What strikes me most when watching Manufacturing Consent is not how powerful the media is, but how easily we, as viewers, unwittingly accept a seemingly normal world framework. Chomsky said that the media will act like filters, amplifying certain voices and marginalizing certain issues, thus creating a collective “consensus.” But I later found that this matter is actually more interesting with Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding theory: the media encodes a biased meaning, and when we decode it, we don’t absorb it passively, but negotiate, question or reject it with our own life experience.
To take a very real-life example: when mainstream news reports “teenagers are addicted to mobile phones”, the coding of the picture is usually negative-bowing, anxiety, declining grades, reduced family communication. This is the “preferred reading location” for the media. But when I see this news, my reaction is often negotiated reading: yes, people do browse their mobile phones a lot, but I also see how mobile phones can help young people learn, find communities and reduce loneliness. Others may do oppositional reading, for example, pointing out that the news ignores structural problems such as social pressure and educational competition. This shows that the so-called “consensus” is not the complete truth, but the dominant perspective behind the framework of the media.
Another example is brand marketing. For example, you see an advertisement for skin care products in the subway, emphasizing that “natural ingredients are suitable for all skin types”. This is a very typical code: package the product into a lifestyle choice that everyone needs and suits everyone. But you may have different ways of decoding in reality: some people will completely accept , some people will think that advertising is too exaggerated , and others will directly resent it and point out that “natural” is just oppositional. This shows that “making consent” does not mean that everyone will obediently accept it, but that it provides a default framework for understanding that makes it easier for people to pay for it.
Put the two theories together, we can see a more complete picture: the media does have the power to set the agenda and create mainstream narratives, but the audience is not completely passive. This is especially true in today’s digital age-we can question news framing in the comments section, find alternative narratives in Little Red Books or TikTok, and deconstruct authoritative discourse through meme.
Therefore, rather than simply criticizing media manipulation, a more important constructive direction is to think: how can we develop a more mature decoding ability? How do you realize that you are being guided? How to be flexible rather than extreme when receiving information? In an era when “manufacturing consent” still exists, whether it can be read clearly or not may be a more worthy public ability to discuss.
