Page 157 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-11.qxd 8/16/2005 6:32 PM Page 142

142 Communication Theory & Research
The most glaring criticism of the PM that may be voiced in this context is that
the model can be seen to take for granted yet still presume intervening processes.
While it does not theorize audience effects, it presumes that news content is
framed so as to (re)produce ‘privileged’ interpretations of the news which are
ideologically serviceable to corporate and state monied interests. If one assumes
that ‘ideologically serviceable’ means that the interpretations can and typically
do propagandize and/or mislead audiences, then on logical grounds one can
infer that the PM does in fact presume and expect that media do have con-
16
sequential influence and effects. The critic might charge that the model itself
takes for granted that media content serves political ends in alleged myriad
ways. ‘It clearly implies that media effects are sometimes quite deliberately
intended and presumes that media coverage does have consequential effects. At
the same time, the model focuses exclusively on media content, rather than
expanding its scope to studying media effects directly. Nor does it “test” actual
beliefs and motivations of media personnel or seek to investigate the possible
range of effects on government officials, lower-tier media or audiences. A critic
17
might charge further that ‘Its preferred explanation relies not just on antecedent
conditions of media (interests and outlooks coincident with other members
of the dominant class) but of additional “intervening” processes which come
between objective similarities of interest and outlook.’ This is not to dismiss
18
its preferred explanation. ‘Many who are familiar with Noam Chomsky’s
voluminous polemical writings on US foreign policy, for instance, agree that
he provides circumstantial and other evidence thatdoes constitute ‘proof’ of
hegemony and media complicity.’ Concurrently, however, the critic might charge
that ‘the PM does infer self-interested or ideological motives (complicity,
repressive tolerance) from structural patterns in news coverage and infers, and
can be seen to explain away, structural processes by appealing to psychological
19
processes in individuals.’ [...]
Herman and Chomsky concede that the PM does not explain ‘everything’
and in every context. While it is true that the PM does not ‘test’ effects directly,
20
‘it is important to note that this was not Herman and Chomsky’s intention in the
first place. In fact, as highlighted earlier, ‘they deliberately state that their PM
21
is one that deals with patterns of media behaviour and performance, and not
effects. It is equally true that some media models focus almost entirely on
“audience effects” and largely ignore the structural dimensions which Herman
and Chomsky emphasize.’ Active audience studies, for instance, emphasize
22
micro-level analysis.
While conceding that there are ‘important elements of truth and insights in
active audience analysis’, Ed Herman (1996b: 15) characterizes active audience
studies as ‘narrowly focussed and politically conservative, by choice and
default’. Herman (1996b: 15) stresses that the focus on micro-issues of language,
text interpretation, and gender and ethnic identity is ‘politically safe and holds
forth the possibility of endless deconstruction of small points in a growing
framework of technical jargon’. [...]
Another criticism of Herman and Chomsky’s PM is that it presumes that the
ideas of a unified ruling class and ruling-class interests may be taken for granted as