Are US Corporate-Media Businesses ‘Independent’?

Professor Noam Chomsky is one of the most cited scholars in history.  His work continues to be prominently taught in classes at top US universities like Yale.  He teaches classes on US government at MIT, and has written some 100 books on political and social science topics.  He has been voted in multiple polls as the world’s most important public intellectual.

So why do Western corporate and government media outlets like the New York Times (whose board members have often also been on the boards of weapons manufacturers) almost entirely avoid quoting or citing him?

Perhaps because they do not want to call much attention to his work, which includes meticulously documenting and exposing that what outlets like the Times produce is largely fake news – a new buzz-word for propaganda.

The New York Times, Chomsky has noted, is a particularly odious offender.  He refers to the output of that publication, which claims to offer “all the news that’s fit to print”, as “pure propaganda”, and documents how and why this is the case.

Chomsky has published many articles and books that detail the US propaganda system, but here is a concise, 8-minute summary of how it works:

Thus, media outlets that Western elites refer to as “independent” really are not independent.  They are major corporations with inherent conflicts of interest that both determine their output and allow them to peddle it widely.

The most-watched news channel in the US, for example, NBC, has been owned by one of the world’s biggest nuclear weapons manufacturers, and does not like to publicize this or its many other conflicts of interest, even though they might be of some interest to viewers.

But one might argue that we could still call corporate media businesses independent since at first glance they appear to at least be independent of government.  We would have to admit this would be a sneaky move because it would still attempt to downplay the corporate conflicts of interest, but let’s see if it is even accurate to say corporate media are independent of government.

The owners of these corporations are some of the wealthiest people in the US (and world), and as major studies out of US Ivy League universities have amply documented, US government policy is determined not by the US population, but by people in the top tiers of the income scale.  (Chomsky points out the US is “not a democracy, and was not intended to be.”)  So to claim that major corporations are independent of government is also misleading, since major corporations, to a very large extent, are the US government.

Not only do their owners exert major influence over government policy, but people from the highest points in the media corporations also continually cycle between the corporations and influential positions within the government.

Further, as has been amply documented by many journalists including Carl Bernstein, this corporate government clandestinely collaborates with top media corporations to further regulate their output.  Bernstein quotes William B. Bader, a former CIA intelligence officer, who divulges that “[y]ou don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are Agency people at the management level.”

Thus, it seems a bit of a stretch to call the major US media corporations “independent” in any sense of the word.

We can also ask whether Western elites are really opposed, in principal, to media outlets being directly financed by governments, or if they are simply opposed to government-financed media outlets that disprove claims published in Western media (such as, for example, “the US is a democracy”).

US officials and elites regularly condemn and spurn government-financed media outlets like RT (Russia Today).  But at the same time, they are perfectly content to promote media outlets funded by the US and other western governments (let alone the corporate “independent” media discussed above), and take no issue with outlets funded by favored non-Western governments, like the Saudi dictatorship, lead by strongman Salman bin Abdulaziz, who enjoys beheading civilians and then crucifying them with their heads in plastic bags stapled to their bodies.

So it also seems dubious to claim that Western elites are opposed in principal to government-funded media outlets.

It seems what they really have a problem with is people getting all sides of the story.  Indeed, when we read news stories from Western outlets and then read coverage of the same events from non-Western outlets (see here), it is readily apparent that the only way to figure out what really happened is to get all sides directly from all sides, not all sides filtered through one side – the West.

This also seems to be why, in court, both a prosecution and a defense present their sides to the jury: so the jury can make up its mind about what really happened.  If the jury only heard the prosecution’s side, it would likely get a somewhat distorted view that favored, intentionally or not, the prosecution.  Same for defense.

But Western elites are currently suggesting that we should only listen to the prosecution – media from the propaganda system discussed above, with all of its conflicts of interest, propaganda, control and censorship, and blatant fake news production.

Rationally speaking, it would seem to make more sense, and be more fair, to try to get all sides – the idea behind the jury-trial system.  And it seems a particularly lame, crude, and desperate move for one of the sides, in this case the West, to entreat the public to only listen to its side of events.

True, many governments, including the US, continually do this.  But most of them are weak and under serious attack by internal or external forces (often US or US-financed).  That the US, even as the most powerful empire in the history of the world, continues to engage in this practice seems to reveal a level of personal insecurity, fear, or cowardice in the US elite character, something that may be traced to the origins of the brutal oligarchic state in settler-colonial genocide and mass enslavement.

Robert J. Barsocchini is an independent researcher and reporter who focuses on global force dynamics and has served as a cross-cultural intermediary for the film and Television industry. His work has been cited, published, or followed by numerous professors, economists, lawyers, military and intelligence veterans, and journalists. Updates on Twitter.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda. Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    doesn’t chomsky’s endorsement of clinton arouse even a tiny bit of skepticism in you? how about his refusal to consider the evidence re: building 7?

    in my book, once he endorsed clinton/nuclear war, he invalidated his ‘prominent/oft-cited/important’ ‘genius’. he lost the right to speak on any topic. zuesse argues that he was just being dense, to me, it’s obvious that he’s part of the borg.

    ps: a google site search of the ny times for chomsky returns 4,070 results. they’re not exactly silencing him, imho.

    • Robert Barsocchini

      Chomsky was recently interviewed by the NYT – for its blog. Didn’t make the cut for the print version. Before that, the “last time [he] was interviewed or quoted in the New York Times was in the 1970s”. Quoting Lawrence M. Krauss. See provided link.

      But if what you are saying is true, that he is this big establishment gatekeeper, it makes his work even more interesting.

      As for skepticism, he didn’t have to do anything to arouse skepticism in me. He is a human, so I’m skeptical of him. In fact I completely question his moral sincerity, and this predates the recent election campaign and 9/11 (in fact I agree with what I’ve seen Chomsky say regarding 9/11). Regardless, he is still a great source of information and knowledge. Ad hominem is irrelevant to whether what he says is factual.

      • kimyo

        it’s ad hominem if i attack his appearance or religious affiliation etc. this i did not do. i was critical of his choice to endorse a lunatic tyrant madwomen and his popular mechanics/snopes-like response to valid questions re: 9/11.
        Noam Chomsky and The War on Straight Answers

        By misleading millions of genuinely inquisitive people—and by misleading numerous alternative media editors and publishers who took cues from him—Professor Chomsky bears significant personal responsibility. Pretending that a major and outrageous cover-up does not exist, or even more shockingly that it does not matter, inflicts real-world harm to truth, justice, ethics, morality, and, yes, world peace, with a sizable and ever-increasing body count. These are the real costs of official lies.

        in standard wblog fashion here is a worthwhile text compilation: Third Building Which Collapsed on 9/11 Was Not Hit By a Plane

        if you prefer video (in this case pictures make a big difference) this is pretty decent:
        PBS Documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out

        ps: i apologize, my 4k+ nyt/chomsky figure was wrong. i could find only two 2016 articles which contain direct quotes from his braininess.

        • Robert Barsocchini

          I meant it was ad hominem to say his input on the issue of the US propaganda model is wrong because of his political views on other topics.

          Thanks for the info. I will look.

      • Zap

        Chomsky is a gatekeeper. In particular, he leads his followers away from the central bankers, Rothscilds, Rockefeller’s, Federal Reserve, CFR, Tri Lateral Commission, Bilderberg Group’s vise grip control of western governments. He criticizes a lot of things but he ultimately leads his followers nowhere.

        “It’s the same with the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign
        Relations, all these other things the people are racing around searching
        for conspiracy theories about — they’re “nothing” organizations. Of
        course they’re there, obviously rich people get together and talk to
        each other, and play golf with one another, and plan together-that’s not
        a big surprise. But these conspiracy theories people are putting their
        energies into have virtually nothing to do with the way the institutions
        actually function.” (Understanding Power, p. 348)

        For a “nothing organization” they sure do seem to place members in every important position in government going all the way back to the 1930’s.
        Note Trumps recent cabinet choices…..Skull and Bones, Goldman, CFR etc etc etc
        For more info research Carrol Quigley and Antony Sutton’s works in this line of political theory which is what it should be called though Chomsky chooses to straw man this analysis with the old tried and true label of “conspiracy theory”……..Chomsky’s protege Chris Hedges is another gatekeeper, he works for Soros.

    • Dianafmcclusky

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj339d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash339HomeSmartGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj339d:….,….

  • tom

    “If the jury only heard the prosecution’s side, it would likely get a somewhat distorted view that favored, intentionally or not, the prosecution”.

    It’s interesting to reflect that most European justice systems, instead of the Anglo-Saxon system, feature an “investigating judge” whose job it is to dive in actively and get all the facts. Prosecution and defence inevitably play much more muted roles in such a system, and that seems to me what the US government has been setting itself up as: an investigating judge for everyone and everything in the whole world. (Also a judge who is deeply and heavily biased, due to having all sorts of vested interests in the cases he tries).

  • tom

    “So to claim that major corporations are independent of government is also misleading, since major corporations, to a very large extent, are the US government”.

    That sounds rather close to some definitions of “fascism”.

  • ICFubar

    The over arching reason for propaganda and worse is that if the oligarchy presented their operational plans straight up for public scrutiny it would be rejected outright. Therefore all the powers of deception, obfuscation and incrementalism are used to ‘manufacture consensus’ on a continual basis. Creating events and lying to the rest of humanity is an art form that is and has been used by the Apex Elites since time immemorial. The advance in technologies, the internet. cuts both ways and is likely their undoing but the fight is now just being joined. The outcome to this war is much in doubt but the end result either way is very plain to see. Either human kind finally breaks free of the old paradigm of top down self interest rule and reaches a new beginning or an Orwellian brave new world will descend leaving the progression of the human experience in the hands of a very few all powerful megalomaniacs. The Empire of Usury is the vehicle the elites have propagated for their rule over human kind with the creation of money as debt in their hands as the tool to subjugate all of humanity. If this omnipotent power is ever restored to the control of the public the elites iron grip over humanity will be washed away like dust under a deluge.