US Mass Media as a Propaganda Machine - Essay Example

US Mass Media as a Propaganda Machine Introduction In this essay I will argue that Chomsky’s claim that the mass media inthe US is a propaganda machine is flawed. This will be shown by identified weaknesses in the article revealed by its analysis. In addition, analysis of Chomsky’s argument that Mass Media serves the interest of ruling elites, cooperate executives and government officials will reveal the authors’ shortcomings. For example, Chomsky’s model is more of conspiracy theory and his argument against the mainstream criticism is flawed. In addition, cases presented by Chomsky to defend his model are international-based and hence domestic applicability of model is questionable. Summary and Criticism The paper is driven by Chomsky’s ‘propaganda model’ to help showcase how US mass media operations are determined by the first filter, ‘Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media. It is argued that the article “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media”, by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky present a better analysis of US Mass Media using “Propaganda Model” while focusing on Cooperate news and Mass Media operational behaviors. According the article, an effective media operates on a framework where the freedom of the media is not at stake. This is achieved by creating an enabling environment for journalists to gather information, censor and report non-predetermined stories. In this context, Chomsky argues that US Media operation is controlled by business and profit oriented elites who also own greater parts of mass media institution. This ownership restricts journalist freedom and hence stories aired are pre-filtered. Any elite’s profit-attached story will be aired portraying mass media as “Propaganda Machine” According to Chomsky’s argument conventional standards of media operation are not upheld by US media institutions. Mass Media has adversarial and autonomous role that has to be met in the society but in US, mass media’s roles are tailored to serve the elites’ self-interest and needs. Chomsky’s snapshot comparison between modern and traditional US media operations particularly the leading corporate mass media is based on the contemporary politics. It is revealed that mass media has radically transcended the media responsibility of modern media operations and ideological obfuscation. The authors believe that US Mass Media is a propagandist mobilization tool based on its unfair deals to serve the interest of the elites that regulate state and private activities in United States (Herman and Noam 15). As stated, “Although propaganda is not the sole function of the media, it is a very important aspect of their overall service” (Herman and Noam 11). This is pronounce in a world marred with wealth and conflicts of particular class. “In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class of interest” (Herman, and Noam 1). Due to elite ‘constraints on media ownership and profit-orientation motives, Noam and Edward, believe that freedom of the US media is curtailed and hence stories aired are elite’s initiatives particularly, the Third World Activities. The propaganda model looks simple but powerful in illustrating how media operations are Propaganda-based. With respect to the standard mainstream critique based on radical analysis the propaganda model is rated as conspiracy promoter. US dominant Media serves as propagandists based on “Size, Ownership and Profit Orientation of the Mass Media.” Media stories are filtered based on this filter in which stories that orient from elites are sieved unobstructed and covered. This has become inevitable since elites own large profit –driven Corporations hence regulate and determine the media contents that serve their profit maximizing and cost minimization objectives. Media biasness in United States is attributed to constraints such as internalized preconceptions, personnel adaptation to setbacks and pre-selection of rational-thinkers outlined in filters. In addition, self-censorship leads to media biasness and enhanced propaganda systems. US mass media incredibility results from official state censorship that extend their biasness to elites. Media is controlled by elites increased Collective Bargaining Power and Media during debates consensus that closes acknowledging countenancing. The corporation have other holdings in various sectors both internally and globally and thus increased collective power during disputes on contents to be aired. Ownership of media and greed for increased profits have objectively determined the content of media stories and general media operational framework. A distinguished case of conflict of interest subjectively impacts media systems culminating into self-government. This accounts for media control by small cohorts of elites pushing for their self-interest-designed transactions. The corporate and government malfeasance have remained top secrets from public knowledge as United States Mass Media Ownership is privately characterized by formal censorship. The ownership filter tags media as elite’s spokesmen due to lack of active competition amongst US Media Institutions hence failure to periodically report government and corporate malfeasance. To argue against ‘Propaganda Model’, most of case studies presented by the article are US foreign policy and internationally based. Propaganda model is silent on whether it can be domestically applied and the probability of conflicts and how non-elite domestic interest can be incorporated. The applicability of Propaganda model to US downing of the Iranian Jetliner in 1988 and the KAL 007 1983 treatment of Soviet downing is questionable renders propaganda model inapplicability. Chomsky’s weakness is evident as he admits the limitation of his thesis as he asserts that propaganda model is not all-inclusive and plausible description of US’s media role. His attempts to disown ‘Conspiracy Theory’ on the basis of a ‘Free-Market Analysis’ is flawed. The system’s nature is key for actions of journalists, publishers and editors based on how censoring of aired stories is done. Chomsky’s objection renders his propaganda model as self-refuting since it rely on mainstream media sources. The notion that truth resulting from mass media is only attainable upon extreme application of critical analysis justifies propaganda charge and hence not a refutation. Further, Chomsky’s argument that media will never air non elite-attached profit –oriented stories creates a “conspiracy theory.’ This is based on its criticism of mainstream and dominant media analysis of the model. Despite their allusion to “free market” to disown conspiracy theory, propaganda model is inapplicable. The model presents conflicts between activists that oppose elite interest and the model’s suggestion on systematic denigration aimed access denial is unattained. This escalates the implications based on anti-elite subsequent political arrangements. The current expansive internet industry driven by various virtual communities renders Chomsky and Edward’s argument obsolete. With respect to elites’ ownership, size and profit orientation mass media, as a controlled filter on media content and operations, internet and technological advancement have served to curtail elites’ control of mass media and journalism. This has altered status quo presenting unprecedented reign marred with escalating media democracy. In conclusion, group and individual networking efficiency and scope have been enhanced by internet culminating into elimination of mainstream media’s setbacks and ceilings. Internet networking has facilitated publicity as people rise to oppose unfair media transactions as did Bolivian peasants following the 2000, World Bank water user fees and privatization arrangements culminating Bechtel Corporation’s back-off rescinding the double water rates. Internet networking has curbed secret profit-oriented elite transactions as indicated by an ill-fated WTO’s Multilateral Agreement on investment to infringe investor’s international rights following an online-arranged protest. Work Cited Herman, Edward S, and Noam Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002. Internet resource. Read More