Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Hermann's Propaganda Model

hi!

this is something I've been reading up about a lot as of late and was wondering what the general opinion about it would be in GFF.

Chomsky and Hermann's propaganda model is, at it's basis, an examination into way the media function in the U.S. and into what constitutes an acceptable opinion to be expressed within its system. Being a firm believer in freedom of speech, I've recently read Necessary Illusions, amongst other works by Chomsky, with a great mix of delight and horror, and found that there are many things which I had never dreamed possible that have been going on for quite a while.

Now, the questions I would like to put up for debate are the following :

What do you think of the propaganda model as it is presented by Chomsky and Hermann?

Are you in agreement/ disagreement with the way they present it?

Do you think they are just paranoid?

For those who aren't familiar with the propaganda model of Chomsky and Hermann, here's a link to a brief description of it : The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective, by Edward S. Herman

And here's a link to the movie manufacturing consent, which is based largely upon it : » Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and the Media (1993)

Most amazing jew boots

I think there is one thing that you need to explain to me. How is it that you say Chomsky's view of the media is demoded and yet you give credit to almost everything that he says about it at the same time?

Have you read anything that Chomsky has written on such subjects as the war on Iraq?

I do read Chomsky for fun, just so you'll know, and I don't really feel there isn't much more I can say about this as long as you don't take into account the questions I asked in starting.

However, I do agree with you that people being obsessed with celebrities lives is an incredible plague upon our society. Yet I cannot stress enough that it isn't as simple as "oh, they actually give a rat's ass about so and so's life so they can't possibly give a shit about being informed."

Edit:

My bad, you did sorta take the question into account. I simply disagree in the ways I stated above, and would prefer you actually include thoughts on the model as such rather than elaborating on things that are besides the point.

Additional edit:

If you wish to continue debating, I would suggest looking into the debate on the war in the media. That is more relevant to the actual subject matter.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I thank you for the specifications.

Quote:

It doesn't mean people aren't informed, but it doesn't mean that people want to be informed. The media has to appease it's given audience. It's a choice. Plus it's easier not to think about the wider issues that plague the world that an individual has no control over anyway. I'm waaaay too cynical to think otherwise.

Now, on this point I have to say that I believe people DO want to be informed, otherwise, they wouldn't go out and buy the papers or watch evening news programs, or watch CNN, or tune in to whichever source they choose to go to for information. As far as thinking about the wider issues, not everybody has the liberty to spend the entirity of their time thinking about this kind of thing or acting towards solving these issues. It doesn't mean they don't care or don't want to get as much info as they can in the time they have to devote to thinking about it. Which brings me to another point :

Quote:

Simple. It doesn't work very well in it's present state. People will accept the lies they want, and reject the ones they don't without any help from you, me, or anybody else. No amount of media spin will convince people that Bush is any better of a president then what they would already think given the circumstances and their perspective. Which isn't strictly under the control of the mass media. It's disingenuous to assume otherwise.

Now here, I am willing to agree with you that the times they are a'changin', and that alternative sources of information are becoming more widely available than they were in the past. This does not, however, invalidate the work that has been done by Chomsky and Hermann, as they did take into account these factors when they thought about the elaboration of the model. And as much as you would like to think otherwise, the major players still have a very big part to play in the flow of information.

As to people believing what they want and rejecting what they think is false, I agree that any sound thinking person decides to believe something or not based on his own rationallity and that we can be hard-pressed to force something upon someone who will absolutely not hear of it. But in any case, critical thinking was not invented in the XXIst century, and I am sure you know this.


However, it is a whole different story when someone actually buys a paper, and sees that the person writing the editorials and op-eds are people who have been studying in the fields that are being debated or are considered people who are generally informed due to their backgrounds. Most people wouldn't go out and buy a paper if they knew that the information in it is grossly misleading and not pertinent, since it would be a waste of their money. Yet, the major media outlets are still doing business in a very lucrative way.

As for the approval rate of the president, I never said that people were complete dupes (nor do I think Chomsky or Hermann would) and I think at this point the people who actually do support him either have benefits (read - profits) coming from it or they are the ones who are most misinformed of all. I'm still not convinced his election was legitimate anyways. But that is besides the point.

Quote:

I guess this is just a different way of saying there's always unknowns and unintended consequences so uniformity isn't getting any easier to contrive on a mass scale. All those 9/11 conspiracies propagating around the internet comes to my mind.

Assuming that uniformity is the aim of the U.S. media is not part of what Chomsky and Hermann proposed. in fact, if there was only one vision one any given issue to state, they (the media companies) would mutually destroy each other to be the first to share that point of view with the world.

What is proposed in the model is that the media, through selective filtering by certain debatable assumptions being held as unquestionnable truths, are actually steering the debates in the direction that most benefit those who already hold a considerable amount of influence/resources/power by rendering the opinions which question these assumptions to be held as unexpressible, untrue by default, or simple conspiracy theories. In fact, you can say that an overwhelming amount of info is their aim, so people can't possibly keep up with the debates. Now, I'm not saying that any opinion which questions these said assumptions are by definition true or based on fact, simply that some of them are kept from being shared to a great majority of people by the simple fact that the people who hold these opinions have a hard time expressing them without being ridiculed or tagged conspiracy makers by these media companies' efforts, and the major media companies refuse to let them share their opinions in their papers or on their shows.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

The American corporate media's creditability has gone down. Especially in recent years. The rise of the internet and the rising popularity of Colbert/Stewart is a good argument to support this. I'll go even further and say that there's a increasing minority of Americans that might see/read something from the major media outlets and believe the exact opposite for the only reason that the major media said otherwise. Whether the other opinions they subscribe to benefit themselves, their fellow Americans, or America or not. It works both ways.

While I do admit, as I have already stated, that alternative media sources are growing in popularity, I still believe, as you do by your statement, that people who rely on these sources are a minority. I know for a fact that the younger generations of today are not as easily duped as were previous generations, but for now the voting power of the baby-boomers and prior generations is still greater than that of the generations that follow.

Quote:

"Uniformity might not be the intended result, but as a unintended result of the flurry of recent media mergers and acquisitions this is exactly what I'm seeing. In financial circles this is called "corporate cannibalism". Where the weak are devoured by the strong. This serves to accelerate the undermining of the creditability of these outlets of news information/propaganda. Getting information from a decreasing amount of sources (especially when they all sound alike) does nothing to improve creditability."

As I have stated before, for a relatively small percentage of the population, these affirmations are true, and have been for quite a while. however, for the working class in general, which is still by far the majority of the population, these facts are not yet as clear as they are for you and me. I agree that the recent mergers have a tendency to shrink the actual number of truly conflicting positions a person can hold within a debate hosted by one of these bigger companies, but this still doesn't change the fact that their methods for simulating debate haven't changed enough to invalidate the model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remy_Fortin6
I would suggest looking into the debate on the war in the media. That is more relevant to the actual subject matter.

Originally posted by Watts:
That's just more noise. (or words in this case) Whether you buy Chomsky's ideas or not.

What I was trying to say here is that the fact that the media went on cheerleading expiditions for the war does not do anything for the amount of dissent that is allowed expression on programs which actually debate such questions. And in fact, the spectrum of allowable expression within the framework of the media is what the propaganda model is all about. So no, it isn't just more noise, it's stating the difference between what your are talking about and the actual subject of conversation. Unless, of course, you were referring to the debate in the media, not just those action scenes where reporters are taken on 'real' expeditions. In which case I retract that comment.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Though I agree with you entirely that current trends seem to indicate that a more decentralized form of media organisation might just be on the rise, I think the model still stands strong at the present time. Now, If a more varied form of media organisation does take over, the model will, as you have said, be relegated to a tool for examining past trends in information providing. I don't think it will invalidate it as such, only render it useless for examining the media in that time period we call the future. However, I reiterate the fact that I believe it is still pertinent to the study of the leading media companies behavior in these present times, and will be as long as they continue with their present form of organisation and level of importance.

As for the Euroasian coverage of the war, I agree with you that it was way more varied and Canada's (my current residence) was also. There is an explanation given by Chomsky on this in pretty much every work I've read, including Hegemony or Survival which was written in 2003, and thus examines the beginnings of the current war as well. This explanation is that of the double standard, by which Chomsky states that the application of a double standard to oneself (a person or a country), a common reflex in examining one's actions as compared to another's, is present in the arguments of the current superpower's main media outlets as it has been for the previous ones. Another explanation for the euroasian media's diversity is precisly the fact that Europe and Asia are constituted of a great deal of different countries and will inevitably have a more varied array of viewpoints than that of a single country taken alone.

Also, I think you might be selling your contry's intellectual/journalistic community short in stating that :

Quote:

It surpassed anything by far what the masses of dissent American left indy media could put out in terms of honesty, imagination, and/or frank debate.

To me, it is precisly the fact that the media giants are the ones controlling the main means of expression, coupled with the fact that opposing the war at that particular point in time in the U.S. could have had far more serious consequences on one's life than it did in other countries that stopped them from getting more attention to their points of view. And, if I'm not mistaken, there were as many protests against the war in the U.S. as there were in most other countries which were opposed to the war. I appreciate your thoughts though, and feel you've brought up very good points.

I was speaking idiomatically.