Manufacturing Consent and Media Bias in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election: How Information Control Shaped Voter Perception

The 2024 US presidential election has renewed intense debate around media influence, economic inequality, and undermining democratic ideals. In a landscape characterized by rising economic inequality and deepening social divisions, the election of a candidate with multiple legal issues reflects a concerning trend in which media bias, compounded by socio-economic factors, contributed to a distorted public perception of political candidates. This analysis applies Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" concept to explore how biased information and mainstream media's selective reporting shaped public opinion and, ultimately, the election outcome.

?A. Manufacturing Consent and Media Ownership

?Herman and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" theory posits that corporate-owned media serves the interests of the wealthy elite, often by skewing information to reflect their agenda. In the 2024 election, corporate media—a sector primarily owned and influenced by wealthy individuals—became essential for amplifying selective narratives favorable to affluent candidates. The wealthy ownership of major news networks, seeking to protect their interests, contributed to biased reporting that minimized or ignored critical analyses of candidates' backgrounds. By emphasizing specific themes (such as economic populism) while downplaying others (such as legal and ethical violations), media outlets helped construct a favorable public image for a candidate who otherwise might not align with democratic or moral standards.

Research shows that concentrated media ownership can limit the diversity of perspectives available to the public. A 2023 report by the "Center for Economic Policy Research" indicates that wealthy media owners prioritize content that aligns with their political and economic views, often suppressing critical viewpoints that could challenge the status quo. This selective reporting, motivated by profit and corporate interests, contributed to an information landscape that misled the public about the true intentions and qualifications of the candidate (Freedom House, 2023).

?B. Economic Inequality and Media Exploitation of Public Frustration

?Economic inequality remains a powerful force in shaping voter behavior, significantly when amplified by media narratives that link economic discontent with political leadership. As the gap between rich and poor has widened in recent years, economic frustration has driven some voters to support candidates promising radical change—even if those candidates possess significant legal and ethical issues. Trump's 2024 campaign capitalized on this frustration by portraying himself as an "outsider" challenging a broken system, a narrative that resonated with economically struggling voters despite his wealth and privileged status.

?Media bias further deepened this narrative by focusing on Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric while avoiding critical examination of his policies' actual impact on lower- and middle-class Americans. Studies, such as Mutz's (2018) analysis of status threat in the electorate, illustrate how political figures can manipulate identity politics to deflect attention from economic realities. Media channels acted as "filters" in the "Manufacturing Consent" model, selectively amplifying identity-based appeals while ignoring evidence contradicting the candidate's promises.

?C. The Wealthy Influence on Political Outcomes

The political influence of the wealthy is not only a matter of campaign finance but also of shaping public opinion through the media. Wealthy individuals often support candidates who align with their interests, directly impacting election outcomes through lobbying, donations, and media ownership. "Patriotic Millionaires" (2023) highlighted how ultra-wealthy donors exert disproportionate influence over the US political landscape, perpetuating policies safeguarding their wealth while exacerbating inequality.

?This concentrated influence creates a feedback loop: wealthy individuals fund media outlets that, in turn, support their preferred candidates. During the 2024 election, this loop contributed to an erosion of journalistic integrity, with some outlets providing unbalanced coverage that marginalized dissenting voices. By framing Trump as a populist figure without adequately critiquing his policies or history, mainstream media presented a one-sided story, misleading the public into believing he would represent their economic interests despite evidence to the contrary (Reich, 2022).

?D. Eroding Democratic Ideals and the Rise of Autocratic Tendencies

?The US democratic system relies on an informed public to make responsible voting decisions. When the media fails to provide balanced and complete information, it weakens the foundation of democracy. The 2024 election underscores this risk, as selective reporting obscured the implications of Trump's rhetoric and policies for democratic principles. Freedom House (2023) warns that societies with rising inequality and a weakened press are at greater risk of sliding toward autocracy or dictatorship. By emphasizing narratives of economic populism and national identity without rigorous scrutiny, the media played a significant role in normalizing divisive and potentially authoritarian leadership.

?E. Addressing Media Bias and Promoting Democratic Integrity

?Addressing media bias is essential for restoring public trust in democratic systems. Solutions may include policy changes that limit corporate ownership of media, thereby diversifying the sources of information. A global minimum tax on billionaires, as discussed in Oxfam International's 2023 report, could also mitigate the influence of wealth in politics by redistributing resources to fund independent journalism and other democratic institutions.

These changes are necessary for the influence of wealth on media to continue to shape political outcomes in ways that may not reflect the will of the broader public. The 2024 election serves as a cautionary example of the dangers that arise when media channels become tools of propaganda rather than instruments of democracy. Addressing the root causes of economic inequality and media bias is crucial for ensuring that future elections genuinely reflect an informed and democratic public choice.

References

Oxfam International. (2023). Survival of the richest: How we must tax the ultra-wealthy now to fight inequality. Retrieved from [Oxfam website](https://www.oxfam.org )

?World Bank. (2023). Poverty and shared prosperity 2023: Realizing inclusive growth. Retrieved from [World Bank website](https://www.worldbank.org )

?Freedom House. (2023). Freedom in the world 2023: Marking 50 years in the fight for freedom. Retrieved from [Freedom House website](https://freedomhouse.org )

?Patriotic Millionaires. (2023). Survey of millionaire perspectives on wealth taxation. Retrieved from [Patriotic Millionaires website](https://www.patrioticmillionaires.org )

?Mutz, D. C. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote—proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), E4330-E4339.

?Reich, R. (2022). The system: Who rigged it, how we fix it. Vintage.

?Herman, E., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.

?