Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
INTERVIEWER: When you wrote 'Manufacturing Consent',
which was, effectively, a critique
of the mainstream media,
you obviously didn't anticipate the internet.
Has that changed that model or that analysis at all for you?
I don't think it's changed what the corporate media do -
they're subject to the same pressures,
they act in pretty much the same way.
The internet has had an effect
on what the public can do -
actually, a pretty small sector of the public, if you look -
but there is a sector of the public
that can get access to a much broader range of materials.
So if you're, say, in the United States,
where Al Jazeera has been pretty much kept out -
I think there are two or three cable channels,
small cable channels, where you can get it...
So it's been largely excluded,
even though it's the main source of news
on much of what happens in the Middle East.
I mean, they're the ones who have correspondents
in embattled places
when the West isn't there and so on.
But you can get it on the internet.
I don't know the exact figures,
but I'm sure it's a minuscule part of the population
that even knows how to do that
or even knows where to look.
But it's there.
If... You can get the British press, Australian press...
..if you're interested, the Salvadoran press,
and so on.
And for a small number of people, mostly activists,
that gives a wider range of information,
which is a good thing.
It also...
There's also much broader options for expressing opinion -
what's called the blogosphere.
You know, so anybody can put up their opinion on the internet.
It's a good thing.
The net effect of it is mixed, in my opinion.
It's fine to be able to put up your opinion on the internet,
but a culture is developing
where people, in effect, trust the internet.
There have been some studies which show that the majority...
..I don't remember the numbers,
but people tend to trust what they see on the internet
more than what they read in the press.
Now, there are good reasons for scepticism about the press,
but much greater reasons
for scepticism about what you're reading
when somebody says, "Here's my opinion. I'll put it forth."
So in part, the internet serves as a kind of a cult generator,
and that's dangerous.
It's not free, though.
I mean, there is a perception that the internet is free.
-It isn't, though. -No, it's not.
The private space is owned by major, huge corporations.
Not only that, but entry to the internet,
it goes through a small number of portals,
and those are handed over to private capital.
That's an interesting development, incidentally.
The internet, of course, developed in the state sector,
in fact, where I work, around 1960,
and it was under the Pentagon for years.
And then it was completely free,
and then it was handed over to the National Science Foundation
and still was free.
It was privatised in 1995
under circumstances that are still somewhat obscure.
That, in principle, puts control
into the hands of several...
..a small number of private entities.
Now, will they exert that control?
Well, to some extent they have.
Take, say, WikiLeaks.
The funding for WikiLeaks went through the internet,
but the major...channels
like PayPal, Amazon and so on,
they just cut it off.
Well, that's private censorship of a very serious kind.
The public didn't want it cut off,
but you have to find sort of devious ways to keep it alive.
In fact, it's driven it underground, pretty much.
And it can do the same for opinion
and there are other things too.
There are many devices available
to sort of direct people in particular...
..towards particular options.
The public relations industry
has had a hundred years of experience
on what they call "creating wants" -
you know, directing people's attitudes and opinions -
and that's all there.
So yes, those things are there,
but in principle it's still free.