Revisiting Chomsky’s Propaganda Model

In his landmark essay “Manufacturing Consent,” Noam Chomsky introduced a simple but elegant model for understanding how propaganda and censorship work in mass media. This model, known as the “propaganda model,” posits that the content of news is driven not by what is newsworthy, but by what is profitable.

The propaganda model has five main elements: size and concentration of media firms, advertising as the primary source of revenue, the media’s dependence on government and corporate sources for news, flak, and the ideology of anti-communism. Let’s take a closer look at each of these five elements.

First, the size and concentration of media firms. In the early days of radio and television, there were many small, independent stations. Today, however, the media landscape is dominated by a handful of large, multinational corporations. This concentration of ownership gives these corporations immense power to shape the news. For example, ABC News, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, owns 20% of all television stations. These large corporations decide which stories to cover and which to ignore, and they can use their financial clout to influence government policies.

Second, advertising is the primary source of revenue for the media. This means that media firms are heavily reliant on advertisers for their income. As a result, they are reluctant to alienate their advertisers by running stories that are critical of them. For example, the tobacco industry is a major advertiser, and studies have shown that the media is much less likely to run stories critical of the tobacco industry than it is to run stories critical of other industries. We should keep in mind that Chomsky wrote his essay in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the Internet, along with cable television and other new media sources, has changed the nature of media content.

Nowadays, many media companies, including newspapers, are trying to expand their audiences by attracting younger, more affluent readers. And as newspapers have become more financially dependent on advertising, many have begun to emphasize more sensational stories that attract readers. This is a change from the past, when newspapers were much more likely to run stories about local crime and national politics. But the emphasis on sensationalism has led to stories that are less in-depth and informative.

Third, the media is dependent on government and corporate sources for its news. Reporters rely on these sources for information, and they are often reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. As a result, they are more likely to print stories that are favorable to these sources. The New York Times is a prime example of this phenomenon. The Times is heavily reliant on government sources for its information, and it has been shown to be much more likely to print stories that are favorable to the government than it is to print stories that are critical of the government.

Fourth, the media is subject to flak. Flak is negative feedback from special interest groups that try to influence the media’s coverage of an issue. For example, the gun lobby is very effective at mobilizing its members to write letters and make phone calls to complain about stories that are critical of the gun industry. Flak can take many forms, from angry letters and phone calls to lawsuits and government sanctions. Flak can be very effective in getting the media to self-censor its stories. For example, in the early 1990s, the media was heavily criticized for its coverage of the first Gulf War. As a result of this flak, the media was much less critical of the second Gulf War.

And finally, the media is influenced by the ideology of anti-communism. During the Cold War, the media was strongly anti-communist, and this bias continued even after the end of the Cold War. This ideology leads the media to downplay or ignore stories that are critical of the United States or of capitalism. For example, the media has been criticized for its lack of coverage of the Iraq War. Critics say that the media did not provide enough coverage of the human costs of the conflict, and that it downplayed stories that were critical of the Bush Administration’s justification for the war.

What do we make of Chomsky’s argument? Is he right? There is no easy answer. Chomsky’s argument is based on a number of premises, some of which are contested.

For example, his claim that advertising is the primary source of media revenue is contradicted by the fact that subscription revenues are more important to many of these media companies. In fact, advertising revenues have been in decline for many years. advertising only accounts for about 20% of the New York Times’s revenue. Additionally, Chomsky’s claim that the media is dependent on government and corporate sources for its news is also contested. While it is true that reporters rely on these sources for information, they are also increasingly using social media and other online sources to gather information. Furthermore, the media is not always subject to flak. In some cases, special interest groups are actually more likely to praise the media for its coverage of an issue.

Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of evidence to support Chomsky’s claim that the media is biased. In a study, Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election, found that the media was more likely to cover stories that were favorable to Hillary Clinton than it was to cover stories that were favorable to Donald Trump. The study also found that the coverage of fake news in the media did not match the coverage of fake news on social media. These findings suggest that the media is biased in favor of Hillary Clinton.

But the media landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, and these changes have had a profound effect on the way the media covers elections. In the past, the media was much more likely to be controlled by a small number of large corporations. These corporations exercised a great deal of control over what stories were covered and how they were covered. However, the rise of the internet and social media has resulted in a much more fragmented media landscape. There are now a large number of small media outlets, and it is much easier for people to get their news from a variety of sources. This has made it more difficult for the media to control the narrative. In fact, the 2016 election was the first time that the media was not able to control the narrative. In the past, the media would have been able to spin the story in a way that favored Hillary Clinton.

But this time, the media was not able to do that. This is largely due to the fact that there are now so many different sources of information. So, even if traditional media outlets were biased towards Clinton, they would not have been able to control the narrative as easily. In the years to come, the media landscape is likely to continue to change. It is unlikely that the media will ever be able to control the narrative in the same way it was able to in the past. This is both a positive and negative development. It is positive because it will make it harder for the media to control the narrative, but it is negative because it means that fake news and misinformation will be more difficult to control as well.

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Sud Alogu

I write about ideas that matter to me. In other words, revolutionary.