Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies»
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Noam Chomsky: «Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies» Sprache: Englisch Taschenbuch 422 Seiten South End Press Erscheinungsdatum: 1. Juni 1989 ISBN: 0896083667 What role do the media play in a capitalist democracy? Based on the Massey Lectures, delivered in Canada in November 1988, Necessary Illusions argues that, far from perfor- ming a watchdog role, the «free press» serves the needs of those in power. With this book, Chomsky rips away the mask of propaganda that portrays the media as advocates of free speech and democracy: In short, the major media are corporations «selling» privileged audiences to other busines- ses.... Media concentration is high, and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy mana- gerial positions in the media...belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well. Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they conform to these ideological pressures, generally by internalizing the values.... Those who fail to conform will be weeded out... -- from the Massey Lectures • ••••• content • • chapter 1_DEMOCRACY AND THE MEDIA 8 Notes 34 chapter 2_CONTAINING THE ENEMY 41 Notes 71 chapter 3_THE BOUNDS OF THE EXPRESSIBLE 76 Notes 114 chapter 4_ADJUNCTS OF GOVERNMENT 122 Notes 160 chapter 5_THE UTILITY OF INTERPRETATIONS 167 Notes 209 appendix 1_1. Propaganda Model: Some Methodological Considerations 217 2. On Critical Balance 248 Notes 275 appendix 2_1. The Containment Doctrine 286 2. The Red Scare 293 Notes 299 appendix 3_1. The Sanctity of Borders 303 Notes 309 appendix 4_1. The Craft of «Historical Engineering» 311 2. The Obligation of Silence 324 3. The Summits 337 4. The Media and International Opinion 341 5. Demolishing the Accords 348 Notes 398 appendix 5_1. The U.S. and Costa Rican Democracy 412 2. «The Evil Scourge of Terrorism» 421 3. Heroes and Devils 439 4. The «Peace Process» in the Middle East 446 5. The Best Defense 490 6. La Prensa 496 7. «The Courage to Preserve Civil Liberties» 514 8. The Continuing Struggle 524 Notes 538 3 • • • • PREFACE he five chapters that follow are modified versions of the five T1988 Massey lectures I delivered over Canadian Broadcas- ting Corporation radio in November 1988. These lectures sug- gest certain conclusions about the functioning of the most ad- vanced democratic systems of the modern era, and particularly, about the ways in which thought and understanding are shaped in the interests of domestic privilege. Following these five chap- ters are appendices that are intended to serve, in effect, as ex- tended footnotes amplifying some of the points raised, separa- ted from the text so as not to obscure too much the continuity of the discussion. There is an appendix, divided into sections, for each chapter. Each section is identified by the part of the text to which it serves as an addendum. These appendices should be regarded merely as a sample. As references indicate, some of the topics touched upon in the text and appendices are explored in further detail elsewhere. Many of them merit se- rious research projects. The issues that arise are rooted in the nature of Western in- dustrial societies and have been debated since their origins. In capitalist democracies there is a certain tension with regard to the locus of power. In a democracy the people rule, in princip- 5 | Preface | le. But decision-making power over central areas of life resides in private hands, with large-scale effects throughout the social order. One way to resolve the tension would be to extend the democratic system to investment, the organization of work, and so on. That would constitute a major social revolution, which, in my view at least, would consummate the political revolutions of an earlier era and realize some of the libertari- an principles on which they were partly based. Or the tension could be resolved, and sometimes is, by forcefully eliminating public interference with state and private power. In the advan- ced industrial societies the problem is typically approached by a variety of measures to deprive democratic political structures of substantive content, while leaving them formally intact. A large part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength. The en- terprise has many facets and agents. I will be primarily concer- ned with one aspect: thought control, as conducted through the agency of the national media and related elements of the elite intellectual culture. There is, in my opinion, much too little inquiry into these matters. My personal feeling is that citizens of the democratic societies should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for more meaningful democracy. It is this concern that motivates the material that follows, and much of the work cited in the course of the discussion. ¶ 6 • ••••• chapter one • • DEMOCRACY AND THE MEDIA nder the heading «Brazilian bishops support plan to demo- Ucratize media,» a church-based South American journal describes a proposal being debated in the constituent assembly that «would open up Brazil‘s powerful and highly concentrated media to citizen participation.» «Brazil‘s Catholic bishops are among the principal advocates [of this]...legislative proposal to democratize the country‘s communications media,» the report continues, noting that «Brazilian TV is in the hands of five big networks [while]...eight huge multinational corporations and various state enterprises account for the majority of all commu- nications advertising.» The proposal «envisions the creation of a National Communications Council made up of civilian and government representatives [that]...would develop a demo- cratic communications policy and grant licenses to radio and television operations.» «The Brazilian Conference of Catholic Bishops has repeatedly stressed the importance of the commu- nications media and pushed for grassroots participation. It has chosen communications as the theme of its 1989 Lenten cam- paign,» an annual «parish-level campaign of reflection about some social issue» initiated by the Bishops‘ Conference.1 The questions raised by the Brazilian bishops are being 8 | Chapter One_Democracy and the Media | seriously discussed in many parts of the world. Projects explo- ring them are under way in several Latin American countries and elsewhere. There has been discussion of a «New World Information Order» that would diversify media access and encourage alternatives to the global media system dominated by the Western industrial powers. A UNESCO inquiry into such possibilities elicited an extremely hostile reaction in the United States.2 The alleged concern was freedom of the press. Among the questions I would like to raise as we proceed are: just how serious is this concern, and what is its substantive content? Further questions that lie in the background have to do with a democratic communications policy: what it might be, whether it is a desideratum, and if so, whether it is attainable. And, more generally, just what kind of democratic order is it to which we aspire? The concept of «democratizing the media» has no real meaning within the terms of political discourse in the United States. In fact, the phrase has a paradoxical or even vaguely subversive ring to it. Citizen participation would be considered an infringement on freedom of the press, a blow struck against the independence of the media that would distort the mission they have undertaken to inform the public without fear or fa- vor. The reaction merits some thought. Underlying it are beliefs about how the media do function and how they should func- tion within our democratic systems, and also certain implicit conceptions of the nature of democracy. Let us consider these topics in turn. The standard image of media performance, as expressed by Judge Gurfein in a decision rejecting government efforts to bar publication of the Pentagon Papers, is that we have «a cantan- kerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press,» and that these tribunes of the people «must be suffered by those in au- thority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know.» Commen- 9 | Chapter One_Democracy and the Media | ting on this decision, Anthony Lewis of the New York Times ob- serves that the media were not always as independent, vigilant, and defiant of authority as they are today, but in the Vietnam and Watergate eras they learned to exercise «the power to root about in our national life, exposing what they deem right for exposure,» without regard to external pressures or the demands of state or private power. This too is a commonly held belief.3 There has been much debate over the media during this pe- riod, but it does not deal with the problem of «democratizing the media» and freeing them from the constraints of state and private power. Rather, the issue debated is whether the media have not exceeded proper bounds in escaping such constraints, even threatening the existence of democratic institutions in their contentious and irresponsible defiance of authority. A 1975 study on «governability of democracies» by the Trilateral Commission concluded that the media have become a «notab- le new source of national power,» one aspect of an «excess of democracy» that contributes to «the reduction of governmen- tal authority» at home and a consequent «decline in the influ- ence of democracy abroad.» This general «crisis of democracy,» the commission held, resulted from the efforts of previously marginalized sectors of the population to organize and press their demands, thereby creating an overload that prevents the democratic process from functioning properly.