{{other people||Edward Herman (disambiguation)}}{{Infobox person| name = Edward Samuel Herman| image = <!-- just the filename, without the File: or Image: prefix or enclosing [[brackets]] -->| alt = | caption = | birth_name = | birth_date = {{Birth date|1925|4|7}}| birth_place = Philadelphia, PA| death_date = {{Death date and age|2017|11|11|1925|04|07}} | death_place = Philadelphia, PA<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-bc-us--obit-edward-s-herman-20171115-story.html|title=''Manufacturing Consent'' co-author Edward Herman dies at 92|work=Chicago Tribune|agency=Associated Press|date=November 15, 2017|accessdate=November 16, 2017}}</ref>| nationality = American| other_names = | known_for = Media analysis| occupation = Professor of economics}}

'''Edward Samuel Herman''' (April 7, 1925 – November 11, 2017) was professor emeritus of finance at the [[Wharton School of Business]] of the [[University of Pennsylvania]]<ref>{{cite web|title=Faculty List|url=https://fnce.wharton.upenn.edu/faculty/faculty-list|website=Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania|date=April 3, 2014}}</ref> and a media analyst with a specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy. He also taught at [[Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania]]. He developed, with [[Noam Chomsky]], the [[propaganda model]] of media criticism which seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social, and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

==Personal life and education==Herman was born in Philadelphia, to a Liberal Democrat family, the son of Abraham Lincoln Herman, a pharmacist and Celia Dektor, a homemaker.<ref name="Roberts">{{cite news|last=Roberts|first=Sam|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/obituaries/edward-herman-dead-critic-of-us-media-and-foreign-policy.html|title=Edward Herman, 92, Critic of U.S. Media and Foreign Policy, Dies|work=The New York Times|date=November 21, 2017|accessdate=November 22, 2017}}</ref><ref name="HSmith">{{cite news|last=Smith|first=Harrison|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/edward-s-herman-media-critic-who-co-wrote-manufacturing-consent-dies-at-92/2017/11/16/7cab93ca-cade-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html|title=Edward S.

Herman, media critic who co-wrote ''Manufacturing Consent'', dies at 92|work=The Washington Post|date=16 November 2017|accessdate=17 November 2017}}</ref>

Herman received his [[Bachelor of Arts]] (in 1945) and his MA (in 1948) from the University of Pennsylvania. At [[University of California, Berkeley]], from which he received his [[PhD]] in 1953, he met economist [[Robert A. Brady (economist)|Robert A. Brady]], who had studied the economics of fascist regimes, who was a significant influence upon him. Herman was also influenced by his courses with Berkeley economist [[Joe S. Bain|Joe Bain]], whose work featured the structure of industrial organizations. Herman credited Bain’s framework of analysis for helping him develop his own, including the propaganda model introduced in [[Manufacturing Consent]].<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |pages=38-58}}</ref> Herman’s PhD thesis was a study of Bank of America and its parent company, Transamerica Corporation.<ref>{{cite news |title= Paul Jay interview with Ed Herman, Co-Author of ‘Manufacturing Consent’|author= Editorial|url= https://therealnews.com/stories/eherman0403pt1 |newspaper= The Real News Network |date= July 1, 2002 |access-date=June 23, 2018}}</ref>

Herman was married to Mary Woody for 67 years, until she died in 2013. Herman never had children. In 2015, he married long-time friend Christine Abbott, who survived him. He played the piano and particularly enjoyed the music of [[Haydn]], [[Mozart]], and [[Domenico Scarlatti| Scarlatti]]. He loved cats and regularly fed strays. His only known self-indulgences were red wine in the late afternoon after a day of study and writing, and good French food.<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |page=58}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title= Edward S Herman: Scholar whose radical critiques of US media characterised the fake news caricatured by Trump |author= Olivier Holmey |url= https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/edward-s-herman-scholar-whose-radical-critiques-of-us-media-unpacked-the-fake-news-caricatured-by-a8067131.html |newspaper= The New York Times|date= November 21, 2017 |access-date=June 23, 2018}}</ref>

==University career and writings==Herman’s post-doctoral career began at [[Penn State]] in 1954. In 1958, he joined Wharton’s finance department to help perform studies of banks and corporate control mechanisms, which Wharton had contracted with various government agencies to study. For the next 15 years, Herman participated in studies of various financial institutions. Herman’s specialty was analyzing the power and control issues in those institutions.

In 1962, Herman’s team, led by Wharton professor Irwin Friend, completed the first large-scale study of mutual funds, which was commissioned by the [[Securities and

Exchange Commission]] and published by the [[United States Congress]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Edward S., et al. |date=1962 |title= Study of Mutual Funds| publisher= 87th [[United States Congress]], 2nd session}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| |title= His Research Challenged Conventional Wisdom |journal= Wharton Alumni Magazine|url= https://www.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/125anniversaryissue/friend.html| year=Spring 2007}}</ref> Wharton’s study became a landmark in the field, and one of its key findings was that:<blockquote>The more important current problems appear to be those which involve potential conflicts of interest between fund management and shareowners, the possible absence of arm’s-length bargaining between fund management and investment advisers.<ref>{{cite book |last=Fink |first=Matthew P. |title= The Rise of Mutual Funds |year=2008 |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=68 }}</ref></blockquote>

Among the Wharton study’s conclusions was that the performance of mutual fund advisers was no better than that achieved by randomly selecting securities. In the study’s wake, one senator picked a portfolio by throwing darts at a list of stocks, which subsequently performed better than the average common stock mutual fund.<ref>{{cite book |last= Markham |first=Jerry W. |title= A Financial History of the United States: From Christopher Columbus to the Robber Barons, Volume 1|year=2002 |publisher=Taylor and Francis |page=353 }}</ref>

Wharton’s next major study was on savings and loan banks, for which Herman wrote the chapter on conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Friend|first1=Erwin|last2=Herman |first2=Edward S., et al. |date=1969 |title= Study of the Savings and Loan Industry |publisher= [[Federal Home Loan Bank Board]]}}</ref> When the study was published, the savings and loan industry called a press conference to specifically dispute the findings in Herman’s chapter; Herman was particularly proud of receiving that denunciation.<ref>{{cite news |title= Paul Jay interview with Ed Herman, Co-Author of "Manufacturing Consent" |author= Editorial|url= https://therealnews.com/stories/eherman0403pt1 |newspaper= The Real News Network |date= July 1, 2002 |access-date=June 23, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |page=41}}</ref> Herman then studied bank trust departments and their conflicts of interest.<ref>{{cite journal|author1-last=Herman |author1-first=Edward S. ||author2-last= Safanda| author-first2= Carl F.|title= The Commercial Bank Trust Department and the “Wall”|journal= Boston College Law Review|date= November 1, 1972|pages=21-44}}</ref>In 1981, Herman published ''Corporate Control, Corporate Power'', which the [[The Century Foundation|Twentieth Century Fund]] sponsored. It was intended as an update of [[Adolf A. Berle|A.A. Berle, Jr.]] and [[Gardiner Means|Gardiner C. Means’s]] [[The Modern Corporation and Private Property]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Edward S. |date=1981 |title= Corporate Control, Corporate Power |pages=5–9}}</ref> In ''Corporate Control, Corporate Power'', Herman analyzed the internal structure of American corporations, their influence over the American economy and polity, and the

competing interests within corporations, which were primarily owners, lenders, and managers. Herman wrote that corporate managers had prevailed in those power struggles, and that in 1981, management’s “triumph is virtually complete,” although managerial ascendance did not dim the overriding corporate goal of profit maximization.<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Edward S. |date=1981 |title= Corporate Control, Corporate Power |pages=14-15}}</ref>

Herman wrote that expanding government influence in the 1960s and 1970s was resisted by the American business community and that “Big Government” was in the midst of attacks on it. Herman concluded that American corporations were, on average, as immune to outside influence as they were at the turn of the 20 th century, as they operated with virtual autonomy, no matter their impact on American society, including environmental harm. Herman wrote that government influence over corporations was “extremely modest,” and that efforts by public interest groups and citizens to make corporations more accountable to American society were “extremely feeble.”<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Edward S. |date=1981 |title= Corporate Control, Corporate Power |pages=15-16}}</ref>

Herman became professor emeritus in 1989.<ref name="Roberts"/> Herman said that although he sometimes received anonymous and unhappy critiques from members of Wharton’s faculty, many at Wharton thought that his public political writings and media analyses were valuable, and he never had any professional repercussions at Wharton due to his activism or his political writings or media analyses. Herman noted that because he was a “steadily producing professor according to the rules of the game,” he “was promoted and became a full professor during the Vietnam War years,” and that Wharton’s dean was friendly to him.<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |page=47}}</ref>

==Early political writings==Herman’s earliest political book was [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman#America's_Vietnam_Policy,_with_Richard_B._Du_Boff,_1966 ''America’s Vietnam Policy: The Strategy of Deception''], written with Richard B. Du Boff, published in 1966. In ''America’s Vietnam Policy'', Herman and Du Boff compared the American government’s professed stance in 1965 – a negotiated settlement of the war in Vietnam – with its actions. According to their analysis, the United States actively ''avoided'' meaningful negotiations. Herman and Du Boff noted that the [[1954 Geneva Conference|Geneva Accords of 1954]], which formally ended France’s invasion of Vietnam as it attempted to regain its empire, did ''not'' call for Vietnam to be partitioned into two nations, and that the United States actively prevented Vietnam’s holding a free election to unify Vietnam, as called for by the Geneva Accords, primarily because, as [[Dwight Eisenhower]] later admitted, [[Ho Chi Minh]], a communist, would have received 80% of the vote.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Herman |first1= Edward S. |last2=Du Boff |first2=Richard B. |title=''America’s Vietnam

Policy: The Strategy of Deception |year=1966 |publisher=Public Affairs Press |page= 17}}</ref>

''America’s Vietnam Policy'' stated that since the American-supported regimes in South Vietnam had little political support from their citizens, and that the United States was not “liberating” South Vietnam’s citizenry from a foreign occupying power (instead, the United States ''was'' the foreign occupying power), that it considered the people of South Vietnam to be its enemy. Therefore, the United States engaged in a war of extermination against South Vietnam’s populace. Herman and Du Boff argued that the United States’ activities in Vietnam met the [[Genocide Convention|Genocide Convention’s]] definition of genocide.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Herman |first1= Edward S. |last2=Du Boff |first2=Richard B. |title=America’s Vietnam Policy: The Strategy of Deception |year=1966 |publisher=Public Affairs Press |pages= 114-123}}</ref>

In 1967, Herman was among more than 500 writers and editors who signed the "[[Writers and Editors War Tax Protest]]" pledge, vowing to refuse to pay the 10% [[Vietnam War]] tax [[Surtax|surcharge]] implemented by Congress upon the initiation of [[Lyndon Johnson|President Johnson]].<ref>"Writers and Editors War Tax Protest" January 30, 1968 ''New York Post''.</ref><ref>[http://www.nwtrcc.org/history/history1960.php History of War Tax Resistance]; NWTRCC; January 18, 2004</ref>

In 1968, Herman published ''The Great Society Dictionary'', which was a satirical precursor to his [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman#Doublespeak_Dictionary_(within_Beyond_Hypocrisy) “Doublespeak Dictionary,”] which was included in his ''Beyond Hypocrisy'', published in 1992. In ''The Great Society Dictionary'', Herman coined the term “demonstration election” to describe the arguably fraudulent elections that the United States mounted in client states, but which were portrayed by the American media as free and fair elections, even when those client states slaughtered opposing political candidates before the elections, such as in El Salvador in the 1980s.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Herman |first1= Edward S. |last2=Brodhead |first2=Frank |title=Demonstration Elections |year=1984 |publisher=South End Press |page= 123}}</ref> When ''The Great Society Dictionary'' was published, Vietnam had recently held an election in which communist candidates were formally banned from running for office and opposition candidate Tran Van Van was assassinated before he could run for president.<ref>{{cite book |last1= Herman |first1= Edward S. |last2=Brodhead |first2=Frank |title=Demonstration Elections |year=1984 |publisher=South End Press |pages= 71-74}}</ref>

In 1970, Herman published ''Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities'', which was a study of atrocities committed in Vietnam; those committed by the United States and the South Vietnamese regime that it installed and supported, and those committed by North Vietnamese actors.

In ''Atrocities in Vietnam'', Herman attributed the monograph’s inspiration to the American government’s public relations efforts in the wake of the [[My Lai Massacre]]. Herman wrote that when [[Seymour Hersh|Seymour Hersh’s]] reporting finally brought the My Lai incident to the American public’s attention, the American government’s response was twofold: downplay the massacre as an isolated incident and portray American policy as anti-atrocity, while portraying the [[Viet Cong|National Liberation Front’s]] (“NLF”) policies as pro-atrocity; the other response was to mount an official investigation that portrayed the My Lai incident as contrary to American policy.<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities |year=1970 |publisher=Pilgrim Press |pages= 6-7}}</ref>

The foreword and conclusion of ''Atrocities in Vietnam'' addressed president [[Richard Nixon|Richard Nixon’s]] statement that American troops were in Vietnam primarily to prevent an NLF “massacre” of millions of South Vietnamese citizens. Preventing a “communist bloodbath” became the policy statement of the American government, and that claim was a central focus of ''Atrocities in Vietnam''.

Herman noted that in sharp contrast to the alleged American concern for preventing communist atrocities in Vietnam, the American government failed to even protest a bloodbath in nearby Indonesia in 1966, in which about a million civilians, primarily communists, were [[Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%931966|slaughtered by the Indonesian government]].<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities |year=1970 |publisher=Pilgrim Press |page= 14}}</ref> The American government was deeply complicit in that mass murder.<ref>{{cite book |last= Blum |first= William |title= [[Killing Hope]]: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II|year=1995 |publisher=Common Courage Press |pages= 193-198}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= The Myth of the Liberal Media |year=1999 |publisher=Peter Lang Publishing |pages= 207-223}}</ref> The contrast of the American government’s and media’s reactions to slaughters based on their political-economic utility became a primary theme of Chomsky and Herman’s [[Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda]].

Herman wrote that South Vietnamese officials reported that American soldiers were shooting at “everything that moves.”<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities |year=1970 |publisher=Pilgrim Press |page= 62}}</ref> That observation was later confirmed by American soldiers, who stated that their orders were to “Kill everything that moves.”<ref>{{cite book |last= Turse |first= Nick |title= Kill Anything that Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam |year=2013 |publisher=Metropolitan Books|page= 2}}</ref>

Herman quoted [[Orville Schell]], who wrote:<blockquote>One ''Newsweek'' correspondent told me on returning from Quang Ngai that he was shocked by what was going on in the countryside. Having had experience in Europe during World War II, he said that what he had seen was ‘much worse than what the Nazis had done to Europe.’”<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= Atrocities in Vietnam:

Myths and Realities |year=1970 |publisher=Pilgrim Press |page= 41}}</ref></blockquote>

In an early instance of his noting how the American media operated, Herman observed that the correspondent did not get that revelation published in ''Newsweek''.

Herman wrote that between 1965 and 1969, according to official American sources, the United States used 450 times as much ordnance in Vietnam as the NLF and Hanoi’s government did combined, and that the United States dropped twice as much ordnance tonnage on Southeast Asia than it dropped on all nations during World War II, and in Vietnam, the United States dropped more than 500 pounds of ordnance for every person.<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities |year=1970 |publisher=Pilgrim Press |pages= 55-57}}</ref>

Herman conservatively estimated more than one million Vietnamese civilian deaths from 1965 to 1969 and more than two million wounded, and he conservatively estimated that the United States was responsible for at least 80% of them; Herman quoted an informed American estimate that it was more than 99%.<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities |year=1970 |publisher=Pilgrim Press |pages= 43-45}}</ref> In [[Manufacturing Consent]], Herman and Chomsky estimated that the death toll in Vietnam may have exceeded three million.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Herman|first1=Edward S.|last2=Chomsky|first2=Noam|title=Manufacturing Consent|publisher=Pantheon Books|location=New York|page=238}}</ref>

Herman’s experience with publishing ''Atrocities in Vietnam'' was his first encounter with corporate suppression. ''Atrocities in Vietnam'' was [[Remaindered book|remaindered]] soon after publishing and the book’s enthusiastic editor was “soon looking for another job.”<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |page=47}}</ref> The publisher’s treatment of ''Atrocities in Vietnam'' was a prelude to Herman and Chomsky’s experience when they attempted to publish their [[Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda]].

==Herman and Chomsky=====''Counter-Revolutionary Violence''==={{main|Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda}}

Herman’s first collaboration with Noam Chomsky was the monograph ''Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda'', which they attempted to publish in 1973, only to have the publisher’s parent company, [[Warner Communications]], shut down the publishing company to prevent the monograph’s distribution, and [[Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda#Publishing history|nearly all of the copies were destroyed]].

Chomsky and Herman introduced a framework in ''Counter-Revolutionary Violence'' that became a hallmark of their work, which classified bloodbaths (and terrorist activities) in these categories of Washington D.C. and the media's regard:

* '''Benign''' – East Pakistan in 1971, Burundi in 1972;* * '''Constructive''' – Indonesia in 1965-1966; French in Vietnam, 1950s; Diem regime in Vietnam, 1950s; the United States in Vietnam, 1960s; the United States in the Philippines, periodically from 1898 to when ''CRV'' was printed in 1973;* * '''Nefarious''' – Vietnamese revolutionary, 1950s and 1960s;* * '''Mythical''' – North Vietnamese land reform in the 1960s; North Vietnamese in Huế in 1968.

Chomsky and Herman argued that the American treatment of bloodbaths was related to their political utility, regardless of the objective facts of such murders. Benign bloodbaths were those that the United States’ political establishment had little strategic interest in and were often committed by friendly nations (and the United States regularly supplied the regimes committing the murders), constructive bloodbaths had strongly favorable results for American (primarily corporate) interests, nefarious bloodbaths were conducted by official enemies, and mythical bloodbaths either never happened or were minor events inflated into legendary status by government and media exaggeration.

Herman and Chomsky’s first uncensored collaboration was “Saigon’s Corruption Crisis: The Search for an Honest Quisling”, published in 1974.<ref>{{cite journal|author1-last=Chomsky |author1-first=Noam ||author2-last= Herman| author-first2= Edward S.|title= Saigon’s Corruption Crisis: The Search for an Honest Quisling |journal= Rampart|date= December 1974 - January 1975|pages=21-24, 66-71}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |page=43}}</ref> The article discussed the American government’s problem in Vietnam: finding a quisling who was not corrupt, in order to change the image of the regimes in Vietnam and renew generous funding from Congress.

Chomsky and Herman’s first writings on the media’s treatment of postwar [[Indochina]], and [[Cambodia]] in particular, was in their "Distortions at Fourth Hand", an article published in the ''[[The Nation]]'' in June 1977, in which they discussed the media’s treatment of the evidence. Chomsky and Herman stated that they did not "pretend to know [...] the truth" about what was happening in Cambodia during the [[Khmer Rouge]] regime of [[Pol Pot]], while reviewing material on the topic then available, they wrote:<blockquote>What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the

Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable.<ref>{{cite news |title= Distortions at Fourth Hand |author= Noam Chomsky|author2= Edward S. Herman|date= June 6, 1977 |url= https://chomsky.info/19770625/ |journal= The Nation}}</ref></blockquote>

Referring to what they saw as "the extreme unreliability of refugee reports", Chomsky and Herman wrote:<blockquote>Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocutors wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account.</blockquote> They stated that Khmer Rouge Cambodia might be more closely comparable to "France after liberation, where many thousands of people were massacred within a few months" than to [[Nazi Germany]].<ref>{{cite news |title= Distortions at Fourth Hand |author= Noam Chomsky|author2= Edward S. Herman|date= June 6, 1977 |url= https://chomsky.info/19770625/ |journal= The Nation}}</ref>

Chomsky and Herman concluded their article with:<blockquote>We noted earlier that the ''Monitor'' editorial and other press comments built on the Lacouture review offer at best a fourth-hand account. The chain of transmission runs from refugees (or Thai or U.S. officials), to Ponchaud, to the ''New York Review'', to the press, where a mass audience is reached and “facts” are established that enter the approved version of history.<ref>{{cite news |title= Distortions at Fourth Hand |author= Noam Chomsky|author2= Edward S. Herman|date= June 6, 1977 |url= https://chomsky.info/19770625/ |journal= The Nation}}</ref></blockquote>

That article on how the media operated regarding postwar Indochina was later cited in the campaign to [[The Political Economy of Human Rights#Campaign to portray Chomsky as a Khmer Rouge supporter and genocide denier|falsely portray Chomsky]], and to a lesser degree, Herman, as supporters of the Khmer Rouge and genocide deniers.

===''The Political Economy of Human Rights''==={{main|The Political Economy of Human Rights}}[[The Political Economy of Human Rights]] is a two-volume work that greatly expanded on the censored ''Counter-Revolutionary Violence''. [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman#The_Washington_Connection_and_Third_World_Fascism,_with_Noam_Chomsky,_1979 ''The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism'] was the first volume, and [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman#After_the_Cataclysm:_Postwar_Indochina_and_the_Reconstruction_of_Imperial_Ideology,_with_Noam_Chomsky,_1979 ''After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology''] was the second.

''The Washington Connection'' dealt with the themes of the fascist-like states that the United States installed and supported around the world, and added the genocides of Indian tribes in Latin America and Indonesia’s [[Indonesian occupation of East Timor|invasion and occupation of East Timor]] to their “benign” bloodbaths, and slaughters perpetrated by various Latin American client states were added to their treatment of “constructive” bloodbaths.

''After the Cataclysm'' dealt with the American media’s treatment of postwar Indochina, and how it helped reconstruct America’s imperial ideology by framing the wars in Indochina as a crusade for freedom gone wrong, not an aggressive imperial crime, and it portrayed the postwar regimes in Indochina in the harshest possible light, with many invented “facts” accompanying the portrayals.

===''Manufacturing Consent''==={{main|Manufacturing Consent}}Herman and Chomsky's best-known co-authored book is ''Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media'', first published in 1988 and largely written by Herman.<ref name="HSmith"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chomsky.info/books/power02.htm|title=An Exchange on ''Manufacturing Consent''|website=chomsky.info|date=2002|accessdate=September 5, 2017}}</ref> The book introduced the concept of the propaganda model to the debates on the workings of the corporate media. The model seeks to explain how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social, and political policies is "manufactured" in the public mind due to this propaganda.

''Manufacturing Consent'' began with a chapter that defined their propaganda model, and the subsequent chapters were case studies of the propaganda model in action: worthy and unworthy victims; the disparity in the media’s coverage of foreign elections, depending on the nation’s relationship with the United States; the media’s coverage of the “conspiracy” that led to the [[Pope John Paul II#Assassination attempts and plots|assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II]]; and the Indochina wars, which was Chomsky’s primary contribution to ''Manufacturing Consent''. Because Herman was the primary author, Chomsky insisted that Herman’s name appear first as the author. The propaganda model was largely Herman’s invention, which grew from his studies of corporate structures.<ref>[http://www.uwindsor.ca/units/commstudies/propaganda.nsf/intoc/dc899988bd643987852572cd006efae1 20 Years of Propaganda] University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, May 2007</ref><ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= The Myth of the Liberal Media |year=1999 |publisher=Peter Lang Publishing |pages= 263-264}}</ref> ''Manufacturing Consent'' won the 1989 [[Orwell Award]].

Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model was based on five filters of editorial bias.

====Five filters of editorial bias<!--This section is linked from [[Media bias]]: do not rename without including an anchor to previous name ([[MOS:HEAD]])-->===={{main|Propaganda model}}

The propaganda model for the manufacture of public consent describes five editorially distorting filters, which are applied to the reporting of news in mass communications media:

# '''Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation:''' The dominant mass-media outlets are large companies operated for profit, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners, who are usually corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.# '''The Advertising License to Do Business:''' Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from [[advertising]] (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority".<ref>James Curran and [[Jean Seaton]], ''[[Power Without Responsibility : the press and broadcasting in Britain]]'' (First edition 1981, with many subsequent editions).</ref> Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the [[working class]] press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.# '''Sourcing Mass Media News:''' Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful ''subsidize'' the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring […] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”<ref name = MC>Herman and Chomsky, ''Manufacturing Consent''.</ref># '''Flak and the Enforcers:''' "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. [[think tank]]s). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.<ref name = MC/># '''Anti-Communism:''' This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argued that since the end of the [[Cold War]] (1945–91) [[anticommunism]] was replaced by the "[[War on Terror]]" as the major social control mechanism.<ref>Noam Chomsky, ''Media Control, the Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda'' (1997).</ref>

===''Lies of Our Times'', ''Z Magazine''===From its inception in 1990 until its last issue in 1994, Herman was the editor and most frequent contributor to ''[[Lies of Our Times]]'', which analyzed the media, particularly ''The New York Times''. Chomsky contributed a column in most issues, which were compiled into a book that Herman wrote the foreword to.<ref>{{cite book |last= Chomsky |first= Noam |title= Letters from Lexington: Reflections on Propaganda |year=2007 |publisher=Routledge }}</ref> Contributors to ''Lies of our Times'' included [[Howard Zinn]], [[Michael Parenti]], [[Alexander Cockburn]], and former CIA case officer

[[Ralph McGehee]]. ''Lies of Our Times'' won the 1995 [[Orwell Award]], and Chomsky remembered ''Lies of Our Times'' as a “great” magazine.

After the [[Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda#Publishing history|shutting down of a publishing company to prevent the distribution of their work]], Chomsky and Herman chose the newly established [[South End Press]] as the publisher of their ''The Political Economy of Human Rights'', and they often used South End Press as their book publisher for many years afterward. South End Press’s co-founders included [[Michael Albert]] and [[Lydia Sargent]], who also established [[Z Communications|Z Magazine]] in 1987. Herman contributed an article to ''Z Magazine'' for nearly every issue until his life’s last years, when his contributions became more occasional. Chomsky also wrote regularly in ''Z Magazine'', and it often published interviews with him. Herman’s themes were usually mass media analysis and American foreign policy, and featured such issues as the media’s treatment of [[Suharto]] as a “good genocidist” while [[Pol Pot]] was a “bad genocidist.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Pol Pot’s Death in the Propaganda System |journal= Z Magazine|date= June 1998|pages=21-24, 66-71}}</ref> Herman also wrote about economic issues, such as [[Paul Krugman|Paul Krugman’s]] tenure at ''The New York Times'' that saw a mellowing of his enthusiasm for the neoliberal agenda, to the point where Krugman expressed his reservations about the merits of the [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]] agreement.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Krugman, Putin, and the ''NYT'' |journal= Z Magazine|date= October 2014}}</ref>

During the Bush administration’s promotion of its looming [[invasion of Iraq]], in response to eager support coming from so-called leftists, in particular [[Christopher Hitchens|Christopher Hitchens’s]] praise for cruise missiles as “precision-guided weaponry” that Hitchens called “good in itself,” Herman published five articles in ''Z Magazine'' on “The Cruise Missile Left.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= The Cruise Missile Left |url= https://zcomm.org/zmagazine/the-cruise-missile-left-by-edward-herman/ |journal= Z Magazine|date= November 2002}} The fifth article was in May 2004.</ref> Another member of Herman’s Cruise Missile Left was [[Todd Gitlin]], who approved of the [[American invasion of Afghanistan]] as ”a just, coalitional war of self-defense,” but Herman wrote that the invasion failed to meet the [[UN]] Charter’s definition of self-defense, which is “where self-defense means a response to an ongoing attack or one that is imminent.”

==Writings published in the 1980s==

===Terrorism and the Western media===In their initial collaborations, Herman and Chomsky wrote about “benign” and “constructive” terror, and devoted two chapters to the concepts in ''The Washington Connection''.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Chomsky |first1=Noam |last2=Herman |first2=Edward S. |title=The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism |year=1979 |publisher=South End Press |pages= 85-298}}</ref> In 1982, Herman published ''The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda'', which was a study of terrorist activities and the Western media’s treatment of them. The theme of

''The Real Terror Network'' was similar to Herman’s ''Atrocities in Vietnam'', in that terror engaged in by American client states was defined out of existence in the mass media’s lexicon, although it was often at least an order of magnitude greater than the terrorist acts of its victims.

In ''The'' Real ''Terror Network'', Herman provided the dictionary definition of “terror”, which is: “…a ''mode of governing'', or of opposing government, by intimidation.”<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Edward S. |date=1982 |title=''The'' Real ''Terror Network'' |publisher=South End Press|page=21}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Chomsky |first1=Noam |last2=Herman |first2=Edward S. |title=The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism |year=1979 |publisher=South End Press |page= 85}}</ref> Herman wrote that the [[Pinochet]] regime in [[Chile]] and the [[Fernando Romeo Lucas García|Garcia]] regime in [[Guatemala]] easily met the dictionary definition of terrorist organizations, but because they were American client states while committing their terrorist acts, the American media defined those crimes out of existence. Herman wrote that when their terrorist acts, including mass murders, could no longer be completely ignored, those acts were described in the American media by various euphemisms, including maintaining “security” and “stability.”Herman wrote that Israel had a special place in the American media’s reporting, being portrayed as victims of terrorism, when its former Prime Minister, [[Moshe Sharett]], frankly wrote that Israel’s violence was primarily offensive in nature, with many fabricated reasons given for its attacks, and Sharett even wrote that those crimes were Israel’s “sacred terrorism.”<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Edward S. |date=1982 |title=''The'' Real ''Terror Network'' |publisher=South End Press|page=78}}</ref>

In a later work, ''The “Terrorism” Industry'', Herman and Gerry O’Sullivan wrote that the Israeli state’s terrorist acts claimed more than 20 times as many lives as Palestinian terrorist acts, but with state-terror being defined out of existence for American client states, Israeli terror was never called that in the American mass media.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herman |first1=Edward S. |last2=O’Sullivan |first2=Gerry |title= The “Terrorism” Industry |year=1989 |publisher=Pantheon Books |pages= 29-36}}</ref>

===Demonstration elections and the plot to kill the pope===

In the mid-1980s, Herman wrote two books with Frank Brodhead: ''Demonstration Elections'' and ''The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection''. The theme of ''Demonstration Elections'' was that the United States used so-called “free elections” as a public relations tool of American foreign policy when, by objective measures, the elections were not free at all, but only provided the illusion of freedom as a way of promoting the United States’ foreign policy interventions to the American public. Herman and Brodhead argued that the United States mounted demonstration elections in some of Earth’s most repressive regimes, in which the elections served to justify elite rule and state terrorism. Herman and Brodhead presented case studies of such elections in the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, and El Salvador.

Herman and Brodhead also examined the American mass media’s treatment of those elections, and wrote that a “demonstration election is a media event above all else.”<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herman |first1=Edward S. |last2=Broadhead |first2=Frank |title= Demonstration Elections |year=1984 |publisher=South End Press |page=153}}</ref> Herman and Brodhead wrote that the American media could present openly fraudulent elections in glowing terms, and they contrasted the American media’s treatment of American client-state elections with a Soviet-sponsored demonstration election in Poland. While the American media was incensed over [[Lech Walesa|Lech Walesa’s]] arrest, the murders of 76 officials of the [[Guatemalan Christian Democracy|Christian Democratic Party]] in Guatemala in 1980-81 were “treated very matter-of-factly if at all.”<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herman |first1=Edward S. |last2=Broadhead |first2=Frank |title= Demonstration Elections |year=1984 |publisher=South End Press |page=170}}</ref>

In ''Demonstration Elections'', Herman presented a “Glossary of Current Orwellian Usage,” which was expanded in his “Doublespeak Dictionary” in a subsequent book, ''Beyond Hypocrisy''. Herman’s glossary defined a demonstration election as, “A circus held in a client state to assure the population of the home country that their intrusion is well received. The results are guaranteed by an adequate supply of bullets well in advance. (See Free Election)”. Herman defined a free election as, “A post-pacification election, in which the ‘hearts and minds’ of the survivors are shown to have been won over by the force of pure reason.”

In Herman and Brodhead’s subsequent collaboration, ''The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection'', they analyzed the Western media’s coverage of the trial of [[Mehmet Ali Ağca]], a Turkish terrorist who [[Pope John Paul II assassination attempt|shot Pope John Paul II]] in 1981. While the American media continually emphasized Soviet involvement in the “conspiracy” to kill the Pope, the three Bulgarian and six Turkish defendants were acquitted in 1986 for a lack of evidence. Herman and Brodhead wrote that the so-called “Bulgarian Connection” only arose after Agca’s interrogation in solitary confinement, and that his confessional testimony, which reflected mental illness, such as his claiming to be [[Jesus Christ]] at the beginning of his trial, was the only evidence presented by the Italian prosecution.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herman |first1=Edward S. |last2=Broadhead |first2=Frank |title= The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection |year=1986 |publisher=Sheridan Square Press |pages=206-209}}</ref>

Herman and Brodhead argued that the evidence for a Bulgarian conspiracy, and by extension, Soviet sponsorship, was always weak-to-non-existent, but the American media, guided by the CIA, treated wild and groundless accusations as fact, and they named [[Claire Sterling]], Paul Henze, and [[Michael Ledeen]] as the primary American writers who promoted the Bulgarian Connection.

Herman and Brodhead presented evidence that the attempted assassination of John Paul II likely ''was'' a conspiracy, but was mounted by a Turkish terrorist organization, the [[Grey Wolves (organization)| Gray Wolves]], which Ağca belonged to, and that the

Gray Wolves were a CIA-sponsored organization.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herman |first1=Edward S. |last2=Broadhead |first2=Frank |title= The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection |year=1986 |publisher=Sheridan Square Press |pages=62-64}}</ref> Herman and Brodhead wrote that, “the links of the CIA to the […] Gray Wolves were easily as impressive as any […] Gray Wolves connections to the Bulgarians.”<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herman |first1=Edward S. |last2=Broadhead |first2=Frank |title= The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection |year=1986 |publisher=Sheridan Square Press |page=64}}</ref> In 1991, former CIA analyst [[Melvin Goodman|Melvin A. Goodman]] disclosed to the [[Senate Intelligence Committee]] that his colleagues had purposely altered their reports to suggest Soviet involvement in the assassination plot, but they knew that there was “no evidence” of Soviet involvement, as the CIA had penetrated the Bulgarian secret services, which ''The New York Times'' did not see fit to print.<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= The Myth of the Liberal Media |year=1999 |publisher=Peter Lang Publishing |pages= 86-87}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Lee|first=Martin|url=https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/16/on-the-trail-of-turkeys-terrorist-grey-wolves-2/|title= On the Trail of Turkey's Terrorist Grey Wolves |work=Consortium News|year=1997|accessdate=2 July 2018}}</ref>

Herman and Brodhead wrote that since the acquittal of the defendants, the American media quietly dropped the matter. The authors wrote that far from the media’s suffering any consequences for irresponsibly supporting such flimsy allegations: “U.S. and western power and media domination are so great that lies can be institutionalized as myths and ''can remain effective even after exposure''.”<ref>{{cite book |last1=Herman |first1=Edward S. |last2=Broadhead |first2=Frank |title= The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection |year=1986 |publisher=Sheridan Square Press |page=215}}</ref>

===The United States’ withdrawal from UNESCO===In 1989, Herman wrote a chapter of ''Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945-1985'', on the American media’s coverage of the United States’ withdrawal from [[UNESCO]],<ref>{{cite journal|author1-last=Preston |first1=William, Jr. |author2-last= Herman |author-first2= Edward S.|author-last3=Schiller|author-first3=Herbert I.|journal= Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945-1985| year=1989 |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |pages=203-284|title= U.S. Mass Media Coverage of the U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO }}</ref> which he considered to be one of his best media analysis efforts.<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |page=43}}</ref>

In his chapter of ''Hope and Folly'', Herman wrote that an “Alert, independent, and unbiased media would not allow themselves to be ‘managed’ and would not play a supportive role in a propaganda campaign.”<ref>{{cite journal|author1-last=Preston |first1=William, Jr. |author2-last= Herman |author-first2= Edward S.|author-last3=Schiller|author-first3=Herbert I.|journal= Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945-1985| year=1989 |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |page=216|title= U.S.

Mass Media Coverage of the U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO }}</ref> He asserted that an independent media would:

* Carefully check claims;** Explore the real bases of actions, not accept the given ones at face value;** Seek contending sources and documents and give them full value;* * When discovering that they had been misled, would disclose that fact, make amends, and learn a lesson from the experience.

Herman collected U.S. media reports on the UNESCO withdrawal, listed sources of media reports, and how often they were cited. He collected the mainstream media’s and dissident media’s reporting on agenda items of the United States’ government regarding its UNESCO withdrawal. He also performed a qualitative analysis of the language used by the media when describing various actors in the controversy. Herman particularly examined the reporting of ''The New York Times''.

Herman’s analysis yielded the findings that the mass media, both print and television, cited critical American and Western officials in more than 70% of such instances. When describing American officials, neutral or favorable language was used, such as “patience had run out” and “goaded beyond endurance,” while UNESCO was regularly described with pejorative language such as “wasteful” and “Iron Curtain spy base.” UNESCO’s director-general, [[Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow|Amadou M’Bow]], was described with terms such as “wily” and “wields patronage and job assignments like a truncheon.”<ref>{{cite journal|author1-last=Preston |first1=William, Jr. |author2-last= Herman |author-first2= Edward S.|author-last3=Schiller|author-first3=Herbert I.|journal= Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945-1985| year=1989 |publisher=University of Minnesota Press |pages=248-250|title= U.S. Mass Media Coverage of the U.S. Withdrawal from UNESCO }}</ref> ==Writings published in the 1990s==Herman published prolifically in the 1990s, in addition to ''Lies of Our Times'' and ''Z Magazine''. His ''Beyond Hypocrisy: Decoding the News in an Age of Propaganda'', which included Herman’s humorous [https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Edward_S._Herman#Doublespeak_Dictionary_(within_Beyond_Hypocrisy) “Doublespeak Dictionary”], was published in 1992 and was illustrated by political cartoonist [[Matt Wuerker]]. In 1995, Herman published ''Triumph of the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media''. In 1997, Herman and [[Robert W. McChesney]] published ''The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism''. In 1999, Herman published ''The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader'', for which Chomsky wrote the preface. Those works expanded on Herman’s themes of media analysis and the United States’ foreign and domestic policies, including its covert and open interventions in foreign nations. ''The Global Media'' was one of the earliest works that assessed what the Internet Revolution meant to the global media.

Herman often wrote about ''The New York Times'', and he challenged one of their claims of journalistic integrity: their opposition to the Vietnam War. Herman argued that ''The New York Times'' was an enthusiastic supporter of the American invasion of Vietnam from the beginning, and that it, “never abandoned the language of apologetics, according to which the United States was resisting somebody else’s aggression and protecting ‘South Vietnam.’” Herman wrote that ''The New York Times'' never wavered from the “tragic error” framework, never published a critique of the Vietnam War on principle, and that, “the antiwar movement and the ‘sixties’ have always been treated with hostility by the paper.”<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= The Myth of the Liberal Media |year=1999 |publisher=Peter Lang Publishing |pages= 91-98}}</ref>

Herman also wrote about the ''[[Wall Street Journal|Wall Street Journal’s]]'' biased reporting<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= The Wall Street Journal as Propaganda Agency: Yellow Rain and the El Mozote Massacre |journal= Covert Action Quarterly |date= Winter 1992-1993|pages=36-40}} That essay is also reproduced in: {{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= The Myth of the Liberal Media |year=1999 |publisher=Peter Lang Publishing |pages= 101-113}}</ref> While Herman’s local paper, the ''[[Philadelphia Inquirer]]'' (AKA “Inky”), published his letters to the editor in the early 1980s, for the next decade, Herman believed that he was on Inky’s blacklist after it got flak from local Israel-supporters when Inky published a column by Herman that identified Israel as a terrorist state.<ref>{{cite book |last= Herman |first= Edward S. |title= The Myth of the Liberal Media |year=1999 |publisher=Peter Lang Publishing |pages= 122-123}}</ref> Herman wrote on Inky’s frequent far-right bias, and he mounted an online effort called “InkyWatch,” which was a weekly publication that survived for about ten years, and Herman was its primary contributor.<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |pages=55-56}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Lindorff|first=Dave|url= https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/22/remembering-media-critic-ed-herman/ |title= Remembering Media Critic Ed Herman|work=''[[Counterpunch]]''|date=November 22, 2017|accessdate=July 4, 2018}}</ref>

Herman also contributed to other publications, such as [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting]].<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Good and Bad Genocide: Double Standards in coverage of Suharto and Pol Pot |journal= Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting |date= September 1, 1998}}</ref>

==The disintegration of Yugoslavia and the media==Herman wrote extensively on the West’s contribution to the disintegration of Yugoslavia and on the United States’ interventions in particular, especially [[NATO bombing of Yugoslavia|NATO’s bombing of the former Yugoslavia in 1999]]. Herman’s work on the former Yugoslavia was primarily published in the first decade of the 21st century, often in collaboration with David Peterson.<ref>{{cite news |title= The Dismantling of

Yugoslavia |last1= Herman |first1= Edward S.|last2= Peterson|first2= David|date= October 2007 |url= https://monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/ |accessdate=29 June 2018|journal= Monthly Review|volume=5 |issue=5 }}</ref>

Herman co-edited and contributed to ''Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis''. In ''Degraded Capability'', Herman contributed a chapter with David Peterson on [[CNN|CNN’s]] performance during NATO’s intervention, in which they described CNN as “Nato’s ''de facto'' public information arm.”<ref>{{cite journal| editor1-first=Philip P.|editor1-last=Hammond| editor2-first=Edward S.|editor2-last=Herman |author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= CNN: Selling NATO’s War Globally|journal= Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis | year=2000 |publisher=Pluto Press |page=120}}</ref> Herman and Peterson presented their analysis of CNN’s coverage and whom CNN featured. The majority of CNN’s interviews were of NATO-bloc officials, and less than 1% of CNN’s coverage was devoted to the 15 most prominent critics of NATO’s actions, including Chomsky, who was not on CNN even once.

Herman and Peterson wrote about how CNN never reported the particulars of the [[Rambouillet Agreement]], such as the requirement that Serbia not only cede its sovereignty in Kosovo to NATO, but to cede all of Yugoslavia’s as well. Herman and Peterson wrote about one of CNN’s acts that contributed to Serbian deaths, when NATO bombed a Serbian television station after accusing it of broadcasting “propaganda.” CNN was using that facility on the day before the bombing, was privately informed of the upcoming NATO bombing, and quietly evacuated its personnel while never warning its Serbian colleagues, 16 of whom were killed in the next day’s bombing. CNN never informed its viewers of its involvement or mentioned that attacking a television station was a [[Geneva Conventions|Geneva Convention]] war crime.<ref>{{cite journal| editor1-first=Philip P.|editor1-last=Hammond| editor2-first=Edward S.|editor2-last=Herman |author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= CNN: Selling NATO’s War Globally|journal= Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis | year=2000 |publisher=Pluto Press |pages=119-120}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson argued that CNN gullibly reported on the “[[Račak massacre]]” that was reported by NATO and the media as a massacre of civilians, when the forensic studies of Racak’s dead showed them to likely be battle deaths and that most of the dead were probably [[Kosovo Liberation Army|KLA]] fighters.<ref>{{cite journal| editor1-first=Philip P.|editor1-last=Hammond| editor2-first=Edward S.|editor2-last=Herman |author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= CNN: Selling NATO’s War Globally|journal= Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis | year=2000 |publisher=Pluto Press |pages=117-119}}</ref> The “Racak Massacre” was a key public justification for NATO’s bombing campaign, and Herman and Peterson later classified it as one of the media’s “mythical bloodbaths.”<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |pages=95-101}}</ref> Herman and Peterson later

wrote that on the day before NATO’s bombing commenced, the British Defense Minister informed the British Parliament that the U.S.-supported KLA had probably killed more civilians in Kosovo than the Serbian army had.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |page=49}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= The Fool, the Demagogue, and the Former KGB Colonel |journal= Z Magazine|date= May 2014|pages=11-14}}</ref> Herman and Peterson wrote that before NATO’s bombing campaign began, there were about 2,000 civilian deaths in Kosovo, of which the Serbian military was responsible for about 500.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |page=49}}</ref>

Herman wrote that the professional scholarship regarding Yugoslavia’s breakup also weighed important factors that the American media has rarely covered, including:

* A strong central government was needed to hold the nation together in the face of Yugoslavia’s deep regional and ethnic fragmentation;**The roots of Yugoslavia’s economic crisis of the 1990s were easily traceable the 1982 deflationary economic policies that the [[World Bank]] and [[IMF]] imposed;** The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the motivation of the West to keep supporting the central Yugoslavian state;** Germany and Austria encouraged Slovenia to secede from Yugoslavia, without any democratic vote or provision for the welfare of Slovenia’s large Serbian minority;** The West and [[Arbitration Commission of the Peace Conference on Yugoslavia|Western Badinter Commission]] would not allow threatened ethnic minorities to withdraw from the new secession states;** The USA and the West encouraged Bosnia-Herzegovina’s Muslim population to try establishing a state under its control, while the local Serbian and Croatian residents were opposed to it and fearful; **The USA and NATO supported [[Croatia]] and its massive ethnic cleansing of Serbs in [[Republic of Serbian Krajina|Krajina]];** [[Slobodan Milošević|Slobodan Milosevic]] supported many diplomatic initiatives that were foiled, largely because of American meddling (such as encouraging Muslim inflexibility), such as the [[Peace plans proposed before and during the Bosnian War#Vance–Owen plan|Owen-Vance]] and [[Peace plans proposed before and during the Bosnian War#Owen–Stoltenberg plan|Owen-Stoltenberg]] plans.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Propaganda System Number One |journal= Z Magazine|date= September 2001|pages=42-50}}</ref>

Subjects regarding Yugoslavia’s disintegration that Herman wrote extensively on were the nature of the civil war in Yugoslavia, the massacre at Srebrenica, the Yugoslavian war crimes tribunal that was set up, and Milosevic’s treatment by it.

===Civil war coverage===Herman and Peterson wrote that once the civil wars began in Yugoslavia, the United States, Germany, NATO, and the [[European Union]] all supported the breakaway ethnic groups and opposed the group trying the hardest to hold Yugoslavia together, the Serbs, and that meant that the Western powers supported, in their turn, Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnian Muslims, and Kosovo Albanians.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |pages=46-51}}</ref> Herman and Peterson wrote that while the American-supported [[Operation Storm]] drove hundreds of thousands of Serbs from [[Republic of Serbian Krajina|Krajina]] and killed thousands of Serbs, every Serbian action was called a “massacre” or “genocide.”<ref>{{cite news |title= The Dismantling of Yugoslavia |last1= Herman |first1= Edward S.|last2= Peterson|first2= David|date= October 2007 |url= https://monthlyreview.org/2007/10/01/the-dismantling-of-yugoslavia/ |accessdate=29 June 2018|journal= Monthly Review|volume=5 |issue=5 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |page=46}}</ref>

In their ''The Politics of Genocide'', Herman and Peterson classified the civil war activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo as nefarious genocides.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |pages=46-51}}</ref> Herman and Peterson compared the Western media’s coverage of the civil wars in Yugoslavia to the coverage of the American sanctions regime against Iraq and its subsequent invasion and occupation by the United States. The official estimates of Bosnian Muslim civilian deaths were 33,000, while the deaths of Iraqis during the sanctions, invasion, and occupation were nearly two million people by the most credible estimates. The Bosnian Muslim civilian deaths were called “genocide” by the American media as often as the million deaths from the American invasion and occupation.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |page=35}}</ref>

===The Srebrenica Massacre and the media===One incident in particular during the disintegration of Yugoslavia had enduring relevance to Herman’s work, which was the massacre of “Bosnian Muslim men of military age” in July 1995, widely known as the [[Srebrenica Massacre]]. In 2011, Herman edited and contributed to ''The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics'', which UN official Phillip Corwin, who was the highest-ranking UN civilian official in Bosnia-Herzegovina in July 1995, wrote the foreword to, and who wrote:

<blockquote>But the situation is more complicated than the public relations specialists would have us believe. That there were killings of non-combatants in Srebrenica, as in all war zones, is a certainty. And those who perpetrated them deserve to be condemned and prosecuted. And whether it was three or 30 or 300 innocent civilians who were killed, it was a heinous crime. There can be no equivocation about that. At the same time, the facts presented in this volume make a very cogent argument that the figure of 8,000 killed, which is often bandied about in the international community, is an unsupportable exaggeration. The true figure may be closer to 800. The fact that the figure in question has been so distorted, however, suggests that the issue has been politicized. There is much more shock value in the death of 8,000 than in the death of 800.<ref>{{cite journal| editor1-first=Edward S.|editor1-last=Herman||author-first=Phillip|author-last=Corwin| title= The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics |url= http://resistir.info/livros/srebrenica_massacre_rev_3.pdf|access-date= July 1, 2018| year=2011 |page=8}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman wrote that the [[ICTY]] located 2,000 bodies in the aftermath of fighting in Srebrenica, and that the ICTY’s forensic analyst concluded that at least half of the bodies retrieved from the mass graves died in combat in the fierce fighting around Srebrenica, not by executions.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Golden Silences in the Propaganda System |journal= Z Magazine|date= June 2015|pages=8-11}}</ref> Herman wrote that less than 500 of the recovered bodies provided evidence of execution, which primarily consisted of blindfolds and ligatures.<ref>{{cite journal| editor1-first=Edward S.|editor1-last=Herman|author-first=Edward S.|author-last=Herman|title= The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context |url= http://resistir.info/livros/srebrenica_massacre_rev_3.pdf|access-date= July 1, 2018| year=2011|page=20}}</ref> Herman further noted that those victims may have been intentional sacrifices, abandoned by their commanders to their fate. A number of Bosnian Muslim officials stated that their leader, [[Alija Izetbegović]], informed them that [[Bill Clinton]] advised him that at least 5,000 Muslims had to be killed by Serbs at Srebrenica in order to justify an American intervention.<ref>{{cite journal| editor1-first=Edward S.|editor1-last=Herman|author-first=Edward S.|author-last=Herman|title= The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context |url= http://resistir.info/livros/srebrenica_massacre_rev_3.pdf|access-date= July 1, 2018| year=2011|page=22}}</ref> Herman wrote that the numerically superior Muslim forces withdrew, leaving those men vulnerable to Serbian forces.

Herman also noted that the executions were partly motivated by revenge, as several thousand Serbian civilians had been killed in the region by Bosnian Muslim invaders since 1992.<ref>{{cite journal| editor1-first=Edward S.|editor1-last=Herman|author-first=Edward S.|author-last=Herman|title= The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context |url= http://resistir.info/livros/srebrenica_massacre_rev_3.pdf|access-date= July 1, 2018| year=2011|page=19}}</ref> Even though the Serbs bussed Muslim women, children, and the elderly from the area before engaging in the massacre of Muslim military-age men, the American and Western media have referred to the incident ever since as a “genocide.”

As the highly publicized 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre arrived in 2015, Herman wrote that a much worse and undebatable massacre happened only a few months before Srebrenica’s, but virtually nobody in the West had ever heard of it: the massacre of several thousand [[Hutu|Hutus]] in a refugee camp near Kibeho in Rwanda by the [[Tutsi]] regime led by [[Paul Kagame]]. It was a slaughter of at least 8,000 Hutu men, women, and children by the Tutsi camp guards in April 1995. Its anniversary passed in nearly complete silence in the Western media. Herman argued that the “Golden Silence” of the media in the instance of the [[Kibeho massacre]] was because it was committed by American ally Paul Kagame’s forces. The only Western nation with any coverage of the Kibeho massacre’s anniversary was Australia, as 32 Australian medical personnel, working on the UN’s behalf, witnessed the slaughter. The Australians were forced to stop counting by the Tutsi camp guards when they reached 4,000 victims, which was less than half of the apparent corpses.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Golden Silences in the Propaganda System |journal= Z Magazine|date= June 2015|pages=8-11}}</ref> The issue of Rwanda and the Western media system became a focus of Herman’s work in the 21st century.

===The Yugoslavian war crimes tribunal and the media===Herman and Peterson wrote extensively on the [[ICTY]] and Western media coverage of it.<ref>{{cite book||author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David |title= “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons and the Yugoslavia Tribunal” |journal= The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic| year=2004 |publisher=Spokesman |pages=31-78}}</ref> Herman and human rights attorney [[Christopher Black]] argued that the chief prosecutor for the ICTY, [[Louise Arbour]], was an unindicted war criminal. Herman, Peterson, and Black argued that Arbour’s indictment of Milosevic for war crimes in the midst of NATO’s bombing campaign was one of the many judicial irregularities of her tenure at the ICTY, which included her inaction on an internal report prepared by the ICTY, which was leaked to the Western press, which chronicled war crimes greater than any that Milosevic was accused of, but the alleged perpetrators were Croatians and their [[Operation Storm]] was actively supported by the United States. Those named were not indicted. Black and Herman argued that Arbour dispensed with many principles of standard jurisprudence and even stated, “The law, to me, should be creative and used to make things right.”<ref>{{cite journal|author1-last=Black |first1=Christopher |author2-last= Herman|author-first2=Edward S.|title= Louise Arbour: Unindicted War Criminal | date=February 2000|journal= Z Magazine}}</ref>

Black and Herman, and later Herman and Peterson, listed some of the legal irregularities in the ICTY’s operation:

* No separation of prosecution and judge;** No right to bail and a speedy trial;** Defendants may be tried twice for the same crime;*

* No right to a jury trial;** No independent appeal body;** Admission of hearsay evidence;** Confessions to be presumed free and voluntary unless the contrary is established by the prisoner;** No definition of the burden of proof needed for a conviction, such as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”<ref>{{cite journal|author1-last=Black |first1=Christopher |author2-last= Herman|author-first2=Edward S.|title= Louise Arbour: Unindicted War Criminal | date=February 2000|journal= Z Magazine}}</ref><ref>{{cite book||author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David |title= “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons and the Yugoslavia Tribunal” |journal= The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic| year=2004 |publisher=Spokesman |pages=53-54}}</ref>Herman and Peterson presented a theme that Herman wrote extensively on afterward: when Nazi officials were tried at Nuremberg, American prosecutor [[Robert H. Jackson]] made a landmark statement: the greatest crime that the Nazis committed was [[Crime against peace#Nuremberg Principles|initiating a war of aggression]], which became the court’s position. Herman and Peterson noted that the UN Security Council excluded a war of aggression, which NATO’s bombing arguably was, from acts that the ICTY would prosecute.<ref>{{cite book||author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David |title= “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons and the Yugoslavia Tribunal” |journal= The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic| year=2004 |publisher=Spokesman |page=45}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson wrote about how the United States openly supported the ICTY, which operated under its direction, while it simultaneously announced that it would not recognize the authority of the [[International Criminal Court]], which it did not control.<ref>{{cite book||author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David |title= “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons and the Yugoslavia Tribunal” |journal= The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic| year=2004 |publisher=Spokesman |page=51}}</ref> Herman and Peterson’s essay on the subject was written to analyze the performance of ''The New York Times’s'' primary journalist who covered the ICTY, [[Marlise Simons]], who never noted any departures from accepted judicial practice for ''The New York Times’s'' readers. Herman and Peterson noted the striking parallels between the ICTY’s activities and the [[Moscow Trials|Stalinist show trial against Leon Trotsky]].<ref>{{cite book||author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David |title= “A Study in Propaganda: Marlise Simons and the Yugoslavia Tribunal” |journal= The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic| year=2004 |publisher=Spokesman |page=66}}</ref> Herman and Peterson wrote that Milosevic died in the ICTY’s custody of a heart attack, soon after the ICTY rejected Milosevic’s request for specialized medical treatment for his heart condition.

Herman later wrote that not only did politically compromised courts such as the ICTY define aggressive war out of existence, as far as war crimes were concerned, in direct contradiction to Nuremberg’s rulings, at least for those committed by the ICTY’s sponsors, so did the most prominent “human rights” organizations, such as [[Amnesty International]] (“AI”) and [[Human Rights Watch]] (“HRW”), which adopted the ideological framework of the imperial aggressors.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Western Aggression: The Highest Form of Terrorism |journal= Z Magazine|date= February 2016|pages=3-5}}</ref>

==Critique of Steven Pinker’s ''The Better Angels of our Nature''==In 2012, Herman and Peterson published ''Reality Denial'', which was a critique of Steven Pinker’s ''[[The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined]]''. Herman and Peterson argued that Pinker’s effort was thinly veiled imperial apologetics. Herman and Peterson wrote: “Pinker selects the estimated death toll that minimizes the U.S.-inflicted casualties and fits his political agenda.”<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence | year=2012 |url=http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf| access-date= 4 July 2018|publisher=ColdType |page=10}}</ref> Pinker argued for a “Long Peace” since the end of World War II, and Herman and Peterson countered with, “in the real world there has been a series of long and devastating U.S. wars […]”<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence | year=2012 |url=http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf| access-date= 4 July 2018|publisher=ColdType |page=8}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson presented an example of Pinker’s “genocide” estimate of Bosnian “massacre” deaths from 1992 to 1995 as between 100,000 and 200,000, while establishment estimates, including one by the ICTY, placed the deaths from all sides in Bosnia at 100,000 and Bosnian Muslim civilians at 33,000, as an example of Pinker’s tendency to exaggerate when reporting crimes of groups targeted by the American media.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S.|author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence | year=2012 |url=http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf| access-date= 4 July 2018|publisher=ColdType |pages=33-34}}</ref>

On Rwanda, Herman and Peterson wrote that not only did Pinker promote the Western idea that Rwanda’s Hutus slaughtered 700,000 Tutsis with machetes, which did not match the adducible facts that Herman and Peterson later wrote about in ''Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later'', Pinker failed to connect the conquest of Rwanda by the Tutsis to their subsequent invasion of Zaire, later named the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which had claimed several million lives when Pinker published his book.

Herman and Peterson noted that while Pinker regularly exaggerated when describing slaughters committed by enemies of the United States, for victims of American aggression, Pinker did not even mention them, such as the American-backed genocide in Guatemala in the 1980s, which killed about 200,000 people and was nowhere mentioned in Pinker’s book. Pinker also failed to mention the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in his book’s section on genocide, when it was likely the greatest proportional genocide since World War II. When Pinker mentioned East Timor, it was in the context of “civil war” and murders by “gangs of drugged or drunken hooligans.” Herman and Peterson wrote that there was no “civil war” when the genocide happened, and that far from “hooligans” performing the genocide, it was committed by the Indonesian military and its agents, with American weapons and support from the start, which was “a fact that might explain his lack of interest in this real genocide.”<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence | year=2012 |url=http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf| access-date= 4 July 2018|publisher=ColdType |pages=35-36}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson wrote about Pinker’s frequent mention of “terrorism” in ''Better Angels'', and a section of Pinker’s book was devoted to it, but the authors noted how Pinker adopted the framework that ignored [[#Terrorism and the Western media|state terrorism]] while focusing on “non-state actors.” The authors wrote that Pinker did not consider Israeli slaughters of Palestinians, fully intended to intimidate their target population, or the American “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq, to be acts of terrorism.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence | year=2012 |url=http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf| access-date= 4 July 2018|publisher=ColdType |page=37}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson finished ''Reality Denial'' with:<blockquote>In the final analysis, ''The Better Angels of Our Nature'' is an inflated political tract that misuses data and rewrites history in accord with its author’s clear ideological biases, while finding ideology at work only in the actions of his opponents […] Small wonder, then, that the message of ''Better Angels'' pleases so well the editors of the ''New York Times'' and the large U.S. permanent-war establishment. It is regrettable that despite its manifest problems, the book has bamboozled so many other people who should know better. <ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence | year=2012 |url=http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf| access-date= 4 July 2018|publisher=ColdType |pages=92-93}}</ref></blockquote>

==The Tutsi conquest of Rwanda and invasion of the Congo==In ''CRV'' and ''The Washington Connection'', Chomsky and Herman wrote about [[Tutsi]] slaughters of [[Hutu]] in 1972 and described the Tutsi slaughters of Burundi’s Hutu professionals, including several members of the government’s cabinet and all Hutu officers in the military, up to 250,000 victims in all, as a “benign bloodbath.” When the

killings finally ended, there was only one Hutu nurse in Burundi.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Chomsky |first1=Noam |last2=Herman |first2=Edward S. |title=The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism |year=1979 |publisher=South End Press |pages=106-109}}</ref>

In their ''The Politics of Genocide'', Herman and Peterson categorized the 1994 events in [[Rwanda]] as a “nefarious genocide.” Rwanda’s subsequent invasion of the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]] (known as Zaire when the invasion began) (“DRC”) was termed a “benign bloodbath,” and they wrote on the issue extensively afterward, which culminated in their ''Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later''. Herman and Peterson wrote that contrary to the media’s reporting in English-speaking Western nations, particularly the United States, the [[United Kingdom]], and [[Canada]], that the [[Hutu|Hutus]] of Rwanda planned and partially executed a genocide against the [[Tutsi]] minority, what really happened was a war of conquest waged by the Tutsi-led [[Rwandan Patriotic Front]] (“RPF”), which invaded Rwanda from [[Uganda]] in 1990, [[Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira|assassinated Rwanda’s president]] in 1994, and then waged a war of conquest that succeeded within 100 days. Herman and Peterson wrote that the RPF’s conquest of Rwanda was a prelude to its [[First Congo War|1996 invasion of neighboring Zaire]], which caused the deaths of more than five million people, according to a UN estimate.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=50}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson wrote that when the RPF invaded Rwanda, [[Paul Kagame]] was training at an American military school and soon came to lead the invasion, when the original leader, who was Kagame’s close friend, died on the invasion’s second day. The invasion force killed tens of thousands of Hutus over the next several years. Herman and Peterson wrote that the RPF’s invasion from Uganda has been largely omitted from Western histories, particularly by the Rwandan war crimes tribunal that was established.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=22-26}}</ref> Human rights organizations such as [[Amnesty International|AI]] and [[Human Rights Watch|HRW]] completely ignored the crime of the RPF’s invasion of Rwanda and instead focused on what crimes Rwanda’s government may have committed in response to the invasion, in what Herman and Peterson called AI and HRW’s “ugly” role in the events.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=67}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson argued that the events in Rwanda and the DRC comprised one of the media’s greatest Orwellian triumphs, as it switched the places of perpetrators and victims, so that dead Hutu refugees, among more than five million dead victims of RPF

aggression, were called “genocidists,” while members of the perpetrator ethnic group (the Tutsis), who might have suffered 200,000 deaths per Herman and Peterson’s estimate, among others, largely in reprisal killings during Rwanda’s conquest, were called the victims. Herman and Peterson wrote that the primary author of the butcheries, Kagame, was feted in the American, British, and Canadian media as a heroic figure, even compared to [[Abraham Lincoln]], and a journalist working for ''The New York Times'' wrote a book that Herman and Peterson called “hagiography.”<ref>The “hagiography” that Herman and Peterson referred to was Stephen Kinzer’s ''A Thousand Hills: Rwanda’s Rebirth and Man Who Dreamed It''.{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=93}}</ref> Herman and Peterson wrote that Kagame is “possibly the greatest mass murderer alive today.”<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=77}}</ref>

===The Rwandan war crimes tribunal===As in Yugoslavia, an American-led effort soon established a war crimes tribunal, the [[ICTR]], which exclusively prosecuted Hutus, generally for the crime of “conspiracy to commit genocide.” The ICTR was led by the same people from the ICTY, and Louise Arbour in particular. The ICTR’s initial investigation, led by Australian attorney Michael Hourigan, into the [[Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira|assassination]] that precipitated the events of the RPF’s conquest, revealed that Kagame had ordered the assassination. Arbour then terminated the investigative effort and the ICTR never again investigated the assassination, even though an independent investigation of the assassination on behalf of the crewmembers of the downed plane also concluded that the Kagame-led RPF was responsible for the assassination.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |pages=26-32}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson wrote that Kagame could never win an honest election in Rwanda, not with Tutsis comprising about 10% of Rwanda’s population, so assassinating Habyarimana made strategic sense. The investigator on behalf of the crewmembers’ families issued arrest warrants for nine members of the RPF for their role in Habyarimana’s assassination. The investigator also adduced a witness to the delivery of the missiles used in the attack to the RPF’s headquarters and even the identities of the RPF soldiers who fired the missiles, one of which missed, while the other hit Habyarimana’s airplane.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |pages=27-29}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson wrote that not only was there no credible evidence of Hutu involvement in Habyarimana’s assassination, but that the scenario was highly implausible:<blockquote>On the assumption that the shoot-down was central to the larger plan of [[Hutu Power]] and genocide, this would have required a miracle of Hutu incompetence; but it would be entirely understandable if it was carried out by Kagame’s force as part of ''their'' planned program to seize state power.”<ref>{{cite news |title= Genocide Denial and Genocide Facilitation: Gerald Caplan and ''The Politics of Genocide''|last1= Herman |first1= Edward S.|last2= Peterson|first2= David|date= July 4, 2010 |url= https://mronline.org/2010/07/04/genocide-denial-and-genocide-facilitation-gerald-caplan-and-the-politics-of-genocide/ |access-date=3 July 2018|journal= MR Online}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman and Peterson wrote that today’s standard Western view, espoused by Kagame’s apologists, is that Habyarimana’s assassination remains shrouded in mystery, and the ICTR pretended that Hourigan’s investigation never happened. Today, when the Western media assigns any responsibility for the assassination, it is to an organization called Hutu Power.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |pages=26-32}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson argued that the ICTR was as politically compromised as the ICTY was, with legal irregularities that were arguably worse, but even then, every Hutu prosecuted by the ICTR was either acquitted of the charge of “conspiracy to commit genocide” or had their convictions overturned on appeal.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |pages=43-46}}</ref> The alleged Hutu plans to exterminate Rwanda’s Tutsis comprise what Herman and Peterson called “the foundational lie” of the “standard model.”

Arbour and her predecessor did not prosecute any Tutsis, but when their successor, [[Carla Del Ponte]], who also served at the ICTY, tried to indict some RPF members for their alleged participation in massacres of Hutus, she was soon removed from her position after a campaign led by Kagame’s regime, accompanied by American and British diplomatic pressure.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |pages=41-42}}</ref>

In 2007, regarding events in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, Herman wrote that genocide inflation is the real human rights threat, more so than genocide denial, and that “genocidalism” had become a tool of American expansion.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15696 |title=Genocide Inflation is the Real Human Rights Threat: Yugoslavia and Rwanda |publisher=ZNet online ZMagazine |accessdate=2007-11-28 |deadurl=yes

|archiveurl=https://archive.is/20130416060353/http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15696 |archivedate=April 16, 2013|df= }}</ref>

In his review of ''Justice Belied: The Unbalanced Scales of International Criminal Justice'', Herman wrote that the authors in ''Justice Belied'' made a persuasive case that the Western-dominated international criminal justice system that the West recently invented does not deliver anything resembling justice. Herman wrote:<blockquote>One major theme pressed in a number of chapters is that the international criminal justice system that has emerged in the age of tribunals and “humanitarian intervention” has replaced a real, if imperfect, system of international justice with one that misuses forms of justice to allow dominant powers to attack lesser countries without legal impediment […] No tribunals have been established for Israel’s actions in Palestine or Kagame’s mass killings in the DRC. Numerous authors in ''Justice Belied'' stress the remarkable fact of the [[International Criminal Court|ICC’s]] exclusive focus on Africans, with not a single case of charges brought against non-Africans. And within Africa itself the selectivity is notorious – U.S. clients Kagame and [[Museveni]] are exempt; U.S. targets [[Kenyatta]], [[Charles Taylor|Taylor]], and [[Gadaffi]] are charged.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Review of ‘Justice Belied: The Unbalanced Scales of International Criminal Justice’ |journal= Z Magazine|date= January 2015}}</ref></blockquote>

===Media coverage===As with all of their previous efforts, Herman and Peterson focused on the media’s disparity of coverage. In their ''The Politics of Genocide'', they argued that the term “genocide” had become a political construct in the West, and its application was dependent on whether the bloodbaths were “constructive,” “benign,” or “nefarious” (which includes “mythical”). Herman and Peterson analyzed the media’s use of “genocide” to depict killings in various “theaters of atrocities.” The disparity that their research revealed might be the greatest to be found in the social sciences. For the 4,000 Albanian deaths in Kosovo, the print media called it “genocide” 323 times. For the 5,400,000 deaths in the Congo, the media called it “genocide” 17 times. In summary, the death of an Albanian in the “nefarious genocide” in Kosovo was more than 25,000 times as likely to be described as “genocide” as the death of a Hutu refugee in the “benign bloodbath” in the DRC.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |page=35}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author2-last=Herman |first2=Edward S. |author1-last= Peterson|author-first1=David|title= Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo in the Propaganda System| date= May 1, 2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |url= https://monthlyreview.org/2010/05/01/rwanda-and-the-democratic-republic-of-congo-in-the-propaganda-system/ |page=35}}</ref> In his foreword to ''The Politics of Genocide'', Chomsky wrote that the media’s usage of the term “genocide” was “an insult to the memory of victims of the Nazis.”<ref>{{cite book|author-last=Chomsky |first1=Noam |title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |page=7}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson performed a global media analysis on bylined articles that appeared between April 1, 2004 and April 30, 2014. The promoters of the standard model of the Rwandan genocide appeared in print more than ten times as frequently as the dissenters, and articles written by Kagame himself, which numbered 17, equaled the entire published output of the dissenters.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=71}}</ref>

The most prolific apologist for Kagame and promoter of the standard model has been [[Gerald Caplan]], who had 30 articles published in the global media during the period that Herman and Peterson studied.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=72}}</ref> Caplan was the principal author of ''Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide'', sponsored by the [[Organization of African Unity]] (OAU). While the OAU specifically instructed the effort led by Caplan to investigate [[Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira| Juvénal Habyarimana’s assassination]], it never did, completely ignored the original ICTR investigation as if it never happened, and refused to attribute the assassination to anybody, instead stating that the truth was “shrouded in conflicting rumors.” When acting in a less official capacity and as an apologist for Kagame, Caplan cited the RPF’s investigation, which blamed “Hutu extremists.” Filip Reyntjens, a Belgian academic and former ICTR investigator, wrote that Caplan’s assessment of the RPF’s investigation of Habyarimana’s assassination was “a painfully biased and uncritical endorsement.”<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |pages=30-31}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson wrote that the second-most prolific promoter of the standard model, [[Linda Melvern]], also wrote as if the ICTR investigation never happened, but remarked on the “continuing secrecy of western nations, the withholding of evidence and the failure to conduct an international inquiry,” while never seeming to suspect that the situation that she calls “shocking” could be due to the United States’ and United Kingdom’s efforts to protect their interests.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014|publisher=The Real News Books |page=31}}</ref>

===American involvement===Bill Clinton repeatedly stated that his administration’s failure to intervene in the Hutus’ genocide of the Tutsis was his greatest regret as president.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=35}}</ref> Herman and Peterson

wrote that when Clinton said in 2013 that, “If we’d have gone sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost…it had an enduring impact on me,” that “he managed to combine an implicit lie with rank hypocrisy.”<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=75}}</ref> Herman and Peterson wrote that, far from being inactive regarding the Rwandan genocide, Clinton acted decisively, leading the effort to withdraw the UN peacekeepers from Rwanda in the spring of 1994, immediately prior to the RPF’s war of conquest, so that UN forces would not interfere in or observe the coming carnage. Herman and Peterson wrote that the Clinton administration acted similarly in 1996, leading the effort to prevent the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in Zaire, to protect Hutu refugees. Herman and Peterson argued that it was to ensure that Kagame’s invaders could once again slaughter Hutus, inflicting millions of deaths in Zaire-the DRC, unencumbered by any UN constraints.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |pages=54-55}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15696 |title=Genocide Inflation is the Real Human Rights Threat: Yugoslavia and Rwanda |publisher=ZNet online ZMagazine |accessdate=2007-11-28 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://archive.is/20130416060353/http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15696 |archivedate=April 16, 2013|df= }}</ref>

Herman and Peterson argued that the entire series of events in Rwanda and the DRC was designed to displace French business interests in favor of those in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada, particularly mining interests.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=54}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson quoted historian [[René Lemarchand]] regarding how profitable Rwanda’s invasion of the DRC was, primarily from its mining activities. Lemarchand wrote:<blockquote>It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that by turning a blind eye to the profits drawn from the looting of the Congo’s wealth, the international community [. . .] is tacitly encouraging a colonial enterprise in the best tradition of European imperialism.<ref>{{cite news |title= Adam Jones on Rwanda and Genocide: A Reply |last1= Herman |first1= Edward S.|last2= Peterson|first2= David|date= August 14, 2010 |url= https://mronline.org/2010/08/14/adam-jones-on-rwanda-and-genocide-a-reply/ |access-date=3 July 2018|journal= MR Online|volume=5}}</ref></blockquote>===Rwandan elections===In 2003 and 2010, Rwanda held elections in which Kagame won 95 and 93 percent of the vote, respectively. Herman and Peterson wrote:<blockquote>Disappearances, assassinations, and extended prison sentences for opposition political figures and journalists, and the banning of opposition parties, have been regular features of a 20-year-long Kagame-RPF “regime consolidation” and the ascendancy of Kagame Power.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|

author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=13}}</ref></blockquote>Herman and Peterson further wrote that if enemy states had such electoral statistics, the American media would have subjected the results to:<blockquote>[…] huge, angry, and sarcastic denunciations to such a display of electoral corruption, and rejected and delegitimized the outcomes. But Kagame’s flagrantly corrupt victories and brutal means his RPF has employed to guarantee them have hardly caused a dent in his recognition as a respectable and legitimate leader.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=13}}</ref></blockquote> In 2017, Kagame was elected with 99% of the vote, to ensure his tenure as Rwandan president until at least 2024.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kuzmarov |first=Jeremy |title= Dictators and Double Standards|journal= Z Magazine|date= October 2017|pages=10-12}}</ref>

===Invasion of the Congo===Herman and Peterson wrote extensively about [[First Congo War|Rwanda’s invasion of Zaire]], later named the DRC, in 1996, after Kagame consolidated his rule in Rwanda.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=48-55}}</ref> Herman and Peterson wrote that the Pentagon supported the invasion of Zaire-the DRC even more than the RPF’s conquest of Rwanda.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|author-first2=David|title= The Politics of Genocide| year=2010 |publisher=Monthly Review Press |pages=66-67}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson wrote about the Rwandan “system of blood and money”:<blockquote>In short, once the RPF controlled the Rwandan state, it immediately turned its prodigious killing machine towards Zaire’s natural resources.  This it may have done under cover of chasing the Hutu ''genocidaires'', but the pillage of Zaire-the DRC worked out so well for the RPF that by the late 1990s it had “built up a self-financing war economy centered on mineral exploitation,” in the words of the UN Panel, with the pillage of resources so complete that it not only finances the RPF’s aggression, but generates annual surpluses back in Kigali as well.<ref>{{cite news |title= Adam Jones on Rwanda and Genocide: A Reply |last1= Herman |first1= Edward S.|last2= Peterson|first2= David|date= August 14, 2010 |url= https://mronline.org/2010/08/14/adam-jones-on-rwanda-and-genocide-a-reply/ |access-date=3 July 2018|journal= MR Online|volume=5}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman and Peterson wrote that while the crimes that attended the invasion of Zaire-the DRC dwarfed what happened in Rwanda, not only was no war crimes tribunal established for the invasion of Zaire-the DRC, but that even the [[International Criminal Court]] had no interest in prosecuting Kagame, while they pursued six individuals in the DRC.<ref>{{cite book|author1-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |author2-last= Peterson|

author-first2=David|title= Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later | year=2014 |publisher=The Real News Books |page=75-77}}</ref>

===BBC’s ''Rwanda’s Untold Story''===In October 2014, the same month that ''Enduring Lies'' was published, British Broadcasting Corporation’s BBC 2’s ''This World'' broadcast ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'', which, for the first time in the English-speaking West, told a story in the mainstream that differed from the standard model. '' Rwanda’s Untold Story'' featured voices long-marginalized in the West on the Rwanda issue, such as former FBI counter-terrorism agent James Lyons, whose position at the ICTR was Commander of Investigations and who was involved in Hourigan’s investigation. ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'' featured Aloys Ruyenzi, who was a member of Kagame’s personal guard who stated that he heard Kagame order Habyarimana’s assassination and saw Kagame’s happiness when Habyarimana’s assassination was reported. On ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'', Del Ponte told the story of how she lost her job as ICTR prosecutor when she tried indicting RPF members.

While ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'' adhered to undemonstrated ideas such as a Hutu-planned genocide of Tutsis, its challenge of the standard model of the genocide was unprecedented in the Western mainstream media. Within days of the televising of ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'', 38 leading promoters of the standard model, including Melvern and Caplan, wrote a letter to the BBC, accusing ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'' of being an exercise in “genocide denial.”<ref>{{cite news |title= Rwanda’s Untold Story: Letter to the Director-General of the BBC |last1= Melvern |first1= Linda, et al.|date= August 14, 2010 |url= http://www.lindamelvern.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/166-lette |access-date=4 July 2018}}</ref>

In Peterson and Herman’s reply to the “38’s” letter, they noted that while ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'' used a very loose definition of “genocide,” the show was an important departure from 20 years of propaganda and that the creators of ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'' deserved “their audience’s gratitude - not condemnation.”<ref>{{cite news |title= The Kagame-Power Lobby’s Dishonest Attack on the BBC 2’s Documentary on Rwanda |last2= Herman |first2= Edward S.|last1= Peterson|first1= David|date= July 4, 2010 |url= https://mronline.org/2014/11/01/hp011114-html-2/ |access-date=4 July 2018|journal= MR Online}}</ref>

Herman and Peterson discussed the “38’s” letter to the BBC, noting that the term “genocide denial” and its variants dominated their letter, and that “genocide” was used at least 27 times, but it only referred to events in Rwanda in 1994, and the 38 were silent on the undisputed slaughter of millions in Zaire-the DRC as a result of the RPF’s invasion. Herman and Peterson asked:<blockquote>[…] doesn’t their exclusive focus on Rwanda 1994 and the alleged Hutu conspiracy to exterminate the Tutsi make them apologists for the larger follow-up genocide?<ref>{{cite news |title= The Kagame-Power Lobby’s Dishonest Attack on the BBC 2’s Documentary on Rwanda |last2= Herman |first2= Edward S.|last1= Peterson|first1= David|date= July 4, 2010 |url=

https://mronline.org/2014/11/01/hp011114-html-2/ |access-date=4 July 2018|journal= MR Online}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman and Peterson concluded with:<blockquote>We have seen that the 38 have a penchant for slander as well as straightforward misrepresentation.  It is for committing the grave intellectual and moral crime of providing an alternative but, we believe, entirely credible and evidence-based reinterpretations of what really happened in Rwanda in 1994 that the 38 would like ''Rwanda’s Untold Story'' expunged from the BBC archives and its production team sent to the woodshed.<ref>{{cite news |title= The Kagame-Power Lobby’s Dishonest Attack on the BBC 2’s Documentary on Rwanda |last2= Herman |first2= Edward S.|last1= Peterson|first1= David|date= July 4, 2010 |url= https://mronline.org/2014/11/01/hp011114-html-2/ |access-date=4 July 2018|journal= MR Online}}</ref></blockquote>

==American interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria==Herman often wrote about former ally Iraq during the American sanctions, invasion, and occupation, and Iraq’s subsequent disintegration. Herman wrote about how surprised and appalled he was when American soldiers lamented when Sunni insurgents gained control of Fallujah. The ''New York Times'' quoted an American Marine Corps Sergeant who fought in Fallujah who stated, “It made me sick to my stomach to have that thrown in our face, everything that we fought for so blatantly taken away.” Herman wrote that the American attack on Fallujah in 2004 not only killed thousands of people and reduced much of the city to rubble, but that, “Hospitals were an explicit target and weapons like white phosphorus and uranium-larded projectiles were used, all adding up to massive violations of the laws of war.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title=After All We Did For Them in Fallujah!|journal= Z Magazine|date= October 2015|pages=5-7}}</ref>

Herman repeatedly wrote about [[Madeleine Albright|Madeleine Albright’s]] response in 1996 to the question of 500,000 Iraqi children’s deaths being a result of the American-led sanctions regime. Albright replied that those children’s deaths “were worth it.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title=Nasty legacies|journal= Z Magazine|date= September 2015|pages=8-10}}</ref>

Herman wrote about the American interventions in Syria, and how the same journalists who advocated invading Iraq on what turned out to be false pretexts advocated American intervention in Syria. Herman wrote about ''New York Times'' journalist [[Bill Keller]], who promoted the American invasion of Iraq, and was then (in 2013) promoting the American attempt to overthrow the Syrian government:<blockquote>[…] if Keller could swallow the fairly obvious lies of Bush war propaganda ten years earlier, and ignore throughout the Iraq war and occupation the gross violation of international law, why should anybody trust his judgment as he tries to rationalize the next war?<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Foreign Engagement v. Aggression |journal= Z Magazine|date= June 2016|pages=27-29}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman wrote that Keller dismissed any Israeli influence on American policy regarding Syria and failed to mention domestic interests that would be served by overthrowing Syria’s government.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Foreign Engagement v. Aggression |journal= Z Magazine|date= June 2016|pages=27-29}}</ref>

In the last year of his life, Herman wrote about how the warfare in Syria was a successor to the attacks on Iraq and Libya. Herman wrote of [[Wesley Clark|General Wesley Clark’s]] claim in March 2007 that not long after the 9/11 terror attacks, he was shown a list prepared by [[Donald Rumsfeld]] and [[Paul Wolfowitz]] of seven Middle East and North African countries that were planned for attack and regime change, and that Iraq and Libya had already been attacked by the United States and turned into failed states. Herman wrote:<blockquote>The United States has been supporting regime change forces in Syria as far back as 2011, but the job has not been completed, in part because of Russian support for president [[Bashar al-Assad|Assad]]. Truce efforts by the U.S. and Russia have regularly broken down because the U.S. still aims at regime change and supports the rebel forces that Russia targets, many or most of which are [[Al Qaeda]]- or [[ISIS]]-related and whose victory would mean another Libya-like failed state.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= U.S. Political and Moral Disarray |journal= Z Magazine|date= December 2016|pages=15-17}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman favorably reviewed [[Diana Johnstone|Diana Johnstone’s]] ''Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton'', which covered [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary Clinton’s]] role in the American termination of Honduran democracy in 2009 and the war on Libya in 2011, while she was Secretary of State, among her other activities.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= review of ''Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton'' |journal= Z Magazine|date= November 2015|pages=44-46}}</ref> Herman later wrote that if Hillary was the Queen of Chaos, then “Obama is surely King.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= King of Chaos |journal= Z Magazine|date= March 2016|pages=4-6}}</ref> Before the American-led attack on Libya, it had Africa’s highest standard of living.<ref>Libya ranked 53rd among Earth’s 169 nations studied, and had the highest-rank for an African nation.{{cite journal|last= Klugman |first=Jeni, et al. |title= Human Development Report 2010, 20th Anniversary Edition” United Nations Development Programme |journal= United Nations Development Programme |url= http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/reports/270/hdr_2010_en_complete_reprint.pdf|year=2010|page =144}}</ref>

Herman wrote that [[Muammar Gadaffi]] was “the most important leader seeking an Africa free of Western domination, who was the chairman of the [[African Union]] in 2009, two years before his overthrow and murder.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= King of Chaos |journal= Z Magazine|date= March 2016|pages=4-6}}</ref>

Herman wrote of [[Barack Obama|Barack Obama’s]] war against Libya, and noted that Gaddafi’s death set the stage for the “United States African Command and U.S.-African

state ‘partnerships’ to combat ‘terrorism,’” which was “a major setback to African independence and progress.” Herman wrote that while Obama’s speeches called for nuclear disarmament, Obama immediately embarked on a nuclear “modernization” program that made their use more likely (“smaller, more accurate, less lethal”). Herman also wrote that Israel was trying to influence the United States to also militarily attack Iran.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= King of Chaos |journal= Z Magazine|date= March 2016|pages=4-6}}</ref>

==The revolution in Ukraine and the media’s treatment of Russia and Putin==Although ''Enduring Lies'' was the last book that Herman authored, he kept writing for ''Z Magazine'' and ''MR Online'' until his life’s last months. In his life’s last years he wrote at length about the media’s treatment of Russia and [[Vladimir Putin]], after American media targets such as [[Muammar Gadaffi]], [[Saddam Hussein|Saddam Hussein]], and [[Osama Bin Laden]] had been killed. Herman wrote about 2014’s [[2014 Ukrainian revolution|Ukrainian revolution]] since it happened, calling it a “coup,” as did Putin, and [[John Mearsheimer]] wrote that calling it a “coup” was accurate.<ref>{{cite journal|last= Mearsheimer |first=John|url= https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-18/why-ukraine-crisis-west-s-fault |title= Why the Ukrainian crisis Is the West’s fault |work=Foreign Affairs|date= September-October 2014|accessdate=4 July 2018}}</ref>

Herman wrote that the Obama administration was highly critical of Russia’s “aggressive” [[Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation|annexation of Crimea]], which Crimea’s citizens overwhelmingly voted for, in an “aggression” for which the causalities were likely five people at most, if any at all, while the USA’s invasion of Iraq cost around a million lives, but was somehow not an aggression. Herman wrote about the double standards that the Obama administration used with Russia and Ukraine, as compared to NATO’s Kosovo bombings.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= The Fool, the Demagogue, and the Former KGB Colonel |journal= Z Magazine|date= May 2014|pages=11-14}}</ref>

Herman regularly wrote in subsequent years about the media’s hypocritical treatment of Russia, particularly in contrast to how the media treated the American invasion of Iraq, noting that: “The double standard maintained by the mainstream has been spectacular.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Double Standards and/or Hypocrisy? |journal= Z Magazine|date= December 2014|pages=6-8}}</ref> Herman wrote that journalists who challenge the mainstream assumptions of “Russian villainy and U.S.-U.K reasonableness” are labeled “advocacy journalists,” while mainstream journalists are “not advocating anything, just reporting.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Double Standards and/or Hypocrisy? |journal= Z Magazine|date= December 2014|pages=6-8}}</ref>

Herman noted the American media’s hostile treatment of Putin, which regularly described him as a “former [[KGB]] colonel.” Herman asked if his readers could imagine the American media regularly referring to [[George H. W. Bush]] as the “former head of the [[CIA]].” Herman wrote on Putin and his treatment in the American media:<blockquote>Of course, every blemish on his career, and they are real –

Chechnya, his position on gay rights, the weakness of Russian democracy and power of the oligarchs (which he inherited from the U.S.-supported [[Yeltsin]]) – is featured regularly. Underneath this is the fact that he represents Russian national interests, which conflict with the outward drive and interests of the U.S. imperial elite.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= The Fool, the Demagogue, and the Former KGB Colonel |journal= Z Magazine|date= May 2014|pages=11-14}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman wrote that Putin became a key figure in the United States’ 2016 presidential election as the “establishment’s devil-of-the-decade.” Hillary Clinton used [[Donald Trump|Donald Trump’s]] lack of hostility toward Russia, and even an expressed willingness to work with Putin, as a point of attack, and Clinton called Putin “another Hitler.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Containing the United States |journal= Z Magazine|date= September 2016|pages=23-25}}</ref> After the surprising Trump electoral victory and the escalating anti-Russian rhetoric, Herman wrote “The New Anti-Russian Hysteria” in ''Z Magazine''.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= The New Anti-Russian Hysteria |journal= Z Magazine|date= April 2017|pages=24-27}}</ref> Herman then published “Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The ''New York Times'', 1917-2017” in ''Monthly Review'', which became his penultimate published work and the last journal article in his lifetime.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The ''New York Times'', 1917-2017 |url= https://monthlyreview.org/2017/07/01/fake-news-on-russia-and-other-official-enemies/ |journal= Monthly Review|date= July-August 2017|pages=24-27}}</ref>

Herman wrote that ''The New York Times'' had been hostile to Russia since the [[Russian Revolution of 1917]]. Between 1917 and 1920, ''The New York Times'' claimed that the Bolshevik regime was on the brink of collapse at least 91 times, while reporting atrocity stories that were false. Herman wrote about a century of disinformation that ''The New York Times'' reported about the Soviet Union and Russia, and how the American media promoted hysteria over Russia in 2016-2017, of which the most notable incident was when the ''Washington Post'' published an article about an anonymous group, [[PropOrNot]], that listed two hundred news and commentary sites as “routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.” PropOrNot hid behind anonymity while making its unfounded claims about those sites, and Herman wrote that “the ''Post'' welcomed and promoted this [[McCarthyism|McCarthyite]] effort, which might well be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare.”<ref>{{cite journal|last=Herman |first=Edward S. |title= Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The ''New York Times'', 1917-2017 |url= https://monthlyreview.org/2017/07/01/fake-news-on-russia-and-other-official-enemies/ |journal= Monthly Review|date= July-August 2017|pages=24-27}}</ref>

==Critical assessments and criticisms=====The propaganda model===Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model was the chief theoretical construct of Herman’s academic career and received a wide array of responses and [[propaganda model#Criticism|criticisms]]. Although it has been systematically marginalized in

academic discourse, it is one of the most tested models in the social sciences.<ref>{{cite journal|author1-last=Mullen |author1-first=Andrew |author2-last= Klaehn | author-first2= Jeffery |title= The Herman–Chomsky Propaganda Model: A Critical Approach to Analysing Mass Media Behaviour|journal= Sociology Compass|year= 2010|url= http://www.theh20network.com/uploads/9/7/2/2/9722770/the_propaganda_model.pdf|volume = 4/4|pages=215-229}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last= Klaehn |first= Jeffery |title= A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’ |journal= European Journal of Communication|year= 2002|volume= 17(2)| pages=147-182}}</ref>

Herman and Chomsky wrote at length in dealing with critiques of their propaganda model and how it had fared in subsequent years. The year after ''Manufacturing Consent'' was published, Chomsky addressed critiques of the propaganda model in his ''[[Necessary Illusions]]''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |date=1989 |title=Necessary Illusions |edition=1st |pages=137-180}}</ref> Chomsky wrote that the propaganda model held up well to tests of its validity, and noted that paired examples clearly identify the double-standards that the media uses for reporting similar events. Chomsky reiterated the dichotomous treatment of [[propaganda model#Worthy and unworthy victims|Polish and Central American priest and nun murders]], in which the murder of one priest in an enemy regime received far more coverage than the collective coverage of the murders of a hundred priests and nuns in client regimes.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |date=1989 |title=Necessary Illusions |edition=1st |pages=137-138}}</ref>

Chomsky specifically replied to [[Walter LaFeber|Walter LaFeber’s]] review in ''The New York Times''.<ref>{{cite news|last=LaFeber|first=Walter|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/06/books/whose-news.html|title=Whose News?|work=The New York Times|date=November 6, 1988|accessdate=November 22, 2017}}</ref>, which Chomsky noted was one of the rare responses that was not “mere invective.”<ref>{{cite book |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |date=1989 |title=Necessary Illusions |edition=1st |page=148}}</ref>

LaFeber wrote that the impressive detailed work in ''Manufacturing Consent'' was weakened by the tendency of the authors to “overstate” their case, and LaFeber provided examples that he argued contradicted the propaganda model, notably that activists had hampered the Reagan administration’s attempts to support the Nicaraguan [[Contras]].

Regarding LaFeber’s assertion that activist victories contradicted the propaganda model, Chomsky responded with:<blockquote>Consider [LaFeber’s] first argument: the model is undermined by the fact that efforts to “mobilize bias” sometimes fail. By the same logic, an account of how ''Pravda'' works to “mobilize bias” would be undermined by the existence of dissidents. Plainly, the thesis that ''Pravda'' serves as an organ of state propaganda is not disconfirmed by the fact that there are many dissidents in the Soviet Union. Nor would the thesis be confirmed if every word printed by ''Pravda'' were

accepted uncritically by the entire Soviet population. The thesis says nothing about the degree of success of the propaganda. LaFeber’s first argument is not relevant; it does not address the model we present.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |date=1989 |title=Necessary Illusions |edition=1st |page=148}}</ref></blockquote>

LaFeber’s second and third arguments against ''Manufacturing Consent’s'' thesis fared similarly in Chomsky’s analysis, particularly an instance of reporting that LaFeber argued undermined the propaganda model: when the Reagan administration lied when stating that Soviet [[Mikoyan|MiGs]] had been delivered to the Nicaraguan government, and that lie coincided with the Nicaraguan election. The MiG lie pushed the Nicaraguan election completely out of media attention. Chomsky replied that it was not an exception at all, but conformed to the propaganda model. Chomsky’s response to LaFeber’s “exception” finished with: “That the media questioned what was openly conceded by the government to be false is not a very persuasive demonstration of their independence from power.”<ref>{{cite book |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |date=1989 |title=Necessary Illusions |edition=1st |page=381}}</ref> Herman replied that the MiG event “fits our propaganda model to perfection.”<ref>{{cite news|last1=Herman|first1=Edward S.|last2=LaFeber|first2=Walter|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/11/books/l-news-and-propaganda-307488.html?scp=2&sq=Manufacturing+consent&st=nyt|title=News and Propaganda|work=The New York Times|date=December 11, 1988|accessdate=November 22, 2017}}</ref>

Herman and Chomsky concluded that LaFeber’s was one of the few critiques of ''Manufacturing Consent'' worth replying to, but it contained logical fallacies that invalidated the critique.

====Herman’s and Chomsky’s subsequent assessments====In [[propaganda model#1996|1996]], Herman wrote about how the propaganda model had fared since the publication of ''Manufacturing Consent''. Herman acknowledged that the anticommunism filter may have been weakened by the collapse of the Soviet Union, but that it had been offset by the greater ideological force of the “miracle of the market.”<ref>{{cite news |title= Reprise: The Propaganda Model Revisited |author=Edward S. Herman|date= January 1, 2018 |url= https://monthlyreview.org/2018/01/01/the-propaganda-model-revisited/ |journal= MR Online}}</ref> Herman dealt with “mainstream liberal and academic ‘left’ critiques,” which variously charged that the propaganda model was a conspiracy theory, that it arose from Chomsky’s linguistics (when Herman was actually the primary author, and it arose from his studies of corporations), that it ignored reporters’ experiences, that it failed to take account of media professionalism and objectivity, that it failed to explain continued opposition to mainstream propaganda and government behavior, and that it was too mechanistic and functionalist. Herman argued that all such criticisms were invalid and generally reflected a failure to understand what the propaganda model really is:<blockquote>[…] a broad framework of analysis that requires modification depending on many local and special factors, and might be entirely inapplicable in some cases.</blockquote> Herman further noted that the propaganda model described how

the media operated, not how effective it was.<ref>{{cite book |last=Herman |first=Edward S. |date=1999 |title=The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader |edition=1st |page=261}}</ref>

In [[propaganda model#2009|2009]], Herman and Chomsky concluded that the effects of the first four filters had become even more pronounced in the intervening 20 years, while the fifth, anticommunist ideology, had somewhat receded since the demise of the Soviet Union, but that the “‘war on terror’ has provided a useful substitute for the Soviet Menace.”<ref>{{cite journal|author-last=Mullen |author-first=Andrew |title= The Propaganda Model after 20 Years: Interview with Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky|journal= Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture | |url= https://www.westminsterpapers.org/articles/abstract/10.16997/wpcc.121/ |volume= 6 (2)| pages=12-22|doi= 10.16997/wpcc.121| date= November 2009}}</ref>

In the [[propaganda model#2017| last essay published in Herman’s lifetime]], Herman assessed the propaganda model 30 years after it was first published.<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=Andy Lee|editor-last1=Roth| editor-first2=Mickey|editor-last2=Huff |author-last=Herman |author-first=Edward S. |title= Still Manufacturing Consent: The Propaganda Model at Thirty |journal= Censored 2018: Press Freedoms in a “Post-Truth” World | year=2017 |publisher=Seven Stories Press |pages=209-223}}</ref> Herman presented recent case studies, such as the Bush administration’s disinformation campaign in the run-up to its invasion of Iraq. Herman argued in a late-life interview that the Internet revolution was actually regressive, not a positive development, as monopolies such as Google and Facebook dominated the media like never before.<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |pages=48-51}}</ref>

Herman concluded his assessment with the last words published in his lifetime:

“The Propaganda Model is as strong and applicable as it was thirty years ago […] The Propaganda Model lives on.”<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=Andy Lee|editor-last1=Roth| editor-first2=Mickey|editor-last2=Huff |author-last=Herman |author-first=Edward S. |title= Still Manufacturing Consent: The Propaganda Model at Thirty |journal= Censored 2018: Press Freedoms in a “Post-Truth” World | year=2017 |publisher=Seven Stories Press |page=221}}</ref>

===Reactions to coverage of “nefarious” bloodbaths===In [[Necessary Illusions]], Chomsky described predictions that the [[propaganda model#Predictions of the propaganda model|propaganda model generated]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |authorlink=Noam Chomsky |date=1989 |title=Necessary Illusions |edition=1st |publisher=South End Press|pages=153–160}}</ref> Chomsky wrote that the propaganda model’s first-order prediction was that the media would react to bloodbaths based on their [[#Counter-Revolutionary Violence|categorization]]: benign, constructive, or nefarious. Benign

bloodbaths are covered lightly, if at all, constructive bloodbaths are welcomed, and nefarious bloodbaths are “passionately condemned, on a basis of the facts that would merely elicit contempt if applied to the study of alleged abuses of the United States or friendly states.”<ref>{{cite book |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |authorlink=Noam Chomsky |date=1989 |title=Necessary Illusions |edition=1st |page=154}}</ref> Chomsky wrote that the propaganda model’s [[propaganda model#Third-order predictions|third-order prediction]] was that exposure of the facts of constructive bloodbaths would be ignored, “noted without interest” for benign bloodbaths, and will elicit “great indignation” in the case of nefarious bloodbaths. Chomsky explained that:<blockquote>The reasons are clear: the welcome afforded constructive bloodbaths cannot be acknowledged, if only because it exposes the hypocrisy of the furor over nefarious bloodbaths and enemy abuses generally; exposure of the lack of attention to benign bloodbaths is not too damaging, at least if the U.S. role in implementing these atrocities is suppressed; and exposure of the treatment of and reaction to nefarious bloodbaths not only again reveals the hypocrisy and the social role of the “specialized class” of privileged intellectuals, but also interferes with a valuable device for mobilizing the public in fear and hatred of a threatening enemy.<ref>{{cite book |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |authorlink=Noam Chomsky |date=1989 |title=Necessary Illusions |edition=1st |page=154}}</ref></blockquote>

The third-order prediction has been repeatedly confirmed by the media’s and academics’ treatment of Herman’s and Chomsky’s writings on nefarious bloodbaths, such as in [[#Cambodia|Cambodia]], the former [[#Yugoslavia|Yugoslavia]], and [[#Rwanda|Rwanda]], as campaigns have been waged to portray Herman and Chomsky as “genocide deniers” and apologists for the perpetrators of the nefarious and mythical bloodbaths, after they analyzed the media’s selective treatment of the evidence related to such bloodbaths.

Herman never backed down from his critics, and the character and methods of critiques of his work rarely deviated from personal attacks, misrepresentations of his writings, logical fallacies, and [[name-calling]]. Examples follow.

====Cambodia====The [[Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda#Publishing history|suppression of ''CRV'']] delayed the publication of Herman and Chomsky’s first major collaborative effort by several years. When their work that expanded on ''CRV'' was [[The Political Economy of Human Rights|finally published in 1979]], it was used by Herman’s and Chomsky’s critics ever as the basis for a campaign to [[The Political Economy of Human Rights#Campaign to portray Chomsky as a Khmer Rouge supporter and genocide denier|portray their Cambodian writings as apologetics for the Khmer Rouge]] and to further accuse them of being genocide deniers.

The assault began even before ''The Political Economy of Human Rights'' was published, when Chomsky uncovered fabrications in a ''New York Times'' review of a book concerning the Cambodian holocaust. He privately wrote to the reviewer about his fabrications, who made them public, which began the campaign against Chomsky as a

“Khmer Rouge supporter” on “completely false pretexts,” which was part of an “insane attack against Chomsky, which aimed at silencing him and robbing him of his moral stature and prestige and influence.”<ref>{{cite book |last1=Otero |first1=Carlos |editor-first=Carlos P.|editor-last=Otero|title= Language and Politics |year=2004 |publisher=AK Press |pages=284-285 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title= Distortions at Fourth Hand |author= Noam Chomsky|author2= Edward S. Herman|date= June 6, 1977 |url= https://chomsky.info/19770625/ |journal= The Nation}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| editor-first=Carlos P.|editor-last=Otero|author-last=Herman |author-first=Edward S. |title= Pol Pot, Faurisson, and the Process of Derogation |journal= Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments| year=1994 |publisher=AK Press |pages=598-615}}</ref>

In 1980, an article written by [[Steven Lukes]] accused Chomsky of irresponsibility for his and Herman’s writings on Cambodia in ''The Political Economy of Human Rights''. Lukes charged that Chomsky was contributing to the “deceit and distortion surrounding Pol Pot’s regime in Cambodia.”<ref>{{cite news |title= Chomsky’s Betrayal of Truths |author= Steven Lukes|date= November 7, 1980 |journal= Times Higher Education Supplement }}</ref> Chomsky replied that in Lukes’s article, he never mentioned that Chomsky and Herman’s treatment of Cambodia was explicitly made as part of a study that contrasted the media’s coverage of a similar bloodbath in East Timor that was inflicted by Indonesia, which used American-supplied weapons for its invasion, not the nature of the atrocities themselves. Chomsky argued that Lukes, by attacking his and Herman’s work on Cambodia, while never mentioning the context or East Timor, showed that far from Chomsky’s being an apologist for the Khmer Rouge, Lukes had clearly demonstrated that he was an apologist for what Indonesia did in East Timor, and furthermore, the United Kingdom’s support for Indonesia was crucial for its genocidal activities in East Timor, and Lukes was a British citizen. Chomsky concluded that Lukes was an apologist for genocide.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Barsky |first1=Robert F. |title=Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent |year=1997 |publisher=The MIT Press |pages=187-188}}</ref>

Herman wrote that he and Chomsky suspected that they would be characterized as Khmer Rouge apologists after they published ''After the Cataclysm''. They carefully put the necessary scientific qualifiers in ''After the Cataclysm'', but that the effort was “futile” in preventing the ensuing propaganda campaign against their work. Herman estimated that over 90% of the journalists that attacked Chomsky regarding his Cambodian writings never read Chomsky’s actual writings, and those who authored the “Khmer Rouge supporter” and “genocide denier” party line almost always took a few selected quotations, misrepresented their context, and placed them in a “mass of sarcastic and violent denunciation.”<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first=Carlos P.|editor-last=Otero|author-last=Herman |first1=Edward S. |title= Pol Pot, Faurisson, and the Process of Derogation |journal= Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments| year=1994 |publisher=AK Press |pages=598-615}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |pages=38-58}}</ref>

In a 1988 letter to the editor of ''The New York Times'', Herman wrote that the lies about their work had been “institutionalized,” which showed that their work on Cambodia and the media “was and remains on target.”<ref>{{cite news |title= Chomsky and the Khmer Rouge |author= Editorial|url= https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/27/books/l-chomsky-and-the-khmer-rouge-407588.html |newspaper= New York Times|date= March 27, 1988 |access-date=June 23, 2018}}</ref>

Without significant exception, all other criticisms of Chomsky and Herman’s writings on Cambodia contained similar misrepresentations.

The attacks on Chomsky and Herman’s work were part of a larger pattern that Chomsky noted, in that Western intellectuals:<blockquote>[…] cannot comprehend this kind of trivial, simple, reasoning and what it implies […] It reveals a level of indoctrination vastly beyond what one finds in totalitarian states, which rarely were able to indoctrinate intellectuals so profoundly that they are unable to understand trivial realities.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Barsky |first1=Robert F. |title=Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent |year=1997 |publisher=The MIT Press |page=188}}</ref></blockquote>

====Yugoslavia====In the preface of ''The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics'', Herman wrote:<blockquote>We know that our work will be assailed as “historical revisionism” and, worse, as “genocide denial,” but charges such as these are fundamentally political in nature, and we regard them as no more than cheap-shots and evasions, whose real purpose is to preempt challenges to a firmly established party-line. The regnant account is regularly protected by aggressive personal attacks on the challengers in lieu of the more arduous task of answering with evidence.<ref>{{cite journal| editor1-first=Edward S.|editor1-last=Herman||author-first=Phillip|author-last=Corwin| title= The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics |url= http://resistir.info/livros/srebrenica_massacre_rev_3.pdf|access-date= July 1, 2018| year=2011 |page=15}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman’s work on Yugoslavia has been regularly called “genocide denial,” and, as with other instances of attacks on his exposure of the facts around nefarious bloodbaths, the attacks from the political left, not right, were often the most frequent and fervent. An example of this is [[George Monbiot|George Monbiot’s]] article in ''[[The Guardian]]'' in 2011.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/13/left-and-libertarian-right|title= Left and libertarian right cohabit in the weird world of the genocide belittlers|work=The Guardian|author-first=Harrison|author-last=Smith|date= June 13, 2011|accessdate=July 7, 2018}}</ref> Not only did Monbiot call Herman and Peterson “genocide deniers” and “belittlers,” he misquoted their work in his attack, stating that ''The Srebrenica Massacre'', which Herman edited and contributed to, “claims that the 8,000 deaths at Srebrenica are ‘an unsupportable exaggeration. The true figure may be closer to 800.’” Monbiot misquoted [[#The Srebrenica Massacre and the media|Corwin’s foreword to ''The Srebrenica Massacre'']].

Herman and Peterson replied to Monbiot’s attack on Corwin’s words with:<blockquote>But it is not at all clear that Monbiot actually read ''The Srebrenica Massacre''. […] Monbiot attributes these 11 words from Corwin’s Foreword to the collection itself, and asserts that […] this book […] “claims that the 8,000 ''deaths'' at Srebrenica are “an unsupportable exaggeration” . . .’ (emphasis added).  As the seven contributors to the book besides Corwin focus on the issue of ''executions'', not simply deaths for which no cause is specified, and as none of them deny the possibility of 8,000 deaths, Monbiot’s attribution of these 11 words from the Foreword […] is a lie, and suggests that his reading of the book was even less than cursory.<ref>{{cite news |title= George Monbiot and the Guardian on “Genocide Denial” and “Revisionism”|last1= Herman |first1= Edward S.|last2= Peterson|first2= David|date= September 2, 2011 |url= https://mronline.org/2011/09/02/george-monbiot-and-the-guardian-on-genocide-denial-and-revisionism/ |access-date=7 July 2018|journal= MR Online}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman argued that Monbiot was “belittling” genocide by putting the Srebrenica massacre in the same class as the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust, and concluded a rebuttal by stating that, “There are very few sentences in George Monbiot’s June 14 diatribe that withstand close scrutiny.”<ref>{{cite journal| author-first1=Edward S.|author-last=Herman||title= Reply to George Monbiot on ‘Genocide Belittling’ |journal= ZNet| date= July 20, 2011}}</ref>

====Rwanda====In his review of Herman and Peterson’s ''The Politics of Genocide'', the [[#Media coverage|most prolific promoter]] of the standard model of the Rwandan genocide, [[Gerald Caplan]], wrote:<blockquote>The main authorities on whom the authors rest their fabrications are a tiny number of long-time American and Canadian genocide deniers, who gleefully drink each other's putrid bath water. Each solemnly cites the others' works to document his fabrications – [[Robin Philpot]], [[Christopher Black]], Christian Davenport, Allan Stam, [[Peter Erlinder]]. It's as if a Holocaust denier cited as supporting evidence the testimonies of [[David Irving]], [[David Duke]], [[Robert Faurisson]] or [[Ernest Zundel]]. Be confident Herman and Peterson are now being quoted as authoritative sources on the genocide by Robin Philpot, Christopher Black, Davenport and Stam, Peter Erlinder. <ref>{{cite news |title= The politics of denialism: The strange case of Rwanda: Review of ‘The Politics of Genocide’ |last1= Caplan |first1= Gerald|date= June 17, 2010 |url= https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/politics-denialism-strange-case-rwanda |access-date=7 July 2018|journal= Pambazuka News }}</ref></blockquote>

In their reply, Peterson and Herman noted the absence of anything that resembled a reasoned and fact-based critique in Caplan’s review of their work. Caplan ignored the thrust of their work, which was how “genocide” had become a political construct, and focused on the book’s section on Rwanda. Caplan accused Herman and Peterson of failing to cite certain authors, when they in fact did. Herman and Peterson noted that Caplan castigated them for reporting facts that Caplan himself had previously published, such as that the RPF was an arm of the Ugandan military or that [[Robert Gersony|Robert Gersony’s]] research that adduced widespread RPF slaughters of Hutu civilians

was “suppressed,” when Caplan himself had previously reported that suppression.<ref>{{cite news |title= Genocide Denial and Genocide Facilitation: Gerald Caplan and The Politics of Genocide|last2 = Herman |first2= Edward S.|last1= Peterson|first1= David|date= July 4, 2010 |url= https://mronline.org/2010/07/04/genocide-denial-and-genocide-facilitation-gerald-caplan-and-the-politics-of-genocide/ |access-date=7 July 2018|journal= MR Online}}</ref>

Caplan dismissed Hourigan’s ICTY investigation with novel logic, while calling the RPF’s findings of its investigation into Habyarimana’s assassination, which absolved themselves of responsibility, “largely persuasive.” Herman and Peterson wrote that notable scholars such as [[René Lemarchand]] and Luc Marchal found the RPF’s report quite unpersuasive, and Marchal concluded that the RPF’s investigation was:<blockquote>[…] a parody of an investigation, the script of which had been written in advance […] the sole intention of which was to demonstrate the total innocence of the RPF and the Machiavellian guilt of the Extremist Hutus.<ref>{{cite news |title= Analysis of the MUTSINZI Report |last= Marchal, et al.|first1= Luc|date= February 10, 2010 |url= http://cirqueminimeparis.blogspot.com/2010/02/analysis-of-mutsinzi-report-by-luc.html |access-date=7 July 2018|journal= CirqueMinime/Paris }}</ref></blockquote>

Herman and Peterson concluded their reply to Caplan’s review with:<blockquote>Of course, in his references to the genocide in Rwanda, Caplan means only the killings attributable to Hutus, not the vast numbers slaughtered by Kagame.  (Recall the “10,000 or more Hutu civilians per month” referred to in an internal State Department report.)  This stress on Hutu villainy repeats the Kagame regime’s rationale for its military presence in the DRC, allegedly chasing down the fugitive ''genocidaires''.  But if the UN and other reports are correct, and deaths in the Kagame- (and Museveni-) controlled areas of the eastern DRC have run into the several millions, then Caplan’s evasions about their source, and the intellectual cover he provides for whatever Kagame does, make Caplan not merely a genocide denier — they make Caplan a ''genocide facilitator''.<ref>{{cite news |title= Genocide Denial and Genocide Facilitation: Gerald Caplan and The Politics of Genocide|last2 = Herman |first2= Edward S.|last1= Peterson|first1= David|date= July 4, 2010 |url= https://mronline.org/2010/07/04/genocide-denial-and-genocide-facilitation-gerald-caplan-and-the-politics-of-genocide/ |access-date=7 July 2018|journal= MR Online}}</ref></blockquote>

==Death and legacy==Herman died on November 11, 2017 of the complications of bladder cancer, which was not diagnosed until after his death.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/edward-s-herman-media-critic-who-co-wrote-manufacturing-consent-dies-at-92/2017/11/16/7cab93ca-cade-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.793d241070eb|title= Edward S. Herman, media critic who co-wrote ‘Manufacturing Consent,’ dies at 92|work=Washington Post|author-first=Harrison|author-last=Smith|date=November 16, 2017|accessdate=July 4, 2018}}</ref> His sister, Barbara Herman Becker, died earlier in 2017, and Herman was survived by his brother, Harris.<ref name="Roberts"/>

Herman was asked in a late-life interview if he would have done anything differently in his writing career, if he could go back and do it over, and Herman replied with:<blockquote>No, I don’t think so. No. It’s kind of hard to reconstruct the past, but I think we would have hedged more on Cambodia and maybe put in more qualifiers. We did realize that we were going to be vulnerable and did attend carefully to putting in qualifiers. I did this reluctantly. I’ve always hated to make excuses for what I was going to do, and inserting more than scientifically necessary qualifiers is sort of a cop-out.<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |pages=56-57}}</ref></blockquote>

In the same interview, Herman was asked what he thought his most important contribution to scholarship was, and he replied that it was his introduction of a structural model of the media, combined with pairing analysis, and their conjoined use in wide-ranging applications. Herman stated that his approach was not entirely new, but he believed that he and his coauthors’ efforts may have “given them more weight and salience” in subsequent studies, and Herman further noted:<blockquote>Also, not new but hopefully in a useful framework is the focus on the mass media as elite-based and elite-serving institutions, with biases that follow accordingly. In a way, my writings have virtually all been an exposure of these biases and a demonstration that the idea of a “party line” applies to the mainstream US media as well as to media in authoritarian countries.<ref>{{cite journal| editor-first1=John A.|editor-last1=Lent|editor-first2= Michelle|editor-last2=Amazeen|title= Edward S. Herman: Interview on September 2, 2013 |journal= Key Thinkers in Critical Communication Scholarship| year=2015 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |pages=51-52}}</ref></blockquote>

Herman’s death was widely reported in the media.<ref>{{cite news|last=Holmey|first=Olivier|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/edward-s-herman-scholar-whose-radical-critiques-of-us-media-unpacked-the-fake-news-caricatured-by-a8067131.html|title=Edward S Herman: Scholar whose radical critiques of US media characterised the fake news caricatured by Trump|work=The Independent|location=London|date=November 21, 2017|accessdate=November 22, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Roberts"/><ref name="HSmith"/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/sns-bc-us--obit-edward-s-herman-20171115-story.html|title=''Manufacturing Consent'' co-author Edward Herman dies at 92|work=Chicago Tribune|agency=Associated Press|date=November 15, 2017|accessdate=November 16, 2017}}</ref>

''The New York Times’s'' obituary for Herman misrepresented his work by stating, “''Manufacturing Consent'' was severely criticized as having soft-pedaled evidence of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda and, during the Bosnia war, Srebrenica.”<ref name="Roberts"/><ref>On [[Todd Gitlin|Todd Gitlin’s]] comments in Herman’s ''New York Times'' obituary, see {{cite news|last=Gardner|first=Fred|url=https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/01/obituary-politics-todd-gitlin-puts-down-ed-herman/|title=Obituary Politics: Todd Gitlin puts down

Ed Herman|work=Counterpunch|date=1 December 2017|accessdate=4 July 2017}}</ref> The events in Rwanda and Srebrenica had not yet happened when ''Manufacturing Consent'' was published, which ''The New York Times'' later corrected, after a campaign by [[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|FAIR]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Naureckas|first=Jim|url=https://fair.org/home/nyts-obit-for-ed-herman-requires-a-correction/ |title= NYT’s Obit for Ed Herman Requires a Correction |work=[[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|FAIR]]|date=November 25, 2017|accessdate=July 5, 2018}} The ''New York Times'' corrected that error on November 27, 2017</ref>Even after correcting the obvious error, ''The New York Times’s'' obituary was a confirmation of the propaganda model. It stated, “One case study, for example, asked why a single Polish priest murdered by the Communists was more newsworthy than another cleric killed by a Washington-sponsored Latin American dictator.” ''The New York Times'' omitted the dramatic magnitude of disparity, and the case study did not “ask” so much as [[Manufacturing Consent#Worthy and unworthy victims|present the data]] that showed that the Polish priest’s death was ''more than 100 times as newsworthy'', as an illustration of the propaganda model in action.

''The New York Times’s'' obituary also repeated the misinformation that Herman and Chomsky’s work was about seeking objective truth about events that the media covered:<blockquote>Dr. Herman and Professor Chomsky were severely criticized over the years as soft-pedaling evidence of genocide in Cambodia, Rwanda and, during the Bosnia war, Srebrenica. They argued that in assessing the killings they were seeking an accurate count rather than relying on unreliable reports by survivors. In the civil wars in Rwanda and Bosnia, they said, the victors had exaggerated the toll to justify their rise to power and their pro-Western policies. In the case of Cambodia, they said, the toll had been overstated by enemies of the brutal Khmer Rouge Communist regime, which, the authors wrote, had ‘dealt with fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the imperial system.<ref name="Roberts"/></blockquote>

As with ''The New York Times’s'' omission of the magnitude of disparity of media coverage of Polish and Latin American church-worker victims, it ignored the explicitly stated purpose of Herman and Chomsky’s work: it was not about seeking the objective truth of the events or “soft-pedaling” ''anything'', but about analyzing ''how the media'' handled the facts.

For those who knew and worked with Herman, their remembrances unfailingly mentioned Herman’s personal kindness, humility, and generosity.<ref>{{cite news|last=Huff|first=Mickey|url= http://projectcensored.org/heartfelt-thank-edward-herman/|title= A Heartfelt Thank You to Edward Herman|work=[[Project Censored]]|date=November 15, 2017|accessdate=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Johnstone|first=Diana|url= https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/15/thank-you-ed-herman/ |title= Thank You, Ed Herman|work=''[[Counterpunch]]''|date=November 15, 2017|accessdate=July 4, 2018}} Herman gave Johnstone her first personal computer.</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=McChesney|first=Robert|url= https://monthlyreview.org/2018/01/01/the-propaganda-model-revisited/ |title= The Propaganda Model Revisited|work= ''MR Online''|date=November 15, 2017|

accessdate=July 4, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Lindorff|first=Dave|url= https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/22/remembering-media-critic-ed-herman/ |title= Remembering Media Critic Ed Herman|work=''[[Counterpunch]]''|date=November 22, 2017|accessdate=July 4, 2018}}</ref> [[Matt Taibbi]], a journalist working at [[Rolling Stone magazine]], wrote:<blockquote>His work has never been more relevant. ''Manufacturing Consent'' was a kind of bible of media criticism for a generation of dissident thinkers. The book described with great clarity how the system of private commercial media in America cooperates with state power to generate propaganda […] Herman and Chomsky's work was a great gift to a generation of thinkers trying to make sense of how power in the West sold itself to populations. The late Herman should be honored for that critical contribution he made to understanding American empire.<ref>{{cite news|last=Taibbi|first=Matt|url= https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/matt-taibbi-on-the-death-of-edward-herman-w511766|title= RIP Edward Herman, Who Co-Wrote a Book That's Now More Important Than Ever: We need a new ''Manufacturing Consent''|work=[[Rolling Stone]]|date=November 14, 2017|accessdate=July 4, 2018}}</ref></blockquote>

Chomsky wrote of Herman’s:<blockquote>[…] scrupulous, diligent and comprehensive research; a keen instinct for detecting and exposing hypocrisy and deceit and the effects of conformity to doctrine; and a recognition of the role of institutional structures in shaping interpretation and analysis.”<ref name="Roberts"/></blockquote>

Chomsky also wrote of his friend and colleague:<blockquote>He was an inspiration to those lucky enough to know him personally but also to countless others who have been following in his footsteps in institutional analysis, media critique, exposing hypocrisy and lies, and to the many who recognize him as providing a model of integrity and understanding…”<ref>{{cite news|last=Holmey|first=Olivier|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/edward-s-herman-scholar-whose-radical-critiques-of-us-media-unpacked-the-fake-news-caricatured-by-a8067131.html|title=Edward S Herman: Scholar whose radical critiques of US media characterised the fake news caricatured by Trump|work=The Independent|location=London|date=November 21, 2017|accessdate=November 22, 2017}}</ref></blockquote>

[[Jeff Cohen (media critic)|Jeff Cohen]] wrote:<blockquote>In 1984, when I was part of a lawyers’ delegation monitoring an “election” in death squad-run El Salvador, I remember a gaggle of progressive attorneys at the Salvador Sheraton tussling with each other to get their hands on a shipment of hot-off-the-press copies of ''Demonstration Elections'', Ed’s devastating book (with Frank Brodhead) on the US “staging” elections as PR [public relations] shows to prop up repressive puppet regimes, from the Dominican Republic to Vietnam to Salvador. A highpoint of my life was flying with Ed across the Atlantic to Brussels to speak alongside him before the European Parliament on the problem of media conglomeration, a hearing organized by the European Greens. As happened too often, Ed’s name went unmentioned in the 1997 movie ''[[Good Will Hunting]]''; when Will ([[Matt Damon]]) says to his therapist ([[Robin Williams]]) that

[[Howard Zinn|Howard Zinn’s]] ''[[A People's History of the United States|People’s History]]'' is a book that will “[…] knock you on your ass,” the therapist responds: “Better than Chomsky’s ''Manufacturing Consent''?” I asked Ed if he felt left out. Not at all - the movie “will bring our book more attention, more readers.” Pure Ed.<ref>{{cite news|last=Cohen|first=Jeff|url= https://fair.org/home/edward-s-herman-master-of-dissent-1925-2017/|title= Edward S. Herman: Master of Dissent (2025-2017)|work=''[[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting|FAIR]]''|date=November 14, 2017|accessdate=July 4, 2018}}</ref></blockquote>

==Selected Publications==* 1962: ''Study of Mutual Funds'' (with three other authors)* 1966: ''America's Vietnam Policy: the Strategy of Deception'' (with Richard Du Boff)* 1968: ''Principles And Practices Of Money And Banking''* 1968: ''The Great Society Dictionary''* 1969: ''Study of the Savings and Loan Industry'' (with nine other authors)* 1970: ''Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities''* 1973: ''[[Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda]]'' (with [[Noam Chomsky]])* 1979: ''[[The Political Economy of Human Rights]], Volume I: The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism'' (with Noam Chomsky) {{ISBN|0-89608-090-0}}* 1979: ''[[The Political Economy of Human Rights]], Volume II: After the Cataclysm: Postwar Indochina and the Reconstruction of Imperial Ideology'' (with Noam Chomsky) {{ISBN|0-89608-090-0}}* 1981: ''Corporate Control, Corporate Power: A [[Twentieth Century Fund]] Study'' {{ISBN|0-521-28907-6}}* 1982: ''The Real Terror Network'' {{ISBN|0-89608-134-6}}* 1984: ''Demonstration Elections'' (with Frank Brodhead) {{ISBN|0-89608-214-8}}* 1986: ''The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection'' (with Frank Brodhead). {{ISBN|0-940380-06-4}}.* 1988: ''[[Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media]]'' (with Noam Chomsky) {{ISBN|0-394-54926-0}}.* 1989: ''Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945-1985'' (with William Preston, Jr. and [[Herbert Schiller|Herbert I. Schiller]]) {{ISBN|0-8166-1788-0}}* 1990: ''The “Terrorism” Industry: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda'' {{ISBN|978-0-679-72559-6}}* 1990-1994: ''[[Lies of Our Times]]'' (editor and contributor)* 1992: ''Beyond Hypocrisy: Decoding the News in an Age of Propaganda: Including A Doublespeak Dictionary for the 1990s'' {{ISBN|0-89608-436-1}}* 1995: ''Triumph of the Market: Essays on Economics, Politics, and the Media'' {{ISBN|0-89608-522-8}}* 1997: ''The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism'' (with [[Robert W. McChesney|Robert McChesney]]) {{ISBN|0-304-33433-2}}* 1999: ''The Myth of The Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader'' {{ISBN|0-8204-4186-4}}* 2000: ''Degraded capability: the media and the Kosovo crisis'' (edited by Philip Hammond and Edward S. Herman) {{ISBN|978-0-74531-631-4}}

* 2004: ''The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic'' (with Michael Barratt Brown and David Peterson) {{ISBN|0-85124-693-1}}* 2010: ''The Politics of Genocide'' (with David Peterson) {{ISBN|978-1-58367-212-9}}* 2011: ''The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics'' (editor and contributor)* 2014: ''Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System, 20 Years Later'' (with David Peterson) {{ISBN|978-1500751111}}

==Notes=={{reflist|2}}

==External links=={{Wikiquote}}* [http://musictravel.free.fr/political/political.htm A collection of Edward Herman's writings from various sources, including the author himself.]* [http://www.coldtype.net/herman.html Essays by Edward Herman on ColdType.net]* [http://www.swans.com/contrib/eherman.html Archives] at ''Swans.com''

{{Orwell Award recipients}}{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Herman, Edward S.}}[[Category:1925 births]][[Category:2017 deaths]][[Category:20th-century American writers]][[Category:21st-century American writers]][[Category:American male journalists]][[Category:American journalists]][[Category:American media critics]][[Category:American political writers]][[Category:American male writers]][[Category:American tax resisters]][[Category:University of California, Berkeley faculty]][[Category:University of Pennsylvania faculty]][[Category:Activists from California]][[Category:20th-century male writers]][[Category:Signatories of the Writers and Editors War Tax Protest]]