Imaginary Interviews: Noam Chomsky on America and Propaganda

I first encountered Noam Chomsky's writing while preparing to go to work at an orphanage in Mexico in 1980. In the 1950s and early 60s, Chomsky, a linguistics professor, wrote books about syntax, sound patterns, etc. It was during the Vietnam War that he become more vocal politically. Chomsky’s academic insights about how humans generate meaning evolved into examining how languages are used to manipulate public opinion. Just as linguistic structures shape how we think, political language shapes how we interpret reality.

Because propaganda has been a life-long interest of mine, Chomsky's ideas have been a recurring periodic theme in my readings. 

Today is Noam Chomsky's 97th birthday. Born December 7, 1928, Chomsky grew up in a Jewish working-class community in Philadelphia steeped in debates about socialism, Zionism, fascism, and labor rights. I find it fascinating that he wrote his first political essay at age 10, criticizing the rise of fascism and the spread of propaganda in popular media. Long before he became a scientist of language, he was already a political observer.

What follows is an imaginary interview with the elderly Chomsky. This is a fictional encounter that attempts to convey his ideas and views pertaining to propaganda.

EN: Professor Chomsky, you've often argued that the most effective propaganda is not imposed by force but accepted as common sense. In your view, what core assumptions about America’s role in the world are so deeply internalized that most citizens don’t even recognize them as propaganda?
Chomsky: One of the most powerful ideas is that the United States is a uniquely benevolent actor—motivated by ideals, not interests. That assumption is so thoroughly woven into education, media, and political ritual that questioning it feels almost heretical. It’s a kind of background radiation of public life. When a superpower sees itself as inherently virtuous, its actions—no matter how destructive—are interpreted through a moral lens. Once that frame is in place, evidence becomes secondary. The ideology becomes invisible.

EN: In Manufacturing Consent, you describe the media as filtering reality rather than fabricating it outright. How have these filters evolved in the age of 24/7 news, digital platforms, and algorithmic feeds? Has propaganda become more subtle—or more pervasive?

Chomsky: More pervasive, certainly. Traditional media had structural constraints—ownership, advertising, elite sourcing. Those haven’t vanished; they’ve simply been supplemented by new mechanisms. Digital platforms tailor information to users’ preferences, reinforcing existing beliefs and shielding them from alternatives. That’s quite efficient from the standpoint of power: people become self-policing consumers of propaganda. Instead of one centralized narrative, we now have thousands of micro-propaganda streams. The fragmentation creates the illusion of diversity, but the underlying assumptions—about markets, U.S. exceptionalism, the legitimacy of state power—remain largely intact.

EN: American leaders often portray U.S. foreign policy as altruistic, driven by ideals of democracy and liberation. What mechanisms, political or psychological, allow this narrative to persist even when historical evidence frequently contradicts it?

Chomsky: States rarely describe their actions honestly; that’s not unique to the U.S. But the U.S. has an unusually sophisticated cultural apparatus that reinforces the national myth. Education plays a role, as do entertainment media that cast American power as heroic. There’s also a psychological element: citizens of a powerful state don’t want to believe they benefit from oppression. The “good intentions” story is emotionally reassuring. So contradictory evidence is minimized, compartmentalized, or reframed. It’s easier to believe that every intervention, every war, is an unfortunate mistake rather than a predictable outcome of geopolitical interests.

EN: Many Americans believe the country has a uniquely free and independent press. From your vantage point, what structural forces—corporate ownership, advertising, national security concerns—most limit genuine dissent in mainstream discourse?

Chomsky: Ownership and advertising remain central, but professional norms may be even more restrictive. Journalists internalize the boundaries of acceptable debate because stepping outside them carries professional risks. You don’t need overt censorship when self-censorship is built into the system. Add to that the symbiotic relationship with government and corporate sources—who provide information essential for news production—and you have a media environment that can appear free while operating within narrow ideological limits. The range of views is broad compared to authoritarian states, but extremely constrained compared to what a functioning democracy requires.

EN: For readers who want to resist propaganda, what habits of mind or practical steps do you consider most essential? Is skepticism enough, or must citizens actively seek alternative sources and frameworks to understand the world?

Chomsky: Skepticism is a starting point, but not sufficient on its own. Citizens need to cultivate what I’d call “structural awareness”—examining who benefits from a given narrative, whose voices are excluded, what assumptions are taken for granted. It’s also crucial to broaden one’s sources: independent journalism, foreign media, and historical texts provide context that mainstream outlets often omit. And perhaps most importantly, people should act collectively. Critical thinking is important, but it becomes transformative only when embedded in communities that exchange ideas and challenge dominant narratives.

* * * 

Related Links
Manufacturing Consent: Do We Really Live in a Democracy?
Eight Stories About Propaganda from the Century of Spin