The book is a collection of five Massey lectures Chomsky delivered over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 1988. His purpose is to expose the complicity of the mass media in helping the ruling elite manipulate mass public opinion in the US. In his opinion there is much too little inquiry into the media and its service to the elite, and citizens should undertake a course of intellectual self-defense to protect themselves. His argument is very persuasive.
 The next five sections of this review address the chapters (lectures) and their substantial, supporting appendices as they are presented in the book.

Democracy and the Media
 This chapter presents the Chomsky and Herman propaganda model for US mass media also covered in Manufacturing Consent. The main points of the model are these:
1) The media are owned and controlled by the elite property owning class of the nation. They manage the media to serve their interests and to manufacture consent in the mass public.
2) The media business has grown to such a degree that independent-minded alternatives to the mainstream press are impossible. Alternative media that once existed were squeezed out, and current financial requirements prohibit start ups.
3) Advertising is straight jacket on the media. Advertisers will not support non mainstream programming.
4) Control of the media is insidious:
a) The elite frames issues so debate begins and ends on their terms. Grand issues - for example, does the US have the right to spread its form of democracy around the world? - are never considered.
b) A marginal amount of dissent is tolerated. It gives the media some feeling of independence and the public some doubt that it is manipulated.
c) Reporters are not necessarily dishonest, but they cannot seem to think outside the lines. They often go silent when confronted with ‘aberrant’ evidence.
d) If US policy does go wrong and public support turns, the fundamental terms of debate are never questioned. The application of policy was at fault. Vietnam is the best example of this. US intentions were good; we were supporting democracy. No one in the media questioned whether Diem represented democracy, or whether the US had the right to impose its liberal capitalism on Vietnam.
5) The media often use the government and its agencies as their sources. Even when the media gets information from other sources, the government has usually set the terms of discussion by flooding them with information.
6) The media’s treatment of client states and foes is rife with hypocrisy. For example, if the Israelis raid inside Lebanon, it is justifiable pursuit; if the Sandanistas chase Contras into El Salvador, it is incursion and demands retaliation.
7) The propaganda model is verifiable by analyzing the media’s treatment of events like the one mentioned in point 5. (Most of the book, including the appendices, are analysis of media stories to verify the model.)
 Chomsky points out that the elite’s right to rule is as old as the Founding Fathers. He salutes an attempt by Catholic Bishops in Brazil to democratize the media there, but the terms of political discourse in the US cast this type of democratization as almost subversive. The US public seems happy to cede their freedom to know for happy submission.
Containing the Enemy
 This chapter deals with the historical development of manufactured consent in US history. As he mentioned in the first chapter, it has clear origins as far back as the Founding Fathers. Chomsky takes up the thread at the point of the Red Scare after W.W.I, when the policy of containment was in its early stages of development.
 The Soviet Union represented a threat that needed containment, and the news media was an effective tool in service of that policy. Wilson created the Creel Commission (the Committee on Public Information) during the war to energize a pacifist public. Loyal media and intellectuals took up the task eagerly. The National Board for Historical Service supported the effort by “explaining the issues that we might better win it”. Edward Bernays, the father of public relations, served on the commission. He and other influential opinion setters learned the lesson well and have used it to the present day. Chomsky details their successes through the Korean War, Vietnam War, and recent Central America imbroglio.
 On one level Chomsky’s view of the history of containment parallels that of Thomas McCormick in America’s Half-Century: United States Foreign Policy In The Cold War. McCormick focuses on economic elements and terms his model, hegemony. It has internal and international components. The internal component (influencing public opinion in support of policy) is necessary to legitimize the US’s role as a hegemonic power. The external component (multilateral world trade managed by the US) is universally beneficial within the world capitalist system.
 Chomsky’s view of the arrangement is, however, darker and more ideological. He no doubt accepts McCormick’s hegemony model as an economic framework for post war policy. He may even admit liberal capitalist motives occasionally come into play although most often they are a sham. He parts company with McCormick in his clearly sinister view of the internal component of the system, which coerces public opinion in support of hegemonic policy set by the ruling elite. The media play an insidious and hypocritical role in developing a submissive public mind. Chomsky says the problems in this arrangement lie in the capitalist system and require structural changes to democratize the flow of ideas and information.

The Bounds of the Expressible
 The central point of this chapter is an explanation of how the media (under the control of the elite) frames the terms of debate so more fundamental questions of policy are never questioned. For example, the media never question whether the crusade for liberal capitalism is right; i.e., does the US have the right to impose its version of democracy on other nations, especially when the result is meant to benefit the US?
 Chomsky points out that this control of debate is identical to Soviet control, which the US constantly deplored. The US version is more effective because it occasionally allows media to dissent regarding the practice of policy rather than the fundamentals issues. This sham give the media a false sense of independence and the public a false feeling that it is hearing different views.
 Another fundamental, unquestioned premise Chomsky considers at length is whether the US truly supports democracy across the globe. He cites US’s policies and press treatment of Israel and Nicaragua in the 1980’s to show that the answer depends on whether the ‘democracy’ in question is a client state or a foe. Chomsky presents detailed press coverage and analysis of border incursions and atrocities to support his point. He closes the chapter by pointing out that Nicaragua was a particularly troublesome case for US foreign policy. The Regean Administration could not let it succeed because other nations in Latin America would see its radical policies as a viable alternative to US democracy.
 Some things are simply outside the realm of the expressible or tolerable.

Adjuncts of Government
 The argument in this chapter is that the media are extensions of the government and serve its ends. The chapter title comes from William Fullbright, who said: “It is very interesting that so many of our prominent newspapers have become almost agents or adjuncts of the government; that they do not contest or even raise questions about government policy”2.
 Chomsky cites evidence of this complicity in press treatment of international organizations like the UN and in press reporting on the US’s record in complying with treaties. The evidence on UN votes involving Israel and Palestine and on World Court rulings are compelling, as are reports on US subterfuge of the Arias Peace Accords.

The Utility of Interpretations
 The final chapter exposes the casuistry and hypocrisy in US foreign policy and media coverage of it. Chomsky’s focus is on reportage regarding client states and enemy states. Diem represented democracy in South Vietnam, but the Sandanistas were ruthless totalitarians. Marcos was once a hero; then a corrupt sybarite.
 The news media is quick to support the US line. It often uses the government as its ‘best’ source of information. The media often buries or forgets aberrant information. Chomsky’s argument is again convincing. It is easy to find examples occuring after this book was written. Somalia dropped off the television screen very quickly. The newspapers now contain little reporting that UN weapons inspectors were feeding US military planners. Imagine the coverage if Iraq were doing something similar.
 The close of this chapter has a short, disappointing proposal about correcting this general problem of media manipulation. Chomsky says the US needs to democratize its communications, but this will be difficult given the current social scene. Therefore, it needs democratization social structures first. The task, he says, will be difficult give the entrenched, elitist version of democracy we now have.

Conclusion
 Necessary Illusions is very persuasive. Most members of the public should not be surprised that media manipulation occurs. The same old faces appear on “The News Hour”. Client states (e.g., Samosa or Saddam Hussein) are hardly what they appear to be. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp continues to spread and brazenly follows its own interests (e.g., attempts to quash Chris Patton’s book on Hong Kong to avoid offending the Chinese government and loosing Murdoch’s large television market). The real surprise comes in seeing the scope of media manipulation in stark black and white.
 The next question is why has it happened and what can be done about it. The answers are the cause for Chomsky’s unsatisfying proposal. Most people are quite happy to have their opinions formed for them, especially if they are content economically and socially. Others ignore the issue out of cynicism. This suggests little success for Chomsky’s proposal to change the social order.
 Chomsky wrote Necessary Illusions in 1989. I wonder what he thinks about talk shows, the Internet, and The Drudge Report, or the fact that I found a ‘pirate’ Web Page exposing the evils of Rupert Murdoch?
 
 
 

Notes
1 Justice Holmes, dissenting in Abrams v. United States, 1919.
2 Hearings of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, August 31, 1966.