@hightor,
Good to see you too, as always.
It's pretty difficult to argue against Taibbi's indictment. I've been concerned that even if we somehow moved into a future where the Dems are as sane as we might hope and hold overwhelming power and operate productively in good faith, then what is this huge news media machinery going to do to maintain financial viability?
It's a problem similar to (and related to) attempting to institute substantial electoral financing reforms - there are billions and billions of dollars being made by the wide range of industries and entities involved in US elections.
And that's not even to mention the peripheral aspect of, for example, entities like the NRA or Franklin Graham or Pat Roberts pulling in billions in donations under the pretense that Satan is at the door.
A couple of quibbles: First, though it is necessary to understand the broad dynamics of Taibbi's or Chomski's indictments, maintaining that framing of the subject tends to gloss over the real differences in media voices. Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity are not the same (nor are those who employ them). Taibbi and Limbaugh are not the same.
Second, though it is dangerous to challenge Chomsky, consensus will always have to be manufactured as a defining and fundamental reality of group life. Without agreements, the terms "group" or "community" or any such necessarily lose all meaning. (It's been 30 - 40 years since I read Manufacturing Consent and Chomsky might have spoken to this.)
