Anth/Soc 345: Media, Politics and Propaganda

Winter 2011

Home | Announcements| Lecture materials |Class schedule | Assignments

 

The Propaganda Model

 

The thesis of Herman and Chomsky is that money and power can be used:

  • to filter out news 'unfit' to print
  • to marginalize dissent
  • to subtly reflect the interests of the corporations that own or advertise in media, and powerful political entities (think government) whose interests are often aligned with corporations (and vice versa).
  • to enable government and private corporations to 'get out their messages,' define public debates, etc. Media as uncritical mouthpiece of the powerful.

Five news filters

Imagine information being poured through five filters that are part of the system of mass media in the U.S.. Some stories will not pass through, and we're interested in understanding which stories those might be, why they get filtered, and ultimately, what does the filtering mechanism look like? What will you end up with? Each stage is likely to filter out some information, but where does it end up? Maybe some of that information that gets left behind is scooped up by other outlets, non-commercial / alternative / non-profit outlets. What news is left at the end, after passing through the filters, that is 'fit to print,' so to speak? Let's look at the filters:

  1. Size, ownership and profit orientation
    1. Size is important
      1. It requires lots of investment capital to run a media outlet; the larger media conglomerates get, the more money it takes to buy one's way into the game. Why do people try? Money, power, influence, connections . . . take your pick. It's pretty hard for a mom n' pop TV network to compete.
      2. It can take political connections, relationships with the banking industry to get the licenses, come up with the investment capital, etc.
      3. the role of the market--media corporations make good investments because they're often quite profitable--many family-run organizations have gone public because of the enormous sums of money required to compete, expand, or merely the huge profit windfalls that going public and selling stock can provide for the owners (going public means their stock is available for sale on the stock exchange, rather than being controlled by some private interest or family). This also means boards of directors, directors who probably sit on other boards as well.
    2. Ownership is critical
    3. Expansion of the US media industry has led to concentration of ownership:
      • In 1983, 50 corporations dominated most of every mass medium; the biggest media merger in history was a $340 million deal. ...
      • In 1987, 29 corporations dominated mass media markets.
      • By 1990, this was down to 23 corporations.
      • By 1997, 10 corporations dominated; the biggest merger involved the $19 billion Disney-ABC deal, at the time the biggest media merger ever.
      • In 2000, AOL Time Warner's merger-$350 billion-more than 1,000 times larger than the biggest deal of 1983." *
      • The Center for Public Integrity's Well Connected project has some updated stastics on corporate ownership by different media types (here's the skinny on our valley, as of April 2010).
      • Media Channel also has a page devoted to ownership issues that will help you grasp the stakes.
    4. As media become less and less family-run operations and more market-based (i.e., commercial), there is greater pressure brought to bear on public officials to de-regulate, take advantage of economies of scale. This will lead to increased concentration of ownership and it can mean that non-media corporations decide to get into the game, too. For example, Westinghouse owned CBS, General Electric owned NBC. Disney bought Cap Cities, and then ABC. The bigger companies get, the more economic and political power they can wield. This will also likely mean:
      1. More takeovers and mergers --a takeover is when a company tries to buy out another company without the consent of the executive officers, by taking an offer directly to shareholders)
      2. Interlocking directorates This is when you have board members from one company sitting on other boards, and they may be making decisions not based solely on their role as director of one board--there may be conflicts of interest.
        1. (from Ben Bagdikian) The following companies share board directors: Time, Inc. Mobil Oil (now Exxon/Mobil), AT&T, American Express, Firestone, Mellon National (banking, finance), Atlantic Richfield (oil), Xerox, General Dynamics (defense), most international banks. Whose interests are being served when members of a board are sitting on other boards? Does this create a fair playing field? FAIR has a list of IDs for major media outlets.
      3. News division is commercialized or marginalized. Think about it. You've got this large company, with hundreds of subsidiaries, lots of interlocking interests. They all understand the power of also owning a news division and media holdings for their profitability. How free will the news division be to serve the public? Will it be expected to support itself financially (mostly through advertising), or will its independence be protected through subsidies from other, more profitable parts of the corporation? Can it be left alone to potentially operate against the best interests of the parent corporation?
    5. Ties with government are very important to media owners (why?)
      1. There are requirements of licenses (remember, we're talking about rights to use public airwaves and infrastructure), renewals, franchises-subject to govt. control, etc.
      2. Government as source of discipline The FCC (Federal Commuincations Commission) could withhold or deny licenses, for instance. Companies that depend on government policy have to be careful about criticizing public officials.
        1. Dixie Chicks and Clear Channel--lead singer Natalie Maines criticized the president prior to the Iraq invasion, and Clear Channel, which owned over 1,300 radio stations (thanks to market deregulation in the 1996 Telecommunications Act), banned their music from most of their stations. Why? Clear Channel benefited greatly from deregulation of media ownership. The FCC's former Chairman Michael Powell (Colin Powell's son) referred to media corporations as 'clients.' Some might have mistakenly thought that the taxpaying citizens were the clients ... there's little evidence the Obama Administration is moving toward greater regulation (meanwhile the NBC Comcast merger is debated in Congress ...).
        2. Golden parachutes-many former government officials sit on corporate boards after they finish public service, helping those corporations gain access to government officials.
        3. General pro-business policy benefits-in general, corporations benefit from globalization, deregulation. How do the media cover globalization? The only critical comments often come when either jobs are lost, or when there are protests that get out of control, which makes for better TV, whether it truly represents an event or not.
  2. Advertising filter
    • Hermann and Chomsky's message: Media outlets sell consumer audiences to advertisers
    • Advertisers choose where to advertise-consumers' choices about what to watch may be more limited, but some diversity of programming allows media outlets to 'tailor' their advertising opportunities to specific markets--and those markets in general are affluent (meaning they have some disposable income to burn ...)
    • Cable TV-remember where it came from? In the early 1980s in the U.S., it was a subscription service, and it was commercial-free.
    • Depending on subscriptions? Media outlets that depend on sales or subscription fees for revenue may lose out--these won't provide as much operating capital, and will make it difficult to compete with ad-based outlets, and as audiences increase for the advertising-based outlets, subscription rates have to increase for those less dependent on ads. This is a big difference between commercial and non-commercial news.
    • Public broadcasting, Mother Jones, the Nation, In These Times, Utne Reader--these magazines or outlets limit advertising or rely completely on donations. How do they survive? Why do they tend to cover different stories? What about public TV? How are they beholden to funders?
    • So what does advertising revenue do for a media outlet?
      • Money clearly finances more glitz, entertainment
      • Cross-advertising (Fox is the worst offender, but CNN and MSNBC do it, too)--cross-advertising is when the media outlet runs ads for other shows or programming from the same outlet or another company owned by the same outlet. Fox news local affiliates often run 'news' stories about Fox prime time TV series
      • Role of ratings-Nielsen is the big ratings company, and right now there are controversies about their new electronic people meters (designed to get local TV market information). Rupert Murdoch doesn't like them, because Fox hasn't rated as well in these as it does with the paper TV diaries Neilsen traditionally used. Minority groups are also complaining about ratings differences that affect the viability of shows targeting racial and ethnic minority groups. What happens if ratings drop?
      • The reality is that media outlets have to sell themselves to advertisers, but can face pressures from advertisers
        • Gulf and Western pulled its advertising from public TV because of one show that was screened that it didn't like); Chrysler has tried to pressure networks by insisting on reviewing programming before it would pay for advertising; GM pulled ads from the Los Angeles Times because they ran a story that linked unseasonably torrential rains to global warming.
        • In essence, the propaganda model implies a golden rule: anything that interferes with the public's 'buying mood' is risk
  3. Sourcing--Certain sources of news are considered legitimate, such as government. This gives various agencies and individuals in government broad power over controlling messages, what is news, etc.--they've got lots of correspondents covering their activities as news, even where it might look, feel and smell more like marketing and PR. Sociologist Max Weber wrote about sources of legitimacy. He identified three. First, charismatic authority--the cult leader, religious figure--the charismatic individual whose followers would walk off a cliff for. Problem with charismatic authority, with respect to power, is that it doesn't tend to transfer to other individuals--it's a problem of succession. Second is traditional authority, for instance you may have heard of the 'divine right of kings.' If you're a monarch, and people believe you reign under instructions from God, that's pretty powerful stuff--they're likely to believe whatever you say. The Pope's authority in the Catholic Church is similar. The third type is rational-legal legitimacy. We often think of law, the constitution, etc. We tend to want to believe people in positions of legitimate authority, which means we may be susceptible to liars who work their ways into positions in legitimate institutions. The mainstream media also enjoys legitimacy. Ever heard the phrase 'As Seen on TV!' (There's even a website, with really great stuff that you probably need to own and have, yes, seen on TV)
    • There are specific institutions with lots of legitimacy--the white house (oops--wrong one, try this one), the Capitol Building, the Pentagon . . . . For journalists these are easy sources of information, with huge public relations staffs and sophisticated mechanisms for dispensing the news to hungry journalists dying for copy before 5:00 pm.
    • The White House and the media usually have a love-hate relationship. In the Bush/Cheney Administration, the White House media managers such as Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett said the media is elitist and doesn't speak for the people, yet they more than any other White House have used the media to control their messages and shape public opinion. Even so, whenever press gets bad, they go to local radio and TV outlets for more 'friendly coverage.' Think of an election campaign. Who gets more coverage-the candidate or the officeholder? If there's no incumbent, then who? With Obama vs McCain, Obama received more coverage. Not all of it was positive coverage, but he was a bigger draw for . . . yep . . . . ratings. On Fox, viewers wanted negative coverage, on others, it was more neutral, MSNBC more positive.
    • The photo opportunity as news (check out the strategy)
    • Press conferences. After two years and 45 days in office, Reagan had had 16 press conferences, Carter 45, Ford 37, Nixon 16, Johnson 52, and G. W. Bush 8 (1 in prime time. As Communications director Dan Bartlett said this White House uses news conferences more sparingly than other types of presidential events, because "if you have a message you're trying to deliver, a news conference can go in a different direction.") Access to an unscripted President Bush has been minimal for reporters, who instead rely on press briefings from the White House. In recent years, Bush has held more 'hit and run' news conferences, e.g., early morning with less reporters or live viewers.
    • Deflecting pressure--spokespeople can speak for presidents, vice presidents; documents can be classified in the interest of national security, unpopular news can be released on the weekend when there will be less scrutiny. These are all well-tested strategies to reduce public access to information.
  4. Flak This is negative feedback. Flak happens on both sides, but one side has more money-the pro-business side (check out AIM, Media Research, newswatch, FAIR, etc.). This is direct flak, and can include other organizations, such as the Pentagon, or even phone calls from the White House complaining about critical coverage.In recent years, news weblogs, or blogs, have taken on a role as flak agents, especially when it comes to instant fact-checking (e.g., when Pres Bush tried to say he'd never used the term 'stat the course' to refer to his Iraq policy, bloggers busted him in near real-time (with hundreds of references from the white house website), complete with video footage. Here's an example from John DiIulio, former director of Faith based initiatives for the White House, who spoke to reporter Ron Suskind about his experiences. First his quote, then the next day his retraction:

    'In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not three meaningful, substantive policy discussions. There were no actual policy white papers on domestic issues. There were, truth be told, only a couple of people in the West Wing who worried at all about policy substance and analysis, and they were even more overworked than the stereotypical, non-stop, 20-hour-a-day White House staff. Every modern presidency moves on the fly, but, on social policy and related issues, the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking-discussions by fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near-instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera'

    The retraction the day after publication: "My criticisms were groundless and baseless due to poorly chosen words and examples. I sincerely apologize and I am deeply remorseful."

This is from the former head of the Republican party, Rich Bond, many years earlier:

    "There is some strategy to it (bashing the 'liberal' media). I'm a coach of kids' basketball and Little League teams. If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack on the next one" (Washington Post, 8/20/92)

The point is that flak serves two purposes--it can criticize and respond to current coverage, but it is also clearly designed to influence future coverage, by intimidating critics. As the Age of Propaganda points out, accusations (for instance of being biased or subjective), whether true or not, often stick and are difficult to shed, once made.

Corporations also can sling flak--the Chrysler advertising example is a good one. There is also a famous case of a newspaper article in California showing people how to save money on their next car purchase. Local car dealers, who buy lots of advertising, complained immediately and strongly, and the paper issued a retraction the next day, saying that 'you should work with your local dealers toward a fair price when buying a car.'

  1. Anti-communism and anti-terrorism

The Cold war may be over, but anti-communist rhetoric is alive and well. Redistribution of wealth threatens our economic system--capitalism. For example, even democrat John Kerry wouldn't say a word about Cuba during the 2004 campaign. Why? Florida and the Cuban vote, perhaps? We often hear stories about 'brutal dictators' in left-leaning countries, but rarely in non oil-pruducing, pro-USA right-wing fascist countries. Why? (I'll provide some sources here from project censored)?

What kinds of tragedies, disasters get coverage?

Rwanda, Burundi (they're not communist)
El Salvador
Nicaragua (read about the role of John Negroponte, future U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, in U.S.-backed genocide)
Kuwait (remember the rapes of pregnant women in the hospital? A PR company)
East Timor
The Congo
Iraq and Saddam's atrocities
Colombia (read about this country lately?)
Guatemala
Venezuela (another left-leaner--did you hear this story?)

One of the key issues here is the spread of global capitalism and free trade. Countries that are opposed to free trade, such as Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti, are rarely portrayed in a positive light. Check it out. Yet countries with brutal regimes that support free trade may not receive coverage at all, despite massive human rights violations. Most countries in Latin America have fallen into this category at some point in their recent history.

Anti-terrorism

While the anti-communism filter is still very effective, the anti-terrorism filter has become more prominent in recent years. Questions about events surrounding 9/11, unanswered, and in some cases unaddressed, by the official 9/11 Report? Don't expect mainstream media to satisfy your curiosity. The 'pre-framing' of the debate--this is a 'war on terror'--makes it very difficult for critics to come forward without being branded unpatriotic. Check this page out if you want some evidence that criticism and dissent are becoming marginalized in the U.S., and in some cases criminalized.

So what, you're thinking? Media are biased. They focus on entertainment. Yes, but the news has always had an independence. News divisions weren't expected to sustain themselves financially--they were a place to inform the public. Yes the propaganda model has probably always existed, but modern techniques make it much more effective at hiding the agenda behind news stories, television programs, etc. As ownership of media leads to greater concentration, and even ownership by corporations that are not media-based, there is more pressure for news to come 'in line' with the rest of a corporation's holdings--to be a vehicle for increasing profit and shareholder value, for selling other products or services provided by the corporation and its subsidiaries.

From this point of view, the whole concept of 'the news' can take on a new freshness. Is it 'news?' Does the fact that it's called 'news' lend it legitimacy and credibility that it hasn't earned, at least from many media outlets?

On Saving Private Lynch--a chronology of hero manufacture

Here's a pretty good example of how propaganda makes it into the news. One of the differences in this case was that the truth actually survived the filters--maybe long after the propaganda made the rounds. We've probably all heard of the daring rescue of U.S. Private Jessica Lynch from a hospital in Iraq almost four years ago, where she was apparently being held prisoner. Here's how the story has played out in the press (from the BBC):

Here's a more recent example of Pentagon propaganda, this on former NFL footbal player Pat Tillman, killed in Afghanistan:

So, the question becomes, after news passes through these filters, what's left to print?

 

*From Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly, Sixth Edition, (Beacon Press, 2000), pp. xx - xxi
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books. (Chapter 1, 'A propaganda model,' pp 1-35)

 

Home | Announcements | Readings | Lecture materials | Class schedule |
| Assignments | grading procedures | Policies | Web links | News