Page 414 - Battleground The Media Volume 1 and 2

Propaganda Model |

a mere reading of media texts. Quite clearly, the model is concerned to con-
nect text analysis with political, social and economic elements. The model
originated in the United States, but recent scholarship from Canada and the
United Kingdom indicate that its explanatory power is not limited by geo-
graphic borders. And while more than 20 years have passed since the model
was first advanced, it is more applicable today than ever before. Similarly,
many assume that the model is ideal for exploring international news cover-
age, but recent scholarship has demonstrated that it is well suited for analysis
of domestic news events.

DEBaTing ThE ProPaganDa moDEL

There have been several criticisms leveled against the propaganda model over
the past two decades. Some challenge what they see as a “conspiratorial” view
of media. But Herman and Chomsky have stressed that the model does not as-
sume conspiracy or deliberate intent on the part of news gatekeepers. Because
it is a structural model, it is unconcerned with the inner workings of particular
newsrooms and makes no claims regarding the organizational aspects of news-
room work. It does not assume that media personnel routinely make conscious
decisions to align themselves with the interests of particular elites. The model’s
focus is on how structural elements, including economics, impact media dis-
course. There exists a range of literature devoted to the social construction of
news that is principally concerned with questions skewed toward newsroom
practice.

ThE quEsTion oF ThE nEws rEaDErs, viEwErs,
anD mEDia auDiEnCEs

Possibly the most contentious aspect of the propaganda model for media
studies scholars is the question of media effects and audience participation. The
model has been challenged for seeming to present media audiences as passive
and easily manipulated. Though the use of terms such manufacturing consent
and brainwashing suggest a passive audience, Herman and Chomsky do not as-
sume that viewers and readers are passively duped by the media. In fact, quite
the opposite seems to be the case. Herman and Chomsky have written about
instances when the media has not been effective, and Chomsky has also writ-
ten at length about dissent culture and what he calls “intellectual self-defense.”
Although Herman has noted that they make no claims regarding the overall
effectiveness of the propaganda system, Chomsky has referred to the propa-
ganda system as inherently unstable, and he understands that audiences read
texts in complex ways, an idea related to other theories about the way audiences
actively participate and subvert media texts.
The propaganda model’s overall program of inquiry, however, can be seen to
highlight the fact that perception, awareness, and understanding are informed
and constrained by the structure of news discourse. Most critical approaches to
media assume that media discourses pervade subjectivity in some way, and are