Editors Note: This short article is part of our series Key Thinkers and Ideas in Propaganda Studies.
In 1988 Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky published Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, which presented their “propaganda model”. The work became a seminal critique of mainstream media bias in the United States and influenced a generation of critical communication scholars. As a consolidation of critical political communication research conducted across the course of the 20th century, the “propaganda model” identified essential elements of the elite-driven paradigm that understands mainstream news media, now often referred to as corporate or legacy news media, as serving the interests of powerful political and economic actors. As such, the “propaganda model” describes a scenario in which mainstream news media fail to meet liberal expectations regarding the need for a robustly independent media system that scrutinises the powerful and acts as a check on power.
Description
Since mainstream news media were so complex, it was evident to Herman and Chomsky that a general conceptual model would be needed to describe the dynamic processes involved in the “manufacturing of consent” and the failure of news to serve the public interest. The key question continues to be asked today. So, why does the media fail so badly? According to the “propaganda model” five filters function to shape news media output.
First, the size, ownership and profit orientation of mass media and their shared common interests with other major corporations, banks, and government create a clash of interest between the media’s supposed role as a watchdog of the elite and the interests of that elite. Stories that run afoul of these vested interests are, on balance, less likely to surface than those consistent with the world view of major corporate conglomerates.
Second, media reliance on advertising revenue introduces a further constraining link between the news media and the interests of commerce. This reliance shapes media output in order to appeal to affluent audiences, in whom the advertisers are most interested. It also limits the amount of critical and controversial programming because advertisers generally want to avoid programs with serious complexities and disturbing controversies that interfere with the buying mood.
Third, journalists rely overwhelmingly on elite sources when constructing the news. The need to supply a steady and rapid flow of ‘important’ news stories combined with the vast public relations apparatus of government and powerful interests more broadly means that journalists tend to become heavily reliant on public officials and corporate representatives when defining and framing the news agenda.
Fourth, whenever controversial material is actually aired it generates a disproportionate degree of ‘flak’ from individuals connected with powerful interests including corporate community sponsored institutions and government ‘spin doctors’. These attacks also caution editors and journalists against putting out news stories that are considered too controversial.
Fifth, The “propaganda model” highlights the importance of an ideology of anti-communism during the Cold War. This served as a control mechanism, offering journalists an easy framework to interpret world events and giving political leaders a strong rhetorical tool to label critics of US foreign policy as unpatriotic.
Contemporary Relevance
Although the media environment has changed dramatically since the 1980s, in particular because of the emergence of Internet-based communications and associated independent/alternative media, the Propaganda Model remains a useful and relevant explanatory model.
Mainstream/corporate media remain important, if not dominant, information sources for large swathes of the public whilst there is little to indicate that mainstream journalists have changed their tendency to rely upon, and defer to, official sources when constructing their stories.
Similarly, although the Cold War ideology of anti-communism might be seen as a thing of the past, ideological mechanisms such as the ‘war on terror’ or ‘humanitarian warfare’ perform equivalent functions and, some would argue, Russophobia today underpins the emergence of a ‘New Cold War’.
Finally, ‘flak’ remains as relevant as ever to understanding how dissent is managed in democracies with smear or character assassination campaigns becoming a prominent feature and identifiable across a diverse range of issue areas including war and foreign policy (9/11 global ‘war on terror’) and public health (Covid-19).
Criticisms
Unsurprisingly many mainstream journalists have been intensely irritated by claims that their work is bounded by forces beyond their control and push back against claims that they lack autonomy. An interview with Chomsky, conducted by the BBC’s Andrew Marr, is a good example of the difficulty mainstream journalists have with coming to terms with the “propaganda model”. Within the academy, however, the propaganda model has received, over the years, a certain level of acceptance as part of ‘elite-driven paradigm’. At the same time, academia itself can be seen to be a part of a wider propaganda apparatus, so it is perhaps not surprising the propaganda model is not more widely accepted than it is by academics.
The “propaganda model” does not, however, explain everything. Whilst capturing the factors that limit media autonomy, it does not account for conditions under which manufacturing consent breaks down. Also, it focuses primarily on the functioning of mainstream media but this is only one element in terms of understanding the role of propaganda in contemporary democracies. As such the propaganda model says little about the institutions and doctrines related to the management and production of propaganda as well as the role of other institutions, such as academia as noted above, in the production and dissemination of propaganda.
Further Reading
(Featured Image: “Noam Chomsky” by jeanbaptisteparis is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.)
