Horkheimer and Adorn, Herman and Chomsky - Essay Example

Horkheimer&Adorno and Herman & Chomsky Introduction The main purpose of the mass media is to communicate symbols and messages to the entire public. It is therefore their role to entertain, inform, amuse, and inculcate people with codes, values, beliefs that integrate them to the larger society institutional structures. However, today’s mass media has various problems that are identified in the books of Horkheimer & Adorno and Herman & Chomsky. This essay aims at discussing the similarities between the problems identified in the two books. Horkheimer&Adorno and Herman & Chomsky The concept of “culture industry” that is explained in the book of Horkeimer and Adorno is not different from the discussed propaganda in the book of Herman and Chomsky. Horkeimer and Adorno stress the notion that mass media create one culture that has all factors of an industry of a substantial economy. The industries work with various terms such products and utilities, and the customers are qualified in income groups and categories. In such a culture, the consumers are not supposed to question something. They are supposed to accept what their culture produces and offers them and they have nothing to classify (Herman & McChesney, 2001). Every style or movement is calculated and set ready to be transported to the market place. Entertainment and art also weigh in the same manner. The authors affirm and sustain that the results of “culture industry” is a continuous production of a similar thing. The idea of Horkeimer and Adorno is somehow similar to the propaganda model of Herman and Chomsky. Horkeimer and Adorno states that the stronger the culture industry’s position becomes, the more it can summarily deal with the needs of consumers, disciplining, producing, controlling them, and withdrawing enjoyment. There are limitations set to this kind of cultural progress.in this way, adding the aspects of the Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model gives us a complete scene. The news “filters” (size of mass media companies, reliance on governmental information, advertising being the key source of income, anticommunism, flak, and experts and business) mentioned by the two authors, enable us to fully understand how “cultural industry” controls meanings’ production, the information trusted by common people to comprehend the planet they live in. After reading the two books, everything seems to be more conspiratorial and paranoid to that what I thought was. The Mc Luhan idea that “medium is message” seems similar to the one “money is message”. This is the bigger medium working general information, entertainment, and culture, which calls to its governments, game corporations, banks, and any other manipulative player. Further, Horkeimer and Adorno assert that being pleased means saying yes. The term “culture industry” from the book of Horkeimer and Adorno refers to the major result of similarities in the production and consumption philosophy that involve any market or genre or culture, such as painting, television, movies, and clothing (Herman & McChesney, 2001). There are two main aspects that influence this process. To begin with, the production methods get drawn by what the authors refer to as “economic selection mechanism” and not by social or cultural developments. Secondly, materials are standardized and dwindled down in accordance with individual tastes and preferences of executive authorities that are responsible for production, dissemination, and choosing materials. There is a definite similarity that one can draw from the advocacy of Adorno and Horkeimer’s piece and Chomsky and Herman’s piece. In both pieces, the content is sculpted down based on a set of explanatory factors. In the case of Herman and Chomsky there are different filters whish decide the type of information that gets to an individual and how the information gets there. In the case of Horkheimer and Adorno, they use aforementioned “economic selection mechanisms”. However, despite the similarities between the two pieces, a difference occurs in terms of the way the two phenomena are explained.Horkeimer and Adorno claim that the actual audience is complicit in dumbing and narrowing down, whereas Herman and Chomsky imply that the actual audience do not have any connection with it. Instead, they argue that, the audience is in fact the sufferers and victims of impervious and large controlling influences who make decisions of what and when the audience see anything as well as the efficacy of what they see. According to what Herman/Chomsky and McLuhan say in their works, there arises a very great point. McLuhan pays attention to the notion that dissemination of information to us is more important than whatever is communicated. Herman and Chomsky are somehow dismembering this as a problematic issue. They are trying to show the power structures and media system organizations that the content is completely reliant on these arrangements.Therefore, the capitalist economic system (together with fallacious inclusion of media within its structure) plays the role of sorting orienting principles that transforms totally the way human beings value, receive, and process information, and there is no doubt that this changes the lives of human beings (Herman & McChesney, 2001). Usefulness of theoretical ideas of the four authors This four authors provide useful theoretical ideas for understanding many things that take place in the media especially news mainstream. The main theoretical ideas represented by these four authors are that the media can be used to control the society. For instance, in the work of Horkeimer and Adorno, the main idea is that cultural industries can be used to cultivate false needs. After reading the entire book, I felt that the theoretical ideas found in the book are still applicable in the lives of people today. Nowadays, media groups definitely createpredetermined information that is meant to influence the population. For instance, television and magazines’ advertisements use information that make a certain product more desirable and appealing. As a result, this will cause mass deception because a large group of audience will automatically give in to what is put forth by the media. This will also result in many troubles of differentiating between the illusory world formed by cultural industry and real world (Herman & McChesney, 2001). People simply accept many things because the media suggests that they are true and as a result, this causes damage to people’s individuality giving them false sense of authenticity. In addition, media makes use of propaganda to influence the society act in a certain way. The society is pleased by what media says is pleasant and buy what media claims to be good. Media also suggests the present circumstances and unquestionably we conform to them. It has also transformed art to business as well as commercialized product (Herman & McChesney, 2001). People also do things that they believe will bring rewards to them. We constantly search for instant gratification or pleasure. On the other hand, Herman and Chomsky provide a simple and powerful model that makes people understand how media serve a very large propaganda needs. The authors claim that the news mainstream serves a large group of people and influence the society to do what it likes. They further argue that mass media has a lot of bias giving an example of the U.S. mass media (Adorno, 2001). The legitimacy and credibility of media systems is preserved by lack of agreement in all issues in the media. However, they contend that the propaganda within the leading media is strict to responsible ideas that are acceptable to the society (Herman & McChesney, 2001). On the issues that concern the society’s well being, the media will use propagandas to influence them accept a certain view. The authors use they propaganda model to present five “filters” that account why the media in the United States use propaganda to influence the society accept the elite interests. It is only the information the interest the elite that can receive ample attention from the media. The model also explains how the media can change the thoughts of people accepting others so long the media suggests they are good. The authors also show how the media influences the society during times of wars. The above discussed theoretical ideas can help people to fully understand mainstream news coverage of the war in Afghanistan. According to the above theoretical ideas, the media is one of the main factors that caused the war to continue for long period. The live streaming of the events of war influences many people to continue with their war activities (Adorno, 2001). The reporters or camera crews also encourage demonstrators during wars to continue with their destructive events. The use of televisions, newspapers, magazines, and social media networks also played a major role during the war in Afghanistan. Conclusion In conclusion, both the ideas of the works of these four authors have an insightful message that helps the readers have full understanding of the media and cultural industry. They identify similar problems in culture industry and news production. However, despite the similarities they also have different views as discussed in the essay. The authors try to show how culture industry and news production convince the public to follow their views. Today’s mass media has various problems that are identified in the books of Horkheimer & Adorno and Herman & Chomsky. References Adorno, T.W. (2001). The culture industry: Selected essays on Mass Culture. Herman, E. S., &McChesney, R. W. (2001). The global media: The new missionaries of corporate capitalism. London: Continuum. Read More