Our search has the following Google-type functionality:
If you use '+' at the start of a word, that word will be present in the search results.
eg. Harry +Potter
Search results will contain 'Potter'.
If you use '-' at the start of a word, that word will be absent in the search results.
eg. Harry -Potter
Search results will not contain 'Potter'.
If you use 'AND' between 2 words, then both those words will be present in the search results.
eg. Harry AND Potter
Search results will contain both 'Harry' and 'Potter'.
NOTE: AND will only work with single words not phrases.
If you use 'OR' between 2 single words, then either or both of those words will be present in the search results.
eg. 'Harry OR Potter'
Search results will contain just 'Harry', or just 'Potter', or both 'Harry' and 'Potter'.
NOTE: OR will only work with single words not phrases.
If you use 'NOT' before a word, that word will be absent in the search results. (This is the same as using the minus symbol).
eg. 'Harry NOT Potter'
Search results will not contain 'Potter'.
NOTE: NOT will only work with single words not phrases.
If you use double quotation marks around words, those words will be present in that order.
eg. "Harry Potter"
Search results will contain 'Harry Potter', but not 'Potter Harry'.
NOTE: "" cannot be combined with AND, OR & NOT searches.
If you use '*' in a word, it performs a wildcard search, as it signifies any number of characters. (Searches cannot start with a wildcard).
Search results will contain words starting with 'Pot' and ending in 'er', such as 'Potter'.
Edward S. Herman is Professor of Finance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Among his books are Corporate Control, Corporate Power; The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda; Demonstration Elections: U. S.-Staged Elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam and El Salvador (with Frank Brodhead) and The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection (with Frank Brodhead). Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston. A member of the American Academy of Science, he has published widely in both linguistics and current affairs. His previous books include At War with Asia, American Power and the New Mandarins, For Reasons of State, Peace in the Middle East?, Towards a New Cold War, Fateful Triangle: The U. S., Israel and the Palestinians, Pirates and Emperors, The Culture of Terrorism, Manufacturing Consent (with E. S. Herman), and Necessary Illusions.
More heavy-handed analysis by the baron of linguistics, Chomsky (Rules and Representations, 1980, among others), and Herman (Finance/Wharton School). The subject is the actual effect of the mass media on public opinion and just what it is that the media attempt to accomplish. As the title suggests, the authors aim to demonstrate that the media in America tend to buttress elite groups and privileged organizations. Those who argue that the media are too aggressive, obstinate, or cantankerous in their public persecutions of selected government leaders or policies are wrong, the authors state. Rather, the media always serve a societal purpose - which is not that of enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process by providing them with the information needed for the intelligent discharge of political responsibilities. On the contrary. . .the 'societal purpose'. . .is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups. . . How do the media accomplish this? Via selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis, and tone. This argument is not original; other books have argued (in much clearer prose) basically the same idea (e.g., The Media Elite, by Robert S. Lichter, 1986). And what further weakens this book are the strained examples that the authors choose: that media excesses in the Watergate scandal and in advocating an anti-Vietnam stance, for instance, were not cases of adversarial journalism, but of journalism coming to the defense of a weakened Congress (itself a prime example of a privileged group). Stretching for its thesis, and as a result not strongly argued. (Kirkus Reviews)