How Chomsky and Herman tried to show the intrigues of the US media and their effect nowadays

As Chomsky and Herman illustrated one can simply not ignore that the US media were biased in their reports concerning the elections in Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador. The similarities in the media’s agenda and the government’s agenda were just too similar. One simply can’t deny that the media’s agenda derivated from the government’s view. The democratic election in Nicaragua was supposed to be discredited whereas the totalitarian elections in El Salvador and Guatemala were supposed to be associated with a free democracy.

The exact opposite was the truth. Tinfoil hat on.

In Nicaragua Chomsky and Herman found that Nicaragua was very progressive for a Third World country. The population was included by the government to form their political opinion.

In contrast El Salvador and Guatemala were US client states. The US tried to prevent the country from finding any peace to legitimise further war associated investment. They made the world believe that they were trying to democratise these Third World countries, only to pursue the exact opposite.

America’s inhabitants were made to believe “America saved the day, once again”.

In this case the media was very superficial and never questioned the government’s actions. In their reports they were very favourable and non-critical of the actions in Central America.

In the long run this was one of the first reasons why people distrust the media’s coverage. By trying to provide a more widespread coverage the media immediately would regain the viewer’s trust.

Many reasons for distrust in the media have occurred over the years leading up to Donald Trump’s presidential election. People have become sick of the constant lies and manipulation throughout the media. I do not recall one media outlet reporting positively about Donald Trump neither in the US nor in Germany/ Europe. In hindsight people especially in the US should have been more critical. After the election several newsreaders have raised their concern on the election coverage. Just too late.

All of the mainstream media was in favour of Clinton. Perhaps because she had more influence over the media’s coverage just to raise a different media conspiracy. It will be exciting to see if Chomsky and Herman will study the media coverage for this year’s election.

One can’t legitimise a vote by arguing that one presidential candidate has less skeletons in the closet than the other candidate. This was the main argument all of the pro Clinton’s media coverage (for example John Oliver talk show).

Just to make things clear to live in a democracy means listening to various opinions from different perspectives and not constantly only covering one point of view. Only covering one point of view socially forbids people thinking/talking differently from the broadcasted opinion.

Tinfoil hat off.