Page 155 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-11.qxd 8/16/2005 6:32 PM Page 140

140 Communication Theory & Research
One can infer that there are three reasons why Herman and Chomsky
violently reject the ‘conspiracy’ label. First, the term itself, ‘conspiracy theory’, is
precisely that, a label, one that has been used as a means of dismissing the PM
without granting a minimal presentation of the model or a consideration of
3
evidence. Second, Herman and Chomsky acknowledge that deliberate intent
is in fact sometimes an intervening factor which can have intended and/or
unintended outcomes, depending upon the specific case (see Herman, 1996a).
The PM’s own emphasis, however, is on patterns of media behaviour, in relation
to institutional imperatives. The model itself assumes that patterns of media
behaviour should be explained in structural terms, and not assume conspiracy.
Third, Herman and Chomsky can be seen to presume that there are at least five
4
major ‘filtering’ mechanisms which structure news content. The authors also
presume that deliberate intent (‘conspiracy’) and unconscious hegemony
(‘professional ideology’) are for the most part unknowable and unmeasurable.
Herman (2000) stresses that ‘intent is an unmeasurable red herring’. Moreover,
Chomsky writes that,

The term ‘conspiracy theory’ is particularly revealing. I’ve always explicitly
and forcefully opposed ‘conspiracy theories,’ and even am well known for
that. ... My work (and Ed Herman’s, and others’) is about as much of a
‘conspiracy theory’ as a study of GM that suggests that its management
seeks to maximize profit and market share. But to the intellectual classes, to
suggest that institutional factors enter into policy is like waving a red flag in
front of a bull – for very good reasons. 5

The PM can be seen to imply intent, and while it is not concerned with
intervening processes, there is a vast scholarly literature specifically devoted to
theorizing about the values, motivations and outlooks of individual editors,
reporters and media commentators. Herman and Chomsky postulate that the
6
filter constraints have powerful unilinear effects, such that media ‘interests’ and
‘choices’ serve class interests on a consistent basis.
Herman and Chomsky (1988: 304) concede that the PM cannot account ‘for
every detail of such a complex matter as the working of the national mass media’.
The authors acknowledge that several secondary effects are left unanalysed
and cede that the PM is not concerned to analyse practical, organizational or
mundane aspects of newsroom work. At the same time, however, critics charge
7
that the PM’s overall view of media behaviour is in general deterministic and can
be seen to be plagued by sociological reductionism. The phrase ‘manufacturing
8
consent’ encapsulates a functionalist logic. Herman (2000) has replied to both
criticisms, declaring that, ‘Any model involves deterministic elements’ and, to
those who have condemned the PM for presuming functional necessity, noting
that while the PM explains patterns of media behaviour in terms of ‘mechanisms
and policies whereby the powerful protect their interests naturally and without
overt conspiracy’. Elsewhere, Chomsky writes that,
9
The propaganda model does not assert that the media parrot the line of the
current state managers in the manner of a totalitarian regime; rather, that the