Even if true, which I doubt, what does this have to do with manufactured consent?
There are plenty of other sources. You don't even need a source: Just follow a couple of influential newspapers for a while and observe how they initiate opinions, staunchly defend and propagate those opinions for a while and then reverse opinions. Upon which they staunchly defend and propagate the exact opposite.
Partly, it is a game to keep the population busy and avoid them thinking about real issues.
Ironically, these interpretations are a manifestation of manufactured consent! Anyone mentioning undesirable parts of history must be crushed!