How Governments controlled its' people

Askingyouto SG

In this video Noam Chomsky explains the concept of manufacturing consent, which Walter Lippmann wrote about in his 1922 novel Public Opinion.

The creation of consent is not a new art. It is a very old one which was supposed to have died out with the appearance of democracy. But it has not died out. It has, in fact, improved enormously in technique, because it is now based on analysis rather than on rule of thumb. And so, as a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communications, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power.

The “manufacture of consent” is a concept borrowed from a book by Walter Lippman “Public Opinion” written in 1921.

The “manufacture of consent” is a technique of control. Walter Lippmann said this is useful and necessary because the common interests (the general concern of all) elude very largely public opinions, that it can managed only by a specialized class (an elite).

This concept is the opposite of the view of the standard democracy.

Walter Lippmann argued that participatory democracy was unworkable, that the democratic public was a myth, and hence that the business of governing should be delegated exclusively to political representatives and their expert advisors. Based on empirical evidence about the efficacy of political propaganda and mass advertisement to shape people’s ways of thinking, Lippmann contended that public opinion was highly shaped by leaders. Lippmann called this process of manipulation of consciousness ‘the manufacture of consent’ – a concept that Noam Chomsky would popularize many years later in his writings.

According to Reinhold Niebuhr, rationality belongs to the cool observer, because of the stupidity of the average man … the average man follows not reason, but faith … and this naive faith requires “necessary illusions” and “EMOTIALLY POTENT OVERSIMPLIFICATIONS” – these are provided by the myth makers (the master class, or the master race as Nietzsche called it) and keep the ordinary person going.

A simplified transcript of what Noam Chomsky said in the documentary:

Who are the ones wielding such powers to manufacture consent?

If you want to understand how any society works, the first place to look is who is in a position to make the decision to determine how the way the society functions. Society differs, but in ours, the major decisions over what happens in the society, decisions over investments and productions and distributions and so on, are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates and investments firms and so on. They are also the ones who staff the major executives positions in the government and they are the ones who own the media and they are the ones who have to be in the positions to make the decisions. They have an overwhelming dominant role in the way life happens, what's done in a society, within an economic system by law and in principles, they dominant. The control in the resources and the need to satisfy their interests impose a very sharp constraint on the political system and the ideological system.

Whose consent is being manufactured?

There are two targets for propaganda, one is sometimes called the political class, there's maybe 20% of the population which is relatively well educated, more or less articulated, they play some kind of role in decision making, they are supposed to participate in social life, either as mangers or cultural managers like teachers and writers and so on. They are supposed to play some role in the way economic and political and cultural life goes on. Their consent is crucial, one group that is deeply indoctrinated.
Then, there's perhaps 80% of the population, whose main function is to follow orders and not to think and not to pay attention to anything and they are the ones who usually pay the cost.

Factory for the manufacturing of consent – the mass media.

Ways to manufacture consent

1. Selection of topics
2. Distribution of concerns
3. Emphasis
4. Framing of issues
5. Filtering of information
6. Bounding of debate

They will

1. Determine
2. Select
3. Shape
4. Control
5. Restrict
6. Serve the interest of the dominant elite groups

A case study – East Timor

East Timor was a Portuguese colony, Indonesia had no claims to it and in fact stated that they had no claims to it. A civil war broke out in August 1975, it ended in a victory for Fretilin which was one of the groupings. Indonesia intervened, five journalist were killed by the Indonesian forces in the conflict. US president Ford was in Indonesia on 5 December 1975, the Indonesia forces invaded East Timor after right he left on 7 December 1975. It was premeditated that by the US side that the invasion should start after their president should leave first. For the next three weeks, Indonesian troops killed everyone including civilians,when they landed in Dili. UN resolution was blocked by US. The killing continued. Around 1977, Indonesian forces set up receiving centres granting amnesty to those East Timorese who hid in the jungles, those who are more educated or are suspected of being Fretilin or opposition members were killed immediately. Women were sent to Dili for “use” by the Indonesian soldiers. They killed children and babies. By 1978, it approached genocidal levels, close to 200,000 killed. US backed it all the way, US provided 90% of the arms. When the Indonesian forces started to run out of arms in 1978, US president Jimmy Carter increased arm sales, just like the rest of the Western countries did. Every country that could make a buck was in there, making sure that Indonesian forces could kill more Timorese.

There is no Western concern for issues of aggression and atrocities and human rights abuses, if there's profits to be made.

It wasn't nobody even heard of East Timor, there was plenty of coverage in the New York Times before the invasion, the reason was, there was concern over the breakup of the Portuguese empire, over the fear of Russian influence or whatever.

After the invasion, the coverage dropped, there was some but it was strictly from the point of view of state officials and Indonesia generals, never from the East Timorese refugees.In 1978, coverage dropped to zero in US and Canada.

A case study – Cambodia

Bombing by the US was started in the early 70s in the areas of inner Cambodia, reaching a peak around 1975. Very little was known about it, the media wanted it to be secret. They knew it was going on but they didn't want to know what was happening. CIA estimated 600,000 killed, either through bombing or US sponsored war. Another million people would die in the aftermath, just from hunger or diseases.

That wasn't the story Western media wanted to carry. After 1975, it only became the right story when the Khmer Rouge killed around 50,000 to 100,000 through their forced agrarian social program which forced people to work on the fields. In total, around 700,000 died within the few years of the program. Although the atrocities were bad when it started, but it was not bad enough for the Western media to report on, 50,000 to 100,000 dead were too little, US bombing wiped off 600,000 in the early years.

The Western media did it's best, nonetheless. After the Khmer Rouge took over, fake photos of executions, reports saying that Khmer Rouge boasted 2 millions killed were everywhere. Mass amount of lying by the mass media started. When compared with East Timor, the word “Timor” was reported 70 column inches in the period of 1975 to 1979, while the word “Cambodia” was reported 1175 column inches in the period of 1975 to 1979, such a vast difference. Cambodia was a communist atrocity while East Timor was not.

Karl E Meyer (Editorial Writer at The New York Times during 1980) said “ If one takes literally various of theories that Professor Choamsky puts up, one would feel that there's a tacit conspiracy between the established press and the government in Washington to focus on certain things and ignore certain things, so that if we broke the rules, we would instantly get a sharp reaction from the overlords in Washington.”

“When Choamsky came around, he had with him a file of all the coverage of New York Times and other newspapers of East Timor, he would go to the meticulous degree, that for example, The London Times had a piece on East Timor atrocities, then it appeared on The New York Times, then if a paragraph was cut out, he compare, he said, this key paragraph which near the end really tells the whole story was left out of The New York Times version of The London Times article.

The New York Times had revised The London Times article which was picked up by Newsweek and the entire East Timor atrocities ended up being a white wash. This pattern of behavior by the US press was repeated several more times in various news runs. This is not a journalists' mistake, it happens, not once or twice or thrice but several dozens of times.

What happened in Cambodia and East Timor at that time was bad, whether it was a Communist atrocity, an Indonesian atrocity or an American atrocity, but what this shows it the way that the American government deliberately misled the American public for it's own purposes.

It is still happening, every minute, every second in many parts of the world.

The video is Manufacturing Consent The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Noah Chomsky

It can be view on Youtube in various time format.

Avram Noam Chomsky (born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, philosopher,cognitive scientist, and activist. He is an Institute Professor and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as one of the fathers of modern linguistics, and a major figure of analytic philosophy. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident and an anarchist, referring to himself as a libertarian socialist. Chomsky is the author of more than 150 books and has received worldwide attention for his views.

charlize SG

WOT.

mancha SG

"Who are the ones wielding such powers to manufacture consent?

If you want to understand how any society works, the first place to look is who is in a position to make the decision to determine how the way the society functions. Society differs, but in ours, the major decisions over what happens in the society, decisions over investments and productions and distributions and so on, are in the hands of a relatively concentrated network of major corporations and conglomerates and investments firms and so on. They are also the ones who staff the major executives positions in the government and they are the ones who own the media and they are the ones who have to be in the positions to make the decisions. They have an overwhelming dominant role in the way life happens, what's done in a society, within an economic system by law and in principles, they dominant. The control in the resources and the need to satisfy their interests impose a very sharp constraint on the political system and the ideological system."

Who manufactures consent here, it is assumed from silence and not opting out.

Askingyouto SG

The following was first published as a Facebook note on Stephanie Chok’s page. TOC thanks her for allowing us to reproduce it here.

Stephanie Chok /

TODAY just published a letter I sent in (“Punish criminal acts but deter errant bosses, too”, TODAY, Voices, Jul 29, 2011) [see below]. (By the way, that is THEIR headline, not mine, which was ‘A Balanced Approach to Deterrence’)

I sent this letter in because their article, “5 weeks in jail for criminal trespass” (TODAY, Jul 22, 2011), was inaccurate. [See below]

In the article, the court reporter indicated that Yang Wei, a construction worker who had unpaid salary claims, “could have lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower”, but instead “took matters into his own hands, entering a construction site at Changi South Ave 2 and climbed up the crane”. For this, Yang Wei was slapped with a 5 week jail sentence for criminal trespass.

Yang Wei DID in fact lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower. I was at the first court hearing on 14 July 2011 and this is something I verified with H.O.M.E. (Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics), which is assisting Yang Wei with his case. However, Yang Wei returned from the mediation at the MOM frustrated and told H.O.M.E. staff that his employer refused to pay him the full amount he is entitled to under the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. On top of that, the employer wanted to make further deductions, without evidence this was legitimate.

However, the article that was published made it appear that Yang Wei chose to engage in a wilful (and, in Singapore, a criminal) act without first even attempting to do things the ‘legal’ way.

So I decided to write a letter to TODAY to alert them to the inaccuracy. It was published today, but TODAY inserted an entire paragraph that I DID NOT WRITE, and which completely changed its meaning.

In my letter, I had written:

Yang Wei has and will continue to serve time in jail and it is clear the law has taken its course. However, misleading representations only serve to further criminalize a worker who resorted to an act of desperation after having been denied his rightful salary payments. It is also important to point out that the employer had committed an offence by violating labour laws yet refused to pay the correct settlement amount during mediations at the Ministry of Manpower.

TODAY took the liberty of changing it [the section in BOLD] to:

It is important to note that his employer later paid him S$5,000, a settlement amount that is now with the authorities, and which will be returned to him after his release.

While there were other edits of my letter, this one I find unacceptable. My letter made NO mention of a $5000 payment. Plus, what I had intended to point out is that though Yang Wei was charged for a criminal act, his employer does not seem to have been charged for violating labour laws and remaining unrepentant during MOM mediations.

This $5000 ‘settlement’ was only derived AFTER Yang Wei had climbed on the crane and the employer agreed to pay him in order to get Yang Wei to come down. It was NOT paid during official mediations by the MOM.

Moreover, a staff member from TODAY actually rang me a few nights ago (at 10.30pm) to ‘verify’ that what I wrote in my letter was true – that Yang Wei had, in fact, lodged a complaint at the MOM. Kind of ironic that I receive a call from them to verify the facts – only to have them insert things into my letter I did not write?

If TODAY sees a need to make a statement on behalf of the employer, they can easily do that in a footnote. It is another thing altogether to insert a new made-up paragraph I did not write, imbued with meaning that I did not intend, with facts that I did not include and am not able to personally verify, into a letter with my name on it.

—–

The TODAY article which was inaccurate:

5 weeks in jail for criminal trespass

by Shaffiq Alkhatib

TODAY, Jul 22, 2011

SINGAPORE – A construction worker embroiled in a pay dispute was jailed five weeks yesterday for criminal trespass after climbing to a crane tower control cage 30m above ground to air his grievances.

Yang Wei, 27, could have lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower after he had claimed his employer had not paid him his salary of S$5,000.

But on July 4, the Chinese national took matters into his own hands, entering a construction site at Changi South Ave 2 and climbed up the crane.

He had refused to come down, even after a safety coordinator at the site, Mr Tang Yee Chiang, 34, climbed up to him and tried to convince him to come down from the crane.

Yang told him that Zhong Jiang International owed him money and had also shortchanged him on his salary and medical claims.

He was placated only after the company handed the money to him.

Yang was represented by lawyers Sheela Kumari Devi and Gregory Vijayendran who did not charge him for their services.

Mr Vijayendran told District Judge Low Wee Ping that their client committed the offence due to overwhelming emotional stress.

The lawyer said Yang was the sole breadwinner of his family and had a sick mother who was semi-paralysed.

The S$5,000 is now with the authorities and will be returned to Yang after his release, said Mr Vijayendran, who asked for a light custodial sentence.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Grace Lim however had pressed for a deterrent one of at least eight weeks’ jail, to send out a strong message to other workers that they should not resort to similar tactics to resolve disputes.

—–

Here is the original letter I sent to TODAY:

A Balanced Approach in Deterrence

I refer to the report, ‘5 weeks in jail for criminal trespass’ (TODAY, Jul 22, 2011).

The report claims Yang Wei, who was charged with criminal trespass, could have lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for his unpaid wages but instead ‘took matters into his own hands’ by climbing up a crane at a worksite.

Yang Wei had, in fact, lodged his complaints with the Ministry of Manpower over unpaid salary, medical leave wages and medical expenses. These are a worker’s rightful entitlements under the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act.

However, during the mediation at the MOM, the employer refused to pay Yang Wei what he was rightfully due. On top of that, the employer insisted on making a further deduction, without sufficient evidence this was legitimate.

Unfortunately, these are not exceptional cases. As a volunteer with H.O.M.E., a local migrant worker organization, I have met, over the years, many construction workers who have been denied salaries and other entitlements and go through frustrating delays during the settlement process that cause further financial hardship. Such workers are also frequently subjected to oppressive managerial control and unreasonable employer behaviour, including being bound to contracts with illegal terms and/or threats and intimidation. Workers who face additional burdens such as critical family illnesses and marital strife exacerbated by their inability to send money home are subjected to high levels of emotional stress.

A more balanced approach in deterrence should include harsher measures meted out to recalcitrant employers who remain non-compliant despite official intervention. Workers lodge complaints at the MOM with much hope that the authorities will assist in resolving their disputes fairly. Greater pressure should be placed on employers who refuse to pay workers as opposed to unpaid workers feeling they need to compromise by accepting whatever they are given, despite the shortfall.

Ms Stephanie Chok

—–

Here is the letter published by TODAY:

Punish criminal acts but deter errant bosses, too

Letter from Stephanie Chok

04:45 AM Jul 29, 2011

I refer to the report “5 weeks in jail for criminal trespass” (July 22).

It claimed that Yang Wei could have lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for his unpaid wages but instead “took matters into his own hands” by climbing up a crane at a worksite.

In fact, he had previously gone to the MOM over unpaid salary, medical leave wages and medical expenses – a worker’s entitlements under the law.

However, he claimed to us at the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics that, during the mediation, the employer allegedly refused to pay up and insisted on making a further deduction.

These are not exceptional cases. As a volunteer with the migrant worker group, I have met, over the years, construction workers who have been denied salaries and other entitlements and who endure frustrating delays during the settlement process that cause further hardship.

Such workers are frequently subjected to oppressive managerial control and unreasonable employer behaviour, including being bound to contracts with illegal terms and/or threats.

Workers who face additional burdens such as critical family illnesses and marital strife, exacerbated by their inability to send money home, go through high levels of emotional stress.

In Yang Wei’s case, the law has taken its course and he has been sentenced. However, misleading representations further criminalise a worker whose act of desperation came after he was denied his salary payments.

It is important to note that his employer later paid him S$5,000, a settlement amount that is now with the authorities, and which will be returned to him after his release.

A more balanced approach in deterrence should include harsher measures meted out to recalcitrant employers who remain non-compliant despite official intervention.

Workers lodge complaints at the MOM with much hope that it will assist in resolving their disputes. Greater pressure should be placed on employers who refuse to pay workers as opposed to unpaid workers feeling they need to compromise by accepting whatever they are given, despite the shortfall.

Taken from TOC

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2011/07/today-letter-published-with-a-new-paragraph-sender-did-not-write/