Words: 2255
To what extent is the Propaganda Model applicable to Western Corporate Media? Discuss this in relation to ownership of the media and give appropriate examples. For the purposes of this essay, I will initially define the term Propaganda and Propaganda Model, its origins and meaning with reference to the critical works of Edward Bernays, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman. I will then define Western Corporate media in relation to the Propaganda Model in today’s society, incorporating the role of Public Relations, with reference to the works of again, Bernay’s, Pilger, Chomsky, Herman and Marx.
As a case study I will refer to the role of News Corporation within modern media and how it can be argued that the propaganda model can be related to this, as a large conglomerate with a controlling share of both western and worldwide media. The term ‘propaganda’ dates back as far as 1622 to the Vatican, when it’s connotations were much purer than the term as we use it today. Originally taken from the latin Congregatio de propaganda fide (The Office for the Propagation of the Faith), Bernays and Miller (2004: Pg 9), it was coined by Pope Gregory XV in relation to the ‘Church’s missionary efforts in the New World’. Bernay’s and Miller 2004 : Pg 9), in essence to bring the straying protestant flock back to the order of the Catholic Church. The essence of which, was well meaning. From such innocent beginnings though, the term ‘propaganda’ has come to imply a much more sinister and dark meaning within western society. Arguably one of the biggest turning points in public perception of the term, and perhaps the beginning of the western hegemonic society’s realisation of the power of propaganda as a tool to sway public opinion, came in the aftermath of the First World War.
Propaganda was utilised fully by both American and British governments to swing public opinion in favour of the war effort with unprecedented success, however in the subsequent decade, public awareness of the propaganda used on the people, by governments and the press, became common knowledge – much to the chagrin of the American and British people as they watched their troops come home, disfigured and disabled (if alive) from the glorious war, and it began to become apparent that the public had been somewhat hoodwinked. The pressing reasons to go to war became less apparent when faced with its aftermath.
As Bernays and Miller comment in their work Propaganda; ‘there had been a gradual, disorienting revelation of just how systematically, and how ingeniously, the Allied governments had fooled the peoples of two great democracies, Great Britain and, in particular, the USA. (2004 : Pg 28). This had not gone unnoticed by the ruling classes, who saw a new tool in “public relations as an “applied social science” that uses insights from psychology, sociology, and other disciplines to scientifically manage and manipulate the thinking and behaviour of an irrational and “herdlike” public”. ttp://www. economicexpert. com/a/Public:relations. html (accessed 18/12/08) ‘Propaganda Model’ is a theory originating from Herman and Chomsky’s work, ‘Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media’. Published in 1988, it argues that freedom of the press is subject to five main filters of influence In Western Society; Ownership, Funding, Sourcing, Flak and Anti-Ideologies.
This model they argue, constricts freedom of speech within journalistic media and directs popular cultural tastes, thus censoring what information the general population are privy too, but also allowing hegemony of the ruling classes sway over mass public opinion by first; controlling the avenues of information available to the general public and secondly by adding bias and spin to suit their own economic, financial and political ideology. The first of these five filters concerns the ownership of the media. The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behaviour that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society. In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda”. (Chomsky and Herman, 2002, Pg 5). This, the opening statement of their book, illustrates the power that the mass media hold over public opinion.
As Marx explained in 1845; “every ruling class is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society. It has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational universally valid ones”. http://www. marxists. org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b. htm#b3 (accessed 17/12/08). Ownership of the media is therefore a very powerful tool. In addition to this, mass media rely heavily on advertising revenues or ‘funding’ to survive. But this allows the advertising company immense power.
As Herman and Chomsky explain; “The power of advertisers over television programming stems from the simple fact that they buy and pay for the programs-they are the “patrons” who provide the media subsidy. ” (2002). Not only threatening to withdraw their business if the company’s ‘dirty laundry’ is aired, or any controversial issue that may encompass company activities – showing them in a bad light, but furthermore, they are there to sell a product they want ‘feel good’ programming that puts the viewer in a buying mood, conducive to their own product.
This gives powerful advertisers power over media content and therefore choosing what we see and what we don’t. As Herman and Chomsky argue; “an advertising-based media system will gradually increase advertising time and marginalize or eliminate altogether programming that has significant public-affairs content” (2002). Programmes and television touching on highly controversial issues will be hard pressed to sell advertising space, thus pushing their own revenue down in comparison to their competitors, as will radical publications find it hard to attract funding and advertising revenue.
They cannot compete. “what enters the mainstream will support the needs of established power” (Chomsky 1989 : Pg 153). Another element that comes into play is the sourcing of news stories. With the rise in demand for 24 hour news coverage, the world-wide-web and the worldwide coverage required by the media news-desks today, it is impossible to fit into timescales to have investigative journalism on every story, or a man on the scene as it were, catching the news every moment that it happens.
Instead, today’s media often rely on press releases, and staged photo opportunities, together with pre-released copies of speeches or formatted text ready to drop into the newspaper or news-desk. Clifford explains that in today’s media, “the function of PR is ‘filling the role investigative reporters should fill but no longer can because cost cutting has hit journalism heavily”. (Pilger 2008, Pg 540). This gives both the government and private companies the opportunity to tailor how they are perceived by the public. It is in effect, using PR as news, rather than an unbiased view, although it is presented as such.
In addition the relationship between agencies that are vast news sources, such as government have to be relied upon and appeased in order to give the media coverage to that station at the same time as other media agencies. “The media may feel obligated to carry extremely dubious stories and mute criticism in order not to offend their sources and disturb a close relationship. It is very difficult to call authorities on whom one depends for daily news liars, even if they tell whoppers”. (Herman and Chomsky, 2002). Add to the mix the two remaining filters of Flak and Anti-Ideology.
Both of these filters are used to deflect criticism from the established authority, or the conglomerate which owns the media. “The government is a major producer of flak, regularly assailing, threatening, and “correcting” the media, trying to contain any deviations from the established line”. (Herman and Chomsky, 2002) Groups or individuals who question the validity of their aims or oppose not only the press, but their advertisers or sister companies for example, can be targeted by either of these filters by the governing body which they oppose.
Flak can be applied both directly and indirectly, subjugating the validity of the opposing party or delving into their past activities to ‘dig up the dirt’ so to speak. Another route, which was seen widely in post-war America was the anti-communism stand for example, targeting radical groups and individuals as “anti-American” or “Anti-capitalist” therefore “Communist” to turn the tide of public favour against them demonising them and thereby destroying any power they might have.
This ensures that the established order is regulated within the media. These large corporations, ensure their hegemony over society’s ideology by keep a firm grip on not only on the information available to the general public incorporating their own biases and beliefs, but also via popular culture, incorporating entertainment, news, music, film, social activities and networking into the overall vision they hand to society. As Pilger explains; “The Press is owned by a “tiny and ever-contracting band of businessmen-proprietors.
Instead of developing as a diverse social institution, serving the needs of a democratic society, the press, and now the media, have become or are becoming the property of a few, governed by whatever social, political and cultural values the few think tolerable”. (Pilger 1998, Pg 543). Since the turn of the century there has been a steep decline in the radical, free-press available to the general public, as wealthy conglomerates took over newspapers to incorporate into their portfolio, until today the free-press is all but extinct. Some hope was reignited with the arrival of the world-wide-web but this too has not been left unscathed.
In addition to this, acquisitions which incorporate huge worldwide social networking sites such as myspace now owned by News Corporation – suggest that the power of these conglomerates, are now able to permeate every social group within society from newspapers, magazines, television programming and television news, film, music and internet sites. They have enormous power. Today’s media is owned by large corporations with outside interests so that the ownership of each press outlet is subject to automatic boundaries, limiting its freedom of opinion and affecting it’s reasoning, bias and censorship.
As an example, News Corporation owned by Rupert Murdoch is one such conglomerate that owns shares in Hughes electrics, Fox News, Fox Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Music, Fox television and it’s various subsidiaries, together with a large share of the world’s press. “News Corp. is clearly identified as a corporate arm that is strongly controlled by a single individual. It is therefore probably fair to say that his absolute control over News Corp. , with its holdings of some of the world’s most pervasive and influential media properties, makes Rupert Murdoch perhaps the single most powerful media magnate ever”. ttp://www. museum. tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/murdochrupe/murdochrupe. htm. The company’s outside interests and widely encompassing hold over many of the major news providers around the western world, naturally assumes a position of huge public and political power. It denotes that the beliefs of the few at the top of the chain of power within News Corporation such as Rupert Murdoch himself is able to swing public opinion to his favour by backing his own opinion within his publications, news and entertainment outlets.
An example of this was his public support of Margaret Thatcher. At the time, “Times editor Charles Douglas-Home said that Murdoch was seen as one of ‘the main powers behind the Thatcher throne”, http://www. lancs. ac. uk/people/trowler/ressite/cut. htm#murdoch. Added to this, his self-proclaimed ‘help’ to promote John Major into power, using the Sun Newspaper to sway public opinion. In conclusion, modern society relies heavily for its identity and ideology from the various media sources available to us.
They are able to influence a wide ranging sphere of our lives from our entertainment to our news sources, arts and music to film and the internet. This kind of power must be harnessed by the ruling bodies in capitalist society. The Propaganda Model illustrates how every area of the media can be permeated and controlled by this. All of the mainstream media that we have access to is filtered through this model. Smaller bodies of radical media are seen as unreliable or subject to personal opinion. Contradicting or questioning, will be met with the long-arm of power and crushed.
In the words of Mark Twain, “It is a free press… There are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press”. – License of the Press speech, Mark Twain. http://www. twainquotes. com/Freedom_press. html. Bibliography Bernays E. L. , Miller, M. C. , Propaganda: with an introduction by Mark Crispin Miller, 2004, Ig Publishing, New York. Herman E. S. , Chomsky N. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. 2002, Pantheon Books, New York. Pilger J. Hidden Agendas, 1998, Vintage Publishing, London.
Chomsky N. Necessary Illusions, 1989, Pluto Press, London. Tuccille, J. , Rupert Murdoch: Creator of a Worldwide Media Empire, 2003, Beard Books, New York, USA. Websites http://www. twainquotes. com/Freedom_press. html http://www. economicexpert. com/a/Public:relations. html http://www. marxists. org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b. htm#b3 http://www. spinwatch. org/-articles-by-category-mainmenu-8/41-corporate-spin/149-naming-the-problem-understanding-capitalism http://www. museum. tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/murdochrupe/murdochrupe. htm