Is Chomsky literally the only credible figure in existence to have argued at any length that respectable mainstream...

zizek-kun talks at length about the manufacturing consent principle that chomsky put forth and how it won Trump the election.

Nah, Adorno was talking about it in the '30s and '40s.
Chomsky has formalized it excellently, althpugh we know that only because most serious political theories books never arrive to the novice.

Well I'm glad to hear they're mute not blind, but I'm looking to write on the topic and I really could use something to cite other than manufacturing consent. Has no other contemporary writer worth mentioning written on the topic?

And in particular I would find an academically credible critique of the BBC extremely helpful if it exists, it's as if no one in modern history who isn't a paranoid conspiracy theorist has even entertained the thought of ideological bias in the BBC.

I know, definitely, I used the image because it was something already saved on my computer that would fit as an OP image, but certainly there's more to it than conservative vs liberal.

I've read through a couple articles google turned up, has he written anything more academic I could cite?

Who needs to talk about this at length? It should be obvious to the majority of people

Chomsky is a very credible figure. Annoying as his politics are for me, he is /generally/ intellectually honest and not to be fucked with. As proof, I suggest to you to look up an old interview that William Buckley had with guest Chomsky during the Vietnam era, where Chomsky (at least appeared to), for every vague and sentimental statement that Buckley made on his own program, get a constant "well no um, here's a simple fact/citation" from Chomsky, again, and again, and again, for over ten minutes as I recall. Then Buckly would harumph slightly and pivot, and then Chomsky would rape him harder, in that milquetoast voice of his, with more citations/facts.

To be clear, I never did fact-check Chomsky on that piece. But that doesn't go to argumentation. Where argumentation is concerned, Buckley absolutely got his ass handed to him on his own show and he damn well knew it. Buckley didn't know to have a shouting match, as Fox News has since figured out (and which is very effective).

t. unironic /pol/ user, Fox News watcher and Trump voter/supporter who can recognize genuine intelligence where it exists

Zizek is a clown, albeit an entertaining one.

If anything, the election of Trump is a failure of the engineering of consent. Whether this is a blip in the established mechanisms of social control or a sign of a transition to a post-mass media era remains to be seen.

t. "i'm going to pretend to be from across the aisle and still support this ideology to give it a stronger impression of truth"

OP here, I'm also a /pol/ user and Trump supporter who thinks Chomsky makes some very valuable points

John Pilger - "Tell me no lies"

If you want it from the best living journalist

I'd much prefer an academic, I'm incredibly starved for references to established literature, but I'll look into him as well, thanks

Why argue at length when it's egregiously obvious to anyone with a brain

Partly because you'd be surprised by how many fairly intelligent people in respectable academic positions don't seem to realise it that much beyond "well yeah of course fox news is biased amirite", and also because I'm writing something that develops that idea further and does new things, but needs a base in citable literature to be able to justify in the first palce the claim that mainstream news outlets are seriously biased.

>you'd be surprised by how many fairly intelligent people in respectable academic positions don't seem to realise it that much beyond "well yeah of course fox news is biased amirite"
Maybe they are obedient because they are afraid their careers will suffer should they ever criticize their own side.

Maybe not biting the hand that feeds you has something to do with being intelligent, and not being as big of an anarchist as Chomsky is.

I'm not an anarchist at all, but yeah, that's probably part of it, though I think another part is that the political/academic/media/expert class exists in a sort of bubble or echo chamber where each accepts everyone else's avowed expertise uncritically and manage to miss some obvious insights as a result.

Luckily for me I don't plan to be staying in academia for very long so I don't really need to worry about threatening my career prospects by writing critically.

>And in particular I would find an academically credible critique of the BBC extremely helpful if it exists, it's as if no one in modern history who isn't a paranoid conspiracy theorist has even entertained the thought of ideological bias in the BBC.

this is done by the people on the tv themselves. they love to analyze themselves (or rather other channels) and conclude that ''it would be nice if we were not biased'' while of course doing nothing and anyway the lack of biases is a fantasy created by noticing bias and dreaming the opposite of this.

same reason Chomsky and Finkelstein are the only (((credible))) critics of Israel

>it's as if no one in modern history who isn't a paranoid conspiracy theorist has even entertained the thought of ideological bias in the BBC.
It's more likely that you don't know where to look, tbph. Get on jstor and Google Scholar, search for terms like 'BBC' and 'ideology', and I'm sure you'll find hundreds of critiques of the media in general and the BBC in particular.

Stuart Hall and others in the Birmingham School of cultural studies would be one obvious place to look.

Why are there children there? Jesus Christ, these people are disgusting.

Thanks, I'll look into that.

It's just a shitheads-ban, and a fuckfacewall, agreed. Really liking this trumpguy for goin' to kill all you guys, neat. While you'll be writhing in demonjohnhell, i'll be having my daiquiris, bitches. Xxxterceloh

The BBC totally dominates UK electronic media, and is therefore perfectly placed to promote itself (and deny an outlet to its critics.) It's a classic self-sustaining bureaucracy.

I find it telling that critics of the BBC tend to be right wing, and its defenders tend to be left wing. To me, that's pretty damning evidence of an institutional bias. But even Thatcher didn't dare to destroy it. Instead the Thatcher government wanted to keep it as their propaganda machine (hence the big row over coverage of the Falklands War.) All UK governments see the BBC in this way, which is part of the reason it still survives in 2017.

Even if they were ideologically minded to destroy it, chances are they wouldn't dare. The resulting propaganda war would be ruinous. Propaganda is the BBC's stock-in-trade.

The simple fact that the ban includes Iran and does not include Saudi Arabia shows it is a cynical political effort at best

No worries. Whatever you're after, you can generally be sure someone in academia has written on it- it's just that the writing may be very much locked up in academia.

Another name that springs to mind is John Thompson, who's written at least one book on ideology and the mass media (not sure if he's specifically addressed the BBC).

One issue with this field is that the rapid development of the internet tends to make anything written more than a decade ago look hilariously out of date.

>Brits literally pay a television tax to watch the BBC
cucks

BBC used to be extremely powerful and would fuck anyone who opposed them to death. see and They were actually miles above US media in content for the past 20 years but recently have went to complete shit due to Trump and Brexit blowing their agenda to shit. Their current spurging is pretty obnoxious but they still cover alot of world news you would never see from US sources.

t. America who only gets news from BBC other than during election cycles.

The BBC literally couldn't find enough British black actors to be in interracial relationships with their white actors and had to resort to importing them from America at one point.

I don't think that's something that a credible figure is required to argue. Actually the opposite would be true. Virtually nobody in America trusts the media, more people believe in Bigfoot than believe that CNN or MSNBC or Fox tell the truth. Alex Jones is now considered about as credible a news anchor as Sean Hannity. The universe has inverted itself because mass media outed itself as a business--something which everyone sort of already knew but never realized the extent of--and it became obnoxious.

I can only talk about them as a news source.

BBC is named after nigger cocks for a reason.

it's a pretty obvious stance for marxists. once you see the state as a historically contingent thing, its institutions seem to give up their deeper meaning

you are a retard.

the BBC isn't 'left wing'. it is the media outlet of bourgeois liberalism. firmly status quo, pro state, pro British interests. it really is a wretched mass of establishment intellectuals

>pro British interests

Is is possible for new outlets to not be ideologically biased?

Why has no one asked this in the thread so far?

Are you asking theoretically or practically?

>credible
Fuck off (actual) shill.

>facts
don't exist, ideologue.

>that's pretty damning evidence of an institutional bias

Hardly. It's "evidence" that free-marketeers don't like the idea of a state-funded broadcaster, which isn't exactly a shocking revelation

Either

Also I meatn News outlets, not new outlets

>literally the only
Of course not. Have you put in any effort into researching your question before you posted this?

No.

Journalists are basically the ctrl-left, they are by a order of magnitude further left than even the democrat voting base, they represent nobody but themselves.

If it is impossible to have a non-ideologically biased news outlet then what is the point of discussing this? Whatever you change or replace it with will be more of the same.

is this image real?

Because it should be something to thrive for.

Andrew Breitbart did it more effectively, read righteous indignation. As a person he's insufferable and angry similar to Hitchens so its better to read him.

I was just thinking about how much Andrew has actually shaped the future of the world. Any budding journalist should look up to him as the ultimate of what someone can achieve with great investigation and a will to get the information out.

His close friend and successor, Bannon, is literally the right hand man to the most powerful man in the world. Trump's winning campaign was basically built out of the response to what Breitbart started to uncover.

If journalists are necessarily to the left and that is bad then there is nothing to strive for.

How can there be journalists that aren't ctrl-left unless what you just said wasn't true?

I'm pretty sure most adults realize that all news is biased and smeared with opinion over the actual news...But most reasonable adults watch several news sources, separate as best they can news and opinion and go from there. It's not the pretentious way you're assuming it is.

I've always had a pet theory that Andrew was obsessed with literature and recognized the "New Sincerity" trend could be applied to journalism while other journalists are still stuck in the same postmodernist phase they learnt in college.

Are you high or something user?

Drugs are degenerate, you know.

Yes, considering he's a canonical thinker

>it really is a wretched mass of establishment intellectuals

Therefore left-wing.

Seriously, have you ever even looked at the BBC News page? It's all feminism, "refugees" and liberal-left hand-wringing.

> respectable news outlet
Wtf are those

BBC should be privatised. In 2016 there's literally zero reason to have a public broadcaster

It's shit but I always forget how shit it is until I see something like this:

bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-38842491

>Story about David Hockney redesigning the Sun logo with an effort straight from MS Paint. Journo fails to even mention that it's probably a mockery and even goes as far to laud it.

You can hire a diverse (political, not muh identity) staff with voices representing all popular political ideologies. Breitbart kind of tried that before they became Trump's propaganda outlet.

It seems that being partisan is better for business though, people seem to prefer outlets that agree with them rather than ones that challenge their preconceptions.
You could do it with outlets like the BBC, it's publicly funded after all.

>Has no other contemporary writer worth mentioning written on the topic?

Don't neglect the guy who Chomsky credits for writing the majority of Manufacturing Consent: Edward Herman. Also, maybe John Pilger. Journalists outside of the mainstream, both on the left and the right, have written on this at length. You're going to have some trouble, though, if this is your major criterion, academics in the communications/ journalism field are part of the problem.

Breitbart abandoned the idea because their ctrl-left authors freaked the fuck out on twitter regularly and supported stupid shit like "bash the fash".

I find the BBC particularly anti-labour, and more recently so, anti-NHS

>BBC
>anti-labour
Hello Mr. Corbyn.

I'm writing an undergraduate thesis and it needs to have a base in credible academic literature. I can and will go on to include less orthodox stuff, good quality newspaper articles discussing recent developments, etc, but I'd like to have a bit more than chomsky to reference for the strict academic stuff.

What has edward herman written by himself that I should be particularly interested in?

These are all pertinent to his studies on the media:

>Beyond hypocrisy : decoding the news in an age of propaganda : including A doublespeak dictionary for the 1990s
>The Global Media
>The Myth of The Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader

He also wrote The Political Economy of Human Rights with Chomsky back in the 1970s, which touches on media criticism, but it's more focused on international policy.

Hey Comrade Corbyn

Thanks, I'll look into those.

If you really got something new, you could just take the usual names in media theory and ideology studies (Althusser, Eco, McLuhan, etc.) and use them as a relational point to your own terminology and ideas.

Like "Here we have a situation in which [author] would recognize a [concept from author]. But we proppose to take this situation [differently / similarly / etc.]

>chomsky
>anarchist
>lives in kibbutzim
>decides it's shit
>still anarchist
>works for the government
>anarchist scholar
>asked for examples
>kibbutzim

must be nice to have that state pension paid for by all those working class peoples taxes you're insulated from in your tenure-protected ivory tower

literally the ego of every liberal intellectual who will purge millions with no hesitation

Serious question, do you guys all take Chomsky serious in politics/political theory/economics/philosophy?

Agreed. Kaczynsky does a better job in 50 pages than Chomsky in 5000

You don't have to resort to such pettiness. Chomsky is hilariously flawed, the guy supported a dictator too extreme for his own dictatorship.

Also, who would you recommend for a good treatment of education vs indoctrination? I think that may play a fairly important role.

I refuse to believe that anyone takes him seriously while talking on economics

Like you are intentionally retarded

when you talk about chomsky regarding economics, do you actually mean herman who was the economic mind behind all of their collaborative work, or do you mean chomsky?

Why are you so surprised OP?

People don't have a problem with propaganda if it's their own opinions being propagandized, and this applies to Chomsky as much as it applies to Glenn Beck.

t. I ignore every point posted and just ad hominem

When Labour was in government, the BBC was known as the Brown Broadcasting Corporation. It was literally the broadcasting arm of New Labour.

They may be less keen on Corbyn, but so is the Parliamentary Labour Party ...

i like nuts in my word salad

Chomsky did it the best (from the little I've read) but it should be glaringly obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a split second.

Take the invasion of Iraq, everything was told from the coalition point of view. We even had "journalists" embedded with coalition troops. That alone demonstrates that the news takes a side. Not to mention the hierarchy of victims where one dead Westerner is worth more headlines than one hundred thousand dead Middle Easterners

Liberals have never purged anyone. Unless you're one of these alt-right retards who doesn't know the difference between liberal and state socialist in which case I take your point

Worst... theme park... ever...
comicbookguy.jpg

Agreed, I couldn't believe my eyes when they put out this article.

bbc.co.uk/guides/z88c9qt

jesus fucking christ

is it true chomsky answers random people's emails? does he really have the time? has anyone here sent him anything?

>Liberals have never purged anyone
What is the French Revolution?

he actually experienced his ideal utopia, but rejected it, yet still offers it as the prime example of his philosophy.

holding yourself to a separate standard is not petty, it's dangerous.

You know maybe right wing death squads wouldn't be so bad after all.