The Herman–Chomsky Propaganda Model: A Critical Approach to Analysing Mass Media Behaviour

Abstract

The Propaganda Model (PM), developed by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky and published in Manufacturing Consent in 1988, sought to explain the behaviour of the mass media in the United States. Analysing the function, operation and effects of the media are essential to any understanding of contemporary societies and the article begins by sketching out the contours of the liberalpluralist vs. critical-Marxist debate about the role of the media. The article then presents an overview of the PM, locates it within the field of media and communication studies, considers its reception, discusses a number of complementary methodological and theoretical approaches, and argues that the PM, more than 20 years after its formulation, continues to provide an invaluable tool for understanding the media within contemporary capitalist societies. IntroductionThe Propaganda Model (PM), which sought to explain the behaviour of the mass media in the United States, was developed by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, published in 1988. Firmly rooted in the critical-Marxist, more specifically the political economy, tradition of media and communication studies, the PM, or more specifically its reception within the field, is somewhat of a paradox. In terms of its application, mainly by those working within the aforementioned tradition, the PM is one of the most tested models within the social sciences. However, it has received very little attention within mainstream media and communication studies, sociology or the wider social sciences. This article introduces the liberal-pluralist vs. critical-Marxist debate about the role of the media in contemporary societies, presents an overview of the PM, locates it within the field of media and communication studies, and discusses its reception, discusses a number of complementary methodological and theoretical approaches and argues that the PM, more than 20 years after its formulation, continues to provide an invaluable tool for understanding the media within contemporary capitalist societies. Understanding society, politics and the mediaIf the job of sociologists is to understand and explain the development, stratification and functioning of societies, then attention must be paid to how members of those societies communicate. More specifically, given the long-standing hierarchical nature of societies, there is a need to analyse what, how and why the elites in societies communicate with the masses and what this means for the structures of power. In simplistic terms, there are two diametrically opposed perspectives on how power is distributed within contemporary, capitalist, liberal-democratic societies and what the role of the media, as an

Rethinking journalism for supporting social cohesion and democracy: case study of media performance in Fiji

“…Corner (2003) notes that the propaganda model was devised for the United States, and casts doubts about its relevance in countries with different media and political systems. This, however, is not a strong rebuttal since the theory has been effectively applied in different settings (for a list of political economy of the media studies, see Mullen & Klaehn, 2010 Robie (2009aRobie ( , 2009b has been warning about media consolidation and commercialisation in Fiji, while economist Narsey (2013bNarsey ( , 2013c has blogged insightfully about local media moguls "squashing media independence". But in-depth scholarly research is virtually absent.…”

A Critique of Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of Mass Media

“…• The PM argues that the elite AGENDA-SETTING media legitimize dominant ideological principles of dominant elites (Herman and Chomsky 1988) but here they conclude every aspect of media agenda is elites hegemonic discourse without demarcating a boundary between which one is elite market hegemony and which one is intended for national and social interest [12].…”

Rebooting the Herman–Chomsky Propaganda Model in the 21st Century

“…that it is deterministic). However, this chapter could have been improved by more thorough engagement with how the PM has been received within academia (Mullen 2010) and what the main criticisms of the PM are Mullen and Klaehn 2010). Furthermore, Goss should have located his study within the wider literature, and noted the 2009 comments by Herman and Chomsky about the continuing relevance of the PM given the aforementioned "world historic developments" (Mullen 2009), and could have made reference to the caveats and qualifications listed in the first paragraph so as to provide readers with a more balanced and nuanced appreciation of the PM.…”