(en) anarkismo.net: Why the media is biased - understanding
the propaganda model by Kevin Doyle
When the Watergate Scandal brought down the Nixon Government in the States in the mid-70s,
it was heralded as one of the finest examples of media power in modern times. Nixon's fall
from grace, along with the story of corruption in high places, was the stuff of drama. In
no time, the journalists at the centre of the Watergate exposé - Bernstein and Woodward -
became celebrities. They went on to win Pulitzer Prizes for their journalistic endeavours
and even became the subject of a Hollywood touch-up in All The President's Men. ---- Ever
since, Watergate has acted as a sort of beacon. No single news story did as much for the
prestige of the media or the profession of journalism. No other single news-story seems to
have offered such overwhelming evidence that under capitalism "the press is free". For a
newspaper to be able to have the power and freedom to bring down a US President of Nixon's
stature - well, what more can you say?
But even as the decade of Watergate (the 1970s) was drawing to a close, there were already
rumblings of doubt. Painstaking research of a different variety, by two left-wing
academics, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, laid the foundations for an entirely different
view of the media and its role in our society. Rather than seeing the media as a "defender
of freedom", Herman and Chomsky outlined example after example of where the media either
lied about the truth or distorted the news beyond actual recognition.
Far from seeing this "lying" as isolated, or the work of "rogue" news- papers, the two
academics advanced the view that the modern media operated in a manner more akin to a
Propaganda Service. Rather than defending freedom and justice, they charged the major news
and wire services (including the Washington Post, of Watergate fame) with subservience to
the interests of the rich and powerful. More to the point, Herman and Chomsky produced the
evidence to support this charge.
BOMBARDED
The idea that the media serves the interest of big business and the rich is not, in
itself, a new idea - far from it. A lot of people harbour the suspicion in some form - if
not from their own experience, then certainly from some sort of 'common-sense' knowledge
about the world around them. But just because people suspect bias, is not in itself proof
that bias exists. From school onwards (and throughout life) we're actually bombarded with
the view that "this society is free".
A lot of what happens in this society - from punitive measures against the poor, to
hospital closures - happens in our name. If you want to check that out, just look at the
news for the next few weeks: there you will find plenty of examples which do seem to
indicate that we go along with all sort of laws and decisions that just aren't in our own
interest.
Herman and Chomsky arrived at a theory about the media that is called The Propaganda
Model. This theory and the evidence to back it up was first published in their book,
Manufacturing Consent. According to Herman and Chomsky, manufacturing consent is precisely
what the modern media does. Rather than providing us with all the information we need for
making a particular decision, the media shapes and manages the news about the world in a
definite and particular way. The modern media systematically under-reports or ignores some
types of news so that the current division of society into rulers and ruled is preserved
(or at the very least not challenged).
Chomsky and Herman point out that the shaping and managing of the news occurs in a more
sophisticated way than is often imagined. An extremely biased and censored news product
emerges from the manner in which the media is structured and organised. Censorship results
not from one act by one particular person (the censor of old) but rather is built up
piecemeal, over a long period of time. The important thing is not the fate of any one
particular news story but rather the picture that emerges when all the individual news
stories are placed alongside one another over a long period of time. According to Chomsky
and Herman, the censorship that is part and parcel of today's media is all the more
difficult to challenge precisely because it is so invisible.
NEWS EXPERTS
Though we are limited by space in this article, it is worth looking at the basic way in
which the Propaganda Model works. Chomsky and Herman argue that censorship in the modern
media functions a lot like the way a filtration system works - news acceptable to the
interests of big business passes through the filters, whereas news that challenges the
establishment is filtered out. According to Chomsky and Herman there are five main
filters, all of which target and work against the production of "anti-establishment news".
News that passes through one filter can often be caught by other filters down the line.
The five filters are as follows
1) the ownership profile of the mass media,
2)the effect of advertising,
3) the role of "news experts",
4) the idea of "balance" in reporting,
5) over-riding concerns. These are examined very briefly.
---------------------------------------------------
Introducing The Five Filters
There are five main influences on the news and views that are produced by TV, radio and
newspapers. These influences act like filters, separating out acceptable news from
'unacceptable news'. Because of these 'filters' we end up with a sanitised news and
information service which helps most modern governments to rule:
Ownership: Three-quarters of the Irish print media is owned by just one billionaire -
Denis O'Brien (and before him another billonaire, Tony O'Reilly). But Ireland is not
unusual in having a situation like this. Across the world, the major media services from
Sky Channel (Rupert Murdoch) to Reuters are in private hands. The reason for this is
simple: news makes money. Murdoch once described a newspaper he was trying to buy as "a
river of gold". This ethos - making money out of news - in itself creates a certain way of
looking at the world. This is the first filter.
Advertising: Leonard Mattews of the American Association of Advertising Agencies once put
it succinctly: "To expect private companies to go on supporting a medium that is attacking
them is like taking up a collection among the Christians for money to buy more lions".
Advertisers often exert subtle but firm influence on the media
News Experts: There is an increasing reliance on the 'expert' within the news media.
However the vast majority of the 'experts' tend to come from within the confines of the
'establishment' itself. These 'experts' often have a definite 'ideological bent' - a
factor that may not often be clear to the viewer. Also in this area, Government and
business often employ Public Relations consultants to prepare and present their views to
the media. These 'media-friendly' mediators (spin-doctors) can often guarantee coverage.
Balance and 'Flak': No one realises that media coverage is important in popularising an
issue as does the Government and the business community. They often monitor the news in
order to ensure that there is 'balanced coverage' of an issue that is of interest to them.
The Government and the employers federation IBEC often pay people to do this specific job
for them. Again this effect can alter the tone and direction of the news that we hear.
Overriding Concerns: What does the Cold War and Terrorism have in common? Quite a lot when
it comes to the media. In the USA, the Cold War was often used to bludgeon "unruly"
journalists into submission, around particular certain subject matters. The equivalent to
the Cold War in Ireland is Terrorism (or more specifically "paramilitary terrorism"). As
is well know (from Section 31 and so forth) large elements of the Irish media accepted
overt censorship within the media for much of the last decades. While Section 31 was
supposedly directed at certain organisations, its ethos extended far wider.
Fair Coverage
Chomsky and Herman produced their proposals about the media so as to assist us in fighting
back. As they have pointed out - awareness is half the battle. So long as people continue
to believe that "the media is free under capitalism" they will be more inclined to accept
the media's particular slant on news events. Disputing the media's impartiality may be
difficult, but even so it is crucial that if we are to win people towards the idea of a
revolutionary change. Here are some of the things that can be done:
It is important to popularise information about how bias in the media works. Look at the
media in your own area - who owns it? What issues get covered and why? Work to produce
factual evidence that points out the bias. Attempt to get publicity on this.
Monitor the media on different issues, particularly around issues you yourself are
involved in. Are you getting fair coverage? Why not? Who is?
Assist alternative media whenever you can. When bias in the media is encountered, aim to
work with those journalists and media workers who are in a union and likely to be on your
side. Many journalists have no option but to go along with "news management". They also
want to see change.
Related Link: http://www.wsm.ie/media
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28486
