Corporate media plays a pivotal role in shaping public perception, often influencing the way individuals understand and interpret complex issues such as economics, politics, and history. In modern society, the media functions not only as a source of information but as a powerful tool that can groom the public into accepting certain narratives, often aligned with specific ideological, economic, or political interests. This phenomenon is a form of “manufactured consent,” a concept explored by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky in their influential work, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Through this grooming process, the public can be subtly conditioned to believe a version of reality that benefits the elites who control and shape media content.
The grooming of public opinion by corporate media is a multifaceted process that draws on various psychological, sociological, and economic theories. By selectively presenting information, framing issues in particular ways, and repeating certain narratives, corporate media can significantly shape the public’s understanding of critical topics.
The Economic Interests Behind Media Narratives
The corporate media landscape is dominated by a few large conglomerates that control most of the information that reaches the public. In the UK, for instance, companies like News Corp, owned by Rupert Murdoch, and global media giants such as Comcast, Disney, and Time Warner, wield immense influence over what news is reported and how it is framed. These corporations, driven by profit, have a vested interest in promoting economic narratives that align with their business models and ideological leanings. This is evident in the ways media coverage often favours neoliberal policies, which advocate for deregulation, privatisation, and a ‘free-market’ approach to economic governance.
In this context, the corporate media groom the public into believing that neoliberal economic policies are the only viable solution for national prosperity. For example, austerity measures, which became widespread following the 2008 global financial crisis, were often presented in the media as a necessary evil to restore economic stability. The coverage frequently framed these policies as tough but essential, downplaying or ignoring alternative economic theories, such as Keynesianism or Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which advocate for government intervention and stimulus spending in times of economic downturn.
This selective framing can be explained by the theory of agenda-setting, proposed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw. The agenda-setting theory posits that while the media may not be able to dictate what people think, it can influence what they think about. By consistently focusing on the supposed benefits of austerity and downplaying the hardships it imposes on the working class, the corporate media create a cognitive framework within which the public evaluates economic policies. The repetitive narrative that “we must live within our means” and that “government spending leads to debt crises” becomes a taken-for-granted truth, even when alternative perspectives suggest otherwise.
One clear example of this is the portrayal of Greece during its debt crisis in the early 2010s. The media in the UK and elsewhere often characterised the Greek public as living beyond their means, fostering a narrative of irresponsibility and excess. This narrative served to justify the harsh austerity measures imposed by the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, measures that caused significant social hardship but were consistently presented as inevitable by the mainstream press. Alternative voices, such as those of economists like Joseph Stiglitz, who argued that austerity would worsen the economic crisis, were marginalised in favour of pro-austerity narratives. The public, groomed to believe that there was no alternative, largely accepted this economic “reality.”
Political Bias and the Manufacturing of Consent
In addition to shaping economic narratives, corporate media also play a crucial role in grooming the public to accept certain political realities. The relationship between media and politics is symbiotic; politicians rely on media to communicate with the electorate, while media outlets rely on access to political figures and events to maintain their relevance. This dynamic creates fertile ground for bias, with media outlets often aligning themselves with specific political ideologies or parties. This alignment can distort the way political events and issues are presented, grooming the public into supporting particular political agendas.
The media’s grooming of the public in political matters can be understood through Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model.” This model suggests that the media serves as a tool for powerful elites to propagate their interests. According to this theory, media content is filtered through five factors: the ownership of media, advertising, sourcing, flak (negative responses to media that challenge powerful interests), and anti-communism (or the general fear of radical ideologies). These filters ensure that the media remains aligned with the interests of the ruling elite, limiting dissenting viewpoints and promoting narratives that uphold the status quo.
An example of this is the media’s portrayal of the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Corbyn, who led the party from 2015 to 2020, advocated for a range of progressive policies, including renationalising public services, increasing taxes on the wealthy, and opposing military interventions abroad. His platform was a direct challenge to the neoliberal consensus that had dominated British politics for decades. However, during his leadership, Corbyn was subject to intense scrutiny and negative coverage from the corporate media, much of which painted him as unelectable, extreme, or even dangerous.
Research by academics at the London School of Economics found that 75% of press coverage of Corbyn misrepresented him or his views. The media consistently framed him as a threat to national security, unfit to govern, and out of touch with the electorate. This portrayal played into the hands of the political establishment and corporate elites, who had much to lose from the implementation of Corbyn’s policies. The media’s grooming of the public to accept this version of reality was effective; by the time of the 2019 general election, many voters had internalised these narratives, and Corbyn’s Labour Party suffered a crushing defeat.
This grooming process can be further understood through the theory of hegemony, as articulated by Italian Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci argued that the ruling class maintains power not only through coercion but also through cultural hegemony – the dominance of a particular worldview that becomes accepted as common sense. In the case of Corbyn, the media acted as an instrument of this cultural hegemony, framing his policies as unrealistic and his leadership as dangerous. The public, groomed by these narratives, came to accept them as self-evident truths, even though they were deeply contested by Corbyn’s supporters and independent analysts.
Rewriting History: The Role of Media in Historical Narratives
Corporate media also play a crucial role in shaping the public’s understanding of history, often by selectively presenting or omitting certain historical events to create a version of the past that serves present-day interests. The grooming of public opinion in this regard involves the construction of historical narratives that reinforce the ideological and political positions of the elites who control the media. This process is particularly evident in the coverage of imperial history, war, and the legacy of colonialism.
One clear example is the way in which the British Empire is often portrayed in mainstream media. Despite the brutal realities of colonial exploitation, including the subjugation of entire populations, forced labour, and resource extraction, the British Empire is frequently presented in the media as a force for good. This portrayal aligns with a broader political agenda that seeks to invoke a sense of national pride and exceptionalism, particularly in times of political uncertainty or crisis. For instance, during the Brexit debate, many media outlets evoked nostalgic imagery of Britain’s imperial past, suggesting that leaving the European Union would allow the country to regain its former global influence and economic power.
This romanticised version of history omits the violence and oppression that characterised much of Britain’s colonial rule. For example, the British media rarely discusses atrocities such as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in India or the systematic exploitation of resources in Africa and the Caribbean. Instead, the focus tends to be on the supposed benefits of colonialism, such as the spread of democracy, education, and infrastructure. This selective presentation of history grooms the public into accepting a narrative that legitimises British imperialism and obscures the suffering of colonised peoples.
The grooming of public opinion in this way can be explained through the concept of “historical revisionism,” a term that refers to the process of reinterpreting the past to serve contemporary political or ideological ends. In the case of British imperial history, media outlets engage in a form of revisionism that downplays the negative aspects of colonialism and amplifies its supposed benefits. This revisionism serves the interests of political elites who seek to cultivate a sense of national pride and unity, particularly in the face of challenges such as immigration or globalisation. By grooming the public to accept this version of history, the media helps to sustain a narrative that reinforces the legitimacy of contemporary political and economic structures.
Media, Reality, and the Power of Perception
The grooming of public opinion by corporate media is a powerful and pervasive process that shapes the way individuals perceive and understand the world. Through selective framing, agenda-setting, and the manipulation of historical narratives, corporate media can condition the public to accept certain economic, political, and historical realities, often to the benefit of powerful elites. Theories such as agenda-setting, the propaganda model, and hegemony help to explain how this process works and why it is so effective.
In the realm of economics, corporate media groom the public into accepting neoliberal policies as the only viable solution, even when alternative approaches exist. In politics, media outlets align themselves with particular parties or ideologies, shaping public opinion to support or oppose specific leaders and policies. Finally, in history, the media engages in revisionism, presenting a version of the past that serves present-day interests and obscures uncomfortable truths.
The implications of this grooming process are profound. By controlling the flow of information and shaping the narratives that dominate public discourse, corporate media can significantly influence the decisions people make, from how they vote to what policies they support. Understanding the mechanisms behind this grooming is crucial for developing a more critical and informed approach to media consumption, one that recognises the power of media to shape not just what we think, but how we think about the world around us. As citizens, it is essential to question the narratives presented to us and seek out alternative perspectives that challenge the dominant version of reality.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
