|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky's`PropagandaModel'
Jeffery Klaehn
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, hipnsavvy{at}hotmail.com
Mass media play an especially important role in democratic societies. They are presupposed to act as intermediary vehicles that reflect public opinion, respond to public concerns and make the electorate cognizant of state policies, important events and viewpoints. The fundamental principles of democracy depend upon the notion of a reasonably informed electorate. The `propaganda model' of media operations laid out and applied by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media postulates that elite media interlock with other institutional sectors in ownership, management and social circles, effectively circumscribing their ability to remain analytically detached from other dominant institutional sectors. The model argues that the net result of this is self-censorship without any significant coercion. Media, according to this framework, do not have to be controlled nor does their behaviour have to be patterned, as it is assumed that they are integral actors in class warfare, fully integrated into the institutional framework of society, and act in unison with other ideological sectors, i.e. the academy, to establish, enforce, reinforce and `police' corporate hegemony. It is not a surprise, then, given the interrelations of the state and corporate capitalism and the `ideological network', that the propaganda model has been dismissed as a `conspiracy theory' and condemned for its `overly deterministic' view of media behaviour. It is generally excluded from scholarly debates on patterns of media behaviour. This article provides a critical assessment and review of Herman and Chomsky's propaganda model and seeks to encourage scholarly debate regarding the relationship between corporate power and ideology. Highly descriptive in nature, the article is concerned with the question of whether media can be seen to play a hegemonic role in society oriented towards legitimization, political accommodation and ideological management.
Key Words: Chomsky • communication studies • ideology • hegemony • media • media studies • social control • power • propaganda model
European Journal of Communication, Vol. 17, No. 2,
147-182 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0267323102017002691
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
C. Otopalik and T. Schaefer
Are the lapdogs starting to bark? Japanese newspaper coverage of the SDF mission to Iraq
Media, War & Conflict,
December 1, 2008;
1(3):
271 - 291.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. McGuigan
The Cultural Public Sphere
European Journal of Cultural Studies,
November 1, 2005;
8(4):
427 - 443.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Robertson
People's Watchdogs or Government Poodles?: Scotland's National Broadsheets and the Second Iraq War
European Journal of Communication,
December 1, 2004;
19(4):
457 - 482.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Corner
The Model in Question: A Response to Klaehn on Herman and Chomsky
European Journal of Communication,
September 1, 2003;
18(3):
367 - 375.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Klaehn
Model Construction: Various Other Epistemological Concerns: A Reply to John Corner's Commentary on the Propaganda Model
European Journal of Communication,
September 1, 2003;
18(3):
377 - 383.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Klaehn
Corporate Hegemony: A Critical Assessment of the Globe and Mail's News Coverage of Near-Genocide in Occupied East Timor 1975-80
International Communication Gazette,
August 1, 2002;
64(4):
301 - 321.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
