Page 159 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-11.qxd 8/16/2005 6:32 PM Page 144

144 Communication Theory & Research
A critical assessment and review of Herman
and Chomsky’s propaganda model

Herman and Chomsky’s PM, initially referred to as a ‘general theory of the Free
Press’, contends that America’s elite agenda-setting media play an important
role in establishing cultural hegemony, primarily by establishing a general frame-
work for news discourse that is typically adhered to by lower-tier media.
For Herman and Chomsky, there is a clear demarcation between elite media –
The New York Times and The Washington Post – and the ‘quality press’ – a term
they use to refer to more ‘populist’ newspapers, such as The Boston Globe, The Los
Angeles Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, among others (Chomsky, 1987: 135).
Chomsky remarks that the extent to which ideological constraints typically
relax varies according to the geographic proximity of particular media
organizations to the centres of economic and political power.

What happens in areas that are marginal with respect to the exercise of
power doesn’t matter so much. What happens in the centres of power
matters a great deal. Therefore the controls are tighter to the extent that you
get closer to the centre. (Chomsky, 1988: 629)

Within the geographic nexus of corporate–state power, however, Chomsky
emphasizes that ideological control is typically extremely tight.
The PM contends that the agenda-setting media function as mechanisms of
propaganda in several ways. The elite media determine what topics, issues and
events are to be considered ‘newsworthy’ by the lower-tier media and establish
the general premises of official discourse. Furthermore, elite media establish
limitations on the range of debate and general boundaries for subsequent
interpretation (Herman and Chomsky, 1988: 1–2).

They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict – in order
to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society. (Chomsky,
cited in Wintonick and Achbar, 1994: 55)

Herman and Chomsky do not claim that media function only to circulate
27
propaganda. The PM, however, is concerned to describe ‘the forces that cause
the mass media to play a propaganda role’ (Herman and Chomsky, 1988: xi–xii).
First and foremost, the PM constitutes an institutional critique of media
performance. Herman and Chomsky argue that media serve the political
and economic interests of dominant elites and charge that ‘the workings of the
media ... serve to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the
state and private activity’ (Herman and Chomsky, 1988: xi). [...]
The PM argues that regularities of misrepresentation in news accounts flow
directly from concentration of private power in society. It holds that elite media
interlock with other institutional sectors in ownership, management and social
circles, effectively circumventing their ability to remain analytically detached
from the power structure of society, of which they themselves are an integral