Evaluation of Herman and Chomskys Propaganda Theory - Essay Example

Critical Evaluation of Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Theory Name Student Number Institution Course Code Instructor Date Critical Evaluation of Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Theory Media plays a pivotal role in the society concerning message communication and passing symbols to the general populace. In context, they have the role to inform, amuse, and entertain, as well as ensure inclusion of individuals with values, beliefs and code of behavior to be integrated into the structures of the institutions and the larger society (Alford 2009). Noam Chomsky, who was a renowned social critic and Edward Herman, came up with a model showing how news is shaped by some filters. On evaluating the role of the media in society, its behavior and ways of performance, Herman and Chomsky came up with a model that highlighted the way in which the United States mainstream media work and the reasons as to why they perform in that manner. The central concept was that power dwells mainly within a few un-elected individuals and corporations resulting in selectivity, filtering and sanitization of news stories for skewed-benefits (Mullen & Klaehn 2010). This means that what reaches the general public is that which is approved, as well as in line with the wishes of the stakeholders controlling the media systems. This paper provides a critical assessment of how the propaganda theory operates and also its relevance in understanding the indulgence of corporate power in democratic processes with the question on to whether the media acts to serve its role in society or not. The media presents occurrences in the society to educate, enlighten and expose happenings in a given area or place of interest. Various approaches are taken in presenting news, events and challenges occurring in the society by the media stimulating the critical analysis and critiquing from various quarters (Corner 2003). The media serves a role of emancipating the masses on issues that affect their lives. The propaganda model stipulates that biases in the media impede the performance of these functions and are caused by various forces surrounding the media business. The structure of the news is prone to be changed in favor of forces which have a conflict of interest with these media corporations (Klaehn & Mullen 2010). From the context of the authors of the model, the media acts as a manufacturing entity for the benefits of the stakeholders in the media industry. The term “manufacturing consent” is utilized as shorthand for the model developed by Herman and Chomsky coined from the book Manufacturing Consent by the two authors. From a critical point of view, the aspect of quality coverage fails to gain ground more directly and crudely within the placement of news and hence, mobilize the interests of the target audience. Nevertheless, this appears far from reach concerning the propaganda model and hence, there is anticipation for restraints of opinion within the expressions coming up. The propaganda model has had it great impact in the media proliferation in the past decades, and subsequent changes are pegged based on analysis stemming from the concept. Critical analysis of the function, operation, and effects of the media plays a central role in the understanding of contemporary societies (Alford 2009). The propaganda approach in the coverage of media items bring about a systematic and highly politicized system with news that are dichotomized pegged to the serviceability of crucial interests in the domestic front. According to Klaehn (2002), mass media play a vital role in democratic societies, where they are obligated to act as the link between the elected officials in a democracy, and the masses that put them in office. It plays a role reflecting public opinion, and also acting as information watchdogs of the government’s undertakings in matters affecting the public. The propaganda model put forward by Edward Herman, and Noam Chomsky views the elites as utilizing their grasp on power by using propaganda to change the news reaching the masses with a bid to secure their interest (Corner 2003). This per se emphasizes the need for comprehensive handling of favored and inconvenient material with care to ensure the values intended to be portrayed by the news items by a given media are upheld. To effectively understand the critical consideration arising from the Herman-Chomsky propaganda model, evaluating the five filters discussed in crucial. Herman and Chomsky outlined some filters in the model that can be utilized in critical analysis of news items from the media. The propaganda model consist of five filters which act the role of filtering out the news to be printed therefore, allowing for dominant elites and ruling classes to put out the information they want to reach the public. Further, ensuring that information that stains their ideologies or reputations is not presented to the masses (Goodwin 1994). The five filters are; ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak and anti-communism or anti-‘other’ and are evaluated below. The first filter relates to the concentration of ‘ownership’ of media houses. These corporations are profit seeking entities whose battle for a place in the market space serves as a good way to create bias. Herman and Chomsky theory indicate that since these media corporations are tied to bigwigs in society, the information they give will be biased to serve the financial interests of the corporations (Klaehn 2002). These corporations try as much as possible to impress the elites so as not to lose in financial support bearing in mind the high cost of production. Goodwin (1994) argues that another effect of this filter of ownership concerning information bias is the fact that most of the managers in the media houses have their employments controlled by members of wealthy families, individuals and corporate boards having incredible influence and interest in the information relayed to the public. The managers ensure relaying the news that does not affect the interests of this wealthy individuals thereby giving way to information bias and more so censorship (Corner 2003). This is done selectively to safeguard their jobs. The second filter involves advisement, and big advertisers are the real market of the media industry unlike the notion in the public domain that the buyers or audience of the news material is the target market. High costs of production cannot be met by the individual consumers who buy newspapers in the streets and the thus, the need to invest on sufficient attractive advisements by a media house (Klaehn & Mullen 2010). The high dependency of media on advertising revenue to fund their corporations puts the news in a passive position where the readers and listeners of these products are sold to the advertising business organizations. Advertisers who are of great financial benefit to media houses tend to consider offering contracts to media houses which they feel are politically correct concerning their interests or ideologies (Goodwin 1994). Thus, media entities will tend to incline towards impressing big corporations to ensure acquiring and maintain their adverts. The propaganda model has been utilized in Australia to show how the governments and the media benefited from the taxpayers money through evaluation of government advertisements. The government being the largest advertiser in a nation controls the media in a way that they had to relay information that favored their highly valued customer (Alford 2009). The media corporations being profit-seeking organizations have to ensure they do not sponsor programs or articles that highly criticize the government’s actions. Nevertheless, these actions erode the very context of democracy in the world. Sourcing of news presents another filter in the media industry as presented by Herman-Chomsky model. Media corporations place their reporters in locations where important stories evolve and revolve like for example in the parliaments, state security agencies like the Pentagon, important financial areas such as Wall Street among others. According to Goodwin (1994), the government bodies and state corporations have so much to offer to reporters who are information hungry, and this serves an easy way of having biased news bearing in mind it comes straight from the self-interested parties. Herman and Chomsky’s model stipulate that the media corporations which fail to act per the expectations of the government and ruling elites in any democracy may, therefore, be subjected to withholding or denying access to vital information (Alford 2009). This prompts media houses to act with caution to avoid running programs or articles that harm the same government agencies that provide them with necessary resources to survive in the media sector. The filter of ‘flak’ is described by Herman and Chomsky as the publicly going against or showing negativity to comments, programs or articles from media houses. This is a method utilized by the corporate and government agencies to discipline the media (Alford 2009). This is achieved by utilization of lawsuits, petitions, bills before legislative bodies imposing threats or even punitive action. The wealthy and power wielding elites can bring undeserved heat to the media in a case the media has crossed their line by touching on issues that affect their wellbeing. Flak may be costly and threatening to any media corporation (Goodwin 1994). Government institutions in a bid to intimidate media organizations that do not toe the line may refute to the fact that they issued any information to the media houses in question or even refuse to speak to their reporters on other important issues. Within his application of the propaganda model to the Hollywood situation, Alford, (2009) presents the filter of anti-communism to represent a notion of the creation of a public enemy. Communism presents the largest fear for class positions and elite status in a democratic situation. With communism presented as the worst imaginable threat, then any war waged against them is termed necessary and therefore, creates bias in information rendered to the public. What is presented as bad by a government is crushed with ensuring no information on reasons of it being termed unfit to reach the public (Corner 2002). On the other hand, if a particular foreign state is considered good, everything necessary is done to thwart its enemies. A good example is the negative images shown during the Wilson’s war against the Huns, which showed Belgian babies with their limbs torn off (Klaehn 2002). The propaganda was an invention of the British as a way of directing the thoughts of the world’s population against their enemy. Thus, the aspect of propaganda in respect to fighting anti-communism was evident in the 20th century but has greatly dwindled in the 21st century with decreased communism in the world. Klaehn and Mullen (2010) argue that the propaganda model had it criticisms delivered in two distinct stages. The first wave of criticism came after its publication in the 1980s and there was so much disregard of the model which took much hostility: Many scholars in this stage dismissed the model stating that it posed a conspiracy view of the undertakings of the media and took for granted the powerful opposition to elite preferences. The critics at this stage also held a high value on journalist professionalism which was neglected by Herman’s and Chomsky propaganda model (Corner 2002)). The second phase of criticism initiated deeper engagement with the model and much debate arose. The debated issues included the conspiratorial view of the media, the deterministic notion created by the model, professionalism in journalism and assumption of ruling class elitism among others (Alford 2009). Corner (2003) stipulates that Herman’s and Chomsky propaganda could only operate in theory, and it fails to offer the media, state and market relations in a broad manner. Corner questioned whether the model could be used in countries with different media and political structures from those of the United States utilized in the model. Further criticism was pegged on the five filters and questioned whether the filtering occurred to modify the already existence news or was the sole causative agent of the resultant story (Corner 2002). The critics failed to realize the fact that Herman and Chomsky had cited and acknowledged possibility of limitations to be created by the Propaganda Model. Klaehn and Mullen (2010) urged scholars to test the hypotheses put forward by Herman and Chomsky as it had given importance in social sciences. The five filters render the model flexible for applicability in broad social perspectives. The media today is challenged by the fact of ensuring delivering what is crucial and impacts the audience directly in a quality manner (Alford 2009). This not only ensures the success of the media company but also reduces the negative criticism from the general public and the elite. In the quest to maximize the audience delivery, media houses are well aware of the advantage of enhancing its advertising venture which is a great contributor to revenue generation in the media industry. This clearly shows that the strategy of targeting a larger audience is basically to create a platform to air the adverts thus, amassing more power and wealth per se. In conclusion, Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda aims at showing how the media performs in its role of giving information on leadership and social issues that affect the larger public. The media has a critical role of informing the general populace of the happenings within the government systems, in the society and changes in the global settings. Measures taken to actualize the role may vary and the eventual product may be criticized as per the discussion pertaining to Herman’s and Chomsky model in this essay. The model posits that the five filters ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak, and anti-communism put the elite and governing bodies in a position to control the information that reaches the public to safeguard their interests. Though highly criticized, the propaganda model remains an important model that is workable in analyzing media performance in the contemporary times where consent continues to be manufactured by manipulating public opinion. Reference List Alford, M., 2009. A Propaganda Model for Hollywood. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 144-156. Corner, J., 2003. Debate: The Model in Question – A Response to Klaehn on Herman and Chomsky. European Journal of Communication, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 367–75. Goodwin, J., 1994. ‘What’s Right and Wrong about Left Media Criticism? Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model.’ Sociological Forum, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 101–111. Herman, E., 2000. The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective. Journalism Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 101-112. Klaehn, J. & Mullen, A., 2010. The Propaganda Model and Sociology: Understanding the Media and Society. Sociology Faculty Publications, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 10-23. Klaehn, J., 2002. A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model. European Journal of Communication, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 147–82. Mullen, A. & Klaehn, J., 2010. The Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model: A Critical Approach to Analyzing Mass Media Behavior. Sociology Compass, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 215-229. Read More

The propaganda model has had it great impact in the media proliferation in the past decades, and subsequent changes are pegged based on analysis stemming from the concept. Critical analysis of the function, operation, and effects of the media plays a central role in the understanding of contemporary societies (Alford 2009). The propaganda approach in the coverage of media items bring about a systematic and highly politicized system with news that are dichotomized pegged to the serviceability of crucial interests in the domestic front.

According to Klaehn (2002), mass media play a vital role in democratic societies, where they are obligated to act as the link between the elected officials in a democracy, and the masses that put them in office. It plays a role reflecting public opinion, and also acting as information watchdogs of the government’s undertakings in matters affecting the public. The propaganda model put forward by Edward Herman, and Noam Chomsky views the elites as utilizing their grasp on power by using propaganda to change the news reaching the masses with a bid to secure their interest (Corner 2003).

This per se emphasizes the need for comprehensive handling of favored and inconvenient material with care to ensure the values intended to be portrayed by the news items by a given media are upheld. To effectively understand the critical consideration arising from the Herman-Chomsky propaganda model, evaluating the five filters discussed in crucial. Herman and Chomsky outlined some filters in the model that can be utilized in critical analysis of news items from the media. The propaganda model consist of five filters which act the role of filtering out the news to be printed therefore, allowing for dominant elites and ruling classes to put out the information they want to reach the public.

Further, ensuring that information that stains their ideologies or reputations is not presented to the masses (Goodwin 1994). The five filters are; ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak and anti-communism or anti-‘other’ and are evaluated below. The first filter relates to the concentration of ‘ownership’ of media houses. These corporations are profit seeking entities whose battle for a place in the market space serves as a good way to create bias. Herman and Chomsky theory indicate that since these media corporations are tied to bigwigs in society, the information they give will be biased to serve the financial interests of the corporations (Klaehn 2002).

These corporations try as much as possible to impress the elites so as not to lose in financial support bearing in mind the high cost of production. Goodwin (1994) argues that another effect of this filter of ownership concerning information bias is the fact that most of the managers in the media houses have their employments controlled by members of wealthy families, individuals and corporate boards having incredible influence and interest in the information relayed to the public. The managers ensure relaying the news that does not affect the interests of this wealthy individuals thereby giving way to information bias and more so censorship (Corner 2003).

This is done selectively to safeguard their jobs. The second filter involves advisement, and big advertisers are the real market of the media industry unlike the notion in the public domain that the buyers or audience of the news material is the target market. High costs of production cannot be met by the individual consumers who buy newspapers in the streets and the thus, the need to invest on sufficient attractive advisements by a media house (Klaehn & Mullen 2010). The high dependency of media on advertising revenue to fund their corporations puts the news in a passive position where the readers and listeners of these products are sold to the advertising business organizations.

Advertisers who are of great financial benefit to media houses tend to consider offering contracts to media houses which they feel are politically correct concerning their interests or ideologies (Goodwin 1994).

Read More