Broughttoyouby:ThePlaintextLiberationFront

Changelog:

v0.1+curl'dtheblogpostsandconvertedwithpandoc+purgedstupiddivtagsandjs+CombinedMarkdowndocument+Removedurltrackingappendagesfromwapolinksv0.2-FixtheTOC-Fixanyfootnotes

HateIncbyMattTaibbiIntroductionPreface:AnInterviewwithNoamChomskyTheBeautyContestTheTenRulesofHate:Rules1–6TheTenRulesofHate:Rules7–10

Preface:AnInterviewwithNoamChomsky

AsktheaverageliberalartsgraduateaboutDr.NoamChomskyandoneofthefirst comments is likely to involve his presentation. Despite being one of theworld’s leading experts in linguistics, he has a reputation for being a dullintellectual – someone “known for erudition rather than crowd-grabbingeloquence,”asonecolumnistonceputit.

IalwaysthoughtthislegendwasabitofclevermarketingonChomsky’spart.Ifyoureadhisbooksclosely, there’saconspicuousstreakof ironicdefiance thatruns through his work. It animates his writing and his ideas and catches thereaderconditionedtoexpectaborebysurprise.

Hehasadeadpan,drysenseofhumor.Ifyouaskedhimtosumupallofhumanhistory – and now that I think about it, I should have done this – he wouldprobablysaysomethinglike,“Unsurprisinglyhorrible.”

Chomskyinpersonturnsouttobeaffable,funny,andgenerous.Amillionthingshavebeenwrittenabouthimandheseemswaypastcaring.Afewyearsagohemoved to the University of Arizona in Tucson from his longtime home inBoston,atM.I.T.WhenIcommentedontheheat–Ialmostcollapsedwalkingfrommycar tohisoffice–he laughedand said thatheactually liked it a lot.Bostoninthesummerismuchworse,hesaid.Heseemedtomeanit.Helookslikeahappyman.

IcametoaskaboutthelegacyofManufacturingConsent.Howdidhethinkhisfamous examination of the media held up over the years? Did he think the

famous“propagandamodel”stillplayedintheInternetage?What,ifanything,hadchanged?

Ialsowantedtoaskaboutthehistoryofabookthathadimpactedmanyyoungreporters,includingmyselfonceuponatime.Whyhadanon-journalistventuredintothistopic?Iaskedthesamequestionabouthisco-author,WhartonSchoolprofessorEdHerman,whosadlypassedawaylastyear.

About Herman: one of the first things Chomsky mentioned is that the“propagandamodel”was“alittlemorehisthanmine,”whichiswhyheinsistedthat thebook’sbylinereadHerman/Chomsky,andnotChomsky/Herman.Asitturned out, the book had a bit of a strange history, and he seemed to enjoyrecountingit.Weendeduptalkingaboutthefutureofthenewsmedia,andabouttheimmediatepoliticalfuture.

There isawhole literatureof reporters running toChomsky insearchof scarequotes about how this time, things are really bad – and coming awaydisappointedwhenChomskyanswers,withashrug,that,no,thingshavealwaysbeenthiscrazy,justrememberXandYandZ…

Thatdrivesreportersnuts.Particularlyin theTrumpera,whenthere’sconstantpressure in the media business to scrape up a ten-alarm quote about howwhateverlunaticthingTrumpdidtodayistheWorstThingEver,Chomskyhasbeenaconstantdisappointmenttothepopularpress.

HekeepstellingreportersthatTrump’sdailyinsanitiesareadistraction,andtherealproblemsinvolvehisadministration’sdismantlingofregulatorysystems,itsfailure to focus on globalwarming, and itsworsening of the threat of nuclearwar. These are all things that, while historically awful,mostly happen behindcloseddoors,awayfromtheheadlines.

Theworldcouldusealittlemoreofwhateverwellofequanimityhe’sdrinkingfrom. In any case, here’s Noam Chomsky on the media’s past, present, andfuture:

Taibbi:Professor,it’sagreathonor.Thankssomuchforthetime.

Chomsky:Thankyou.

Taibbi:IwanttotalkManufacturingConsent,abookthathadahugeinfluence

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/rip-edward-herman-who-co-wrote-a-book-thats-now-more-important-than-ever-123411/https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Economy-Media/dp/0375714499

onreporterslikemyself.

Chomsky:Sure.

Taibbi: What was the genesis of that project? How did you decide to do atreatmentofthemedia?Neitherofyouspecializedinthesubject.

Chomsky:Well, the firstbookwewrotehadavery interestinghistory. ItwascalledCounter-RevolutionaryViolence.Therewasasmall,butquitesuccessful,publisherthatwaspublishingthis.Itwaslargelydoingmaterialsforuniversities,small monographs and things. One of them was this one we wrote, calledCounter-Revolutionary Violence. They published 20,000 copies, and startedadvertising.ButitturnedoutthecompanywasownedbyWarnerBrothers.AndoneoftheexecutivesinWarnerBrotherssawtheads,anddidn’tlikeit.

Taibbi:Whatdidn’thelikeaboutit?

Chomsky:Whenhesawthebookhepracticallywentthroughtheceiling.Soheaskedthemtowithdrawthebook.Andtheydidn’twanttodoit.Theysaidtheywouldagreetopublishacounter-volumeifhewanted.No,hedidn’twantthat.Wanteditwithdrawn.Whathefinallydidwasputthepublisheroutofbusiness,anddestroyedalloftheirstock.

Taibbi:Goodness.

Chomsky:Includingourbook,andeverythingelse.

Taibbi:Justtogetridofyourbook?

Chomsky: Yeah. And I brought it to the attention of some of the main civillibertarians,people like [VillageVoice columnist]NatHentoff, and so on.Buttheydidn’tseeanyproblemswithAmericancivilliberties.Icanunderstandtheirpoint.It’snotstatecensorship.

Taibbi:Right.

Chomsky:You’renotsupposedtonoticethatwehaveprivategovernmentsthataremuchmorepowerfulthanthestate.Anyway,that’snotpartoftheideology.

Sothiswasokay,technically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Revolutionary_Violence

Well, we said, “Alright, that’s gone.” But we decided to expand it. The nextmajorbookthatwedidtogetherwasatwo-volumePoliticalEconomyofHumanRights, which came out in 1979.And it was around that time thatwe startedworkingonlookingathowthemediahandledthings.AndthatledustofinallyManufacturingConsent.

Ed, as you may know, was a professor of finance. And his main work, hisacademic work, was calledCorporate Power, Corporate Control, which is astandardtextoncorporatepower.

Buthe’sprettyleftwing,soitwascritical.ThepartofManufacturingConsentonownershipandcontrol,that’sbasicallyhiswork,theintroductorypart.Thenwekindofsharedmuchoftherest.Hisstyleisdifferentfrommine.Weworkedtogetherverywell,butindifferentways.

Actuallyweneverevenmet!Wemetprobablytwoorthreetimesoverall.****Thatwaspre-Internet,soitwasallonpaper.

Taibbi:Itwasalldonebycorrespondence?

Chomsky:Correspondence.

Taibbi:Wow.Liketypewritten?Handwritten?

Chomsky:(smiling)Oh,typewritten!

Taibbi:Wow.

Chomsky:Ifyourememberwhatitwaslikethen–probablyyoudon’t.

Taibbi:Mygenerationisprobablythelastthatdoes.

Chomsky:But theparts that are really carefullyorganized, all thesechartsonhowmanyreportswerethereononePolishpriest–

Taibbi:VersusthoseinCentralAmerica.

Chomsky:Right.IfIweredoingit,Iwouldhavejustgivensomeexamples.Butwhenhedidit,hedidallofthestatistics,andgotthechartscorrect,andsoon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Economy_of_Human_Rightshttps://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Control-Power-Twentieth-Century/dp/0521289076

ThemainpartthatIwrotemyselfwasmostlytheIndochinapart,andthepartsontheFreedomHouseattackonthemedia.

Thisisapartthatpeopledon’treallyrecognize,thatalargepartofthebookwasadefenseofthemedia.ItwasactuallyadefenseofthemediafromtheattacksoforganizationslikeFreedomHouse.*

Taibbi:Right.

Chomsky: But it’s kind of interesting that journalists didn’t like that defense.Andthereasonwas–partofitfirstcameoutinanarticleofmineinajournalthat was short lived, critical journalism review** that was run by AnthonyLukas,kindofacriticaljournalist,verycool.

Iwrotealongarticleinitaboutthetwo-volumeFreedomHousething.Whatwebasicallyarguedisthatthejournalistsaredoinghonest,courageousworkthat’sprofessional, and serious.And in lotofdifficult circumstances, theydoaverygoodjob.

Butthey’realldoingitwithinaframeworkof,anideologicalframework,whichisreflectsthedominanthegemoniccommonsense.

Taibbi:Right.

Chomsky:Soinfact,theywoulddescribewhat’shappeningaccurately,andthatthingwouldbedescribedasamistake,adeviation,inconsistentwithourvaluesandourprinciplesandthatsortofthing.

Whereasinfact,it’sexactlyinaccordwiththeirprinciplesandvalues.

Theideathattheywerenotcourageoustribunesofthepeopleflauntingdoctrineandsoonwasunpalatable.Theideathat,“We’rejusthonestprofessionalswhoare captured by an ideological framework that we’re even unaware of,” is anunacceptableidea.Nobodylikedthat.

Taibbi:Soyougotpushbackonthatimmediatelyfromreporters?

Chomsky:Yes.Imean,somedid.Ihadsomeclosefriendswhothoughtitwasfine,buttherewaspushback,yes.

Taibbi:Themain idea inManufacturingConsent is basically that idea: that itlookslikewehaveavigoroussystemofindependentjournalists,butthedebatehas been artificially narrowed. Was there a moment when you first had thatthought?Doyouremember?

Chomsky:ProbablywhenIwas10yearsold!Actuallyremember,theworkthatIhaddoneonmyownbeforethiswasacritiqueoftheintellectualculture.Andmyownview,Ed and I slightly differed here, is that themedia aren’t all thatdifferentfromthegeneralintellectualculture,theacademicculture.

So the effect of the institutions: ownership, advertising, and so on, that’s allthere. But an overriding effect is just the way the general hegemonic cultureworks,andyouseethatintheacademicworld.Youseeitinscholarship,andyouseeitinaverystrikingwayinthemedia.

Butit’smucheasiertostudyinthemedia.Academicscholarshipisdiffuse.Youcan’tdostatisticalanalysisofhowmanyarticlestherewereonthis,andthatsortofthing.

So it’s kind of focused on the media, and sharpened, then it’s influenced ofcoursebythefiltersthatwetalkedabout.

But I think riding through it is something thatyousee through the intellectualculturegenerally.Infact,theworkthatI’ddonebackinthesixtiesandon,itwasmostlyaboutthat,continuingtothepresent.It’smostlyaboutgeneralacademicintellectualculture.Whichdoes showup in themedia inavery striking form,andthat’swhyweincidentallykeptittotheelitemedia.SowetalkedabouttheNewYorkTimes,WashingtonPost,CBS.Wedidn’ttalkaboutthetabloids.

Taibbi:Butbasicallyyou’retalkingaboutthesameinstinctforconformity,theinabilitytounderstandthatyou’reworkingwithinapredeterminedframework.

Chomsky: Itwasexactlywhatyousaidbefore.It’s theassumptionthatyou’rebeingadversarial,independent,questioningeverything,andsoon.

But it’s the same in scholarship. If you tell a scholar, “Look you’re justconforming to ideological prejudices,” they go crazy. You can see whathappened when something really became prominent that questioned the basicideologicalframework.LikewhenHowardZinn’sbook…

Taibbi:ThePeople’sHistoryoftheUnitedStates.

Chomsky: Right. When that became popular, historians just went berserk.There’saveryinterestingbookthatjustcameoutaboutthat,youwanttotakealook.

Taibbi:Isthere?Ididn’tknow.

Chomsky:It’scalledZinnophobia...It’sverycarefulanalysisofOscarHandlin,andalltheguyswhobitterlyattackedtheZinnreport.

Taibbi:Well,thatgetstooneoftheotherthemesofyourbook:flak.

Chomsky:Right.Thisisit.Intheintellectualculture.Ofcoursethere’splentyofit.

Taibbi: Have you thought over the years aboutwhat parts of the propagandamodelhaveheldupmorethanothers?Clearlyflakisonethathas.

Chomsky:Actuallythereisasecondedition,didyouseethat?

Taibbi:Yes,withtheupdate.

Chomsky:Wepointedouttherecorrectly,thatonepartofthemodelwasmuchtoonarrow:thepartaboutanti-communism.

(Editor’s note: In Manufacturing Consent, heavy emphasis is placed onanticommunism as an organizing religion underpinning the media business.Here, Chomsky is talking about how other theologies have entered the scenesince1988.)

Chomsky: It’s got to be broader than that. Anti-communism was a salientillustrationof the enemy that you construct to justify everythingyou're doing,Butitcouldbeterrorism,itcouldbeanything.

Taibbi:Populismisanotherone.

Chomsky:Youmean,what’scalledpopulism.

Taibbi:Yes.

https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States/dp/0060838655https://www.amazon.com/Zinnophobia-History-Education-Politics-Scholarship/dp/178535678X

Chomsky: That term had an honorable history. It was the most democraticmovementinAmericanhistory.

Taibbi:Wellthey’vequicklyturneditintoadifferentkindofaword.

Chomsky:Yes.Whichhappens.

Taibbi:WhenyoupublishedManufacturingConsent,itwasattheheightofthego-go, Top Gun, Reagan eighties. Everybody was feeling very positive andpatrioticaboutAmerica,oratleastthatwastheline.

Chomsky:Wewerea“Cityonahill.”

Taibbi:Exactly.

Chomsky:Didyouevergointotheoriginofcityonahill?

Taibbi:No,Ididn’t.

Chomsky:It’saninterestingcase.Thetermhadneverreallybeen,barelybeenusedbeforeReagan.ButReaganpickeditup,anddidthe“Shiningcityuponahill”speech.

But if yougoback andyou read JohnWinthrop’s sermon, he says almost theopposite.When he sayswe’re a city on a hill, what hemeans is everyone islookingatus,andifwedon’tliveuptotheidealsthatweprofess,we’regoingtobepunished.***Ofcourse,inhiscase,bytheLord.Notbysociety.

Soit’sreallysayingwe’reexposed,wehavetotrytoliveuptotheseideals.Hedidn’t sayweweredoing it,byanymeans. In fact,heknewweweren’t.Thatwasthepoint.

Taibbi:Instead,theyturnitintoacatchphraseforexceptionalism.

Chomsky:Yeah.Sowonderful,isn’tit?

Taibbi:Hilarious.

Chomsky:AndofcourseitallwentalongwithReagan’snicesmile,andallthat.

Taibbi: So here you come, in themiddle of all that exceptionalism, and you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%2527s_Party_(United_States)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khi08rq3oI4https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/colliding-cultures/john-winthrop-dreams-of-a-city-on-a-hill-1630/

publishManufacturingConsent, which is exactly the opposite. It presents animageofacountrythat iscompletelydeluded,andbloodthirsty,andithas thisterriblehistoryitcan’tfaceupto.

Chomsky: We had much more of that in the Political Economy of HumanRights,whichwasn’taboutthemedia.Itwaspartlyaboutthemedia,butitwasmainlyabouttheactions.

Thatwasjustananathema.Nobodycouldevenlookat that.Whichwasprettystriking, because the most – well, it was pretty interesting. There was aninterestingreactiontothosetwovolumes.Ifyoulookatthem,wecoveredalotofground,but the focuswason twocases.Oneof themwasEastTimor.TheotherwasCambodiaunderPolPot.

Those are two places, same region of theworld, during the same years, bothhugemassacres.EastTimorwasprobablyworse.

Therewasonlyonedifferencebetweenthem.Inonecase,youcouldblameitonsomeoneelse.Intheothercase,weweredoingit.

Taibbi:Right.

Chomsky:Andwhatwepointedoutisthatinbothcases,there’smassivelyingbutinoppositedirections.IntheCambodiacases,therewereallkindsofclaimsthattherewasnobasisfor.Whenthingswererefuted,theygotelaborateduponandcontinued.Anyinventionisokay.

OntheEastTimorcase,thereappearedtobeeitherignoring,orpuredenial.AndofcoursetheEastTimorcaseisfarmoreimportant,becausethatwecouldhavestoppedatanytime.Becausewewerecruciallyresponsibleforit.

Andinfactthatwasprovenwhenfinally25yearslaterunderalotofdomesticandinternationalpressure,ClintonwaspressuredtotelltheIndonesianstocallitoff.Andhebasicallytoldthem,“Look,thegame’sover,”andtheypulledoutaminutelater.Butitcouldhavebeendonefor25years.

SotheEastTimorcasewasvastlymoreimportant.Basicallythesamestory,butlyinginoppositedirectionsandphenomenal,actuallyphenomenallyinginbothcases.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/clinton-tells-indonesia-stop-the-killing-or-become-pariah-1117450.html

Takea lookat the reaction to thebook.TheEastTimor thinghadneverbeenmentioned. The Cambodia thing, everybody went berserk. They said, we’reprotecting Pol Pot, we’re defending genocide. No.Wewere simply saying, ifAmericanintelligenceprobablyhasthestorycorrect,thanthestuffthatyouguysarepublishingiscrazedlies.ItwouldhaveimpressedStalin.

So there’s a huge literature attacking us, usually me, on Cambodia, and totalsilenceonEastTimor.

Taibbi:Becauseit’ssototallyindefensible?

Chomsky:Becauseyoucan’tfaceit.

Infact,thatholdsuntiltoday.TakealookatSamanthaPowers’book,whichwasvery highly praised. Everyone loved it, it’s awonderful book. She’s probablyperfectlyhonest, just naïve, but shewas castigating theUnitedStates–whichmakes it good because it’s kind of critical – castigating it for not dealingproperlywithotherpeople’scrimes.

It’ssuchaperfectchoiceoftopic.IfaPRpersonhadinventedit,theycouldn’thavemadeitbetter.Soeveryoneloveditanditwonprizes,andit’swonderful.But there’snothingabout anyofour crimes. I think shementionsEastTimor,andshesays,“WemadeamistakeinEastTimor.Welookedaway.”

Lookedaway?Wegavethegreenlighttogoahead,providedthearms,backedthemallthetime.

(Note:EastTimor’sCommissionforReception,TruthandReconciliationin2006concluded that America’s “political andmilitary supportwere fundamental tothe Indonesian invasion and occupation,” which led to the deaths of at least100,000people.)

Chomsky:Thatallhappened,butthemostyoucansayisthat“welookedaway”inEastTimor.

Taibbi:There’sananalogoussituationgoingonnowwithYemen.

Chomsky: Yemen is the same. We’re giving them intelligence on where tobomb.We’regiving themweapons.Butwedon’tknowanythingaboutwhat’sgoingon.Mustbeamistakeofsomekind!

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/books/l-chomsky-and-the-khmer-rouge-407588.htmlhttps://www.amazon.com/Problem-Hell-America-Age-Genocide/dp/1455879991http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401688.html

Taibbi: That’s another part of themodel that seems to have held up perfectlysince1988:theconceptofworthyandunworthyvictims.

Chomsky:That’sexactlyit.

Taibbi:SyriaandYemenarealmostperfectanaloguestotheCambodiaandEastTimorexamplesinyourbook.

Chomsky:WeusedthattermforEastTimorandCambodia.SothemainthemesofManufacturingConsentarereallythere,apartfromtheinstitutionalstructure,youknow.Butthat’saverydramaticexample.Becausehere’stwo–youknow,East Timor probably came as close to real genocide as anything in the postWorldWarIIperiod.

Taibbi:Andyet,youwon’thearthatword'“genocide”orseeitanywhereinthepopular press really attached to that incident – at least, not insofar as ourinvolvementwasconcerned.

Chomsky: There are other rather interesting cases. Take Kevin Buckley, theNewsweek bureau chief in Saigon. A very good journalist. After the My LaiMassacre,Buckleyandanassociateofhis,AlexShimkin,didacarefulstudyofwhatwasgoingonintheQuangNgai****province,wherethemassacretookplace.

And what they discovered was what people in the peace movement alreadyknew,thattherewasnothingspecialaboutMyLai.Itwasgoingonallovertheplace,andfurthermore,thesemassacreswereminor.Themajormassacreswereviathesaturationbombing.

From guys sitting in air conditioned offices and telling B-52s to bombeverythinginsight,youknow.Thosewerethehugemassacres.TheMyLai,MyKhe,theotherslikeit,theywerekindoffootnotes.Newsweekwouldn’tpublishit, so he gaveme the notes, andwebasically published his notes, but nobodynoticedthateither.

Taibbi:Thatwasinthepreviousbook?

Chomsky:Itwasinthepreviousbook,inthesectiononVietnam.ThiswasrightatthetimethattheArgentineneo-Naziregimewasinstituted,stronglysupportedbytheUnitedStates.Ihadmaterialonthatso,too,andalotofotherthings,it

https://www.thenation.com/article/vietnam-exposeacute-wasnt/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/06/argentina.usa

coveredalotofground.

NowseeReaganwasusing–CongressbarreddirectmilitaryaidtoGuatemala.SoReagan,whathedidinterestingly,wassetupaninternationalterrornetwork.Butwedon’tusepeoplelikeCarlostheJackal.Weuseterroriststates.

Taibbi:Right.

Chomsky:SoweusedArgentina,oneof theneo-Nazi regimes.Taiwan. Israelwasabigpartofit.TheyprovidedthearmsandthetrainingandthesupportfortheGuatemalanmassacres.

Incidentally, people are still fleeing today from the Mayan areas that weresubjectedtovirtualgenocide.Buttheyaredrivenbacktotheborder,ofcourse.

Taibbi: That brings me to another question. One of the main themes ofManufacturingConsentwasthatitwashardforpeopletorecognizepropagandaas propaganda, because it was private and there was absence of direct statecensorship.

Chomsky: It’s very much like the destruction of the press. It wasn’t statecensorship,soit’sokay.

Incidentally,there’saninterestingbookthatjustcameoutfinally,sayssomeoftheobvious thingsabout this,byawomannamedElizabethAnderson.She’saphilosopherandaneconomist.It’scalledPrivateGovernmentorsomenamelikethat,butherpointisthat,whichisamajorpoint,yes,thereisagovernment,butgovernments can be repressive. But most of our lives are under privategovernment,whichshesaysareindistinguishablefromcommunistdictatorships.

Anybusiness,forexample.Ifyousubjectyourselftoit,youbecomeessentiallyaslaveoftheinstitutionwithnorights,giveawayyourliberty,andsoon.

Theinterestingpartofherbook,whichissomewhatnew,isshegoesthroughtheseventeenth and eighteenth century advocacyof freemarkets byAdamSmith,TomPaine,youknow,uptoAbrahamLincoln,andpointsoutthatthatwasaleftwingposition.

Becausetheywereadvocatingfreemarkets,becausetheywantedtounderminestate monopolies and mercantilism, and to allow people to become free,

http://theconversation.com/guatemalas-history-of-genocide-hurts-mayan-communities-to-this-day-97796https://www.amazon.com/Private-Government-Employers-University-Center/dp/0691176515

independentartisansnotsubjecttoanyauthority.Andtheyregardedwagelaborasequivalenttoslavery.Theonlydifferenceisthatit’stemporary.Youcangetoutofit.

AndwhentheIndustrialRevolutioncamealong,everythingchanged.Youcouldonlysurvivebybeingsubordinatetoamajorcorporatestructure,andwagelaborbecamethenorm.

The contemporary libertarians are still citing the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturycondemnationsofwagelaborandcontractasbeinglibertarian,becausenowit’snotgovernment.Everythinghasinvertedtotally.It’sverymuchlikeyouweresayingbeforewithcensorship.

Taibbi:Well, that’s interesting, becausewe’re in this unusual place now. Themedialandscapenowalmosttotallyexistsonacoupleofdistributionplatforms.They’reprivate,technically.Facebook,Google,butthere’snowabitofaninter-relationshipbetweenthosecompaniesandthegovernment.AndsomeplaceslikeIsrael,it’smoreofadirectrelationship.Wouldthatbeachangeinthemodeliftheyweretoadoptamoredirectlycensoriousrole?

Chomsky: Take a look at the Facebook phenomenon.Where are they gettingtheirnewsfrom?Theydon’thavereports.

They just getting it from the New York Times, so it’s the same sources ofinformation.They’rejustputtingitoutintrivializedform,sothatpeoplewitha10-year-old mentality can handle it. It’s a very dangerous thing. They’re notdoinganyofthethingsthatthemediado.Theydon’tframethings.Theydon’tselect.Theydon’tsendreportersout.Theydon’tinvestigate,youknow,theyjustcollect information hand it over to kids to look at in 10minutes so you don’tbelievethenewspapers.

Taibbi:AfteryoupublishedManufacturingConsent, therewasamajorchangeinthebusiness.IhadseenthisprettydramaticallybecauseI’dgrownupinthemedia. But suddenly in the late eighties and early nineties, there was a newcommercial strategy thatFox employed. Itwas less about getting thebroadestpossibleaudience,butmoreaboutcapturingademographic,continuingtofeedthem news that they agreed with. It was a siloing effect – silos of news, fedseparatelytoeachdemographic.

Chomsky:That’sright,that’snew.

Taibbi:Andthathasbeenmassivelyacceleratedby theInternet,byFacebook,andtheplatforms.

Chomsky:Theotheraspectof that,which I think ismaybeunderestimated, istalk radio, it reachesahugeaudience.And I’veoften thought, Idon’tknow ifthey’vegotitaroundhere,butinBoston,IusedtolistentoitallthetimewhileIwasdriving.It’stotallyinsane.

Taibbi: It is. But how does that affect the model? Because ManufacturingConsent was significantly about organizing everybody behind hegemonicimperatives. But we now have a system where the news and its attendantmessaging is fractured. Information is distributed differently, to each differentsilo.Andmanyviolentlydisagreewitheachother.

Chomsky:Well,youknowwhat’sactuallyhappened,Ithinkistheydisagree–butthedivisivenessIthinkissomewhatmisinterpreted.It’salwaysdescribedassomegroupsmoving left,othersmoving right. Idon’t think that’shappened. Ithink both groups have moved to the right. There’s a divide, but it’smisrepresented.

TakeBernieSanders.Takealookathispolicies.Imean,Eisenhowerwouldn’thavebeensurprisedbythem.No,literally!

Eisenhower'spositionwasthatanybodywhoquestionedtheNewDealwasoutofhismind.Therewasstrongsupport forunionsbycorporate leaders, in fact,becausetheykeptthingsorganized,andyoudidn’thavestrikesandsoon.

But, theSandersproposalsareprettymuch–youknow,theywouldhavebeenconsidered maybe mildly liberal in the 1950s. But certainly not radical, notrevolutionary.It’sjustthewholespectrumhasmovedsofartotherightthattheylookextreme.

Taibbi: Does the divisiveness also serve any other propaganda purpose? Forinstance,havingpeoplenotrealizingsharedeconomicproblems?

Chomsky:Definitely,thereisanelement.

Taibbi: You talk a lot in Manufacturing Consent about deceptions that areflagrant,likeforinstancethestoryaboutthesupposedBulgarianplotbehindtheattempttokillPopeJohnPaulIIintheVaticanin1981.Irememberyouwriting

that “there was no credible evidence for a Bulgarian connection from thebeginning,” and yet thewhole press corps dove into it. It later came out thatthere were indications that our government was really working hard to sell aSovietconnectiontothatincident.

Chomsky:There’sabookonthat.

Taibbi:Despite episodes like that,we’vehad somany thatwere similar.Takethe Iraq War: WMD you could have seen through, I thought, from the verybeginning.

Chomsky:TherearestillpeoplewhobelievetherewereWMDs.

Taibbi:Andof course that story turnedoutverybadly for themedia.DoyouthinkallthatblatantdeceptionresultedinasituationwherepeoplewerewillingtobelievesomebodylikeTrump–

Chomsky:Overthemedia?

Taibbi:Yes.

Chomsky: Well, I think it’s true. Although, honestly, I think one of theunfortunateeffectsofManufacturingConsentisthatalotofpeoplewho’vereaditsay,“Well,wecan’ttrustthemedia.”Butthat’snotexactlywhatitsaid.Ifyouwant to get information, sure, read theNewYorkTimes, but read itwith youreyesopen.Withacriticalmind.TheTimes isfulloffacts.You’renotgoingtofindtheinformationthereonFacebook.

Taibbi:Or4chan.

Chomsky: Also, don’t confine it to themedia. There’s skepticism now aboutinstitutions altogether. In fact, faith in institutions has just declined radically,almost all across the board. Like Congress, the support for them is justsometimes in thesingledigits.About80%of thepopulationsince theeightieshave consistently in polls been saying, the government is run by a few biginterestslookingoutforthemselves.Whichis…

Taibbi:True.Right?

Chomsky:And I think it’s the impact of thewhole neoliberal aggression that

wasmajor.ThatbegantechnicallywithCarter,reallypickedupwithReaganandThatcher, across the world. You’ve had tremendous damage to the generalpopulationundertheneoliberal,business-firstprinciples.Andit’sjusthappenedeverywhere.Takealookjustatwages,Imean,realwagestodayarelowerthanin the late seventies. There’s been economic growth, but into few pockets.Productivity keeps increasing, but notwages.Up until themid-seventies, realwagestrackedproductivity.Ifyoulookbackthen,there’sasplitofproductivitykeepsgoingup,butwagesstagnateordecline.Andthat’struebyeverymeasureyoulookat.

Taibbi:Andnaturally,peopleareupsetaboutthat.

Chomsky:They’reupset.AndthesameinEurope,atleasttheanger,thehatredof institutions, the ugly attitudes emerge to try to blame somebody forwhat’sgoingon.Andyousee in theEuropeanelections, ineveryelection thecentristpartiescollapse,andtheygotofringes.Yousee it inBrexit.Brexit issuicidal.Butthepeoplearesoangrythattheyjustwanttogetoutofit.

Taibbi: During the 2016 election, I remember very vividly the experience ofcoveringTrumpandbeingbehindtheropelinewithallthereportersandTrumppointingusoutandmakingusvillains.He’dbasicallysay:“Therearetheelites,they’restenographersforthebadguys.”AndthatwasveryeffectiveIthought.

Chomsky: Yes, and it’s straight out of the fascist history. Go after the elites,evenwhileyou’rebeingsupportedbythemajorelites.

Taibbi:Right.

Chomsky:YoueverreadThomasFerguson?He’sapoliticaleconomist,averygoodone.Hiswholelifehe’sbeenworkingonthingsliketheimpactofthingslikecampaignfundingonelectability.Andhedidaverycarefulstudyof2016election.Whatturnedoutwasthat,intheend,inthelastcoupleofmonthswhenit became it was looking very clearly as if Clinton was going to win, thecorporate sector really got pretty upset. And they start pouring money intofundingnotonlyforTrump,butheavilyintotheSenateandtheHouse,becausetheywantedtomakesuretheRepublicanscontrolledtheHouseandtheSenate.

Andifyoucomparetheincreaseincampaignfundingwiththeshiftinattitudes,it’salmostperfect.ItpushednotonlyTrump,butalsothewholeCongressintoRepublicanwins.Justasareflectionofcampaignfunding.

Sotherealelitesknewwheretheirbreadwasbuttered.

Taibbi:ButTrumpuses this trickofpresentingotherpeopleasrepresentativesoftheelites.

Chomsky: Standard technique of the fake populists against the elites, whileyou’reactuallyworkingforthem.

Taibbi: Why do you think the population has become so much moreconspiratorial-mindedsince thepublicationofManufacturingConsent?Or hasit? It seems to me that it has. Could it be that – well, when you wroteManufacturingConsent, therewas a commonly accepted set of facts.We hadthreenetworks,theymostlyreportedthesamethings,now-

Chomsky:Well there were conspiracies. I mean, take a look at the Kennedyconspiracies.That’smuchearlier.ThisgoeswaybackinAmericanhistorywhenRichard Hofstadter wrote about it fifty years ago. But it’s true that it’s beeninflated recently, and I think it’s just a reflection of the very natural anger atinstitutions altogether, across the board.Maybe theArmy sort of escapes, butpracticallynothingelse.Andifyoucan’ttrustinstitutions,whycanyoutrustthemedia?

Taibbi:Butthat’soneofthedevelopments,isn’tit?Thatthemediaincreasinglyareviewedasaninstitution,whereaspreviouslythiswasnotsomuchthecase?

Chomsky:Oh, they are.BecauseTrump isvery effective in termsof elicitinganti-institutional furor against themedia,makingmedia the enemy,which is aclevertrick.He’sagoodpolitician.

Taibbi:Alotofpeoplewhoarefellowreportershavecommentedtomeovertheyears – and I agree with them – thatManufacturingConsent really capturedsomethingabouttheinnerworkingsofthemediabusiness.IthinkofthingsthatChrisHedgeshas talkedabout,about thedynamics insidemediacompanies: ifyou’re too independent-minded, if you have too obvious a bent towardindependentthought,soonerorlater,you’regoingtorunintotrouble.Youwon’tbe promoted, or you’ll get wrapped up in some kind of bureaucratic fiasco.Somekindoflabelwillgetattachedtoyou,particularlyinthegiantdailynewsoperations.

Chomsky:They’llsayyou’retoobiased,emotional,tooinvolvedinthings.But

https://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

yousee,it’sthesameintheacademicworld.Itjustmightbebiggerwordsoverhere.

Taibbi:Theremightjustbeahairmoreintellectualmediocrityinourworldthanyours,Iwouldthink.

Chomsky:Well,I’mnotconvincedofthat.

Taibbi: Obviously, the structure of media now with the Internet-baseddistribution systems,what do you see as the future there?Will it be easier orharderto“ManufactureConsent”withsomuchconcentration?

Chomsky:Thecrucialwordwasdistributionsystems.TheInternetdoesn’tdigup any information. So, the information’s coming from the same place itwillalways do. It’s the reporters on the ground. Unfortunately, there are fewer ofthem.

ButIthinkinalotofways,it’shardtomeasure,butmyimpressionisthatthemediaareprobablymorefreeandopenthantheywereinthefiftiesandsixties.Andthereasonisthatalotoftheyoungerpeople,thepeoplewhoarenowinthemedia,wentthroughthesixtiesexperience,whichwasveryliberatory.Itreallyopenedpeople’sminds,sotheytendtobemorecriticalandopen-mindedandsoon.

People forget how conformist themediawere in the fifties and sixties. Itwasshocking.Whenyoulookback,it’smind-boggling.

In 1961, I think aroundNovember,Kennedy authorized theU.S.Air Force tostart bombing South Vietnam. They used South Vietnamese markings, buteverybodyknewwhatwasgoingon.TheywereAmericanplanes.Thisisabigthing:startingtobombtheruralpopulationinaforeigncountry.IthinktheNewYorkTimesmayhavehadtenlinesonitonabackpage.

Nobodyknew,nobodypaidanyattention.Idon’tthinkthatcouldhappennow.Andtherearemanycaseslikethis.

Taibbi:Doyouthinkthatthisisasourceofconcerntothegovernmentandlargecorporateinterests,thisideathatmaybethereisalittlebittoomuchfreedom?Alittletoomuchindependence?Maybe,somethingneedstobe

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/operation-farm-gate-combat-missions-authorized

Chomsky:There’saveryimportantbook,whichcameout1975.It’scalledtheCrisis of Democracy. It’s the first publication of the Trilateral Commission,which is a group of liberal internationalists from Europe, United States, andJapan,threemaincentersofcapitalistdemocracy.

What’s the “Crisis of Democracy”? The “Crisis of Democracy” is that in the1960s,allkindsofsectorsofthepopulationthataresupposedtobepassiveandapatheticbegintotrytoenterthepoliticalarenatopressfortheirowninterestsand concerns, and that imposes too much of a burden on the state, whichbecomesungovernable.So,whatweneed is“moremoderation indemocracy.”That’stheirphrase.Peopleshouldgobackintotheircornersandleaveittous.

In fact, the American rapporteur Samuel Huntington looked back kind ofnostalgically to the Truman years. He says Truman was able to govern thecountrypoliticallywiththeaidofjustafewWallStreetbankers.

Thenwehaddemocracy.Buthegoesafter themedia.Hesays themediahavebecome too adversarial, too independent. We may even have to institutegovernmentcontrolstotrytocontainthem,becauseofwhatthey’redoing.

That’stheliberalposition.TheTrilateralCommissionalsowentafterwhattheycalledthede-legitimationoftheuniversities.Theysaidthattheinstitutions–andthisistheirphrase–theseinstitutionsresponsibleforthe“indoctrinationoftheyoung”–arebeingde-legitimized.

We’vegottohavemoreindoctrination.Remember,that’stheliberalendofthespectrum.Over to therightwing,yougetmuchharsher things…but that’s theintellectual background.We’ve got to stop “toomuch democracy,” “toomuchfreedom.”

The1960swerealwayscalledthe“TimeofTroubles.”Thatwasatimewhenthecountrywhenallthisstarted.

Taibbi: You mention that in the book, that they talked about an “excess ofdemocracy”intermsofthemediacoverageofVietnam.

Chomsky:Thisisthemainsourceofit.Whenthebookcameout,IimmediatelygottheMITlibrarytobuyabouttencopies,becauseIfiguredtheyweregoingtoputitoutofprint.(laughing).Whichtheydid.Theylater****printeditagain.That’sneverdiscussed.I’vediscusseditalot.

https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Democracy-Governability-Democracies-Trilateral/dp/0814713653

Taibbi:Allof thatrhetoric thatyou’re talkingabout isnowresurfacing.We’rehearing again about “toomuch democracy.” And there are many discussionsabouthavingtoreininthemedia,reallyonbothsidesoftheaislepolitically.

Chomsky:Yes.It’sverymuchthesame.

Taibbi:Well,terrific.Professor,thankyousomuch.

Chomsky:Thankyou.

Footnotes

* Freedom House, as described inManufacturingConsent: “Freedom House,which dates back to the early 1940s, has had interlockswithAIM, theWorldAnticommunist League, Resistance International, andU.S. government bodiessuch as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtualpropagandaarmofthegovernmentandinternationalrightwing.”

**MORE,whichwentoutofbusinessin1978.

***FromWinthrop’ssermon:“Forwemustconsiderthatweshallbeasacityuponahill.Theeyesofallpeopleareuponus.Sothat ifweshalldeal falselywithourGodinthisworkwehaveundertaken,andsocauseHimtowithdrawHispresenthelp fromus,weshallbemadeastoryandaby-wordthroughtheworld. Weshallopenthemouthsofenemies tospeakevilof thewaysofGod,andallprofessors forGod’s sake.Weshall shame the facesofmanyofGod’sworthyservants,andcausetheirprayerstobeturnedintocursesuponustillwebeconsumedoutofthegoodlandwhitherwearegoing.”

Introduction

I grewup in themedia. In seventiesMassachusetts,my father took a job at afledglingABCaffiliatecalledWCVB-TV.Thesebeing theglorydaysof localtelevisionnews,mychildhoodendedupbeingalotlikethemovieAnchorman.

I was regularly exposed to the plaid suits, terrible facial hair, and oversizedmicrophonelogostheWillFerrellmoviemadefamous.Therearephotosofmy

https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/americas-suffering-from-too-much-democracy-and-other-commentary/https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/28/regarding-brexit-democracy-and-elitism/

fatherinayellowbowtieandmuttonchops.

More seriously, Channel 5 and journalism became as intimately a part ofmyidentity growing up as, say, baseball must have been for Barry Bonds. I wasfascinatedbymyfather’swork.

Hehadaritualhecalledthe“phoneattack.”Whenhecamehomeatnight,hewouldpourhimselfadrink,lightupaCamelunfiltered,andstartgoingthroughagiantRolodex,pullingnamesout at random.Thenhewoulddial his clunkyrotaryphoneandcallpeopletochat.

Asaboywatching,Ilearnedthislesson:sourcesarerelationshipsthatmustbemanagedbothwhenyou’redoingastory,andalsowhenyou’renot.Peopleneedtofeellikeyou’reinterestedintheirlivesfortheirownsake,notjustwhenyouneedsomething fromthem.Also:askpeopleaboutwhatever theywant to talkabout,notaboutonethinginparticular.

This is an investigative principle articulated well in another goofy moviecomedy,TheZeroEffect.AsHolmesiandetectiveDarylZerosays:

Whenyougolookingforsomethingspecific,yourchancesoffindingitareverybad.Becauseofallthethingsintheworld,you’reonlylookingforoneofthem.

Whenyougolookingforanythingatall,yourchancesoffindingitareverygood.

There’s a lesson in this formodern journalists who’ve been raised to eschewtalking in favor of searching for links (a type of “research” in which you’rereallyjustconfirmingapointyou’vealreadydecidedtomake).Myfathertaughtmethatreportingisnot justabout talking,butbeingwillingtobesurprisedbywhatpeoplesay.

IthoughtIunderstoodthisandmanyotherthingsaboutthejournalismbusinessat a young age. I even knew everything that “off the record” entails – reallyknew,asifitwerereligioustenet–beforeIhitjuniorhigh.IthoughtIwasanexpert.

ThenIreadManufacturingConsent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcVph_23VIE

Thebookcameout in1988and I read it ayear later,when Iwasnineteen. Itblewmymind.

Along with the documentary Hearts and Minds (about the atrocities of theVietnamWar) and books like Soul on Ice, In the Belly of the Beast, andTheAutobiographyofMalcolmX,ManufacturingConsenttaughtmethatsomelevelof deception was baked into almost everything I’d ever been taught aboutmodernAmericanlife.

Iknewnothingabouteitherof theauthors, academicsnamedEdwardHermanandNoamChomsky.Itseemedoddthatabookpurportingtosaysomuchaboutjournalism could be written by non-journalists.Who were these people? Andhowcouldtheyclaimtoknowanythingaboutthisbusiness?

Thiswasthemiddleof theGeorgeH.W.Bushpresidency,still therah-rahTopGuneighties.Politicalearnestnesswasextremelyuncool.AmericawasawesomeandhatingonAmericawasjustsad.NoamChomskywaspaintedtomeastheverydefinitionofuncool,aleaden,hectoringbore.

Butthiswasn’twhatIfoundonthepage.ManufacturingConsent isadazzlingbook.True, like a lot of co-writtenbooks, and especially academicbooks, it’swritteninslow,grindingprose.Butforitstime,itwasintellectuallyflamboyant,wildeven.

The ideas in it radiateddefiance.Once theauthors in the first chapter laidouttheirfamedpropagandamodel,theycutthroughthedeceptionsoftheAmericanstatelikeabuzzsaw.

Thebook’scentralideawasthatcensorshipintheUnitedStateswasnotovert,but covert. The stage-managing of public opinion was “normally notaccomplished by crude intervention” but by the keeping of “dissent andinconvenientinformation”outsidepermittedmentalparameters:“withinboundsandatthemargins.”

The key to this deception is that Americans, every day, see vigorous debategoing on in the press. This deceives them into thinking propaganda is absent.Manufacturing Consent explains that the debate you’re watching ischoreographed. The range of argument has been artificially narrowed longbeforeyougettohearit.

Thiscareful sham is accomplished through theconstant, arduouspolicingofawholerangeofinternalpressurepointswithinthemediabusiness.It’sasubtle,highlyidiosyncraticprocessthatyoucanstareatforalifetimeandnotsee.

Americannewscompaniesatthetimedidn’t(andstilldon’t)forbidthewritingofunpatrioticstories.Therearenoeditorswhocomeblunderingin,redpeninhand,wipingoutpoliticallydangerousreports, in theclumsymannerofSovietCommissars.

Instead,inaprocessthatisalmost100%unconscious,newscompaniessimplyavoid promoting rabble-rousing voices. Advancement is meanwhile stronglyencouraged among the credulous, the intellectually unadventurous, and theobedient.

AsIwouldlaterdiscoverinmyowncareer,therearealotofC-minusbrainsinthe journalismbusiness.Akindof groupthink is developed that permeates theupperlevelsofmediaorganizations,andtheysendunconscioussignalsdowntheranks.

Youngreporterslearnearlyonwhatisandisnotpermittedbehavior.Theylearnto recognize, almost more by smell than reason, what is and is not a “goodstory.”

ChomskyandHermandescribedthispolicingmechanismusingtheterm“flak.”Flakwasdefinedas“negativeresponsestoamediastatementorprogram.”

They gave examples in which corporate-funded think tanks like The MediaInstitute or the anti-communist Freedom House would deluge mediaorganizationsthatranthewrongkindsofstorieswith“letters,telegrams,phonecalls,petitions,lawsuits”andotherkindsofpressure.

What was the wrong kind of story? Here we learned of another part of thepropagandamodel, the concept ofworthy and unworthy victims. Herman andChomskydefinedthepremiseasfollows:

A propaganda system will consistently portray people abused in enemystates as worthy victims, whereas those treated with equal or greaterseveritybyitsowngovernmentorclientswillbeunworthy.

Underthistheory,aPolishpriestmurderedbycommunistsintheReaganyears

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerzy_Popie%252525C5%25252582uszko

was a “worthy” victim, while rightist death squads in U.S.-backed ElSalvadorkillingwholemessesofpriestsandnunsaround thesame timewasaless“worthy”story.

WhatHermanandChomskydescribedwasasystemofinformalsocialcontrol,in which the propaganda aims of the state were constantly reinforced amongaudiences,usingaquantity-over-qualityapproach.

Here and there you might see a dissenting voice, but the overwhelminginstitutional power of the media (and the infrastructure of think-tanks andpoliticians behind the private firms) carried audiences along safely down themiddleofasurprisinglynarrowpoliticalandintellectualcanal.

One of their great examples was Vietnam, where the American media wascomplicitinabroadself-abnegatingefforttoblameitselffor“losingthewar.”

AnabsurdlegendthatsurvivestodayisthatCBSanchorWalterCronkite,afteratwo-weektriptoVietnamin1968,waskeyinunderminingthewareffort.

Cronkite’s famous “Vietnam editorial” derided “the optimists who have beenwronginthepast,”andvillainouslyimpartedthatthemilitary’srosypredictionsofimminentvictorywerefalse.Themorenoblecourse,heimplied,wastofacereality,realize“wedidthebestwecould”todefenddemocracy,andgohome.

TheCronkiteeditorialsparkeda“debate”thatcontinuestothisday.

Ontheright,itissaidthatweshouldhavekeptfightinginVietnam,inspiteofthosemeddlingcommiesinthemedia.

TheprogressivetakeisthattheCronkitewasright,andweshouldhaverealizedthewarwasn’t“winnable”yearsearlier.DoingsowouldhavesavedcountlessAmericanlives,thisthinkinggoes.

Thesetwopositionsstilldefinetheedgesofwhatyoumightcallthe“fairway”ofAmericanthought.

The uglier truth, thatwe committed genocide on a fairlymassive scale acrossIndochina–ultimatelykillingatleastamillioninnocentciviliansbyairinthreecountries–ispre-excludedfromthehistoryofthatperiod.

https://www.thenation.com/article/time-for-a-us-apology-to-el-salvador/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4w-ud-TyE

Instead of painful national reconciliation surrounding episodes like Vietnam,Cambodia, Laos, the CIA-backed anticommunist massacres in places likeIndonesia, or even the more recent horrors in Middle Eastern arenas likeAfghanistan, Iraq,Syria, andYemen,wemostly ignorenarrative-ruiningnewsaboutciviliandeathsorotheroutrages.

Amedia thatcurrentlyapplauds itself forcallingout the liesofDonaldTrump(and they are lies) still uses shameful government-concocted euphemisms like“collateraldamage.”Ournew“DemocracyDies InDarkness”churlishnesshasyettoreachthePentagon,andprobablyneverwill.

IntheWaronTerrorperiod,thepressacceptedblameforhavinglostthelastbigwar and agreed to stop showing pictures of the coffins coming home (to saynothingofactualscenesofwardeaths).

We also volunteered to reduce or play down stories about torture (“enhancedinterrogation”),kidnapping(“rendition”),orassassination(“lethalaction,”orthe“distributionmatrix”).

Even now, if these stories are covered, they’re rarely presented in an alarmisttone. In fact, many “civilian casualties” stories are couched in language thatfocusesonhowtheuntimelyreleaseofnewsof“collateraldamage”mayhindertheefforttowinwhateverwarwe’reinatthetime.

“Afterreportsofciviliandeaths,U.S.militarystrugglestodefendairoperationsinwaragainstmilitants,”isatypicalAmericannewspaperheadline.

Canyouguesseither theyearor thewar fromthatstory? Itcouldbe1968,or2008.Or2018.

AsManufacturingConsentpredicted–withanodtoOrwell,maybe–thescriptsinsocietieslikeoursrarelychange.*

Whenitcametimeformetoenterthejournalismbusinessmyself,IdiscoveredthattheChomsky/Hermandiagnosiswasmostlyright.Moreover,theacademicsprovedprescientabout futuremediadeceptions like the IraqWar.TheirmodelpredictedthathideousepisodeinTechnicolor.

ButneitherHermannorChomskycouldhaveknown,whentheypublishedtheirbook**in1988,thatthemediabusinesswasgoingthroughprofoundchange.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-washington-posts-new-slogan-turns-out-to-be-an-old-saying/2017/02/23/cb199cda-fa02-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/after-reports-of-civilian-deaths-us-military-struggles-to-defend-air-operations-in-war-against-militants/2017/04/10/838e950a-1893-11e7-855e-4824bbb5d748_story.html

As it turned out,Manufacturing Consent was published just ahead of threemassiverevolutionsthatwereabouttotransformthebusiness:

1. TheexplosionofconservativetalkradioandFox-stylenewsproducts.Usingpointofviewratherthan“objectivity”ascommercialstrategies,these stations presaged an atomization of the news landscape underwhich each consumer had an outlet somewhere to match his or herpoliticalbeliefs.

This was a major departure from the three-network pseudo-monopoly thatdominatedtheManufacturingConsentperiod,underwhichthecountrydebatedacommonly-heldsetoffacts.

2.

The introduction of 24-hour cable news stations, which shifted theemphasis of the news business.Reporterswere suddenly trained to valuebreaking news, immediacy, and visual potential over import. Network“crashes” – relentless day-night coverage extravaganzas of a single hotstory like the Kursk disaster or a baby thrown down a well, a type ofjournalismoneTVproducerIknewnicknamed“ShovelingCoalForSatan”–becamethefirstexamplesofbinge-watching.

Therelentlessnownownowgrindof the24-hourcyclecreatedinconsumersanew kind of anxiety and addictive dependency, a need to know what washappening not just once or twice a day but everyminute. This format wouldhavesignificantconsequencesinthe2016electioninparticular.

3.

TheInternetwasonlyjustgettingoffthegroundin1988.Itwasthoughtitwouldsignificantlydemocratizethepresslandscape.

Butprintandbroadcastmediasoonbegantobedistributedbyjustahandfulofdigitalplatforms.Bythelate2000sandearly2010s,thatdistributionsystemhadbeenmassivelyconcentrated.

This created the potential for a direct control mechanism over the press thatneverexisted in theManufacturingConsentera.Moreover thedevelopmentofsocial media would amplify the “flak” factor a thousand-fold, accelerating

conformityandgroupthinkinwaysthatwouldhavebeenunimaginablein1988.

Maybethebiggestdifferenceinvolvedanobvioushistoricalchange:thecollapseoftheSovietUnion.

One of the pillars of the “propaganda model” in the originalManufacturingConsentwasthatthemediausedanti-communismasanorganizingreligion.

TheongoingColdWarnarrativehelpedthepressuseanti-communismasaclubtobatterhereticalthinkers,whoasluckwouldhaveitwereoftensocialists.Theyevenuseditasaclubtopolicepeoplewhoweren’tsocialists(Iwouldseethisyears later,whenHowardDeanwasaskedadozen timesaday ifhewas“tooleft”tobeaviablecandidate).

ButthecollapseoftheBerlinWallandthedissolutionoftheSovietempiretookalittlewindoutoftheanti-communistreligion.ChomskyandHermanaddressedthisintheir2002updateofManufacturingConsent,inwhichtheywrote:

The force of anti-communist ideology has possibly weakened with thecollapse of the Soviet Union and the virtual disappearance of socialistmovements across the globe, but this is easily offset by the greaterideologicalforceofthebeliefinthe“miracleofthemarket…”

The collapse of the Soviets, and the weakening of anti-communism as anorganizingprinciple,ledtootherchangesinthemedia.ManufacturingConsentwasinsignificantpartabookabouthowthatunseensystemofinformalcontrolsallowed the press to organize the entire ** population behind support ofparticularobjectives,manyofthemforeignpolicyobjectives.

But the collapse of the Wall, coupled with those new commercial strategiesbeingdeployedbynetworkslikeFox,createdanewdynamicinthepress.

Media companies used to seek out the broadest possible audiences. The dullthird-personvoiceusedintraditionalmajordailynewspapersisnotthereforanymoralorethical reason,butbecause itwasoncebelieved itmostablyfulfilledthecommercialaimofsnatchingasmanyreaders/viewersaspossible.Thepressisabusinessaboveall,andboringthirdpersonlanguage**wasonceadvancedmarketing.

ButintheyearsafterManufacturingConsentwaspublishedthenewbehemoths

like Fox turned the old business model on its head. What Australian slime-merchant Rupert Murdoch did in employing political slant as a commercialstrategyhadramificationstheAmericanpublictothisdaypoorlyunderstands.

Thenewsbusinessfordecadesemphasized“objective”presentation,whichwasreallylessanissueofpoliticsthantone.

The idea was to make the recitation of news rhetorically watered down andunthreatening enough to rope in the whole spectrum of potential newsconsumers.Theold-schoolanchorpersonwasamonotonemannequindesignedto look and sound like a safe date for your daughter:Good evening, I’mDanRather,andmyfrontallobeshavebeenremoved.TodayinLibya…

Murdoch smashed this framework. He gave news consumers broadcasts thatwere balls-out, pointed, opinionated, and nasty. ** He struck gold with TheO’ReillyFactor,hostedbyayammering,red-facedrepositoryofwhitesuburbanragenamedBillO’Reilly(anotherBostonTVvet).

The next hitwasHannity&Colmes, a format that played as a parody of oldnews.Inthisshow,the“liberal”Colmeswasthequivering,asexual,“safedate”prototype from the old broadcast era, and Sean Hannity was a thuggish JoeyButtafuoco inmakeupwhose jobwas tomakeColmes look like the spinelessweeniehewas.

Thiswastheater,notnews,anditwasnotdesignedtoseizethewholeaudienceinthewaythatotherdebateshowslikeCNN’sCrossfirewere.

ThepremiseofCrossfirewasanhonest fight, twoprominentpunditsduking itoutoverissues,andmaythebestman(theywereusuallymen)win.

TheprototypicalCrossfiresetupinvolvedabombasticwingerlikePatBuchananversusaneffete liberal likeNewRepubliceditor**MichaelKinsley.Onsomedaystheconservativewouldbeallowedtowin,onsomedaystheliberalwouldscoreavictory.Itlookedlikearealargument.

But Crossfire was really just a formalized version of the artificial poles ofallowabledebateChomsky andHermandescribed.As someof its participants(likeJeffCohen,whobrieflyplayedthe“liberal”ontheshow)cametorealize,Crossfirebecameapropagandisticsetup,astagetrickinwhichthe“left”sideofthe argument was gradually pushed toward the right over the years. It was

propaganda,butinslowmotion.

Hannity&Colmesdispensedwiththepretense.ThiswastheintellectualversionofVinceMcMahon’sprowrestlingspectacles,whichwereboomingatthetime.IntheFoxdebateshows,SeanHannitywastheheel,andColmeswasthegoodguy,orbabyface.Asanygoodwrestlingfanknows,mostAmericanaudienceswanttoseebabyfacestomped.

The jobofColmeswas togetpinnedover andover again, andhedid itwell.Meanwhile rightist anger merchants like Hannity and O’Reilly (and, on theradio, Rush Limbaugh) were rapidly hoovering up audiences that werefrustrated, white, and often elderly. Fox chief Roger Ailes once boasted, “Icreatedanetworkforpeople55todead.”

Thiswasanewmodelforthemedia.Insteadoftargetingthebroadmean,theywere now narrowly hunting demographics. The explosion of cable televisionmeanttherewerehundredsofchannels,eachofwhichhaditsownmission.

Just asManufacturing Consent came out, all the major cable channels weresetting off on similar whale hunts, sailing into the high demographic seas insearchofaudiencestocapture.Lifetimewas“televisionforwomen,”while theDiscoveryChannel did well with men.BET went after black viewers. YoungpeoplewereMTV’stargetaudience.

This all seems obvious now, but this “siloing” effect that spread across otherchannelssoonbecameaveryimportantnewfactorinnewscoverage.Foxforalong time cornered themarket on conservative viewers.Almost automatically,competitors like CNN and MSNBC became home to people who viewedthemselvesasliberals,beginningasiftingprocessthatwouldlateraccelerate.

Anewdynamicenteredthejobofreporting.Forgenerations,newsdirectorshadonly to remember a few ideological imperatives.One, ably and voluminouslydescribedbyChomskyandHerman,was,“Americarulesandpaysnoattentionto those napalmed bodies.” We covered the worthy victims, ignored theunworthyones,andthatwasmostofthejob,politically.

The rest of the news?As oneTV producer put it tome in the nineties, “Theentireeffectwe’reafteris,‘Isn’tthatweird?’”

Did you hear about that guy inMichiganwho refused tomow his lawn even

https://www.thenation.com/article/my-only-meeting-with-roger-ailes/

whenthe townorderedhimto?Weird!Andhowabout thatdrive-thrucondomstore that opened in Cranston, Rhode Island? What a trip! And, hey, whathappenedintheO.J.trialtoday?ThatKatoKaelinisreallyadoof!AndIlovethatlawyerwhowearsasuedejacket!Helookslikeacowboy!

TV execs learnedAmericans would be happy if you just fed them a nonstopsuccessionofweirdoNationalEnquirer-style factoids (this is formalized todayinmeme culture). TheNew York Times covering the OJ freak show full-timebroke the sealon theopencommercializationofdumbnews that amongotherthings led to a future where Donald Trump could be a viable presidentialcandidate.

Intheolddays,thenewswasamixofthistoothlesstriviaandcheerydispatchesfrom the frontlines of Pax Americana. The whole fam could sit and watch itwithout getting upset (by necessity: an important principle in pre-Internetbroadcastingisthatnothingontheair,includingthenews,couldbeasintenseorascreativeasthecommercials).Thenewsoncewasdesignedtobeconsumedbythe whole house, by loving Mom, by your crazy right-wing uncle, by yourearnestcollege-studentcousinwhojustcamehomewearingaChet-shirt.

Butoncewestartedtobeorganizedintodemographicsilos,thenetworksfoundanotherwaytoseducetheseaudiences:theysoldintramuralconflict.

TheRogerAilestypescapturedtheattentionofthecrazyright-winguncleandgothimwatchingonechannelfullofnewstailoredforhim,fillingtheairwaveswith stories, for instance, about immigration orminorities committing crimes.DifferentnetworkseventuallyrosetomarketthemselvestothekidintheChet-shirt.Ifyougotthemindifferentroomswatchingdifferentchannels,youcouldgetbothviewersliterallyaddictedtohatingoneanother.

Therewas a political element to this, but also not. Itwas commerce, initially.Andreportersstuck in thisworldsoonbegan to realize that thenatureof theirjobshadchanged.

Whereas once the task was to report out the facts as honestly as we could –withinthe“fairway”ofacceptablethought,ofcourse–thenewtaskwasmostlyaboutmakingsureyourviewercamebackthenextday.

Wesoldanger,andwediditmainlybyfeedingaudienceswhattheywantedtohear.Mostly,thisinvolvedcrankingoutstoriesaboutpeopleourviewersloved

tohate.

Sellingsiloedangerwasamoresophisticated takeon theWWEprogrammingpioneered inHannity&Colmes.Themodern news consumer tuned into newsthat confirmed his or her prejudices about whatever the villain of the dayhappenedtobe:foreigners,minorities,terrorists,theClintons,Republicans,evencorporations.

The system was ingeniously designed so that the news dropped down therespective silos didn’t interferewith the occasional need to “manufacture” theconsentofthewholepopulation.Ifweneededto,wecouldstillherdthewholecountryintothepenagainandgetthembackingtheflag,aswasthecaseintheIraqwareffort.

But domestically, we sold conflict. We began in the early nineties tosystematicallypry families apart, set group against group, andmore andmoremakenewsconsumptionabubble-like,“safespace”stimulationof thevitriolicreflex,aconsumerversionofthe“TwoMinutesHate.”

Howdidthisservetheneedsof theelite interests thatwereoncesoconcernedwithunity?Thatwasn’teasyformetosee,inmyfirstdecadesinthebusiness.For a long time, I thought it was a flaw in the Chomsky/Herman model. Itlookedlikeweweremostlyjustsellingpointlessdivision.

Butitnowseemstherewasareason,evenforthat.

Thenewsmediaisincrisis.Pollsshowthatawidemajorityofthepopulationnolongerhasconfidenceinthepress.Chomskyhimselfdespairsat this,notinginmy discussion with him that Manufacturing Consent had the unintendedconsequenceofconvincingreadersnottotrustthemedia.

People who came away fromManufacturing Consent with the idea that themedia peddles liesmisread the book. Papers like theNew York Times, for themostpart,donottrafficinoutrightdeceptions.

Theoverwhelmingmajorityofcommercialnewsreporting is factual (withoneconspicuous exception I’ll get into later on), and the individual reporterswhowork in the business tend to be quite stubborn in their adherence to fact as amatterofprinciple.

People should trust reporters. It’s the context inwhich they’reoperating that’sproblematic. Now more than ever, most journalists work for giant nihilisticcorporationswhoseeditorialdecisionsareskewedbyatoxicmixofpoliticalandfinancialconsiderations.Unlessyouunderstandhow thosepressureswork, it’svery difficult for a casual news consumer to gain an accurate picture of theworld.

Thisbookisintendedasaninsider’sguidetothosedistortions.

The technology underpinning the modern news business is sophisticated andworks according to a two-step process. First, it creates content that reinforcesyourpre-existingopinions,andafteranalysisofyourconsumerhabits,sendsittoyou.

Thenitmatchesyou toadvertiserswhohaveaproduct they’retryingtosell toyourdemographic.ThisishowcompanieslikeFacebookandGooglemaketheirmoney:tellingadvertiserswheretheirlikelycustomersareontheweb.

The news, basically, is bait to lure you in to a pen where you can be soldsneakersorbathsoapsorprostatitiscuresorwhateverelsestudiessaypeopleofyourage,gender,race,class,andpoliticalbenttendtobuy.

ImagineyourInternetsurfinghabitasbeinglikewalkingdownastreet.Amanshouts:“Didyouhearwhat thosedamned liberalsdid today?Comedown thisalley.”

Youhateliberals,soyougodownthealley.Onyourwaytothestory,there’sastorefrontsellingmartcartsandgoldinvestments(there’sacrashcoming–thisbillionaireevensaysso!).

Maybeyoubuythegold,maybeyoudon’t.Butattheendofthealley,there’sared-faced screamer telling a story that may even be true, about a college inMassachusettswhereadministratorstookdownastatueofJohnAdamsbecauseitmadeaHispanicimmigrant“uncomfortable.”Boydoesthatmakeyoupissed!

They picked that story just for you to hear. It is like the parable of Kafka’sgatekeeper,guardingadoortothetruththatwasbuiltjustforyou.

Across thestreet,downtheMSNBCalley, there’sanoppositestory,andsetofstorefronts,builtspecificallyforsomeoneelsetohear.

Peopleneedtostartunderstandingthenewsnotas“thenews,”butasjustsuchanindividualizedconsumerexperience–angerjustforyou.

This is not reporting. It’s a marketing process designed to create rhetoricaladdictions and shut unhelpfully non-consumerist doors in your mind. Thiscreates more than just pockets of political rancor. It creates masses of mediaconsumerswho’vebeentrainedtoseeinonlyonedirection,asiftheyhadbeenpulled through history on a railroad track, with heads fastened in blinders,lookingonlyoneway.

As it turns out, there is a utility in keeping us divided. As people, the moreseparateweare,themorepoliticallyimpotentwebecome.

This is the second stage of the mass media deception originally described inManufacturingConsent.

First,we’re taught tostaywithincertainbounds, intellectually.Then,we’reallherded into separate demographic pens, located alongdifferent patchesof realestateonthespectrumofpermissiblethought.

Oncesafelycaptured,we’retrainedtoconsumethenewsthewaysportsfansdo.Werootforourteam,andhatealltherest.

Hatredisthepartnerofignorance,andweinthemediahavebecomeexpertsinsellingboth.

I lookedbackat thirtyyearsofdeceptiveepisodes–fromIraq to thefinancialcrisisof2008tothe2016electionofDonaldTrump–andfoundthatweinthepresshaveincreasinglyusedintramuralhatredstoobscurelarger,moredamningtruths.Fakecontroversiesofincreasingabsurdityhavebeendeployedoverandovertokeepouraudiencesfromseeinglargerproblems.

Wemanufacturedfakedissent,topreventrealdissent.

Footnote

* In fact thatpiece is from theWashingtonPost in2017,and itdescribesour“aircampaigninSyriaandIraq.”

SilosPartI:TheBeautyContest

Whydotheyhateus?

Weinthepressalwaysscrewupthisquestion.

Many of the biggest journalistic fiascoes in recent history involved failedattemptsat introspection.Whetheronbehalfof thecountryorourselves,whenwelookinthemirror,weinevitablyreportbackthingsthataren’tthere.

We fumbled “Why do they hate us?” badly after 9/11, when us was guiltlessAmericaand theywereMuslims in thecorruptMiddleEasternpetro-stateswesupported.

We made a joke of it during the Occupy protests, when “Why are they soangry?” somehow became a common news feature assignment after a fraud-riddenfinancialservicessectorputmillionsinforeclosureandvaporized40%oftheworld’swealth.

Morerecently,we’vecycledthroughaseriesofunconvincingresponsestoWhydotheyhateus?-themed**storieslikeBrexit,theBernieSandersprimaryrunof2016,andtheelectionofDonaldTrump.

We’ve botched them all, for reasons that range from incompetence to willfulblindness. The Trump story in particular was an industry-wide, WMD-levelfailurethatexposedmanyofourworstweaknesses(Iwaspartof theproblem,too)andremainsaseriousconcernheadedinto2020.

Butthestorythatflummoxesusmosthastodowithourownbusiness.

Everyonehatesthemedia.Nobodyinthemediaseemstounderstandwhy.

Anoft-citedGalluppoll taken justafter the2016electionshowed just20%ofAmericansexpressed“agreatdeal”or“quitealot”ofconfidenceinnewspapers.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/occupy-wall-street-gen-y-finally-gets-angry/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/12/05/all-the-angry-peoplehttps://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/us/the-occupy-movements-common-thread-is-anger.htmlhttps://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx

An 80% no-confidence votewould be cause for concern inmost professions.Reporters,however,havebeenunimpressedwiththenumbers.

Someofthissurelyhastodowiththefactthatthemediabusiness,atleastatthehigherend,hasbeenexperiencingrecordprofitssinceDonaldTrumptabbedusthe“enemyofthepeople.”Inthe“DemocracyDiesInDarkness”era,manyinthe press wear their public repudiation like badges of honor, evidence thatthey’reontherightjournalistictrack.

FewseemtroubledbytheobvioussymbiosisbetweenTrump’sbottom-feeding,scandal-a-minute act and themassive boom in profits suddenly animating ouronce-dying industry (even print journalism, a business that pre-Trump seemeddestinedtogothewayofNewCokeor8-tracktapes,hasseenabigbumpintheTrumpyears).

Wecertainlydidn’tworryaboutitearlyin2015,whentheunseemlyamountofattention paid to Trump-as-ratings-phenomenon gave the insurgent candidatebillionsinfreepublicityandhelpedsecurehisnomination.

Later,asTrumpcruisedtowardthenomination,mediaexecscouldn’thidetheirexcitement.Since-disgracedCBS jackassLesMoonvesblurtedout thatTrump“may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” adding, “themoney’srollingin.”

Commentslikethesecausedanti-presscomplaintstocomepouringin,thistimenot from flyover country (where hatred of the “elite” press was alreadyconsideredagivenwithinthebusiness)butfromurban,left-leaningintellectuals,a.k.a.themedia’shomecrowd.

These complaints camemainly in two forms. One came from dreary ratings-killingleftieslikeRalphNader,whofocusedontheentiresystemofcommercialmedia.Nadersaidthatcampaigncoveragehaddevolvedintoaprofitbonanzainwhichmediafirms“cashinandgivecandidatesafreeride.”

The former third-party candidate also noted that the constant attention paid topeoplelikeTrumpexcludedothervoices,including“leadingcitizenswhocouldcriticizetheprocess.”(Like,presumably,RalphNader,althoughhehadapoint).

IrememberwatchingNader’scommentswithinterest,havingjustreturnedfromcovering Trump’s nomination-sealing win in the Indiana primary. Trump had

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/05/donald-trump-media-enemies/525381/https://www.thestreet.com/story/14024114/1/trump-bump-grows-into-subscription-surge.htmlhttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464https://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/10/nader_tv_networks_give_trump_a

beaten Ted Cruz, a politician who tried his damnedest to be as cruel andreactionaryfromapolicystandpointasTrump,butwasoutofhisleaguewhenitcametomanipulatingsensationalistcampaignmediacoverage.

CruzwasroutedinIndianaafterTrumptookthehighlycreativestepofaccusingCruz’s fatherofhelpingassassinateJohnF.Kennedy.Thecorrect responseforCruzinthatmediaclimatewouldprobablyhavebeentocounter-accuseTrumpof eatingChristianbabies, ormaybebuggeringLenin’s corpse (theDemocratswouldlatercatchonandtryaversionofthis).ButCruzdidn’tgetitandactuallydeniedtheJFKcharges,whichofcoursehadthepracticaleffectofjustmakingusthinkaboutthemmore.“Garbage!”hetoldreporters.

Worse,Cruz’swifeHeidiwasaskedbyaYahoo!reporterifherhusbandwastheZodiacKiller,apopularInternetmemeatthetime.She,too,madethemistakeofansweringinearnest,providingmoreheadlines.“I’vebeenmarriedtohimfor15yearsandIknowprettywellwhoheis,soitdoesn’tbotherme,”washeranswer.

IwasatthemiserableCruz“victory”partyinIndianapolisonthenightofMay3,2016,whenthereturnscamein.AlotofreporterspresentwerejokingaboutHeidi’sanswer.Manynotedthatitwasa“non-denialdenial”and“exactlywhatthewifeoftherealZodiacwouldsay”(thishottakelatermade it intoa lotofrealnewsreports,including,embarrassingly,myown).

Thepretensethatthepresidentialcampaignwasanythingbutaninsaneabsurdistrealityshowwasalmostcompletelygoneby thatpoint.Reporterswereopenlyenjoyingtheridiculousnessofitall.Manyofustaskedwithitsdailyupdateshadgiven into the campaign’s grotesque commercialism several election cyclesbeforeTrumpevenarrivedonthescene.

Todigressbriefly:thecampaignprocess,forageneration,hasbeentoolongbyatleastayear.Witheachcycle,itgrewevenmoreunnecessarilyprotracted,andincreasingly abhorred real policy discussions. By the seventies and eighties,when the nomination process left the smoke-filled room and became a morepublic affair, it became a kind of elite beauty contest in which Washingtonjournalistsassumedtheroleofjudges.

Pre-Trump,thetwo-yearsagawasreallyaseriesoftestswhosepurposewastoproduce obedient major-party mannequins worthy of “Miss RepublicanOrthodoxy” or “MissDemocrat Orthodoxy” sashes. Therewere both political

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-defends-tying-ted-cruzs-father-to-jfk-killerhttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-defends-tying-ted-cruzs-father-to-jfk-killerhttps://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/05/ted-cruz-zodiac-killerhttps://www.bustle.com/articles/158488-heidi-cruz-botched-denying-zodiac-killer-conspiracy-theories-in-the-best-creepiest-wayhttps://www.tmn.today/2016/05/heidi-cruz-wants-you-to-know-that-ted-isnt-a-serial-killer/https://www.wonkette.com/heidi-cruz-ted-isnt-the-zodiac-killer-hes-a-very-naughty-boyhttps://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/r-i-p-gop-how-trump-is-killing-the-republican-party-187581/

andcommercialelementstothisdynamic.

We routinely flunked candidates in our version of the swimsuit competition.DennisKucinichwashoundedforhis“elfin”appearance,andothers,likeBobbyJindal, were dismissed with sleazy code terms like, “He doesn’t lookpresidential.”

Myriad class/race/gender biases were hidden just in this one “presidential”descriptor,inadditiontoflatouthigh-schoolstyleshallownesscelebratinglooks,height even jockiness. To reassure us on that last point, candidates learned to“relax” by shooting baskets or tossing footballs around us in highly scriptedepisodesthatwentsidewayswithunsurprisingfrequency.MarcoRubioboinkinganIowanchildinthefacewithaterriblespiralisthemostrecentviralclassicofthegenre.

Othertests,likethe“mostnuanced”competition(awardedtothecandidatemostadept at advocating the appearance of policy action instead of the real thing)helpedproducethelikesofJohnKerryasanominee.KerryhimselfthenlosttoGeorgeW.Bushwhen the press flunked him by another asinine standard, thenow-infamous“likability”test.

Headingintothe2016race,punditswereopenlycelebratingallofthis.Wewereproudofthedumbed-downbarrierstopoliticalpowerwe’dcreated.Webraggedincessantlyabouthowthe“candidateyou’dmostwanttohaveabeerwith”hadpracticallybecomeaformalpartof theprocess.WeevenmadeBarackObamasubmit to this horseshit. “The president has been polishing his ‘regular guy’credentialsbytalkingalotaboutbeer,”explainedNPR(NPR!)in2012.

By the lastelection,outlets like theDailyBeastcheerfullydescribed the“beerstandard”asthekeytowinningthe“likabilityOlympics.”

Itwas therefore stunning towatch theuniversal lackof insightwhen theanti-candidatewhorampagedthroughouridioticcampaigncarnivalin2016wasnotonly a reality star, but also a beauty contest aficionado. Trumpwas a demonfromhellsenttopunishallofthesereportingsins.

Hewas likeTonyCliftonsnuck into theMissUniversepageant,doinga farts-only version of Stairway to Heaven as the musical portion. He pissed on“nuance”andspenthiscampaignfloutingourphony“presidential”standard.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/chi-071002kucinich-story-story.htmlhttps://www.theadvocate.com/gambit/new_orleans/news/the_latest/article_babdcc62-36ff-5ddf-b5d1-660fc3e21973.htmlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91mOpsLeBfohttps://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/opinion/john-kerry-fiscal-conservative.htmlhttps://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2004-09-17-benedetto_x.htmhttps://www.npr.org/2012/09/15/161200943/obama-polishes-his-regular-guy-image-with-beerhttps://www.thedailybeast.com/what-if-no-candidate-is-likable-enough

So long aswe thought he couldn’t actuallywin,most of us in the presswerehugelyentertained,evenflattered.Floatingonsoaringratingsandclicknumbers,wecheerfullyreportedallofhisantics.Yetveryfewpickeduponthefactthatthejokewasonus,thatTrumpwaswinningvotespreciselybyrunningagainstourshambeautycontest.

As soon as it became clear that Trump was going to secure the nomination,however,anewkindofcriticismofthemediabegantoappear.ThisonewasoftheWhen A Stranger Calls variety: it came from inside the house, i.e. fromwithinourownranks.

High priests of conventional wisdom like Nicholas Kristof of the New YorkTimesbegan runningpieces inearly2016with titles like,“MySharedShame:TheMedia Helped Make Trump.” Kristof talked a bit about the commercialdynamicsofthebusiness,andhedidcoptothe“motherlode”ofratingsTrumpprovided.Butintheend,hiskeyconclusionread:

It’s not that we shouldn’t have covered Trump’s craziness, but that weshouldhaveaggressivelyprovidedcontext in the formof fact checksandrobustexaminationofpolicyproposals.

AroundthesametimethatKristof’smuch-discussedcolumncameout,ObamagaveaspeechatSyracuseinhonorofRobinToner,thefirstblackwomantobeanational Times correspondent. Though the speech didn’t mention Trump byname, it was clearly about Trump, and themedia’s role in bringing about hissuccess.

ItwasobviousthatObamahaddeeply-heldfeelingsaboutthesubject.ThiswasnaturalgivenTrump’sroleinpushingtheviciousbirthercampaign.TrumpwasoneofthefewfigurescapableofinspiringObamatobreakcharacter.

Obama, likeKristof, touchedon theprofitmotive.Hewentmuchdeeper thanKristofinhisassessmentofthemedia’sstructuralproblems,however,essentiallysaying that itwasour intentional, profit-motivated indulgenceof stupidity andmindless conflict that had brought us to this dark place. I personally wassurprisedhedidn’t leadwithadiatribeabouthowWashingtonreportersaresodumb, you canget them to call you a “regular guy” just bypublishing a beerrecipeontheWhiteHousewebsite.

But he stuck to hounding us for valuing profit over substance. “The choice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkcGm-pWwsQhttps://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/my-shared-shame-the-media-helped-make-trump.html?rref=collection%2525252Fcolumn%2525252Fnicholas-kristof&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2https://www.syracuse.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/read_obamas_speech_on_press_politics_at_syracuse_university_event_video.htmlhttps://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2012/09/01/ale-chief-white-house-beer-recipe

betweenwhatcutsintoyourbottomlinesandwhatharmsusasasocietyisanimportantone,”hescolded.

UltimatelyObamalandedneartoKristofinthiscritique:

Ajobwelldoneisaboutmorethanjusthandingsomeoneamicrophone.Itistoprobeandtoquestion,andtodigdeeper,andtodemandmore.

Some pundits rejected the notion that Trump was the media’s fault. TheGuardianaroundthistimeevendida“factcheck”aboutthisnebulousquestion(howdoes one “fact check” such a premise?).The paper concluded that therewere “reasons to raise doubt” about our culpability in causing the Trumpphenomenon,withthetrueobservationthatTrumpvotersdon’tpayattentiontoourfact-checksanywaybeingoneofthelistedreasons.

But by the summer of 2016, it became accepted belief in our ranks that “themedia” had createdTrump.Reform became thewatchword of the day. Itwaseye-openingtowatchhowquicklymycolleaguesranfromtheirown“likability”clichéonceitbegantolooklikeitmightbeafactorintheincreasinglyinfamousrace.ThiswasdespitethefactthatvirtuallyeverypollshowedthatTrumpwasactuallysignificantlymoredislikedthanhisDemocraticopponent.

Characteristically, there was no remorse over the fact that we hadoveremphasized the likability factor for a generation, helping ruin thecandidaciesofwonkydullardslikeMikeDukakis,AlGore,Kerry,andevenMittRomneyintheprocess.(“Professorial”wasoneofournegativecodewordsfortoopolicy-centriccandidates).

Instead, it was now determined that “likability” was only a problem in thisparticularrace,because(pickone)itwasn’tactuallytrueaboutHillary,oritwassexist, or because we reporters just mistake dedication, seriousness, andworkaholism for a lack of charisma. People actually liked Hillary, or if theydidn’t they were wrong not to, or we were wrong to report the fact – orsomething.

“Howmuchdovotershavetoliketheirpoliticians?”wonderedTime, thesamemagazinethathadputagiantblack-and-whitephotoofHillaryovertheheadlineLOVEHERHATEHER(checkone) in2006,backwhen this sort of analysiswasnotconsideredworld-imperilingstupidity.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/did-media-reporters-create-trump-2016-campaign-213840https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/datablog/2016/mar/30/donald-trump-blame-media-newshttps://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-unfavorable-polls-224454https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-unfavorable-polls-224454https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-unfavorable-polls-224454http://time.com/4347962/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-likability/http://time.com/4347962/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-likability/https://www.bustle.com/articles/75475-19-hillary-clinton-magazine-covers-from-time-to-vogue-that-illustrate-her-accomplished-political-history

The Atlantic in 2012 had reinforced the cult of likability with a long pieceexplainingObama’sdominanceofRomneybywriting,“Ineveryinstance[since1984] thecandidateseenasmore likablewon theelection.” In2016, thesameoutlettrashedlikabilityasamoralwrong,sayingweshouldn’twantaleaderonourlevel,butone“demonstrablyaboveus.”

Beyondsuchchanges,reportersonthetrailbegantosoundsheepishnotes,asifchastenedbypublicdispleasure.TheybegantotalkaboutrecastingtheirwholeapproachtoTrump,andsoon,wedid.

Under thenew formulation,OneMillionHoursofTrump becameOneMillionHours of Trump (is bad!). Conveniently for our sales reps, the new dictumcentered around the idea that we not only should not reduce the volume ofTrumpMania,wemustifanythingincreaseit,becausewenowhadanenhanced“responsibility”to“callhimout.”

Wewouldheara lotabout“responsibility” in thecomingyears fromthesamepeoplewhostillreminduseveryfouryears (andeven,sometimes, inbetween)that Mike Dukakis is an all-time loser because he allowed himself to bephotographedinatank.

Later in the summer, in a seminal op-ed in theNew York Times, writer JimRutenbergarguedthatwereportershadanobligationascitizenstowardoffthehistoricalthreatTrumpposed.

BecauseTrumpwasademagoguewhoplayed“tothenation’sworstracistandnationalistic tendencies,” we had to “throw out the textbook Americanjournalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century” and“approach[Trump]inawayyou’veneverapproachedanythinginyourcareer.”

Rutenberg argued that we had to cast ourselves free of the moorings of“objectivity,”and redefine fairness, fact, and truth.Weshouldnowbe“true tothefacts…inawaythatwillstanduptohistory’sjudgment.”

TheRutenberg column never explainedwhy changing a factual approachwasnecessary, if the Trump fact pattern was as bad as it was (and it was). Badcandidates and bad politicians looked bad even under the old “objectivity”standard,theoldlanguage,theoldheadlines.Whatwerewechangingandwhy?

Rutenbergsaidwehadtogritourteethandgiveup“balance,thatidealisticform

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/the-likability-gap/443289/https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/who-cares-if-a-politician-is-likable/503201/https://www.vox.com/2016/6/3/11848382/donald-trump-racism-mediahttp://fortune.com/2016/03/08/michael-dukakis-john-kerry-7-political-gaffes-mitt-romney-the-course-of-u-s-history/https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/01/17/the-photo-op-that-tankedhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/bad-optics-1460743599https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/08/05/who-really-made-the-michael-dukakis-tank-ad-its-complicated/https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/dukakis-and-the-tank-099119https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html

of journalismwithacapital‘J’we’vebeentrainedtoalwaysstrivefor.”Why?Because“nowthatheistheRepublicannomineeforpresident,theimbalanceiscutting against [Trump].”An increased effort to scrutinize this candidate, callouthisshit,etc.,wouldhurthimatthepolls,thetheorywent.

Inreality,thiscolumnhelpedplanttheseedsoftheinfamoussymbiosisoftoday.WhatRutenbergreallymeantbygivingup“balance”wasn’tgoingafterTrumpmore – we already were calling him every name in the book – but de-emphasizingscrutinyoftheotherside.

AnnouncingthisgaveTrumpanopeningtoblast thepressevenmoreasbeingbiased against him, validating his paranoid politics. Conversely, the posturerallied thecoreaudiencesofpapers like theTimes, at least forawhile.AyearafterRutenberg’scolumn,thepaperwasrevelinginaso-called“Trumpbump”insubscriptions,withthefourthquarterof2016,whentheTimeshadthehonorofgivinghorrifiedaudiencesthebadnewsaboutTrump’selection,beingitsbestyearsinceitlaunchedadigitalpaymodel.

By the summerof2018,however, the“Trumpbump”wasgoneand thepaperwas seeingmost of its digital growth in crosswords and cooking.However, itstillhad thehonorofhavingditched itsancientandhard-fought reputation forobjectivityinpursuitofafewquartersofgrowth.

One additional bizarre Trump-inspired change to reporting that took place in2016 involved polls: we increasingly ignored data favorable to Trump andpushedsurveyssuggestingaClintonlandslide.TheTimesranapieceinOctoberpronouncingtheraceessentiallyover,tellingustoexpecta“sweepingvictoryateverylevel”forClinton.Thepapersall throughtheracewerefullofconfidentpredictionsanddemographicanalyseswithtitleslike,“Relax,TrumpCan’tWin”and“DonaldTrump’sSixStagesofDoom.”

These stories were a crucial poker tell. The ostensible reason for our newadversarial posture was to advocate against Trump. But underreporting theseriousness of the Trump threat didn’t helpDemocrats at all. If anything, theopposite was true. De-fanging data reporting dulled attention to correctableweaknessesintheClintonsupportbaseand,whoknows,perhapsevenmotivatedavoterorathousandtostayhomeoutofunconcern.

Ontheotherhand,suchreportsgotlotsofclicksfrombluestatevoters,thanks

https://www.recode.net/2017/2/2/14488912/new-york-times-subscription-donald-trumphttps://www.recode.net/2018/8/9/17671000/new-york-times-trump-subscribers-news-slower-growthhttps://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.htmlhttps://www.thenation.com/article/trump-cant-win/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trumps-six-stages-of-doom/

tothesamedynamicthatinspiressportsfanstoreadrosypredictionsevenwhentheirteamssuck.Thevibewasclosertofanboyhomerism(whichincidentallyiscompletely defensible in an entertainment genre like sports-writing) than“advocacyreporting.”

Trump’svictorycameasacompleteshock tomillions in largepartbecauseofthisquirkinthesub-genreofdatareporting,whosewholepurposewastobeabufferagainstconventionalwisdomandgroupthink.

Election Day, 2016 was a historic blow to American journalism. It was as ifwe’dinvadedIraqanddiscoveredtherewerenoWMDsinthesamefewhours.Almost immediately, new conventional wisdom coalesced that explained thecoveragefailuresinwaysthatincentivizedfuturemistakes.

ChomskyandHermanwroteabouthowtheelitereactiontoAmerica’smilitarylossinVietnamwastocreatearevisionisthistorythatnotonlysteeredusawayfrom the reality of American crimes and policy failures, but set the stage forfutureinvasionsandoccupations.Thepost-Vietnamstoryblamedan“excessofdemocracy” for the loss, especially in the media: loserific criticism of ourprospectsforvictoryunderminedthepopularresolvetokeepfightingawinnablewar.

So the press sheepishly abandoned a lot of its “excessively democratic”practices.Westoppedshowingdeathsinbattle,coffinscominghome,etc.Ifyoudidanywarzonereporting,youhadtobe“embedded”aspartofanAmericanunit,apractice thatgavemostwarreportingaStarsandStripes flavor.EvenIsubmittedtotheseconditions.

Inthesameway,conventionalwisdomafterthe2016votesteeredattentionawayfrom the generation of press practices that had degraded the presidentialcampaignprocesstothepointwheretheelectionofsomeonelikeTrumpcouldevenbepossible.

Anyrealassessmentofwhathappenedwouldhavefocusedonthefactthatthecampaign press had been so pompous for so long in telling voters what“presidential” meant, and in dictating fealty to crass stupidities like “nuance”and “the beer standard,” that voters entering 2016 were of course willing tocheeranypolwiththeinsighttotellustofuckoff.Thesubtextofallofthis,ofcourse,was thatour rants aboutbeer and“likability” and soonwereonly the

Washington press corps’ idea of what was important to a voter in flyovercountry.

Given thatmost actual voterswere sunk in debt,workingmultiple jobs, oftenuninsured, saddled with ruined credit scores, and often battling alcohol andopiate addiction and other problems, itwas a horrific aristocratic insult to tellpeople every four years thatwhat reallymattered to themwaswhat candidatelookedmostconvincingcarryingarifleonaduckhunt.Butweweresooutoftouch,wedoubleddownontheseinsultseveryfouryears.

ThatthiswasahugepartofTrump’sappealwasobvious.Butitwasleftoutofelectoralpost-mortems.

Instead, the legend became thatwe hadn’t been obnoxious enough during theelection season.WhatAmerica really needed, the press barons decided,was amore directly didactic approach about who was and was not an appropriatepoliticalchoice.

ThesamepunditclassthathadraisedusonmoronicmessaginglikeNewsweek’s“Fighting theWimpFactor”coverofGeorgeH.W.Bushcreatedanewlegendabout how the Trump-era press corps had learned its lesson, and would bereturning to its more natural role as serious-minded opponents of dumbpopulism.

Forexample,weweren’tgoingtoscrewaroundwithwordslike“misstatement”anymore.ThenewPressCorpsMarkVwouldput theword“lie”inheadlines.Goaheadandseeifwewouldn’t.Weweretoughnow.

NolessafigurethanDanRathersoundedthe“lie”bugleasweenteredtheeraof–gulp–president Trump.Rather’s takewas in response to aMeetThePresssegmentinwhichTimesexecutiveeditorDeanBacquetandWallStreetJournaleditorGerardBakerharrumphedatlengthastheydebatedthisuseofthe“lie.”

Eventuallytherewasagreatcollectivepattingofbackswhenmostofthemajorpapersandnetworksdecidedtoapprovetheforbiddenword.Worse,despitethefactthattheentirejournalismbusinesshadjustbeenforcedtoeatcauldronsofshit after its nearly two-year collection of misreads and smug dismissals ofTrump’schanceshadexploded,SpaceShuttle-style,onElectionDay,papersandnews networks everywhere were suddenly congratulating themselves for theirnew #Resistance fight-the-power posture. (Incidentally, what were we doing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50527-2004Oct21.htmlhttps://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/28/us/clinton-hunts-making-point-on-guns.htmlhttp://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/george-hw-bush-and-vision-thing.htmlhttps://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10157986074875716http://fortune.com/2017/01/03/media-trump-lies/

beforeTrump?Notchallengingpower?)TheWashingtonPost, for fuck’ssake,actually ran aBehind the Music-type feature about how it settled on its new“DemocracyDiesinDarkness”slogan.

Around the same time that Bacquet and Baker were holding their televiseddiscussion about journalism’s future, Iwas interviewingBernieSanders aboutthe lessons of the 2016 race. He didn’t use this language, but one of the bigtakeawaysforSandersfromhisrun