Almost twenty years ago, Peter Wintonick and I observed that Noam Chomsky’s voice in the popular media was almost non-existent. When it was heard, it was not taken seriously. So we decided to make a film that would introduce a general audience to Chomsky and his political analysis, particularly of the mass media.

To distill the thinking of one of the world’s foremost intellectuals is a challenge. Even more so to popularize a radical critique. Fortunately, Chomsky has a special talent. He makes complexities understandable and radical propositions sound like common sense. He exposes the absurdities and injustice of the status quo with a wry sense of humour that engages, without trivializing. Likewise, Wintonick and I took our subject seriously, but ourselves less so. Our approach was reminiscent of Emma Goldman’s famous quote, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.”

We began shooting Manufacturing Consent in 1987 with meagre resources but absolute determination. Amassing financial support from numerous individuals, foundations, and Canadian government agencies was tough. We had no idea the project would consume seven years of our lives — five to complete the film and two more to promote it.

When we first approached Chomsky, he said the film was a “useful” idea and let us proceed. Twenty-three cities, eight countries, and 60 hours of film later, he joked that wherever he travelled, if we were not already there to film him, he assumed he had arrived in the wrong place.

Fifteen years since Manufacturing Consent’s official release, much has changed. Sadly, much has stayed the same. We could replace George Bush Sr. with his son and the film wouldn't miss a beat.

In some areas there has been progress. East Timor has formally gained independence from Indonesia (although violence and injustice persist). Activists credited our film with helping to inform and motivate the global movement that achieved East Timor’s independence. In Australia, an East Timorese delegation formally thanked us for getting their story right.

Some things are worse. When we researched media ownership statistics in the early 90s, twenty-three corporations dominated the mass media. Today that number is five. Chomsky once predicted it could get down to three, but said it wouldn’t really matter: if profit remains the media’s driving force, we should always expect “the propaganda model” to apply. Chomsky’s co-author, Edward S. Herman, was primarily responsible for this concept. The 1997 book “The Global Media”, which Herman wrote with Robert McChesney, pointed out, “one could argue that the new technologies are exacerbating the problem. They permit media firms to shrink staff even as they achieve greater outputs, and they make possible global distribution systems that reduce the number of media entities.”

When we were filming, the Internet was in its infancy, so we did not address it. Aspects of the Internet present a democratic shift. It helps activists inform, educate, and organize in ways previously not possible. Persistence and modest resources can sustain institutions such as www.DemocracyNow.org, which offers, daily, accurate, non-commercial video, audio, and transcripts about world events. A true alternative to the mainstream version of events. These kinds of organizations can now reach an unprecedented international audience. Independent filmmaker Robert Greenwald was able to announce via email lists a fund-raising campaign for “Iraq For Sale”, a documentary about the rebuilding of Iraq, and within a week he had raised the required $300,000 through online donations.

Yet, as Herman and McChesney wrote: “Although the new technologies have great potential for democratic communication, there is little reason to expect the Internet to serve democratic ends if it is left to the market.” Corporate ambitions to control the Internet are extreme, but they are being challenged. Take the issue of “net neutrality”. This is an urgent campaign, which I encourage you to explore through the links below and see how it applies in Japan.

[note to Mayu Ogawa: the following paragraphs are optional. They seem self-serving, but you asked about my current concerns, so I have included this information about them.]

Something Chomsky says in Manufacturing Consent resonated deeply with me. He was asked how the media could be made more democratic. He answered, “That’s like asking, ‘How you can make corporations democratic?’ ” He said, “The only way to do that is to get rid of them.” It’s no coincidence that almost 10 years after initiating Manufacturing Consent, I started another feature documentary, featuring Chomsky and others, exploring the nature, evolution, impacts, and possible futures of the modern business corporation. That film is called The Corporation.

While North America has assimilated Japanese production methods and welcomed Japanese products, what Japan has received in return are the harshest aspects of a foreign business model. Its self-centered values are embodied in the operational principles of the modern business corporation. The film The Corporation offers many notes of caution on this subjet.

The success of The Corporation has enabled me, as Executive Producer, to support several new films, which will be completed within the next two years: Velcrow Ripper’s Fiercelight (spiritual activists); Kevin McMahon’s Waterlife (people and water); Denis Delestrac's The Cassandra Syndrome (weaponization of space); Sarah Butterfield's and Ann Marie Slater's Marvellous Clouds (education for the 21st century); and Katherine Dodds’ FEMBOT 2.0 (feminism through the warped lens of science fiction).

I look forward to sharing all these films with a Japanese audience and I thank you for your generous attention.

Mark Achbar
January, 2007

※マーク・アクバー監督のメッセージの和文は、以上の英文を編集して翻訳したものです。
    ご了承ください。