Manufacturing consent refers to the fact that there is a process of selection and non-selection of the perspectives that become news, and the way that news is reported biases the public in favor of those perspectives (Chomsky, n.p.). The consent that is being manufactured is that of the general public, which can entrench it as a sort of common sense understanding (Chomsky, n.p.). Manufacturing consent is important in a democratic society because if most of the people agree, then it legitimized the promoted interests in light of democratic norms (Chomsky, n.p.). As a result, the important decisions are being made by those who control mass media- the advertisers and government policy makers. Ultimately they facilitate the existence of the mass media through the allocation of resources, both financial and in terms of access to stories (Chomsky, n.p.).

Chomsky studies the manufacture of consent by understanding who the stakeholders are, who holds the power, and how the resources are allocated. In this way there is a chain of interests that are traceable to specific corporate and governmental interests (Chomsky, n.p.). This is important to understanding what does, and what does not, become a news story (Chomsky, n.p.).
The significance of the incidents in East Timor and Cambodia are the fact that they were not selected by the media as stories for the news, and as a result the information about atrocities occurring there was suppressed (Chomsky, n.p.). Chomsky felt that if people had truly understood the scale of tragic and inhumane conditions created by the governments there, strong public opinions could have stopped what was ultimately genocide (Chomsky, n.p.). This occurs because of the hegemony of the interests that control the media.

Concision is the process of not selected, or being very selective, in sharing dissent so that it is marginalized. How then can we gain a better perspective, if multiple points of view are silenced?
Watching the video made me realize that the news and what is covered by the media in terms of non-fiction and is ultimately a form of marketing and advertising. Rather than advertising products, it is marketing a specific point of view. This would be fine if there were multiple points of view that could be synthesized for a robust understanding of events, however when all of the media is aligned by singular interests that are not what happens. Instead powerful elites essentially control the public mind by allowing individuals to dominate themselves on behalf of those interests- the believe that the opinion and point of view that they have been fed by the media is their own developed thoughts.

I don’t feel good about this; because the implication is that I do not even know how I have been manipulated by powerful media elites. I cannot separate my own opinions from that which was manufactured because I do not know what was left out; I do not know which perspectives I was not exposed to at the expense of the controlled message.

There is no real chance of escaping the influence of the media; however by interpreting all media as being subjective it can be understood in context. Whether I agree with a perspective or not, I can assume that it is grounded in the interests who provide the capital for its existence.

There are many questions left unanswered, particularly in the context of today. Is social media the lessening the grip and power of the media elites over the public? Is power shifting in light of multiple modes of connection? Are social media and media in general compounding the marketing impact of perspectives through the algorithms that reinforce one’s beliefs and values? And finally is there a trend towards more competition in perspectives?