and the public mind is controlled. Chomsky's major
focus is on society's class He also identifies decision makers, they are the government, owner of the media or
people who have to be in the position to make the decisions. In my opinion, one of his biggest contributions is to
define two main groups in the society: Political group (20% of the population) which is relatively educated and they are
decision makers; 80% of people are ordinary ones who do not think or pay attention but they usually have to pay the
costs. This explains whose consent is being manufactured.

The movie also emphasizes the ideas of Chomsky
& Herman that the news is filtered by five factors: ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and anti - communist
ideology. And in that way, like he says, history is created. Nevertheless, is manufacturing consent and propaganda model
still relevant today? I myself believe that Chomsky and Herman's ideas still act as basic understanding about an
elitist-driven media system. The limitation of the model is that it does not consider the general public among its
filters of news content. In fact, public opinion and social movement can play an active role as a filter, especially in
the era of online media, social media which allow people to express their opinion publicly and broadly with an
incredible scope and speed. For example: In the Iraq war, counter-flax of populace driven dissent showed that the media
was shifting from administration-driven views toward the broader public, ordinary people. 

In conclusion, I
agree with the idea that this is very valuable documentary film containing one of basic communication theories of all
the time! But to apply in modern scenario, Chomsky's ideas are not fully engaged because technology development has
changed our thinking, our society and the mass media's traits as well.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this
review helpful? Yes No | Report this
 9/10
The critical scholar Naom Chomsky
Diwakar Sharma5 February
2014
Warning: Spoilers
The Manufacturing Consent is an exemplary work on the role of media in our
society. Naom Chomsky is a linguist, a philosopher, a cognitive scientist and an activist. He published an essay
'The Responsibility of Intellectuals', where he openly criticized the involvement of the US government in the
Vietnam War which established him at the forefront of American critical scholars. This movie shows his views about the
media that we consume. Initially it is shown how he put forward his views about the control of the 'free'
media by the hegemony. How political and other influential people influence the media in our world. The parallel
comparison of the coverage of the East Timor and Cambodia atrocities show us the control of the media on issues of
political interest. Chomsky proposed a Propaganda model of media criticism which explains how the systematic biases
function in the mass media. The movie shows interviews and debates Chomsky faced in his journey and how he was
criticized several times by the political leaders and even by the public. There are examples of wars where US government
did not allow media to let the world know about the peaceful alternatives that they had instead of indulging in the war
acts. The example of Chomsky not being invited on the Nightline show also shows that media is highly controlled and
people did not want him to say about the propaganda setting in public. He usually found his audience through the
alternative media. Chomsky advocates the Alternative media to be set up which should be citizen controlled. The movie
also gives suggestions about the falsification of history by government officials to create a popular ideology towards a
particular group or a country. Even the historical beliefs of Nazis using Gas chambers and causing atrocities have been
questioned in the movie. This movie was made long time back but its concepts and theories are valid even today. Now we
see the falsification and biases in the news at all levels. Thanks to the internet that now we have a platform to at
least critique and analyze the information provided to us by the mass media lords.

Full reviews list here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104810/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt

Related torrents

Torrent Name	Added	Size	Seed	Leech	Health
Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992) DOCU 1file English+Fre..	1 Year+ - in Movies	869.07 MB	5	1
Manufacturing Consent; Noam Chomsky and the Media (1993)	1 Year+ - in Movies	696.25 MB	0	0
Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky & the Media (1992) VOSTFR	1 Year+ - in Other	1.49 GB	0	0
Manufacturing Consent - The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Noam Chomsky ..	1 Year+ - in E-books	1.56 GB	3	1
Noam Chomsky on the World - The Chomsky Sessions.avi	1 Year+ - in Movies	1.35 GB	0	0

Note :

Feel free to post any comments about this torrent, including links to Subtitle, samples, screenshots, or any other relevant information. Watch MANUFACTURING CONSENT - PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY AND THE MEDIA 1992 VIDEO Full Movie Online Free, Like 123Movies, FMovies, Putlocker, Netflix or Direct Download Torrent MANUFACTURING CONSENT - PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY AND THE MEDIA 1992 VIDEO via Magnet Download Link.

Comments (0 Comments)

Please login or create a FREE account to post comments