Chomsky has always been an apologist but it's fine if his work radicalized you towards the right path, I used to watch Zizek π€·ββοΈ
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
31 points (100.0% liked)
askchapo
23218 readers
218 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Even Chomsky admitted that Herman was the main author, so don't worry about it
The quality, correctness, or authorship of the work aside. Bad people can say correct things, even the shittest person in all the world could write a book that was good and correct.
This isn't even about art-from-artist, it's not about entertainment, this is just about realising what's an accurate depiction of the world and what isn't. And conversely, writing the most enlightening book ever doesn't absolve the author of their sins.
If we discovered tomorrow that Marx murdered children on the weekends, it wouldn't make Communism any less totally rad of an idea.
we post Mearsheimer a lot for somebody who has awful takes on everything but pre-invasion Ukraine
Who better to explain how the manipulative propaganda sausage is made than a guy who worked on a PR campaign to cover up an international child sex trafficking cabal?
It's just a good, but light, introduction to mass media as propaganda.
There's also the co-author, Edward S. Herman, who isn't in the files. So why don't we just... y'know.
Chomsky who?
aren't the parts of the book that everyone cites singularly written by Herman anyway?
also Parenti's Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media exists, too.
So hard to find a hard copy. There are also two editions
And what does it say that the softer one written by a guy in the Epstein files who was probably a court jester for capitalism is easy to find while the reviled Marxist who defended the USSR, Cuba, etc all his life in the face of overwhelming opposition is impossible to find? Clearly one of these is approved opposition POV and other is not.
Second edition is better as it includes post-Cold War analyses.
There was a 2022 reprint by lulu.com so it isnβt as rare as it used to be unless youβre specifically looking for a first edition or original second edition prints. Though even the 2022 version is out of print and climbing in price.
So glad I managed to grab a copy of the original second edition before prices started reaching mid three figures and beyond.
The overlooked CO-author to the book. People act like it was only Chomsky who wrote the book
Well of course, Chomsky was the one with the right friends to make sure "his" book was well known.
Its common in a lot of media. One or two figures become the face of "the game" or "who wrote bestelling show" or "made x movie".
Edward S. Herman, who isnβt in the files
The files arent even everyone who potentially had any ties to Epstein.
exactly, he wrote the most important parts, anyway
Who?
No. Separate the art from the artist.
I think there's a level where you can separate the uh "art from the artist" being a a child predator is really pushing that line though. Him actively being involved in and defending Epstein and his government and capitalist cabal shows me he was never seriously invested in his work.
In the case of manufacturing consent there's already a,I think, better alternative in Parenti's Inventing Reality that you can reference if you don't want to support Chomsky on this one.
You have to admit that, retrospectively, the dude being known for a book called 'manufacturing consent' is so irony-pilled you're likely to die of an overdose.
Manufacturing ( the age of) Consent
The perfect username does not exi.....
I mean, he is a good linguist, just never really particularly good as a political activist.
A lot of Maoists are snake-bitten (for lack of a better term) with Parenti because he seems to have supported the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact after de-Stalinization. I think that Parenti had some good things to say and his works do hold value if read critically, which is why I occasionally do read him. I have never read that work, but I really should considering how often it is recommended by communists.
Even linguists have issues with him, Epstein ties aside
Yea I can see the criticism of Parenti and think a lot of it is fair, at least coming from people on the left. I would recommend the read but as you can probably tell by my PFP I'm a little biased lol.
Manufacturing Consent is just cribbing notes from Inventing Reality anyway
Is it wrong to think Robert E Lee's horse had a pretty good name?
The one he fucked?
Nah, the one he sucked off
Was it that or did he do a Mr. Hands?
It's not wrong, but I think the thesis itself has lost relevance. The main thesis of Manufacturing Consent is that corporate owned media trade favorable pieces and filter out dissenting voice through sets of soft incentives, mainly for access. Being in a Whitehouse Press Corps is one of the main example. This thesis might be relevant in the 80s or 90s, back when being journalist was still a working class job, but it is not relevant now.
Manufacturing Consent fail to address the class dynamics of post-internet journalism. From 2000 onward, access is not that relevant. What is relevant is that journalism stopped being a working class job. People don't do the gauntlet of covering local news such as local baseball league in smalltown USA to be an Editor of national newspaper anymore. Local news is mostly dead. Instead, all major journalists are coastal nepo-babies, they now come from the same class, i.e., bourgeoisie as the people they cover. They go to the same Ivy League schools as congressional staffers. Even without trading access, the journalists themselves already grew up and believe the propaganda of the ruling class and US hegemony.
Next time you read some NYT or Washington reporting piece from a no name journalist, not even opinion piece writers like Ezra Klein or Tom Friedman - just try to google their names and see if they come from working class background, very likely they're not. For example Sydney Ember was a lowly campaign reporter for NYT (she famously covered Bernie 2020) - her dad is a Hollywood producer and screenwriter. Alexander Aciman does a lowly job of being Wirecutter reviewer for NYT, completely apolitical, he's reviewing shit like T-shirts, socks, alarm clocks etc. and he's a son of NYU professor.
From 2000 onward, access is not that relevant.
What are you saying? Access is still extremely important. Check out that NBC interview just a few days ago with Trump ("okay, yeah, yeah, okay" says the journo as Trump says the most ridiculous debunked lies, like "every boat I sink is 25,000 American lives saved"). You can say that some of its specific nature changed, but network news still heavily emphasizes, for example, interview practices oriented around avoiding offending big names so that they'll come back for more interviews so that people watch your show (though this is not evenly applied, of course).
I would argue that network news (NBC, CBS, ABC) are not as relevant as they are in shaping public opinion, their viewership have been tanking compared to the 80/90s. People don't watch network news for news, except for really old boomers in retirement homes. A one-on-one interview with the sitting President back in the 80s or 90s would give the network news show big scoop and translate to big ratings, these days not so much. Most working people these days get their news online from social media, from a very fragmented media landscape. People want to watch a short "take" on interview with the President from someone they trust, not the whole interview itself.
The "manufacturing consent" in fragmented media landscapes these days in my opinion are largely done via class-based exclusion, mainly in primary (written) news, e.g., NYT, AP, Reuters, Politico, WaPo. The clearest example here is that a famous White House Correspondent in the past was maybe Dan Rather. He was a son of manual laborer and both of his parents were highschool dropouts. Now the NYT White House Correspondent is Maggie Haberman, her dad Clyde Haberman was already a big shot NYT writer, and her father-in-law ran Carnegie Corporation. These days journalism is a white collar job and there's barely any class representation in mainstream news media.
Manufacturing Consent fail to address the class dynamics of post-internet journalism. From 2000 onward, access is not that relevant.
??? Book was published in 1988 though.
I mean you're not wrong but the book was written before the Internet became relevant
My point was that the book is relevant as a piece of history if you want to understand US media landscape at the time, but now it is outdated.
Is this book really relevant today? I'm sure there's concepts from it that are, but I don't see what solutions it offers to the reader nor does it seem like an exceptionally good piece of literature that's a must read.
There's many questionable figures that I can draw useful lessons from. The problem is a lot of them are open ended and don't actually answer the underlying problems. It's easy to fall into false consciousness with such works.
It's important to ask why is this book important and what does it solve? What does it inspire the reader to do? The Conclusion of the book is like you said. Promote "freedom and democracy" in America and across the globe. The reader can easily start thinking that all countries are bad, that all of them manufacture consent, without freedom and democracy.
Do we really need that?
I agree, we do not need that. There is a reason why the book achieved a wide range of popularity among non-socialist figures as it very much panders to them.
popularity among non-socialist figures
It says a LOT about that thing, when leftist/socialist media/personalities/literature/theory becomes popular in such circles.
Itβs just a semiotics perspective. Try reading Language in Thought and Action (1949) by S.I. Hayakawa, it has basically the same vibes. Chomsky was a linguist first after all.
This is probably one of those "separate the art from the artist" situations, but as others said, this is really pushing that to it's limit. As deplorable as Chomsky is for being in the Epstein orbit, let's not pretend Marx and a lot of other people who arguably made very important works were saints either. You can argue that Marx and others "were products of their time/environment" but that still doesn't change the fact that at the end of the day, they were assholes.
Yeah, if we excuse Marx having extensive relations with a convicted international pedo trafficker while decrying people caring too much about women reporting on their abuse, and also spending decades advocating against any radical leftists who did something other than vote, peacefully protest, and get arrested, then we should excuse Chomsky doing the same.
There are lots of things to criticize Marx for, but this is not comparable at all.
I think you are missing my overall point, maybe I worded things badly (and if I did please tell me, I struggle with trying to get my point across) but I never said we should excuse Chomsky, in fact I said he was deplorable in my earlier comment which I think we can all easily agree with for obvious reasons. My point was basically just because someone did something horrible doesn't mean you can't read their work. Hitler was obviously a bad guy (as you may know!) but Mein Kampf is fairly interesting, like the bit where he talks about how he had co-opted socialist iconography and names (red flags, party name, etc.) to try to bring more working class people into the party. Obviously there's a lot of evil shit in Mein Kampf too and I wouldn't hand it to the wrong person because it may end up filling them with Hitler particles, but hopefully you get my point even though I'm using extreme examples here.
Sorry for the wall of text sort of, just felt I need to clarify myself 
I worded my response poorly because my point wasn't about excusing anyone but that Marx didn't do a fraction of the horrible shit that Chomsky did constantly.
And I don't think Mein Kampf is that helpful an example since there's a difference between viewing a work as being credible versus analyzing it due to its historical importance.
I worded my response poorly because my point wasn't about excusing anyone but that Marx didn't do a fraction of the horrible shit that Chomsky did constantly.
Fair I guess, maybe Marx wasn't the greatest example of the most evil person to ever exist, but to be fair it is really hard to even come close to running the largest international child sex trafficking ring like Epstein did!
And I don't think Mein Kampf is that helpful an example since there's a difference between viewing a work as being credible versus analyzing it due to its historical importance.
I mean, people read a lot of things that they know aren't credible, I can't comment on any of Chomsky's works personally because I never read them, but I don't think it'd be any different than reading liberal economic "solutions" to housing (lol) or something of that nature. It's obviously not credible, but I personally find it interesting to see how people think and what conclusions they come to with that thought process even though I disagree with them and maybe have some fun dunking on them in the process if I'm bored.
Just dont treat it like "media literacy"
Lemme piggyback on this thread by asking if I should keep or trash my copies of Rogue States and What Uncle Sam Really Wants? I probably won't reread them so I'm leaning towards toss; maybe the question is trash or give away.