Customer Reviews

Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

The media is a weapon. And in order to exist safely in this world, people must be armed with the knowledge that Michael Parenti exposes in INVENTING REALITY. In a world where people are manipulated and miseducated by the news media, every high school student should have this book in his/her current events class. It is a powerful read with an excellent empirical background. Workers and intellectuals alike need such a book if they are ever to improve this world.

I've followed Michael around on his lecture circuit, and recently had a chance to read this book. Michael does an excellent job of exposing the "free" media for what it really is. He goes into detail on the censorship of newspapers, journalists, and the ridiculous right wing slant that is prevalent in the news today.

Some of his viewpoints are a little sketchy, but most of them hit home and make a terrible amount of sense. I can safely say that Michael has made a believer out of me. I look forward to reading his other books.

The author explains clearly the ideological monopoly of our news media and how they control our thinking in so many ways. Americans need to be aware of the tremendous scope of media biasness(and its NOT towards the left, as many believe), shallowness of reporting, and how the media so often undermines substantial thought, especially in the area of foreign affairs and policy. Because of "Inventing Reality", I very much look forward to ordering the author's book on entertainment media, "Make-Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainement", if only the publisher would reprint it!

Once again, the author shows that he is one of the country's best radical political analysts. He points out, for example, that the idea of a "liberal-left" bias in the media is nonsense; media mouths like Rush, Buckley and Cokie Roberts tirelessly complain about this supposed bias, yet do not realize that their own gluttonous portion of the airwaves and print media refutes the very idea! Other notable facts discussed in this book are: the undemocratic control and censorship of the media by the corporations--driven only by profit--that own them; the lack of attention devoted to socialist candidates for the presidency, which is based on the convenient circular pretext that they do not stand a chance of winning; and the reporting of political campaigns as if they were an "issueless publicity contest." All in all, a persuasuve book with an appropriately moderate tone, enlivened here and there with some sly humor.

Michael Parenti does what so many of the popular liberal writers can not seem to do. He speaks directly to the common man. His prose and cadance are in tune with the way an average Joe like me thinks and uses the english language. In regards to this book, he has brought to life the reasons why a person from the blue collar ranks should begin to look again at the crap spewing out of the TV set. It is one thing to hear that Faux News is biased but another to read, in detail, how the entire mainestram media including the entertaining aspect is skewed towards the interest of the corporate conglomerates and not the interest of an average auto mechanic like myself.
This was the second 4th of Mr. Paranti's works that I read. By now I have read them all. I encourage you all to do the same.

This another excellent book by Parenti. Parenti writes clearly, and concisely on this important matter of the media. He demonstrates through many studies the ways in which the media are manipluated to serve corporate interests and keep the public in the dark. I also highly recommend Democracy for the Few.

Inventing Reality

By Michael Parenti

Book Review

By Richard E. Noble

This book was published in 1993. There have been a few changes in recent years but the basic premise of this book is that the press favors the right or conservative point of view as opposed to the left and the liberal point of view.

Mr. Parenti is very good at attacking the obvious - rich people own newspapers and news media outlets and consequently they are most often supportive of the establishment. Having worked as a reporter and a columnist myself, I support his point of view. [The Eastpointer: Life In A Sleepy, Little Fishing Village...]

I personally have never considered newspapers as reliable sources of information. I read books. But I've learned over the years that nothing is simple and simple answers are usually wrong answers. But making things more complicated for the reader will not endear a reporter to his audience or his bosses. To make the complicated simple is the goal.
But for Mr. Parenti it is much worse than that. He sees the media as turning truth into lies by manipulative writing techniques. And he gives page after page of details and examples.

He is a wealth of information on the shenanigans that have been going on in South America. This area is a hotbed of misinformation and political slanting. Mr. Parenti presents to the reader numerous examples and an explanation of events not found in any media outlets that I have ever read. He's not bad on Asia either. He also has an insightful historical perspective.

Right thinking folk will find that even their most hated left wing reporters like Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather are too far right for Mr. Parenti - and he sites examples.

My problem as a reader has always been trying to find what is the truth amidst a never ending volume of information - most of the information slanted by individual preferences to the right and to the left. History books are no less of a challenge than politics, religion and foreign affairs.

On foreign affairs you will read things in Mr. Parenti's books that you will usually be hard pressed to find elsewhere and certainly not in the popular media outlets.

Some people write off Mr. Parenti as just a lesser version of Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn but this is not the case as I see it. Of the three, I like Parenti the best. Chomsky can be very confusing and too focused on Israel. Zinn seems focused on history and social activism. Parenti covers a wider range of interests. He paints a broader picture with more understandable insights and basic arguments. Parenti is as clear as a bell. You will not walk away from a Parenti book or lecture wondering what he said. He is bluntly to the point.

Another jab at what should be obvious is that newspapers are for-profit organizations that depend on ads from the conservative business community for their support. This is a fact and has always been a problem when it come to objective reporting.

Mr. Parenti's ideas come from the radical, extreme far left. He points out that the communist view is never heard and when it is mentioned the reporting is negative. This certainly can not be denied but anyone in the U.S. from the right or the extreme right would think that is exactly the way it should be reported. The right is so extreme here in America that when they hear something centrist they think it is leftist propaganda, Mr. Parenti points out. He makes the same case for socialist ideas and unions and the labor points of view.

Up until this president (Obama) and the new team at MSNBC (Schultz/Maddow/Olbermann), to hear a positive phrase supporting a union in a dispute was anathema in any media outlet. The last president to say something positive about a union was FDR. And before FDR it was even worse for unions than it has been after FDR. We are still arguing over the right to collective bargaining for god's sake. (See, "America on Strike [...]
America on Strike: A survey of labor strikes in America

Having worked for a newspaper as a reporter and a columnist, I quickly discovered many of the slanting and reporting "tricks" that Mr. Parenti points out in this volume. They are all true. The story selection, the positive or negative phrasing, the diminishing of a point of view, the choice of words, the anonymous sources, the omissions, the graying and embellishing, the placement, the misquoting, the false facts etc., these are all used and regularly.
But politics aside the best reason I can give for reading this particular book is that it is a primer for learning to read critically. Mr. Parenti was a teacher/professor and it is always clear when reading his books that he is teaching. Whatever your political point of view, benefiting from the lessons in this book is bipartisan. Of course the book will be much easier to read and swallow if you are a lefty.

Richard Edward Noble - The Hobo Philosopher - Author of:

"The Eastpointer" Selections from award winning column.

This 1986 book examines the corporate media in the US from a viewpoint based on class or ownership of the media. Don't be put off by the biased title. "A Word to the Reader" explains what he is going to study and what he will uncover. Others have done this years earlier. The best audience for this book are those who are considering a career in journalism. It warns about the politics of journalism. The rise of television and its advertisers saw the end of mass magazines like the 'Saturday Evening Post' and 'LIFE'. Local newspapers were bought up by big corporate chains and are now suffering financially. The Internet and cellular phones have an effect if only as a consumer of personal time.

Parenti has an outlook that is based on rhetoric. He says "capitalism's purpose is not to create jobs" (p.1), then capitalism "is to make a profit off other people's labor" (p.2). This seems to be a contradiction. Chapter 1 discusses why the owners of the media control it for their own purposes. Yet they must appear to be "liberal" so people will buy their publications and they can sell advertising. There is no mention of the monthly magazines and their function in selling advertising (misleading their subscribers?). No mention of the relative wealth of the people who buy products. The current recession has put a strain on publications during the last few years. The original purpose of newspapers was advertising, to bring buyers to sellers. Adding news was a feature to sell more newspapers. Radio and then TV were followed by fewer newspapers. There were fewer small businesses to advertise in local newspapers as well.

TV has "inadequate and superficial coverage" (p.54) because "that's the way it is". Its purpose is to hook viewers for the nightly shows. Many people just scan headlines in their newspapers. TV can devote many hours and days if needed (11/22/63, 9/11/01, Watergate hearings, etc.). TV is for entertainment. Newspapers (and some magazines) are for news; it's the bandwidth. Parenti rightfully tells about the 'NY Times' censorship (p.37). I think they have a long tradition of that, like other "first rate" newspapers. So what? The only danger is an uncritical belief in any newspaper or book (such as this one). This book will test your beliefs and assumptions.

Starting with Chapter 4 the book becomes more informative and educational in its coverage of historical events. Chapter 8 points out the deception of Reagan's "arms reduction" program! Chapter 9 tells about various hoaxes in the corporate media. Were you fooled by any of them? Chapter 10 tells how countries are oppressed and exploited (p.173). Chapter 11 tells about the distortions and omissions in the media coverage of impoverished lands (p.187). There is powerful censorship in the US press (p.188). One example is Turkey (p.191). Another was Nicaragua (p.193). Chapter 12 has other examples of misrepresentation (p.217). Parenti discusses the manipulation of the news (pp.219-220). Ever notice that, or the tone of voices? Chapter 13 explains how censorship works (p.231). What was censored on the bottom of page 233?

Written in 1986, Parenti argued that the Soviet Union was a happy go lucky society which was overtaking the U.S. in living standards. Parenti writes derisively of "atrocity stories" about the USSR published in U.S. media and effectively ignores the reality of those atrocities

Parenti is an angry guy. Convinced that the American mass media is deliberately misleading the public in order to futher corporate and political interests, he has offered forth this treatise as a warning.

Some of Parenti's criticisms are valid, and much of the distortion he perceives is real, but we have to ask ourselves, how many times have we heard this before? I first encountered Parenti in college. His books were being "taught" in some of the mass communications courses. He is unapologetic in his Marxist sympathies, and seems to think that the press can, and should, exist as an instrument of a socialist state. That it is the duty of the media to inform the public.

Save for NPR and public television, the corporations which control American mass media have only one allegiance, and that is to the share holders. Market forces dictate how the press responds to world events. If people want conservative commentary like "The O'Reilly Factor", they will vote with their dollars. Likewise, if they want to read Parenti, they know where to find him. The idea that the press should be "objective" is naive.

Ultimately, Parenti's book degenerates into Chomsky-like conspiracy-theory hysterics. Fortunately for the public, his brand of Marxism is quickly becoming yesterday's news. And like Chomsky, Parenti finds it easier to write these unscholarly rants than to produce soemthing of substance. But the audience gets smaller everyday.