Using specific examples, show how western governments and/or the military have attempted to ‘manufacture consent’ for post 9/11 military action
A lot has been said, written, talked and debated about the US governments right to use military force post 9/11. In this essay I will attempt to show how western governments and military, specifically the US government and military, have attempted to ‘manufacture consent’ to acquire backing for military action in Iraq. By attempting to explain Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky phrase of ‘Manufacturing consent’ from their book: Manufacturing Consent: the Political Economy of the Mass Media[1], and including some specific examples and writings from other authors, I will convey how the US government and military justified their reasons for military action in Iraq in 2003.
First of all, what does Herman and Chomsky mean by ‘manufacturing consent’? In primitive terms it means creating public acceptance to go to war.
" Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the (U.S.) media." [2]
Noam Chomsky
The US government achieve this by using the mass media. This is the main link between a government and its people. The government need the mass media to promote themselves where as the mass media need the government for a steady flow of news to update the 24 hour need. If they could they would put cameras and reporters everywhere but financially this is impossible. So the mass media would place their representatives in news hot spots, governmental locations such as the White House and the Pentagon for example. These are recognisable and reliable sources of news. In turn government will help the broadcasters by arranging press conferences, advance copies of speeches, having the press conferences at suitable times and so on. Relationships are formed and the mass media will get their steady 24 hour news flow. This in turn makes it hard for different forms of news media to criticise government for risk of losing...