Brooke Marcy

 

Summery of What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream by Noam Chomsky

 

 

In his essay, What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream, Noam Chomsky begins by looking at how the nature of media relates to the audience and its surrounding controlling power structures. He points out the similarities between media and scholarship, and classifies media into two categories, “mass media” and “elite media.”  “Mass media” is defined as entertainment media, for example sitcoms, cartoons, reality shows etc., all of which are designed as diversions or escapes from everyday life.  “Elite Media” on the other hand, sets “ the framework in which everyone else operates.” Chomsky uses The New York Times and CBS as examples, stating that these corporations dictate what news is to both the public and other media sources. 

 

Chomsky next examines why and how “elite media” has achieved the authority to set the news agenda. He notes, though in their own right powerful and profitable corporations, the “elite media” relies heavily on their “parasitic” relationship with larger power structures, for example the government, bigger corporations, and universities.  To keep their own control, the “elite media” must conform to the ideals of the more powerful institutions and corporations.  Chomsky uses the universities as an example how institutions reliant to outside sources form a dependency, perpetuating the teaching of the ideals of the dominant power structures. 

 

Chomsky points out that an individual can prosper as long as elite ideals and behaviors are observed, if an individual chooses to deviate from these ideals, they are immediately shutdown, fired, censored etc. He uses the example of the censorship of an introduction to Animal Farm by George Orwell. Here the author, stating what was deemed an unpopular opinion, was unable to print his own ideas in his own work.  In some cases, Chomsky notes, the elite ideology is so ingrained in individuals that even those individuals don’t realize its influence. 

 

Chomsky looks at how, for example The New York Times, can be looked at as a large corporation selling its product, the audience, to the market, the advertisers.  Here he defines ”the audience” as educated privileged people with marked similarities to the people running or working within the powerful corporations.  In other words, the media can be looked at as a refection of the interests of the buyers, the sellers, and the greater powers that influence their decisions.  This institutional structure is one that readily exists but is never discussed, questioning its existence would be going against the elite ideology.

 

Chomsky next examines the public relations industry, public thinkers and the “academic stream,” all of which believe in the stupidity of the general public. It is the job of the elite to inform the general public as to how to think and behave, acting as “spectators, not participants.” This theory, Chomsky states, evolved during World War I and II, and stems from the development of propaganda.  The growth of propaganda influenced how Americans saw themselves, and how they interpreted their relationships with other countries. This spurred the first and only propaganda agency, referred to as” The Committee on Public Information” or the “Creel Commission”.  Chomsky even references Hitler’s belief that he lost the war because he could not compete with ”British and American propaganda.”  This concept of controlling public thought, developed during WWI, was the beginning of the public relations industry. Chomsky quotes Barnay, the “guru,” who wrote that these new techniques “had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course.”

 

The American business industry was impressed by the results achieved through the use of propaganda, and with the country becoming increasingly democratic, started placing an emphasis on public manipulation. Here Chomsky uses Barnay again as an example, explaining how his advertising skills made him a leader of the industry by persuading women to smoke. Next Chomsky examines Walter Lippmans concept of ‘manufactured consent.” In order to overcome the problem of the public having the right to vote, Lippman pointed out the need to “manufacture consent and make sure that their choices and attitudes will be structured in such a way that they will always do what we tell them.”  This concept of human manipulation began the development of what Harold Glasswell termed “political warfare.”

 

In conclusion, Chomsky looks at how the inner workings of the “institutional structure” remains today exclusively designed for the people on the inside, never to be discussed or questioned, especially by the ”ignorant meddlesome outsiders.”