User Reviews

Manufacturing Consent attempts to teach deep social, political and philosophical studies with mainstream and sometimes simplistic filmmaking that edges on a PowerPoint visual aids strategy. But... it works! The movie is not necessarily targeting MIT intelligentsia, but the people-in-the-street that the same media depicted in the film are aiming at. If you liked the movie, or if it just left you wondering, read the book! The film and/or the book will probably be worth your time... more, anyway, than any Hollywood littering the screens nowadays. In this day and age of political and social polarization, of media playing the role of king-makers (or king-slayers), of discussions of the very existence or relevancy of democracy in a highly mediated and influenced political climate, Chomsky's suggestions are as timely as ever.

This documentary is as vital now as it was when it was made. In it, intellectual Noam Chomsky explains how the government, media, and corporate interests spin propaganda to manipulate opinions of the minions. Thought control and emotionally potent oversimplification are used to keep "the ordinary person" on course, and it works.

In this three hour film, Chomsky shares some of his early life experience in trying to defend a kid against bullying and builds from there. Also, opposing thought to Chomsky's views are presented in a way that fills in the history of the government. Noam encourages us to question everything we are fed and to find alternative news sources.

"Propaganda is to Democracy what violence is to a dictatorship."

"We live entangled in a web of deciet... where highly indoctrinated truths are easily buried."

"Democracy is a game for the elites, it's not for the ignorant masses who have to be marginalized, diverted, and controlled."

I highly recommend this film.

I watched chomsky's manufacturing consent last night ... it's not bad but it's pretty shoddily put together. There's three messages mixed a little incoherently and it's a bit self indulgent at times. His debating scenes are quite good though At the end he concludes the only possible solution is to have an anarchist societal structure with free interactions. that's just a stupid thing to say even if he believes it... He makes a movie with some interesting ideas, presenting a different view on how society is structured to favour a privileged few and that the media we trust to inform us is actually a tool of manipulation.

But at the end he presents a false dichotomy that harms his credibility (and self confessed capacity for analysis) and saves his the detractors the trouble of exagerrating his position so that they can redicule it.

This is well worth watching but I feel it could have been even better ...

This is one of the five best educational tools not in use in the United States. A film so deep and full of non-stop, reality-busting evidence that —what you see ISN'T what you get in America.

Chomsky is arguably the most intelligent political observer on Earth today. Its easy to be the Plunderer and commit the atrocities... its far more difficult to uncover the plots, organize the facts, and be vigilant of the actions. This is Must-See Media for the masses!

Americans are too busy to begin think outside the box. This is 2h46m of intensive training in true democratic responsibility. Chomsky may favor the social structure of an early 20th century Kibbutz, but certainly his lessons of observation would stand well for any social structure. If you are not bought and owned by the system... you owe it to your children or your immortal soul...or karmic rebirth, to wake up and smell the fascism.

This movie, like the title suggests is required viewing for every single person living in the free world. Not many movies can claim to start political and grass-roots movements but this one has.

If you value your intelligence, if you don't believe a pre-fabricated word of what the media machine throws at you, if you want to fight to keep your intellect alive and your own individual thinking original, if you are sick and tired of how this world is NOW and passionately want to change it for the better, then this movie is for you. The movie and accompanying book claim to be primers in intellectual self-defense, which they certainly are but beyond that, they also serve to showcase the many talents of linguist/political dissident/writer/philosopher/professor Noam Chomsky.

I'm surprised the movie didn't win a Best Documentary Oscar, which it certainly should have, perhaps more than anything it just goes to show you that the contents of this movie probably strike too close to home and make the media elite squirm in their seats.

Take 3 hours off some Sunday afternoon instead of watching the football game and WATCH THIS MOVIE, you won't regret it! The movie leaves you with an immense feeling of hope and a profound sense that each one of us can do something actively and constructively in order to make this a better world to live in. If you're apolitical now and/or politically inactive, you won't be after you watch this movie. Guaranteed.

Noam Chomsky has been called "arguably the most important intellectuals alive" by the New York Times and has been at the forefront of dissenting intellectual thought and activism for several decades now. This film takes a witty and intelligent look at Chomsky's well-documented theories on how the media serves the agendas of the corporate/government power structure - not as a conspiracy theory, but simply as an analysis of the way things necessarily operate.

This film is bound to polarize audiences. The ideas which are put forward and the facts which are revealed will shake some people's world. Many will disagree and argue against Chomsky and his ideas. Good. I think that's much of why this film was made. The disclaimer at the end of the credits states that the film was made with the intent to promote discussion about the media. If you aren't aroused one way or another by what is put forward in this film then either you must have been sleeping through it or else you are just plain apathetic.

The film is long. It has to be. Chomsky points out that part of the way in which the mass media manufactures consent is through concision. Sound-bytes. They don't take a lot of time to look at the facts or to thoroughly examine both sides of most issues. In order to think outside the paradigm of the mass media and to adequately discuss and defend views which go against mainstream thought, then you have to take some time. That's exactly what "Manufacturing Consent" does. However, the filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, keep it interesting. They keep it from turning into three hours of talking heads.

To do this the filmmakers use some of the very techniques which Chomsky identifies the mass media as using in order to influence their audiences. It's wonderful and humorous to see how they speak the very language which they (and Chomsky) are exposing and criticizing. Don't be fooled, this is a propagandist film in favor of Chomsky and in favor of thinking about the world around you and then getting off your butt and doing something about it! Keep in mind when I use the term 'propaganda', that propaganda isn't always necessarily bad (the USA used propaganda to muster support for World War II and consequently Hitler's genocide was stopped). 'Propaganda' it just basically means that it pretty blatantly favors one view over another. Don't get me wrong, "Manufacturing Consent" is not completely one sided. Both sides of the argument are given screen time, but Chomsky's views come out on top.

Watch this film. Even if you don't agree with it, the discussion of the issues presented is important. It will raise your consciousness of what is happening to you every day whenever you turn on the TV or the radio, or pick up a newspaper, or even when you go to a football game. It will change your perspective and maybe even your life. And how many films really do that? That's why I say it's one of the most important documentaries ever made.

Well, not the blinders of those who like to cast aspersions like "paranoid" and "delusional" in his direction...but they'll never escape their tunnel vision, so why should Noam labor against futility?

Let's start by getting something out of the way. Though he'd laugh at me for saying this, Noam Chomsky is one of the most intelligent and (an important distinction here) knowledgable human beings on the planet. Not only is he gifted with incredible intellect...he has used that intellect to absorb volumes upon volumes of information that most people have never been privy to...let alone memorized and analyzed, as Chomsky has. That said, let's move on.

Chomsky is an anarchist. And the fact is that while everybody in the world thinks that they know exactly what an anarchist is, in reality, it seems that, for the most part, the only people who understand anarchism are anarchists. Everything the media has ever said about anarchists is a lie. Their use of the word "anarchy" to describe chaotic situations and chaos in general is an utter corruption of the word anarchy, which, from its very roots, means quite simply "absence of a governing body"...nothing in there about chaos that I can see.

Chomsky subscribes to many of the ideals put forth by Michael Bakunin, a contemporary (and fierce opponent) of Karl Marx, and the recognized father of international anarchism. So, because Chomsky is an anarchist, he will obviously be viewed by many as a delusional paranoid. Then again, those who classify him as such wouldn't recognize Big Brother if he was bulldozing their homes to build a new shopping center.

What you will find in this film (and in Chomsky's book, which is far superior) is compelling evidence (based not on delusions, but on facts) that American media is controlled by a corporate elite who use it essentially for propaganda purposes in order to, if I may lift a phrase from Chomsky, "control the public mind." Once you realize how consolidated the corporate media really is, and how they twist the facts in order to pump disinformation into the homes of unsuspecting citizens, you'll never be able to look at CNN the same way again.

As for the critics, who feel much safer and infinitely more free than they have any reason to...their dismissals of Chomsky as a left-wing crackpot who doesn't know what he's talking about (despite the fact that he's studied extensively and most of his critics have gotten the bulk of their information from the same media sources he proves unreliable) only further strengthen his case. Not only does the corporate media distort the facts in order to lull the masses into a false sense of security...quite obviously, they're doing a tremendous job.

The film makers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, achieve the seemingly impossible by turning Noam Chomsky's dry political theories and persona into a fascinating, entertaining movie, and all on a presumably tight budget. If you want to gain insight into the workings of the US media system then this movie will give you some food for thought. Hardly surprising then that Hollywood did not award them an Oscar for this, even thought they sure would have deserved one.

Having seen Chomsky in other documentaries stoked my desire to pick this one up. Unfortunately, it focuses a bit too much on the cult of personality rather than quickly summing up who this guy is and what he's about. I got trigger-finger after the first 20 minutes of this, but I was glad I didn't surf through the scenes, as I was paid off when it cites the examples the DVD card promised.

Of particular import are the scenes where Chomsky's views are challenged by heads of state and news commentators and clearly shows us why we haven't heard or seen more from this controversial man.

Eventually the viewer gets the full range of Chomsky's purpose, and for that I am glad, I feel the richer for it, I will continue to seek films that he's part of, but I hope those filmmakers, such as those responsible for "The Corporation", will spare me the longwindedness of this film and get to the meat in due time.

Cheers: Questions the integrity of state and corporate sponsored news; we discover how he gets his news.

Caveats: Longwinded ... needs to be edited down by some 20 minutes; bounces around a lot.

Chomsky is one of my heroes, so I am a little biased. I consider myself a moderate, and I see Chomsky as a transcendent of politics. He spouts the truth, and tries to decipher incredibly complex institutional interactions. This doc will make you think about the world you live in like you've never thought about it before, being led by one of the premier thinkers of our time. Chomsky will be remembered far beyond the present, a true maverick and one of the few people intelligent enough to address societal and institutional ills and be right close to 100% of the time.

Do NOT dismiss Chomsky because you think he's a lefty nut. He's not a pre-Bowling for Columbine Michael Moore. Noam Chomsky is a distinguished intellectual in the truest sense with a near 100% accuracy in placing his words properly in sentences. When you hear him speak, try to focus on how clearly and concisely his ideas are discussed. Then look into his eyes and take note of his demeanor. A human body does not suit a mind like his. This documentary is a must for truth seekers and lefties. It is long, but you can watch it in parts. If you wanna have a great discussion, watch it with one or two other people. Its inevitable. 10/10

I'll start by saying I distrust Chomsky. The thesis he puts forth in Manufacturing Consent is (at best) a reach, and his "followers" (knowing he doesn't encourage followers), I consider by and large to be idiots.

I checked this out at the video store to provide some gravitas in balance against a few other very silly heliumweight comedies I'd checked out, and to have a kick at laughing at some silly rant about the media conspiracy.

In spite of this, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie.

Mark Akbar and Peter Wintonick have made a very watchable, entertaining, and yes, informative documentary laying out Mr. Chomsky's ideas. They are helped along by the fact that Chomsky is an engaging speaker. He comes across as level-headed, voluminously informed, and ready and willing to engage skeptics in discussion. In fact, at one point in the narrative, you hear Chomsky say (through cutup provided by Akbar and Wintonick) "When someone puts out thought which is outside of conventional wisdom, you _should_ sit up and demand extraordinary proof of these theories."

The only failing is that in my mind, the extraordinary proof which one should expect is not here. There is a damning quantity of evidence brought forth by Chomsky, particularly as brought to bear on the subject of the coverage of US foreign policy. You almost want to believe that, yes, there's really some massive behind-the-scenes scheming going on.

If Chomsky was an anthropologist, rather than a linguist, he might conclude that Washington DC is a closed society, everybody attends the same social functions, goes to the same parties, wants to be accepted by the gang, and won't willfully turn around and bite their fellows.

Chomsky sees a Plan. I see our glorious simian heritage rearing its ugly head again.

The documentary film, Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media made by the two Canadian filmmakers, Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick, give us an insight on the political views and life of Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political critic and activist.

The 167 min film proves to be long for a documentary, however it goes on to illustrate and gives a perspective of how the mainstream U.S media works and why they perform as they do. The movie presents Chomsky's and Herman's theory that the media operates on the basis of set ideological premises and depends extensively on elite information sources. The corporate media is driven by the quest to making profits and their further agendas reflect the ideologies and interests of the dominant, elite groups in the society. The movie also asserts Chomsky and Herman's idea that information in corporate media passes through the five factors --ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and anti - communist ideology— which works as 'filters' and that individually or additively they have a great influence on media choices.

The movie emphasizes the fact that we are today living in a world where the mass media act as an important source of information of the happenings around the world. It is the most noticeable fact that the media is interested in some news more than the other, and this is kind of pushed down in the minds of the people consuming that news. It can be ironic to say that news media are just passively transmitting news and information. The choices of the daily and presentation are a reflection of the public's perception about the most significant news of the day. This model exemplifies a lot of examples where media has been biased in reporting. For e.g. there is an integral part in the movie which shows The New York Times' coverage on of the outrages committed in in the Indonesian occupation of East Timor and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. This according to Chomsky is the case where Media is unwilling to go against the elite, since the invasion was then supported by the US.

On the flip side, the propaganda model might not end up working in many situations and countries for the matter. The model may apply specifically to the US media where the media are owned and run by the elites (Corporates, MNC's). However to that effect in a country like India, where media are not necessarily owned by the elite, the question is that is this model still relevant? The propaganda model also denies the possibility that a public grown weary of an issue might exert its concern in the mainstream news as a collective voice to be heard. The model excludes the general public among its filters of news content. However, there are various instances which demonstrate the role human agency can play outside the formal news making setting. For e.g. An instance where the US news media reported on public dissent in the U.S./Iraq war campaign which surrounded the congressional midterm elections and later how public opinion in the form of a social movement born form dissent, actually ended up shaping the news product. The anti- corruption social movement in India driven by activist Anna Hazare was ridiculed at beginning by the mainstream media as being unrealistic and dramatic. The media acted as the mouthpiece the ruling party and wanted to subdue this entire story to protect its integrity. However when the collective voice of the citizens, who this time used internet and social media to raise their opinion spread like wild fire, the incident turned into a social upheaval, and in that case the dissent created by public against corruption became the prime news and media had no choice but to cover it. In this case as well, it was public opinion that ended up shaping the news product.

A further thought can be that in times of internet and social media, how persuasive or relevant is the Herman and Chomsky propaganda model, when media content can be almost created by anyone and is at disposal of the public. One can use easy, low-cost tools and multiple publishing platforms to create content. Now that citizen journalism has gained so much popularity in the recent, does media really have the power to enforce its set agendas? Today citizens are playing an active role in the collecting, processing, analyzing and disseminating of news and information. Modern/ New technology, together with social media and its convergence with different mediums has made citizen journalism accessible worldwide. Citizens have now the power to break the news well before any mainstream media can. A recent example of this would be the Arab spring where, youth turned to the unrestricted world of digital and social mediums to voice their concern against the government. Digital media was the major tool, where videos were shot by mobile phones and were sent to various satellite channels. Twitter became an alternative and powerful news medium for the youth. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and citizen journalism empowered young people to challenge the status quo. Today there are even abundant alternative sources to procure news. People are subjected to these sources, where it then comes back to the power that lies in the minds of the people to consume news which makes sense and holds true to them.

After all that is said, the movie still proves to be stimulating and helps you see things with a perspective. At the end it is important that we as citizens should not become passive listeners of news, and should be in capacities to question and criticize something that is not acceptable. We should take efforts in seeking alternative opinions and point of views to be aware of what really is happening around us, something we end up calling as "NEWS".

Manufacturing Consent is an immensely frustrating film. The documentary, which showcases Noam Chomsky's anarchist-socialist critique of the American media, purports to be an expose, a skewering of the deception and manipulation perpetrated on the public by the corporate-governmental establishment.

Far from providing the needed antidote of clarity and passionate honesty, however, the filmmakers(and, perhaps, Chomsky) are guilty of their own manipulation of facts and appearances, stacking the deck in their own favor and employing tricks and distractions to get away from the important issues.

First, rather than simply presenting Chomsky's biography and philosophy in a straight-forward, focused way, the film is full of ridiculous little set-pieces and interludes meant to drive home points that the highly articulate Chomsky already made perfectly clear. To illustrate the New York Times skimpy treatment of the East Timorese genocide the film gives us two actors in surgical gowns cutting up a newspaper with scalpels. We see Chomsky's face broadcast on giant banks of TV screens placed within the darkest corners of the Establishment: a mall, a football stadium. And, of course, we get the usual clips from '50s era educational films, just so we can have a laugh at those stupid people not as sophisticated as we documentary viewers.

These cinematic jokes, sneers and posturing pad the documentary out to an absurd length of three hours, despite its containing only about ninety minutes of genuine material.

Worse, the documentary takes a slavishly adoring stance toward its subject, one which Chomsky himself, to his credit, would find absurd. All critics are shown up as fools or buffoons and all clips of Chomsky with an opponent are carefully chosen so that Chomsky always bests or one-ups the other guy.

Further, the film uses innuendo rather than evidence: the key portion of Manufacturing Consent, deals with media treatment of East Timor and the inadequate nature of the news coverage is amply demonstrated. Chomsky and his supporters provide no arguments as to why this is the case, however: we are meant to assume that such media failures can only be a manifestation of social control of the masses by elites.

Finally, even after hacking through the padding and the carefully managed presentation, the portrait of Chomsky that emerges is, I think, a misleading one. He comes across as a kind of intellectual Michael Moore, a populist determined to dispel the lies of the powerful and reveal the plain, honest truth.

Nonsense. Chomsky's radicalism is the product not of commonsense decency, but of the very rigid, extremist philosophy that shapes and constrains his own thought as much, if not more, than the corporate-dominated media constrains the thought of others. Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, and he is not in rebellion against the GOP, big business or even capitalism, but against the very idea of authority, of any kind, itself.

A genuine debate with Chomsky must be one that challenges anarchism per se, and arguing about politics or the media only leads to the tedium and frustration of Chomsky and his critics talking past each other-as we see again and again throughout "Manufacturing Consent".

A wide-ranging, at times glowing documentary on Noam Chomsky's life and views on the American media, both large and small, mass and alternative, Manufacturing Consent took five years to create and covers Chomsky's life with over a hundred hours of interviews and lectures spanning 23 cities in seven countries. Directors and producers Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick followed around Chomsky in an effort to capture his beliefs on any media they had around them, including everything from 16 mm film to 8 mm videotape. Manufacturing Consent showcases Chomsky's profound beliefs and profiles his personality in humorous and thought-provoking ways that compel the viewer to learn about the topics he broaches with as much vigor Chomsky himself.

An anecdote from Chomsky about his childhood in the first part of the film sums up his attitudes in a charming elementary school story. Chomsky tells of a time where he attempted to defend a 'fat kid' in first grade from a group of bullies, but after a while he became frightened and let the child he was defending fend for himself. Chomsky says he was always ashamed for leaving the side of that person, and he parallels that instance to his defense of people, free speech and his support of human rights in third-world nations.

Often in the film, Wintonick appears in the background with camera in hand, or is heard off camera interviewing subjects familiar with Chomsky's controversial work. However, the most visually appealing aspect of Manufacturing Consent is the visually creative segments that break up interviews on-screen talking. The segments appeal to the visual learner not akin to grasping some of the advanced concepts and often detailed (convoluted at times) speeches of Chomsky. The best example of this learning tool is one problem Chomsky had with the New York Times after they manipulated a story from London's The Guardian concerning genocides in East Timor. The Times rearranged the story's paragraphs and cut out entire paragraphs to add a different spin to the story, as the U.S. was allegedly funneling arms and supporting the occupying Indonesians in order to make U.S. involvement appear minimal, and at best, positive. Hands appear on screen, with the newspaper article on a mini operating table, and medical instruments, shiny, reflective and lined up, are ready to dissect and take out pieces of the article. Essentially a pair of hands in white surgical gloves 'operates' on this news article, all to display the point more effectively. Similar visual segments are used during the film, all with as much of an impact as this one.

While Achbar and Wintonick show almost as many dissenters of Chomskys ideas as they do supporters, one could easily infer that the two are supporters of his ideas. However, they do not interject any of their own political ideas into the fray. The only on camera activity the two participate in is the acting out of Chomsky's ideas via the aforementioned visual segments. Although they are only acting out Chomsky's ideas, the pair still help to illustrate those ideas, thereby implicating their support. While Wintonick had experience doing political films before, they were mostly simple campaign shorts for Canadian politicians. For Achbar as well as Wintonick, Manufacturing Consent was their crowning achievement, and the film went on to become the top-grossing feature documentary in Canadian history.

Released in 1992, the film is only vaguely similar to today's political documentaries. While it is a far cry from the almost cinematic documentaries of Michael Moore, it laid the groundwork for Moore's films with its approach, full of archival footage, interviews, and humor. The stock footage, narration over still photos, and interview after interview are all used in an attempt to get as many of Chomsky's basic ideas across as possible, stretching the film out to two hours, 45 minutes.

There are two parts to Manufacturing Consent, the first covering Chomsky's life-- early background and his foray into protest from his professorship at Massachusetts Institute of Technology-- while the second portion focuses on his dissidence from the mass media's ideologies, or at least his dissidence with the mass media's way of communicating information. The directors only interview Chomsky directly for a small portion of the film. Most of the interviews are done by other subjects; everyone from alternative radio news anchors to talk show hosts to newspaper writers interview Chomsky, and Achbar and Wintonick are right there with their cameras to capture Chomsky's ideas and often the ensuing arguments. Anyone not familiar with the ideas of Chomsky before seeing this film need not worry, as this mammoth of a documentary covers the basics of Chomsky's ideas and writings. Several of his lectures at universities around the country are showcased, not only exposing his ideas but the personality behind them. While The New York Times lauded Chomsky as the greatest intellectual of our time and one of the film's visual segments show a group of baseball cards, only with 'philosopher all stars' as the theme (Chomsky is included), such blatant quotes and visuals are not needed to let the viewer realize Chomsky's genius, however disputed it may be. The filmmakers profile Chomsky in a way that, while it is not 'Noam Chomsky 101,' makes for an interesting profile of the man and fully encompasses his ideas on general issues like the mass media, and more specific ones concerning human rights violations and freedom of speech. Chomsky's detractors are also profiled in the film, and at one point, his defense of freedom of speech causes the Jewish raised Chomsky to be labeled as an anti-Semite. His preface for a revisionist book by author Robert Faurisson is a defense of free speech. In a later scene where Chomsky is surrounded by reporters questioning his preface, he says that only allowing freedom of speech for ideas that one supports inherently makes that person an adversary to free speech. While the directors make it clear that Chomsky is no revisionist or Holocaust denier, their inclusion of his willingness to grapple with controversial subject matter further illustrates Chomsky's daring personality backed by his intellectual prowess. The film does not have a clear-cut story per se, but rather it is a loose collection of ideas and theories that Chomsky has, all of which fall under his comments on the media. The directors take their time in illustrating those ideas with a variety of story telling and learning devices. Perhaps this is why the film is so long. After viewing, it is safe to say that besides a few of the visual segments, none of this film's content could be cut out to trim the story down. In attempting to cover the ideas and life of an intensely academic man who wrote dozens of books and articles, it may not be best to compact it in a single film, but the directors somehow succeed at succinctly conveying his messages. The soundtrack is similar to ones heard in other political or academic documentaries in that much of the music is reminiscent to that of the music heard on cable news channels or at worst, game shows. The use of sound effects during visual segments more often than not is solely provided for humor or to induce a feeling of haste, as most of the segments are played at double speed. The challenge in this film is to implement just enough background music so that the lengthy interviews and lectures do not become too monotonous. Most often, the use of music or background noise is used to break up long interviews. The budget for this film is not immediately discernible. While the directors admitted to not having enough money to follow Chomsky to Japan for an award he received during the film and they had to 'direct' a local film crew there for the scene, they still traveled with him to other locales. However, after viewing, it is obvious that the filmmakers following around Chomsky only had to film his public speaking engagements and interviews not related to the documentary. They just filmed his pre-arranged interviews with outside news sources and lectures at universities. The film was shot over four years and that time span can undoubtedly take up much of the budget. The main sources of tension found in Manufacturing Consent come from Chomsky's ideas themselves. His personality, at times confrontational when others disagree with him, or even when others merely interrupt him (most notably on news talk shows such as Firing Line in 1969), can be a proponent of tension between him and others. The other, less obvious sources of tension, are culled from more abstract issues involving Chomsky as the dissenter to popular, or as he puts it, 'corporate' opinion.

Noam Chomsky is probably the most intelligent person in the world. Nobody alive has furthered science to the degree that he has. But he proves his profound intelligence in this meticulously-justified yet enlightning conclusions about the current state of politics and the media. To this day, not one single plausible counterargument to his conclusions has emerged. That's probably because Chomsky is right again.

I saw this documentary a few years back, and to this day I still see many of the aspects mentioned still existing today, in our day in age.

Chomsky quite simply encompases the honest, naked truth. He speaks with clearness and objectivity, a factor much lacked by others due to their intense blindness caused by their "opinions".

The very fact that Chomsky says things the mainstream don't want to hear is in itself a challenge...to everyone who comes across all this.

I, personally believe that if we were to talk about all the good people who have done much in the cause of waking up average Americans to the harsh truths, Chomsky would be right up there on the list.

There are many who have challenged the norms and taboos of current corporate propagandists and politicians alike...much of them get then painted red in the media (need not look further than the Dixie Chicks!)...Chomsky is such a challenger...and challenges the average American, that instead of simply consuming...that they should be ready to challenge their own government on the atrocities and evils that they do.

America is not just one entity, and one can't blame "America" for it does stand up for good. But rather, American's are to blame themselves in letting all of this happen in the first place.

Chomsky is a "God-Send" to the American conscience. And this documentary will prove it's value in the coming years ahead.

The movie is a critical evaluation of the media practices and journalism standards in many countries and the general trends, all over the world. Viewers are shown about some of the gripping facts of news making, including what goes behind the scenes. The end-to-end process of news making as explained in the movie including other elements like vested interests, controlling factors exposes the audience to several dark truths. After watching the movie, any viewer will be in a better position to judge news and news making, whether or not they are from the media background. Some of the topics are quite controversial, but it helps us in understanding the rigor that Prof.Chomsky uses to advocate freedom of expression. For instance in the section on 'Holocaust Denial,' Prof.Chomsky mentions that there is a difference between expressing your own views and protecting the views expressed. He makes this statement while arguing that he had supported the French intellectual who published a book to explain that the Holocaust, mass murders actually did not take place. He also emphasizes that he does not endorse the views of the French intellectual, but supports him, in the context of expressing his own views. Prof.Chomsky's statement "States are violent institutions," is a connotation, well expressed. There are chilling evidences to support his statement in the movie. For instance, while analyzing the news articles that appeared in the media in the United States, during the initial phases of Indonesia's aggression on East Timor, there were negative reports. He explains that this was on account of the fact that East Timor was a former Portuguese colony. However, after the invasion of East Timor, U.S supplied arms to Indonesia and there was no coverage of the genocide and atrocities committed by Indonesia in East Timor. Similarly, he also remarks that every Post-war American president should be hanged, if Nuremberg laws are to be applied. Some of the definitions and framework put forward by Prof.Chomsky helps in understanding theories like Manufacturing Consent and Agenda Setting, better. For instance he says that marginalizing the public is the intention of elite class. Similarly he also explains that elite and big media are agenda setters and that 80 percent of the population are followers in a democracy and the remaining 80 percent is composed of the elite and the political class. The movie is a very interesting eye-opener for all audiences, be it a novice or a historian or a media professional. However, some of the concepts like manufacturing consent and agenda setting are repeatedly explained. Further editing can improve the quality of the movie and especially remove the repeated explanations.

I remember watching another documentary from one of the filmmakers behind this one- called The Corporation- during media studies back in highschool, and I really didn't like it. I think I'd be more open to it and engaged by it nowadays, but I recall as a teenager being so frustrated by its repetition, dryness, and its length, where it took an interesting and important subject and proceeded to do a poor job of presenting it through the documentary format. I mention all this because with Manufacturing Consent, I had some similar problems, but it wasn't quite as frustrating as The Corporation, I'll admit. As a result, however, I came away from it feeling conflicted, as some of it felt vital, thought provoking, and important, while some of it was far too dense, convoluted, and ultimately infuriating.

Noam Chomsky is an interesting figure. That can't be denied. I didn't know much about him going into this, and found the parts early on in the film covering his upbringing and history to be among the film's best sections. He does bring up many solid, interesting points, but many of these don't really develop further. It's kind of like there's an idea introduced by Chomsky, and then that idea is just repeated again and again, and when it does come time to develop and explore such ideas, I'll admit it became complicated and hard to follow for me. It makes the documentary as a whole a challenge to get through; the density, language, and running time adds up to something that I don't think many people will be able to penetrate and understand. Admittedly, I only kept up some of the time.

This might not be as much of an issue if this film didn't have so much to say to the vast majority of the population. Being controlled by the media, as Chomsky and the filmmakers tell us, is something that can affect almost all of us. But if they're going to take such a dense and convoluted approach to explaining how this is, are those in danger of being controlled by the media going to be able to keep up? It might well be too frustrating for many, with the density of the information and complicated language giving me an impression that this may be a documentary that preaches to the choir more than it informs and educates the public at large; you know, the ones purportedly in actual danger. It is addressed by Chomsky, who discusses how you need time and detail to get some important points across, but at the same time, hooking people and allowing for a basic understanding to start off with is- I'd argue- just as important. There is no way that the majority of people will be able to keep up and understand everything being said here. It gets bogged down and borderline impenetrable at times, and I'll admit I'm no genius, but I find myself always being able to follow and understand the vast majority of documentaries out there. This one is probably the most complicated I've ever seen.

That being said, a lot of what's here is very important and worth thinking about. If you can get anything out of this almost 3-hour long and insanely dense film, it's probably still better than ignoring it altogether. It's dated in some regards presentation-wise, but being nearly 30 years old that's forgivable. When it comes to the message, a lot of it still feels very relevant, but it's interesting to note that for all the predictions of doom, particularly near the documentary's conclusion, the earth is still here, 28 years later. There are still problems discussed within, sure, but those problems haven't ended everything just yet. Nevertheless, the film remains in my mind, days now after watching it. Some of those reasons are surely intentional, on part of the filmmakers, but some aren't intentional (like thinking about the flawed presentation, excessive length, repetition, and overly complex narration from Chomsky himself. Also: I'm continually troubled by the infrequent but overly graphic war and holocaust images, which I really don't think were necessary and seemed a bit tacky in all honesty).

Chomsky is surely a brilliant mind, and full of ideas, but his communication skills might not be as great, in my opinion. I'm sure academics can follow him perfectly fine, but that goes back to my point about preaching to the choir: I think this film needed to put more effort into reaching a wider audience. And unfortunately, I think the film's directors are even less skilled at communicating than Chomsky, as you'd expect talented filmmakers to make his complex ideas and talks into a more fundamentally understandable and digestible format. It's an odd experience, watching all of this, and frustrating for its flaws as well as for the missed opportunity that comes with being so bizarrely complex and likely unable to reach a wide audience as a result. But at the end of the day, it's still important and at the very least interesting in parts, and if it is the case that most can follow Manufacturing Consent just fine, please feel free to disregard most of my last 800 words.