Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Isn the “propaganda thesis” about the media contradicted by the “adversarial” nature of much media reporting, e.g. its exposes of government and business corruption?

0
Posted

Isn the “propaganda thesis” about the media contradicted by the “adversarial” nature of much media reporting, e.g. its exposes of government and business corruption?

0

As noted above, the claim that the media are “adversarial” or (more implausibly) that they have a “left-wing bias” is due to right-wing PR organisations. This means that some “inconvenient facts” are occasionally allowed to pass through the filters in order to give the appearance of “objectivity”– precisely so the media can deny charges of engaging in propaganda. As Chomsky and Herman put it: “the ‘naturalness’ of these processes, with inconvenient facts allowed sparingly and within the proper framework of assumptions, and fundamental dissent virtually excluded from the mass media (but permitted in a marginalised press), makes for a propaganda system that is far more credible and effective in putting over a patriotic agenda than one with official censorship” [Ibid., Preface]. To support their case against the “adversarial” nature of the media, Herman and Chomsky look into the claims of such right-wing media PR machines as Freedom House. However, it is soon discovered that “the very ex

0

As noted above, the claim that the media are “adversarial” or (more implausibly) that they have a “left-wing bias” is due to right-wing PR organisations. This means that some “inconvenient facts” are occasionally allowed to pass through the filters in order to give the appearance of “objectivity”– precisely so the media can deny charges of engaging in propaganda. As Chomsky and Herman put it: “the ‘naturalness’ of these processes, with inconvenient facts allowed sparingly and within the proper framework of assumptions, and fundamental dissent virtually excluded from the mass media (but permitted in a marginalised press), makes for a propaganda system that is far more credible and effective in putting over a patriotic agenda than one with official censorship” [Ibid., Preface]. To support their case against the “adversarial” nature of the media, Herman and Chomsky look into the claims of such right-wing media PR machines as Freedom House. However, it is soon discovered that “the very ex

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123