In yesterday’s post we examined the political philosophy around propaganda; the argument that information must be controlled by the elite of society. The idea is that people are not inclined, altruistic or educated enough to make sound decisions affecting society. Therefore they must be told what to think, in their best interest of course.
Noam Chomsky uses an example in his speech (YouTube) concerning press during the US involvement in Vietnam. He points out the press representing the right expressed the opinion that saving South Vietnam from the aggression of the North could be accomplished with more military might. The opinion from the left was that it was not possible to save the South from the North and the effort should be abandoned.
Note that neither opinion questioned if the South should, if possible, be saved from the communists at all. This, according to Chomsky, represents the boundaries of the allowed debate. The elites who control of the press set the boundaries and the arguments proceeded from there.
I opine that heavy US military presence helped the Vietcong and NVA because people became resentful of foreign troops in their nation. Over the long term resistance against the US backed government increased as it did in Afghanistan. The best course is one of aid and advisement to support their struggle rather than direct engagement. This was also not part of the allowed discussion in the press during either conflict.
The debate was relegated to the simple question; should the troops stay in Vietnam or should they abandon the struggle? If the US involvement in Vietnam was designed to fail this makes sense. The success of the US and her allies in the Korean War was based on solidly defeating the invading North Korean forces and staying in South Korea. The US is still represented on the border and democratic South Korea has flourished as a technologically advanced society with a vibrant economy. When the US left Vietnam the South fell and the NVA and Vietcong purged their society of “undesirables.”
The restrictions on the US military commanders on the prosecution of the war, and with no options but to stay or leave, the US was destined to fail in this effort.
There was a time when people’s only source of information about the world beyond the town where they resided was a newspaper. The opinions of these people were based on the stories they read and could be swayed by the editorials. These are called “opinion/editorials” or op/eds. Including more than one opinion is imperative in this environment if the intent is to preserve true democracy. If the intent is to manufacture political consent having one or two op/eds on any given topic or event is sufficient as long as they set the boundaries of allowed debate.
After the 1920’s most people got their news from radio broadcasts. After World War II television became the norm. Until well into the 80s there were only three television networks. All the news originated with the Associated Press (AP) or the United Press International (UPI).
Satellite television added hundreds of channels. The popularity of the internet provided more avenues for the distribution of information on a global scale. It is now possible to read news stories from the Palestinian Authority’s newspaper as well as other periodicals from the Middle East (MEMRI.org). People can research deeper into events than ever before.
But who does?
The most common way that Americans prefer to get their news is by watching it: 44% of U.S. adults say this, according to an August 2025 Pew Research Center survey. A smaller share (37%) prefers to get news by reading it, while 19% prefer listening to the news Pew Research Center
In the 1950’s around 50 corporations controlled the 90% of the media to include radio, newspapers and television. There were only three television corporations ABC, NBC and CBS. Today there are 6 corporations that produce 90% of the media consumed in the United States (Business Insider). These corporations have the ability to manufacture public opinion. Manufacturing consent is a numbers game based on opinion and omission.
“But wait,” one might say, “there are left and right news organizations.” True, but what if they work in collusion?
For example; how many TV news shows have produced stories about National Guard troops in DC changing flat tires and helping elderly people with their groceries (Axios)? The right wing news organizations will claim the National Guard is fighting crime. The left wing news organizations will claim the guard is like storm troopers in the streets. Neither side points out they aren’t doing much of anything.
Neither of these views is well researched and both create antagonism. No one wants the guard in city streets. Unlike ICE, the National Guard officers have turned this deployment into “winning the hearts and minds” operation and frustrated the fascist man gods’ attempts to create violent incidents. The man gods recently manufactured an incident hoping for a mass uprising; a potential political excuse to really crack down. Now the guardsmen are nervous and the potential for a violent mistake heightened.
40% of younger Americans get their news from internet influencers. Does this mean they are getting independent news?
Young American adults are increasingly getting their news from social media influencers, a majority of whom are men and lean to the right, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center. CNN
Many political influencers have corporate sponsorship (The Sponsorship Collective). Some influencers are actually foreign government agents (Daily Beast). How many worship the man gods? If an influencer were to produce content the system didn’t appreciate they could be throttled or shut down (Linkedin). Notice the right wing influencers don’t get shut down. Others simply parrot one of the two authorized ideologies or political platforms
These political influencers can become vehicles for populist backed fascist style politics, intentionally or through mimicry. Populists politics are sold as “anti-elite” or “anti-corporate” but are often sponsored by elites to promote fascist ideology. Fascist ideology is a means to create antagonism between ethnic groups or classes. If this antagonism manifests violence it can be used as an excuse for a crack down and a purge.
“Those who have put out the people’s eye’s reproach them of their blindness” – John Milton 1642
- A Short History of Media and Culture University System of New Hampshire
- How media sources distort Americans’ understanding of reality Ipsos
- Nearly 40% of young Americans get their news from influencers. Many of them lean to the right, study finds CNN
- About 20% of Americans get their news from social media influencers, report finds PBS
- The Complete Guide to Sponsorship for Influencers The Sponsorship Collective
- Top MAGA Influencers Accidentally Unmasked as Foreign Trolls Daily Beast
- Uncovering the Truth Behind Shadow Banning Edgaras Neverdauskas on Linkedin
- Social media content moderation and removal – statistics & facts Statista
- These Right-Wing Pundits Were Allegedly Funded By Russia—What To Know About DOJ Indictment Forbes