coolbeans, Herman & Chomsky

The propaganda model seems to be a way in which major businesses, government, and media outlets are able to communicate the values and beliefs of the particular businesses, government, and media outlets to the masses. These three entities seem to be influential amongst each other and therefore work together to support each other. The government can work with businesses because businesses will show their support for the government if the government provides them with something that be beneficial to the company. The same thing applies to the media. Therefore all three work together and attempt to disperse their propaganda, meanwhile having the same interests at hand. In CMC 200 we read a research study called A Tale of Two Wars by Daniela V. Dimitrova and Colleen Connolly-Ahern in which four different news outlets were studied (The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Al Ahram, and the NY Times) in order to see how they were framed to portray the events of the Iraq War. It was found that the NY Times highlighted more the reason for war being to help a nation in trouble, while Al Jazeera and Al Ahram highlighted the violence and deaths and The Guardian was the most neutral. In this case it is clear that the media clearly is working in the best interests of the governments that they correlate with because they are sending out the exact message that the governments want to send out to the people. By framing the articles in a certain way, the media (whether it means to or not) helps to get the government message out to members of society. Another recent example of the propaganda model in effect is the recent government bailouts for AIG. AIG is a huge company that many other companies also rely on as well. The collapse of this one company could be very bad for the economy. The government worked with the company to do what was beneficial to both the company as well as the government.

ginger griffin, herman & Chomsky

Advertising in the media, for as long as it has been around, has always been ruling-class based, and I feel that without media and advertising, objects would be made a whole lot better because we (the buyers) wouldn't have to be convinced about something and how great it works. To further my point about the ruling class, I give you this quote, "...media are tiered, with the top tier - as measured by prestige, resources, and outreach...It is this top tier, along with the government and wire services, that defines the news agenda and supplies much of the national and international news to the lower tiers of the media, and thus for the general public." (260) A few things popped out to me when I first read this: that the general public (larger of course) is not that of the ruling class, which ceases our discussion a few weeks ago about was the upper class or the general public the ruling class, well Herman and Chomsky would state that it was the ruling class in which we (the general public) get our ideas.


It is assumed that the larger general public are just a bunch of robots ready to be made into whatever it is that the ruling class want to mold us into. "It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society." (257) After reading this I began to think about the video we watched in class last week about the kids being made into robots, standing in line falling into machines that eventually make them into spaghetti meat. I believe that Herman and Chomsky knew what they were talking about when they wrote about advertising. I think it is safe to say that advertising makes objects seem like they are bigger better faster than the previous model. Advertising sells, we all know that, but what if we stopped buying? What would happen to the industry then?

dmariel, Herman and Chomsky

In my CMC 350 International Media class last year, we studied Herman and Chomsky in regard to the propaganda model. This quote seems to sum up the purpose of the propaganda model: “The mass media serve as a system for communicating messages and symbols to the general populace. It is their function to amuse, entertain, and inform, and to inculcate individuals with the values, beliefs, and codes of behavior that will integrate them into the institutional structures of the larger society”. I find it interesting that Herman and Chomsky state the first purpose of the propaganda model as amusement. I have always associated amusement with laughter and jokes. I definitely believe that this type of wording has a deeper purpose.
I have recently learned about a news station program, Al Jazeera (headquartered in Qatar), that functions very differently than any news program that we have in the United States. Their slogan is “the opinion and the counter opinion”. They try to appeal to as many viewers as possible and to encourage numerous opinions. Unlike the US news, AlJazeera gives background information and more truthful documentation about what is going on in the world and why. On the other hand, the US sticks to ‘filtering’ news and giving cover stories. AlJazeera is an example of what Herman and Chomsky refer to as a medium that actively “competes, periodically attack and expose corporate and governmental malfeasance, and aggressively portray themselves as spokesmen for free speech and the general community interest”. What I always found astonishing about our relationship, or should I say lack of relationship, to AlJazeera is the US’s resistance to allowing it to be broadcast within the states. Although, very hypocritically, the US has designed a news station called Al Hurra that they broadcast in the middle east. This news station is a lame attempt at programming and it carries over an obvious propaganda model into the middle east. I believe that the US feels extremely threatened by AlJazeera, seemingly because they tell the truth. American news stations do everything to distract the average American citizen from seeking anything other than what news and information that they are given.

Petite Etoile, herman and chomsky

I think that if advertisements did not exist the world would have a lot more things that were well made. Because instead of being convinced on what to buy because a company has a good marketing team and great advertisers and models and photographers, you would buy products simply because of their ability to function well or because of their good taste. You would go into a store and buy the shirt that looked the best and fit the best and felt the best, not because years of advertising has taught you that GAP is better than some random “no-name” brand. And not only would products be of better character, but you would pick things that are better for you regardless. Some people just don't look good in certain types of clothing, but they buy them anyway because they are popular. In the same way with food and drink. You wouldn't buy food because it has a strong brand name on it and because you have been fooled into believing that it's better than the other foods because it has a better advertising campaign, but simply because it tastes better or because it was made with better products. And if that was the case than maybe we would be more concerned with how products affect the environment or whether or not people were abused or taken advantage of in the making of this product. And not to mention the fact that prices would be much better for the consumer because we wouldn't be willing to pay more for something simply because it was brand name. Companies would be more competitive with their prices because none of them would have the upper hand in popularity and know that they can charge more an get away with it. In essence we would have better quality, safer production, and better prices.

Murphy, 3/26

When discussing the waning effect, Jameson writes "But it means the end of much more-- the end of for example of style, in the sense of the unique and the personal, the end of the distinctive individual brush stroke". We looked at this quote in class in the power point as "the end...of style, in the sense of the unique and the personal."(492). I think the full quote adds extra emphasis to how detrimental and important it is to realize that if postmodernism is played out individuality will be snubbed out. Our culture is taking a shift, and has been for the past few decades, towards a society that encourages "sameness". There are magazines, websites, t.v. shows and other media outlets that describe in full detail how to be just like celebrities. The idea of copying a style, personality, sense of humor, look, or overall being has become a positive and enhancing trait. An example of one of these websites is...
http://www.wikihow.com/Dress-Like-a-Celebrity
On this specific page there are explicit step by step instructions on how to change your individual and unique self to become a replica of someone famous. The ironic part is you get to choose who and what to look like.
* Act Like a Celebrity
* Be Like Paris Hilton
* Look Like Britney Spears
* Look Like a Movie Star on a Budget
This concept ties well with the quote that we saw earlier in the class on Thursday, "waning of affect"(489). Jameson describes the change postmodern culture experiences, and how although we do not loose all emotion and thought, we do lose some. Through repetition we are loosing individuality and the value of the original. This idea brings me back to Jenkins quote, "As more and more amateur works have entered into circulation via the Web, the result has been a turn back toward a more folk-culture understanding of creativity"(556). The internet is the perfect example of how a postmodern shift in culture encourages repetition and discourages new innovations and individuality.

aro0823, herman and chomsky

“Television is an advertising-supported medium, and to the extent that support falls out, programming will change” (268)
I was a bit taken aback by this reading due to the sheer fact that I could understand it and the concepts are applicable to my everyday life. As we discussed in class last week, our generation has never known life without constant advertisement bombardment. Because they are so prominent, it appears on the surface level that advertisements need television, internet, newspaper, etc. to survive, not the other way around. The thought never struck me that “without their support, [the media] would cease to be economically viable” (266). I would argue that, without advertisements, the media would still exist in localized forms, but the globalized media conglomerates that dominate the airwaves and make millions could not.
In this type of hypothetical situation, a world without billion dollar media conglomerates, the news could be about real objectivity, not just ‘objectivity’ within capitalistic bureaucratic constraints. Because the dominant media firms are nothing more than businesses, they seek to appeal to other businesses to make profit instead of operating within their assumed niche of newsgathering and informing the populace about “the real story.” I lament the fact that there is no true newsgathering organization. The stories that the public should actually know about are hidden behind thousands of spools of red tape created by high-powered lawyers. It is logical to take a constructivist approach to dissecting this propaganda industry because the media is only what we make it out to be. Before horizontal and vertical integration became fashionable, regulatory laws didn’t have to exist. After the onset of regulation laws, lobbying became vital. Then, came along the necessity for the revolving door between the public and the private spheres. At the heart of this mess lies the advertising industry, who arbitrarily assigned value where value should not be assigned. The advertising industry made impossible for independent media to exist, or even any story with substance or a hint of controversy. Who needs to know about the “military industrial complex, corporate support and benefits from Third World tyrannies” or environmental depredation worldwide, for in today’s industry, the only important consideration is if Rupert Murdoch can add a few million more businesses to his worldwide, hundred billion dollar conglomeration.

Marie89, Herman and Chomsky

While reading this text, I was shocked to discover that twenty four media giants control the top tier of media companies in the United States. This concept relates back to the idea that in our culture, we are accustomed to believe that we live in a free country where we may have options and choose from a variety of diverse ideas. However, this is not the case. Our concept of “different” is skewed as we are under the influence of a ruling class who controls much of what is shown through the media, and therefore much of what we believe to be true. Conglomerates utilize vertical and horizontal integration which ensures that the media is consistent, with little diverging information. Therefore, what we believe to be different is probably not as different as we expected. Even news stations that claim to be either liberal or conservative most likely have branched from the same media giant and therefore have much in common. To add to this phenomenon, filters are put in place which narrows down the types of information in the media, as well. “Messages from an about dissidents and weak, unorganized individuals and groups, domestic and foreign, are at an initial disadvantage in sourcing costs and credibility, and they often do not comport with the ideology or interests of the gatekeepers and other powerful parties that influence the filtering process” (279). This also goes back to the idea that the rich have the power in society and therefore control what is shown throughout the media. A certain ideology must have a dominant power behind it enforcing its truthfulness/believability, and that power limits who has a say in society. Because of this power, the media lacks coverage in smaller yet important stories. And it is difficult for smaller yet passionate groups to spread the word about their concerns. It is interesting to see that what we do see is what is wanted to be seen, and that we are missing out on many smaller activities that may be of great importance.