Ed Burns wrote:

>I was watching the 1993 movie, "Manufacturing Consent" and in it,
>Chomsky states that he believes the media in other countries is more
>free than in this country (I'm paraphrasing here).  I think he means
>that in other countries, the media is not so much a tool of control and
>platitude repition as it is in the U.S.  My question to you, the CHOMSKY
>list readers is: is this true in 1999?

I suppose one test of that would be whether Manufacturing Consent has
actually been broadcast by the TV networks. I know it was shown here in
Aust. several years ago on the SBS network, which is the national (state
run) ethnic broadcaster. Missed it myself, that was before SBS signal
reached northern Tasmania (not a big population of ethnics here), but it
has been broadcast.

How about in other places?

I've always been somewhat dubious about that analysis of Chomsky's though.
I can't refute it obviously, but I recall being doubtful and thinking that
the analysis seems to lack solid substantiation. As I recall, Chomsky's
argument was that the US being the home territory of capitalism, it was
much more important to maintain "consent" in the US, whereas it didn't
matter much what people in Canada thought - they didn't have any say in US
foreign policy anyhow.

Ther'd be an element of truth in that, but I'm not sure it's safe to assume
that the US's dominant place in world capitalism rests *entirely* on
physical force, that "consent" is only required by US voters and that
everyone else in the world must merely bow to the sheer military power of
the US. I have some trouble with such an analysis, I really do.

I think the "consent" required is wider than that, and recent world events
seems to bear it out. The US went to a great deal of trouble to create a
wider consent for both the Gulf war and the war on Serbia, which seems to
indicate that the US does not feel confident to just enforce its will on
the rest of the world by sheer brute force. It needs brute force as well of
course, but I think there is some evidence that it cannot effectively use
that force without a broader political support, at least in other
industrialised western nations.

Even if you look at Timor, the indications are that the US had to be
dragged kicking and screaming into providing even token support for the
peace-keeping initiative which Australia and some European countries pushed
for. Obviously the US military, with its covert links to the Indonesian
generals, was happy to leave the small Timorese population to drown in
blood, but in the end they found themselves having to bow to the will of
others and tell the Indonesians to piss of out of it. As soon as the US
said jump, the Indonesian generals said "how high"?

Again, that wasn't a matter of the Indonesian ruling elite being afraid of
the military might of the US, their real fear was the economic stick
weilded. Mainly by US capital, but world capital generally.

I can't help wondering whether it is not that economic stick which is the
more powerful force.

So there is miltary force, there is economic force, and there is (in many
places) the presence of a 'political' force, being the mood of the people.
All these factors have an influence on policy to varying degrees. I am
curious as to how much the alleged distinctions between the media in the
US, and the media in other western countries, might be shaped by
differences in the mood of the US people, rather than vice-versa?

To me, and I'm sure many others, the yanks are a weird lot to start with.
They can't possibly be more ignorant about what goes on in their country
than I am, yet they seem prepared to tolerate the most gross abuses of
human rights, vile injustice and extreme exploitation. And that's just in
the US itself!

Is that all the fault of the media? or is the media a reflection of that
mood? If so, what is the cause?

Anyhow, just thinking aloud. I'm unsure about this issue, be interested in
thoughtful comments.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell tas.