Manufacturing Consent: Do We Really Live in a Democracy?

THINGS I'M THINKING ABOUT DEPT.

I've been intrigued by the concept of "manufacturing consent" as popularized by political theorist Noam Chomsky and economist Edward S. Herman in their book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. "Manufacturing consent" has to do with the way media, governments, and powerful institutions shape public opinion to align with their interests, often subtly guiding what people think and believe.

It's a two word phrase--manufacturing and consent--loaded with implications.

Manufacturing is the process of producing products from raw materials using tools, machinery, and human labor. It involves transforming materials like metals, plastics, or chemicals into finished products, such as cars, electronics, clothing, or household items. It often follows a series of steps, including design, fabrication, assembly, and quality control, ensuring that the final product meets specific standards. It is considered crucial to the global economy, creating jobs, supporting industries, and providing the essential goods that society relies on every day.

Consent is the voluntary agreement or permission given by a person to allow something to happen, often in the context of personal boundaries, relationships, or legal matters. It requires that individuals have a clear understanding of what they are agreeing to, without any pressure, manipulation, or coercion. Consent is a foundational principle in ethics, emphasizing the importance of mutual respect and understanding between parties.

The idea is that media outlets, often controlled by large corporations with vested interests, influence what stories are covered, how they are framed, and what information is highlighted or omitted. This process can create a kind of consensus among the public that supports certain policies or viewpoints, even if they may not serve the broader public interest. Essentially, rather than being purely objective, media and institutions may "manufacture" agreement or acceptance of specific ideas, shaping public perception in a way that maintains the status quo or supports the interests of those in power.

 

In Manufacturing Consent Herman and Chomsky argue that media plays a significant role in American society to prepare it to willingly accept the values of the ruling elite. 

When did this switch happen (where the media is agenda driven rather than neutral) or has it always been this way? Instead of serving as a means for the public to obtain information needed to have sufficient control over the politicians and the flow of power in the country, the press now blatantly serves as a means for the elite to promote its agenda, to defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged and dominant groups in the society.

Edward Said addresses this manipulation from the specific manner in which our media controls Americans' view of the Middle East and the Islamic world. The author of Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World shows how the American news media have portrayed "Islam" as a monolithic entity, synonymous with terrorism and religious hysteria. 

One question I have here is, "Who's calling the shots?"

And the follow up: "To what end?"

The manner in which legacy media covered up President Biden's foibles and mental decline (How many times did we hear that he was "sharp as a tack"?) was such a partisan non-neutral effort to influence public opinion that it prompts us to question everything they've spewed. 

What's going on?  

As one Amazon reviewer explains, "This (Edward Said's) book tells ALL about our media prejudices and the shortcomings of our journalists, writers, intellectuals, academics, etc., when it comes to Islam, Arabs and the Middle East. It is a great analytical essay about false propaganda and the wrong views dispersed about the Middle East." 

* * * 

So, the title of this blog post asks if we are really living in a Democracy? I ask, then, how can we have a democracy without an informed public? How much do we know from first hand experience? How much do we really know of what we assume we know? So much of what we believe we know has been mediated to us. How much is spin? 

* * * 

"Tell me why you are crying my son

I know you're frightened like everyone.

Is it the thunder in the distance you hear? 

Will it help if I stand very near? I am here."

Peter, Paul & Mary

Day Is Done

Related Links

Propaganda Revisited

Crowds On Demand: Believe Nothing You Hear, and Only One Half That You See

He Who Controls the Narrative Controls the People

Is the U.S. Media a Mouthpiece for the State? Stephen Kinzer Argues "Yes"

The Purpose of Propaganda: Social Engineering

The AI Revolution and Marketing (Part One)

"If you're not thinking about AI, you're not thinking." ~ Chris Meyer

Cick to enlarge.

One of Paul Gauguin's most famous paintings is a series of questions: Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? It’s the last of these questions that especially concerns many of us today. Where are we going with regards to the impact technology is having on our lives and careers? AI is but one facet of the current tech revolution which is re-shaping our lives in ways as yet unknown.
 

In the news media AI seem to be everywhere now with new stories appearing every day. Many play on our fears, stoking concerns about plagiarism, cheating in school, the energy drain caused by AI data centers, mass layoffs and Hollywood-inspired Terminator scenarios.

Other stories present AI as a game changer that will eliminate unemployment and make all of our lives better. Still others suggest that all this hype is a big nothingburger. (On August 6 NPR aired a story titled “10 reasons why AI may be overrated.”)

By way of contrast, Reason magazine recently devoted an entire issue to the AI phenomenon, underscoring its significance. Articles ranged from utopian to dystopian, practical to far-fetched, deepfakes, warfare and poetry. In short, AI touches everything. To be sure, they also issue warnings and underscored AI’s current shortcomings, including Google’s debacle of 2024.

In this article we’ll highlight some of the ways AI is already being used by marketers. A follow-up column will address ethical concerns, risks and other related matters. 

AI in Marketing

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the field of marketing by enabling more efficient, personalized, and data-driven strategies. 

 

Many of the ways AI is being used in marketing are simply extensions of decades-long trends. For example, personalized recommendations. E-commerce platforms like Amazon use AI to analyze user behavior and recommend products tailored to individual preferences, increasing the likelihood of purchase. It’s not really new. It’s simply been enhanced.

 

AI algorithms are now being used to analyze vast amounts of customer data to identify distinct segments based on behavior, preferences, and demographics, allowing for more targeted marketing campaigns. This allows companies to create more personalized marketing campaigns, improving the effectiveness of their marketing efforts by reaching the right audience with the right message. Though customer segmentation has been taking place for decades (Chromaline was doing this in the late 1980s using a Unix computer operating system) AI can process and analyze data much faster and more accurately than traditional methods, enabling businesses to better understand their customers and tailor their marketing strategies accordingly.

 

AI is now being used for Chatbots. Virtual Assistants have come a long ways since Microsoft’s intrusive Clippy, who first appeared in Office 97. 

 

There is currently widespread use of AI for all manner of content creation. The use of AI for ad copy, blog posts, social media updates, and email newsletters is saving time and resources for many marketers. During the 2022 Winter Olympics in China, AI algorithms were generating basic news reports, summarizing event outcomes, and even providing insights based on data analysis. The technology was often used to produce quick, straightforward reports on events like Olympic competitions, where speed and accuracy are important.

 

Many companies are now using AI to predict future trends and customer behavior. Trained on historical data, machines can identify patterns and relationships. Predictive analytics is especially useful for companies that invest heavily in research to develop new products.

 

Walmart uses AI for dynamic pricing which adjusts prices in real time based on demand, competition and other factors, to seize opportunities and maximize profits.

 

AI tools are also being used to gauge consumer sentiment based on media posts, reviews and other user-generated content. Some use this information for reputation management, though small companies can get a feel for how they are perceived by occasionally reading reviews on Yelp and similar platforms.

Ad targeting and optimization is now being managed by AI on platforms like Google Ads and Facebook Ads. Mailchimp and SendGrid now use AI-driven algorithms to personalize email content and optimize send times for better engagement and conversion rates.

 
I myself have been reading, writing and thinking about AI since 2016. In order to understand AI’s strengths and limitations, I’ve been experimenting with several large language models (LLMs) and various AI art programs. For example, with ChatGPT you can feed your blog post into the prompt box and instruct it to give you 10 potential titles. In seconds you have 10 headlines to play with. Or if writing a book, you can request themes for 10, 20 or 30 chapters. And Voila! There you have it.

 

In other words, it’s great for brainstorming. (I asked ChatGPT for 24 chapters on a book about cars. If I were to follow through it would be a most interesting and comprehensive read.)

Red Flags
“Not too long ago there were many concerns raised regarding students using AI to write their papers,” said David Beard, Professor of Rhetoric at UMD. “Today, colleges are encouraging getting familiar with AI.” He directed me to UMD’s Dr. Liz Wright, who is currently developing a class on the use of AI among writers -- understanding when and how and how best to use it. 

 

“Assuming that the technology stays,” Dr. Wright said, “we have to prepare our students for it.” We also need to be aware that AI is environmentally dangerous, she added, foreshadowin our next column.

 

In many respects AI is big tech’s latest shiny new toy. No one knows yet what will come of it, but we’d be remiss if we failed to examine some of the red flags many observers are waving. 

# # # #

Originally published in Business North, September 2024

Related Links

A.I. Is Already Taking White Collar Writing Jobs. Who's Next?

Interview with David Asch Offers Insights On A.I. 

Surviving AI by Calum Chace Is a Must Read for Those Who Plan to Be Here in the Future

The Ocean Is Vast and It Waits

I was a child from Cleveland who grew up in New Jersey where I left my innocence a lifetime ago; an hour from New York, an hour from Philadelphia and an hour from the ocean's embrace. 

The ocean is vast and it waits, an endless tapestry of shimmering blues and greens, whispering secrets to the shore. Its depths, shrouded in mystery, cradle the dreams of sailors long gone and the sighs of forgotten lovers. Each wave, a gentle caress of foam and salt, lingers on the sand as if to remind us that time is but a fleeting illusion. The horizon stretches endlessly, inviting us to lose ourselves there. 

Beneath the surface life dances in harmony, a symphony of colors and forms, patient and eternal, echoing the heartbeat of a world that exists both within and beyond our senses. A sentinel of stories yet untold, the briny deep beckons us to dive deeper.

How small we become while standing on this shoreline. Even the marks we leave behind are fleeting. In these moments, the weight we carry feels lighter as the vastness murmurs that everything is temporary and we but a small, yet beautiful part of a much larger whole.

* * * 

Tracks in the Sand

I turn to see my footprints in the sand

as wave after wave rolls in.

Now, here I stand, observing.

And though my footsteps be almost gone

they remain, and perchance someone will follow.

And if someone sees my kneeprints

(suspecting I had stopped to pray)

would I have to tell them

that I'd only stopped along

the way to pick up shells?

Yet, even on our knees with tiny shells

there is great glory

and a doorway out of ourselves.

Puerto Rico, 1979

Kafka: Lost and Found

I can't remember if it was in high school or in a college class on Existential Fiction that I was first introduced to the writings of Franz Kafka via his surreal, symbolic story "Metamorphosis." I still have the book Continental Short Stories on my bookshelf with stories by Sartre, Camus, Lagerkvist, Borges and others which I read at Ohio U. Many of the stories made impressions that remain with me still.

Metamorphosis as literature corresponds to what Dali's The Persistence of Memory is to art. Kafka's novella depicts the anguish a traveling salesman experiences when he awakes to find he has been transformed into a giant insect, detailing the effects of this change on himself and his family.

So, I was in the library today looking for books by Han Kang, the newly minted winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature. While scouring the shelves in the vicinity of Kang I found a few Kafka works, incuding a small volume titled The Lost Writings. Translated to English in 2020, the book is a collection of very short entries, from paragraphs to a few pages in length. 

There's no real preface or introduction. Nothing more than a handful of laudatory quotes. One, by Nabokov no less, exclained that "Kafka is the greatest German writer of our time," stating that writers like Thomas Mann and Rilke were dwarfs compared to Kafka. 

Well, that one was a pretty low blow. Who is Nabokov to decide which faces should be on Literature's Mount Rushmore?

*

For students of fiction, The Lost Writings is rich with imagery that fires the imagination. Here is an early entry in this collection. 

So, you want to leave me? Well, one decision is as good as another. Where will you go? Where is away-from-me? The moon? Not even that is far enough, and you'll never get there. So why the fuss? Wouldn't you rather sit down in a corner somewhere, quietly? Wouldn't that be an improvement? A warm, dark corner? Aren't you listening? You're feeling for the door. Well, where is it? So far as I remember, this room doesn't have one. At the time this was built, no one had imagined such earth-shattering plans as yours. Well, no matter, a thought like yours won't get lost, we'll discuss it over dinner, and our laughter will be your reward.

*

Related Links
A Hunger Artist (story)
The Trial (novel)
The Trial (Film directed by Orson Welles)

Nietzsche's and Mann's Divergent Views on Wagner

Richard Wagner (Public doain)

I recently finished reading the diaries of Thomas Mann for a second time now. The first was perhapes 30 years ago. (I'd have to serach my own diaries to find the precise year) When I read this volume back then it was a library book. Earlier this summer I found it on the free books discard shelf, a real steal.

The diary entries cover only a portion of Mann's life and career. In part one we read entries from 1918 to 1921. The diary then jumps ahead to 1933 and covers the six year preceding the start of World War II.

A bit of personal trivia: The first entry is September 11, which happens to be my birthday.

There are a number of interesting details here beyond the historical context of these two periods in his life. Throughout Mann records what he is reading--Tolstoy, Cervantes, Proust, etc. He also makes note of what times he goes to bed (nearly always after reading a while), what time he wakens (usually 8 a.m.) and what medicines he is taking. He records whom he is corresponding with, and what writing project or projects he is working on.

There are numerous entries devoted to Richard Wagner, whom he writes about and goes on a lecture tour to discuss. What interested me is how divergent his views on Wagner were from Friedrich Nietzche's.

For both Thomas Mann and Friedrich Nietzsche the German composer Richard Wagner was a towering figure in 19th-century European culture. While both thinkers engaged deeply with Wagner’s music and philosophy, their perspectives reflecteddifferent relationships to his legacy and their own evolving philosophies.

* * *

In his early years Nietzsche had been a passionate Wagner enthusiast. Later, however, he became one of Wagner’s most severe critics, devoting a whole book to the guy, The Case of Wagner (1888).

Initially, Nietzsche was captivated by Wagner’s music, seeing in it a revolutionary spirit that resonated with his own philosophical ideals of breaking away from the constraints of bourgeois morality. Nietzsche admired Wagner’s grand operatic visions, particularly the blending of myth, music, and drama to create what Wagner termed the Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art). Nietzsche saw in Wagner’s early operas, like The Ring of the Nibelung, a reflection of the Dionysian spirit—a celebration of primal, life-affirming forces that Nietzsche explored in his first major work, The Birth of Tragedy (1872).

Friedrich Nietzsche

However, Nietzsche’s view of Wagner dramatically shifted as he began to see Wagner as embodying the very decadence and cultural decline that he despised. Ironically, when I read The Case of Wagner I was flying to "Sin City" on a business trip and back. There is probably no greater symbol of empty decadence than Las Vegas. The book itself is a scathing, personal attack on an artist he once revered.*

By way of contrast Mann admired Wagner and was influenced by his synthesis of music and mythology. Mann appreciated the way Wagner blended Germanic legends with profound philosophical ideas. He saw Wagner's genius and admired his innovations. In his essay The Sorrows and Grandeur of Richard Wagner (1933), Mann grappled with the duality of Wagner’s genius: the grandeur of his artistic vision alongside his troubling associations with German nationalism and proto-fascist ideas. Mann recognized Wagner's flaws while still appreciating his art.  Mann was concerned that Wagner's work could be exploited by reactionary forces, a hunch that turned out to be right in the 30's.

  

The key difference between Nietzsche and Mann’s views on Wagner lies in the depth of their disillusionment. Nietzsche’s break with Wagner was total and deeply personal, stemming from philosophical disillusionment with Wagner’s later works. Mann, while critical of Wagner’s political and moral implications, maintained a more balanced view, appreciating his artistic genius while recognizing his dangerous cultural influence.  

As you reflect on your lifetime of interests and passions, what have been your greatest disillusionments? What did you learn from these experiences?

MEGALOPOLIS: What's It All About, Francis?

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly."
--Leo Tolstoy

When someone spends more than $140 million of their own cash to create a film they had been noodling for more than a quarter of a century, it stirs one's curiosity. When that person is Francis Ford Coppola, who created the Godfather films--according to many critics two of the greatest movies in film history--one can't be blamed for having expectations raised.

So what happened?

Many reviewers--professional film critics and the public-at-large--describe the final result as a trainwreck. Here's one from imdb.com: "Megalopolis is a mess brimming with ambition but utterly devoid of direction and cohesion. It isn't just agonizing, it is an excruciating test of patience. At best, it's mind-numbing, at worst, a total trainwreck I painfully endured."

The project has certainly generated buzz, though not for all the reasons a director would like. Even so,  there are some who give the film a 10/10. So, when NPR was dissecting it last week I made a mental decision to see it and decide for myself.

Whereas on one level the film appears tone "a confusing mess" as others have declared, there is clarity about certain recurring themes including the echoes of Rome, bread and circuses and the overarching decadence, a central theme in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, underscored in several of his books including The Birth of Tragedy, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Genealogy of Morals, and The Twilight of the Idols. For Nietzsche, decadence was not merely about cultural decline but also about the decline of life’s vitality and strength, which he sees as manifesting in various aspects of society, morality, and even the individual spirit. Is this what Coppola was getting at to some degree?

From the very start of the film we see manifestations of a decadent culture. Underneath, however, we also see serious issues being discussed. "When does an empire die? Does it collapse in one terrible moment? No, no... But there comes a time when its people no longer believe in it." (Fundi Romaine)

and

"Mr. Catalina, you said that as we jump into the future, we should do so unafraid. But what if when we do jump into the future there is something to be afraid of?" (journalist)

* * * 

One reviewer asks: "But still, since decadence is one of our great problems, is it something admirable to see it dramatized and critiqued so explicitly, however cumbersome the writing and bizarre the plot mechanics are?" 

And finally, the inability of all this to cohere fully — the fact that Catilina’s vision of urban utopia looks a bit like what you’d get from plugging prompts into an artificial intelligence image generator, the fact that Coppola intuited his way to a story that’s genuinely timely and shot through with complex political resonances but then just couldn’t quite make it work as cinematic art — well, that itself is a signifier of our times.

Besides, in all honesty, how many movies do we really need highlighting our pervasive decadence? It's almost a Hollywood passion. 

* * *

Despite the gauntlet of negative reviews, there are some standouts bucking the herd. Here is one of the positive reviews from imdb.com plus two more that shed light on the final product.

Francis Ford Coppola is the master!

hoomanzenouz19 August 2024

I was absolutely captivated by Megalopolis. Contrary to the mixed reviews it has been receiving, I found this film to be a monumental achievement, deserving of nothing less than a 10/10. The critics are wrong, this movie is an audacious blend of visionary storytelling and breathtaking visual design that left me in awe.

A Glorious Trainwreck

cutie725 September 2024

Full disclosure: This film is a disaster of epic proportions-an absolute train wreck that careens off the tracks, crashes, and then somehow sets itself on fire. It's so bad, it's almost brilliant, the kind of so-awful-it's-genius nightmare that future cult fans will rave about. And you know what? I respect the hell out of Coppola for it. The guy is a cinematic legend who just decided to throw all caution (and coherence) to the wind and go full mad scientist on this. It's a glorious, unfiltered mess from the mind of a genius who clearly stopped caring about what anyone thinks. Bravo, you magnificent lunatic! 👏🏻

An aged and nonsensical interpretation of modernism

I really admire the story and purpose but the interpretation of the younger generation was almost unbearable that I had to laugh. The acting is done very well but at the behest of a pathless plot and lack of an environment. Some scenes were simply bizarre; actors walking to different parts of the room for no reason as if I was watching a Cirque Du Soleil show without the art house beauty, the gaudy and exaggerated portrayal of the wealthy as if they are dumb pigs and just the overall delivery of direction was strange and not fun to watch. I really feel like Coppola had no one to tell him; "Hey that's stupid."  

* * *

For me the use of Roman-era names--Cesar, Cicero, Crassus--came across as silly. I also had a hard time with how the narrator was inserted here and there to stitch the narrative together. I know that it's a technique that is sometimes effective, as in Shawshank Redemption. In this instance, it didn't work for me.

Don't take my word for it. Draw your own conclusions. I never fully grasped the storyline, but there are clues that there's something more here, even if it is only illusory.  

PostScript: After seeing Adam Driver last year in Ferrari and as the lead in Megalopolis, I am impressed with his diversity. 

PS2: I would be most curious to hear what all these actors felt and thought about working on this film, and what they learned.