In this context, I interpret "conspiracy theorist" as someone who thinks there are relatively large groups of people conspiring, without the majority of people being aware of that. A small conspiracy when playing Diplomacy is believable, but e.g. one in which everyone behind mass media has agreed to put forward a certain message is not.

Thus (not having read it myself), Manufacturing Consent could show how emergent properties of mass media might lead to them pushing a certain incorrect world view, rather than proposing a theory that requires the teams behind them to all agree to conspire and none of them to make that public knowledge.

> Thus (not having read it myself), Manufacturing Consent could show how emergent properties of mass media might lead to them pushing a certain incorrect world view, rather than proposing a theory that requires the teams behind them to all agree to conspire and none of them to make that public knowledge.

That is right. Chomsky proposes 5 filters through which this process happens. These filters operate, according to Chomsky, not just in media, but in all of society. From kindergarten to our deadbeds.

I think this was best illustrated with Chomsky's 1996 interview in "The Big Idea" on BBC by Andrew Marr. Chomsky is outlining how the filters make sure certain viewpoints are popularized, and Andrew Marr asks "How can you know that I'm self-censoring?". To which Chomsky replies "I'm not saying you're self-censoring. I'm sure you believe everything you're saying. But what I'm saying is, if you believed something different, you wouldn't be sitting where you're sitting."

The 30 minute episode[1] is well worth a watch, but the three minute clip of the above exchange is also available[2].

[1]: https://youtu.be/GjENnyQupow [2]: https://youtu.be/lLcpcytUnWU

I haven't read it either but I know the insidious thing about many conspiracies is that they aren't even technically conspiracies - they may collude but that isn't a crime in itself or even when all combined. Look at the increasingly blatantly selective and hypocritical tech hit jobs - you would think one of Google, Amazon, or Facebook were the most hated companies in America given the coverage.

Nope it is Comcast who has earned that distinction. The same one who while technically a rival to them advertises heavily with them. The same one whose past actions have made net neutrality not a theoretical matter. Nothing illegal but their actions are flagrantly self-interested.

> Hijacking the word "conspiracy theorist" to mean nut job seems like exactly the twisting of reality you are advocating to avoid.

The term "conspiracy theory" has always always been derogatory[1]

[1] https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_alwa...

counterconspiracy (noun) : a conspiracy to oppose or undermine something (such as another conspiracy)

The big agencies are pretty well versed on this, look at the system approach they take on this one: https://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Countering-W...

It is not the details of this specific conspiracy that is interesting, but the systematic approach to tackling it.

Suspicion is not evidence.

And common use the word theory describes something unproven or speculative. Evidence is great, but in the presence of undisputable evidence we wouldn't call it a consiracy theory but simply a conspiracy.