Chomsky’s propaganda model highlights the inherent conflict of interest between the powerful - namely government and major financial institutions - and the general population with corporately structured news media. His theory frames private media not as a reputable outlet of quality information, but rather as a conglomeration of profit-seeking organizations that align their story production with the interests of the political and economic elites; this occurs at the expense of the regular public, who often unknowingly act as the recipients of propaganda propagated by these agenda-focused broadcasts. In addition to identifying the purpose of contemporary mass media, Chomsky also postulates five general filters that determine the type of news
…show more content…
In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Chomsky observes that economic necessity draws media into a “symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information.” As even the biggest institutions cannot afford to place reporters everywhere, they need to concentrate their resources in central news hubs, including The White House, the Pentagon, and Wall Street. These providers go to great lengths to make their stories accessible and cheap by giving journalists advance copies of speeches and reports, scheduling press conferences in accordance to news deadlines, and providing facilities in which to gather, among other practices. In return for this subsidization, media corporations grant their sponsors - usually government or bank-based - promises of conformity to their agendas and opinions. This strategy of deriving stories from prestigious sources that appear credible in the public eye bestows upon news institutions an image of neutrality, and fosters objectivity - two powerful tools in effective deception. This allows the mass media conglomerates to remain in the good graces of the citizenry, all the while achieving their own ends by promoting the views of their subsidizers Sources that either do not fit this bill, or that the conglomerates perceive as …show more content…
media corporations utilized their massive influence to stir up hostility towards Iraq, and to quickly antagonize opposition. In Moyers’ documentary, Dan Rather notes that even years before the terror attacks on the World Trade Centers, politicians in Washington had committed themselves to toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. The atrocities of 9/11 provided them with a launching pad to mount their offensive against him, and they subsequently embarked on a campaign of vilification, with Hussein as their primary target. Mass media acted on the government’s bidding with stories surrounding Hussein’s sponsoring of the attack, his amassment of nuclear weaponry, and also his alliance with Al-Qaeda, in an attempt to capitalize on the sadness and anger of a post-9/11 America. Moyers notes that during that turbulent time, where feelings of solidarity surged throughout the country, most people harbored “little tolerance for critical scrutiny from journalists,” or other critics. Media again exploited this reaction by censoring out any information labeled as possessing anti-American sentiment, even flat-out telling reporters covering the War in Afghanistan to balance out the images of Afghan hardships with reminders of the cruelties of 9/11; because of this, information surrounding civilian casualties in that conflict went largely unreported for years. News institutions also began to work specific rhetoric fabricated by the White House Iraq Group - an arm of the White House
In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Chomsky observes that economic necessity draws media into a “symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information.” As even the biggest institutions cannot afford to place reporters everywhere, they need to concentrate their resources in central news hubs, including The White House, the Pentagon, and Wall Street. These providers go to great lengths to make their stories accessible and cheap by giving journalists advance copies of speeches and reports, scheduling press conferences in accordance to news deadlines, and providing facilities in which to gather, among other practices. In return for this subsidization, media corporations grant their sponsors - usually government or bank-based - promises of conformity to their agendas and opinions. This strategy of deriving stories from prestigious sources that appear credible in the public eye bestows upon news institutions an image of neutrality, and fosters objectivity - two powerful tools in effective deception. This allows the mass media conglomerates to remain in the good graces of the citizenry, all the while achieving their own ends by promoting the views of their subsidizers Sources that either do not fit this bill, or that the conglomerates perceive as …show more content…
media corporations utilized their massive influence to stir up hostility towards Iraq, and to quickly antagonize opposition. In Moyers’ documentary, Dan Rather notes that even years before the terror attacks on the World Trade Centers, politicians in Washington had committed themselves to toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. The atrocities of 9/11 provided them with a launching pad to mount their offensive against him, and they subsequently embarked on a campaign of vilification, with Hussein as their primary target. Mass media acted on the government’s bidding with stories surrounding Hussein’s sponsoring of the attack, his amassment of nuclear weaponry, and also his alliance with Al-Qaeda, in an attempt to capitalize on the sadness and anger of a post-9/11 America. Moyers notes that during that turbulent time, where feelings of solidarity surged throughout the country, most people harbored “little tolerance for critical scrutiny from journalists,” or other critics. Media again exploited this reaction by censoring out any information labeled as possessing anti-American sentiment, even flat-out telling reporters covering the War in Afghanistan to balance out the images of Afghan hardships with reminders of the cruelties of 9/11; because of this, information surrounding civilian casualties in that conflict went largely unreported for years. News institutions also began to work specific rhetoric fabricated by the White House Iraq Group - an arm of the White House