Download Chomsky Notes - Faculty Web Sites at the University of Virginia

The Propaganda Model - Reflections
“Propaganda” did not become a pejorative term until after World War II. When Bernays
wrote his book Propaganda in the 1920’s the need for propaganda was generally
accepted as a necessary and even desirable consequence of the organization of
democratic society. By definition propaganda is …
Herman and Chomsky offer one model of the way propaganda functions in a nontotalitarian society. This model has testable consequences that can be used to validate or
refute it. This is the function of Chapters 2-6 in their book Manufacturing Consent. These
chapters offer five detailed case studies that compare the actual behavior of the mass
media to the behavior predicted by the model.
The underlying idea behind the Herman and Chomsky propaganda model is that the mass
media “serve to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and
private activity.”1 The model attempts to explain mass media behavior – its choices,
emphases, and omissions – through an articulation of this fundamental idea. It proposes a
mechanism – five media filters – through which “the powerful are able to fix the
premises of discourse, to decide what the general populace is allowed to see, hear, and
think about, and to ‘manage’ public opinion by regular propaganda campaigns.”2 This
view, of course, directly challenges the received doctrine that media are independent,
1
2
Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (NY: Pantheon, 1988), Preface, p. xi
Op. cit.
11/1/05
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
objective, unbiased and “do not merely reflect the world as powerful groups wish it to be
perceived.”3
The Five Filters
Their model is characterized by five “media filters” that determine what and how news is
made available to the public by mass media. These five filters are:





Size, concentrated ownership, and profit orientation of the mass-media firms
Advertising is the primary income source of mass-media
Sourcing of mass-media news
Flak as a way to discipline the media
Anticommunism as a national religion and control mechanism





Size, concentrated ownership, and profit orientation of the mass-media firms
Advertising is the primary income source of mass-media
Sourcing of mass-media news
Flak as a way to discipline the media
Anticommunism as a national religion and control mechanism
According to the model, the filters work like a set of coordinated sieves to sift out
information that might be disadvantageous to the mass media industry. They are largely
invisible to mass media consumers and even to members of the media community. They
function much like “organizational mental models.” They effectively control the behavior
of the media community by tacitly guiding decisions about what gets published and what
gets said.
3
Op. cit.
11/1/05
2
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
The mass media is in the hands of a few (less than 10 or 20, depending on how you
count) mega-corporations. (See the “Ultra-Concentrated Media” illustration from 2004
below). Start up costs effectively exclude new entrants. Competition forces constant
focus on the bottom line. Media boards of directors are primarily populated by corporate
executives, lawyers, bankers, etc. In short, mass media is business. Big business. And at
this level the primary goal of business is profit. Its mission is to increase wealth, either of
the stockholders in the publicly traded companies (e.g., Disney, AOL/TimeWarner) or
the controlling family in the private companies (e.g., Thomson). This is the first filter.
“Do no harm.” Mass media ultimately provides information to its readership that will not
undermine its own bottom line. This affects both what is published and the target
audience for whom it is published.
Very few publications, and even fewer broadcast media, are supported directly by their
readers, viewers or listeners. Mass-media corporations (print, broadcast, or otherwise)
make their money from advertising. And from the standpoint of an advertiser what a
media company has to offer is not programming, not airtime and not ad space. The
advertiser is purchasing access to an audience. This is what mass media brings to the
table. The media corporation sells its audience to the advertiser. In an environment in
which advertising is the primary revenue generator, audience size and quality drive
everything else. This is the second filter. Programming must be designed to attract and
retain the right audience.
In order to do this mass media must have something to say. Where does the news come
from? As Herman and Chomsky point out, staffing news bureaus, sending reporters to
remote locations, tracking down stories, etc. are difficult and expensive tasks. This is
where we find a convergence of interests between mass media and those very institutions
that the media is supposed to be objectively covering. These institutions (or their public
relations surrogates) provide “ready made” news at predetermined locations saving the
media the time, trouble and money of having to search for it. From the White House press
room to the Pentagon briefings to corporate press releases to public interest “video news
releases” (VNRs) it’s there for the taking. Why build it yourself when you can buy it?
And, in many cases, the “official” version has another advantage. It comes from a trusted
and well-known (if not reliable) source. This means that extensive and expensive source
checking can be eliminated. If the source is trusted enough (e.g., the White House, the
Attorney General, “an FBI spokesperson”) it may even insulate the publication from legal
concerns about inaccurate or false claims. This is the third filter. “All the news that’s
useful to those who provide it.” The news we read is, by and large, the news that
organizations that can afford it want us to read. These are the organizations with large
public relations apparatus in place.4
And what happens if a publication fails to properly filter its messages. It may find that its
usual sources are no longer available (filter 3). If the message offends its readers or is
offensive to an advertiser (regardless of whether or not its true), it puts in jeopardy its
primary revenue stream (filter 2). If the message undermines the parent corporation or
4
Research suggests that 40%-50% of our news is passed on virtually unedited from its source.
11/1/05
3
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
calls into question practices that support its profitability, funding can be withdrawn (filter
1). This is flak at work, the next filter. “Tread gently. Don’t wake the sleeping giants.”
And finally, everything is filtered through the prevailing “political paradigm” that for the
past 80 years but 10 was anti-Communism. The official statement of this paradigm was
actually explicitly formulated in the early 1950’s by the National Security Council and
has become so familiar that it’s completely transparent to us. If you take it out of context
it takes the form of a bad fairy tale; the kind that you’d probably be embarrassed to tell
your children. Here’s one version:
“X (fill in the current paradigm, formerly, “Communism”) is evil. It is a threat to
freedom, democracy and everything that good, honest and hardworking people –
such as every real A (fill in “American” or your current country) -- stands for. It
is a real threat our society and way of life. X has brutally murdered and tortured
people in D, E, F. It has ruthlessly suppressed the rights of those in G, H, and I. It
is our duty as the custodians of truth and liberty to ensure that the world is safe
from this growing cancer. And with God’s help, we will.”
This is a polarizing or dichotomizing lens. There is only two positions if you look
through it: You’re with us or you’re against us. You’re good or you’re evil. And once
you put this filter on really weird things start to happen. For example, X can do
something (e.g., cause the murder of a priest, train government death squads in a foreign
county, refuse to decommission biological weapons, etc) and this will be ground for
extended excoriation and international protest if not military action. But if A or B (a close
friend of A) does precisely the same thing it’s either a) not noticed or b) not taken
seriously due to the first four filters. It’s pretty clear that we’ve found our new political
paradigm. It’s well worth asking whether it shares significant similarities with its
predecessor.
It’s important to understand that Chomsky sees these filters as unconscious agents of
selection and distortion. He does not believe that a journalist when confronted with a
breaking story consults the list of filters to decide whether it is “newsworthy” or not.
Over time, he believes, reporters, journalists, columnists, assistant editors, managing
editors, senior editors and others in the industry become naturally acclimated to the
conditions of acceptability. As mentioned above, these filters become tacit mental models
through which the media industry – and all of us who patronize it – see the world.
Propaganda works best when you’re not even aware of it. As with mental model
generally, the trick is to surface, test and if necessary improve them. This is what
Chomsky is attempting with this essay.
Specific Levers of Media Persuasion
The filters allow us to predict in a very general way the types of news and the types of
stories that will be available in the mass media. Let’s now take a look at some specific
techniques or “levers” that are used to accomplish the filtering. There are at least thirteen
11/1/05
4
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
dimensions along which information is controlled and massaged. These levers can
influence the perceived importance, interpretation and credence of the news we read.

What to publish. What counts as news? What gets treated at all?

When to publish. Readership varies. The lead story in the Sunday paper may have a
different readership from the same story published on Tuesday. A story published on
a long holiday weekend may not attract the attention it would on a typical Monday
morning.

Where to publish. The New York Times. Washington Post. Daily News. Daily
Progress. People Magazine. Front page of the first section. Last page of the first
section. Page 6 of the first section. Business section.

How long to publish. What the duration of the story? A day? A month? Six months?

How often to publish. What’s the frequency with which stories appear? Every day?
Once a week? Once a year?

How much to publish. How many column inches? The longer the story the more
important it must be. Are there editorials about the topic? What about the columnists
and talking heads? Have they picked it up?

What to say. This is the obvious one. What is the content of the story. What are the
issues it deals with? Does it take a position on any of the issues? Are there reasons
presented in support of these positions? Are they good reasons? Are there heroes and
the villains?

What to omit. Are their relevant perspectives, opinions or individuals that are not
represented?
11/1/05
5
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...

Who says it. Are experts or authorities quoted? Are they reliable? Are they experts of
the relevant sort? Should we take them at their word? Are they respected in their
fields?

Who denies it. Are experts or authorities quoted who disagree? Are they reliable? Are
they experts of the relevant sort? Should we take them at their word? Are they
respected in their fields?

Why it’s being said. Why now? Is there some content related reason that the story is
appearing now rather than some other time? What occasioned the story? Is it really
newsworth?

What “frame” to use. Framing sets the broad parameters for a discussion and
determines the issues, evidence and questions that are relevant to the discussion.
Through framing the press shapes further discussion of that issue. There are a variety
of familiar frames used to direct a discussion. These include: moral, medical, social,
economic, patriotic, civil libertarian, education, tradition, security, etc. Those with an
agenda to pursue obviously choose the frame that is most compelling for their issues.
An instructive current example concerns the Bush administration’s position on Iraq.
Shortly 9-11 the administration began to consider possible military action against
Iraq. By both timing and design the frame for the discussion was security and,
specifically, terrorism. This set the issues, evidence and questions that were relevant
to the discussion.
Did Iraq provide financial assistance to al Quaeda?
Did Iraq provide biological weapons to al Quaeda?
Was Iraq involved in the planning of the 9-11 attack?
Were there members of al Quaeda that visited Iraq?
Is Iraq sponsoring other powerful terrorist cells?
Does Iraq pose a direct and immediate threat to the U.S.?
Unfortunately for the administration this proved to be the wrong frame since the alleged
terrorist connections could be substantiated. Fortunately for the administration the mass
media buying public has a very short memory span. The Administration was therefore
able to shift the frame of the discussion from “terrorism” to “violation of past Security
Council resolutions” without little comment from the media. How might Chomsky
explain this?
In addition to the above twelve there are some more generic tools of the propagandists
trade that deserve mention. We’ll consider each of these techniques in more detail later in
the course:





3rd party experts
Junk science
Phony front groups
Association
Typification
11/1/05
6
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
Propaganda model predictions
A theory can be tested in part by its predictive power. Chomsky observes that “a
propaganda approach to media coverage suggests a systematic and highly political
dichotomization in news coverage based on serviceability to important domestic power
interest.” This dichotomization has several predictable and testable consequences:





Stories about worthy & unworthy victims vary in quality and quantity. “Worthy
victims” will are victims of our ideological enemies as dictated by the prevailing
political paradigm (see the fifth filter above). “Unworthy victims” are victims of
either the United States or our allies (regardless of political, social or humanitarian
considerations)
Uncritical acceptance of certain premises, e.g.,
o We seek peace. We oppose evil. We tell the truth. We only want to help.
o They do not
Different criteria by which actions (ours & our enemies) are evaluated
Greater investigatory zeal in search for enemy villainy
Difference in the quality of coverage as displayed by media persuasion “levers”
“A Different Perspective”
In offering the following examples my intention is not to present Chomsky as an
authority whose views are to be taken at face value. He is an intelligent man, a brilliant
linguist and an MIT professor who has spent many years analyzing US policy. He’s also
a social activist – a “social anarchist”. He obviously has an agenda. You need to validate
for yourself his arguments by looking at the reasons that are offered in support of his
conclusions. (As we’ll see later when we discuss appeals to authority.) I offer Chomsky
as a different perspective, as a “provocation tool,” for shaking up your mental models.
Right or wrong, Chomsky asks questions that are seldom asked in our society and
virtually never asked in the American media. Chomsky, of course, explains this silence
due to his propaganda model.
The point here is Einstein’s:
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking
we were at when we created them.
Or Emerson’s
The field cannot well be seen from within the field.
Or, to use Kuhn’s terminology, one cannot see the problems with a controlling paradigm
unless you step into a new one.
When was the last time you stepped out of the field? When was the last time you looked
at a problem “at a different level” or from a different perspective? When was the last time
11/1/05
7
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
you questioned – or even thought about – the fundamental truths that determined a
familiar paradigm? When was the last time, you asked of a “fundamental truth”
confidently asserted by a respected public figure, “What are the facts?” “Is it true?”5
When was the last time you questioned an established authority?
A. Scientific strike breaking, the “Mohawk Valley Formula” & Transparency. The
first set of comments follows directly on the readings. They present, in Chomsky’s own
words, one specific example of how he thinks propaganda works in a non-totalitarian
society. By the 1930s it became more difficult or less convienent for industrialists to use
force (e.g., independent armies of Pinkertons) and obviously pro-industry political
maneuverings to break strikes. The Mohawk Valley Formula is a “scientific approach” to
strike breaking developed and implemented on behalf of industrialists by the fledgling
public relations industry.
B. Delusion & Testability (Friedman on Gingrich).
Whenever you hear anything said very confidently the first question you should ask is “Is it true? Noam
Chomsky, “Propaganda and Control of the Public Mind”, 2-14 “Islam as the enemy.”
5
11/1/05
8
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
Manufacturing Consent – Self test
A. Fill in the Blanks
What (or who) could Chomsky & Herman be talking about in the following
passages? Give an example to illustrate your answer.
1. “One of our central themes in this book is that the observable pattern of indignant
campaigns and suppressions, of shading and emphasis, and selection of context,
premises, and general agenda, is highly functional for established power and responsive
to the needs of the government and major power groups. A constant focus on victims of
_________ helps convince the public of enemy evil and sets the stage for intervention,
subversion, and military conflict – all in noble cause. At that same time, the devotion of
our leaders and media to this narrow set of victims raises public self-esteem and
patriotism, as it demonstrates the essential humanity of [our] country and principle.”
2. Within the limits of the filter constraints [the news media] are often objective; the
constraints are so powerful, and are built into the system in such a fundamental way, that
alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable. In assessing newsworthiness of
the U.S. government’s claims of _________, the media [did] not stop to ponder the bias
that is inherent in the priority assigned to government-supplied raw material, or the
possibility that the government might be manipulating the news, imposing its own
agenda, and deliberately diverting attention from other material.”
3. “Like other terms of political discourse, the word ‘_________’ has a technical Orwellian
sense when used in rhetorical flights, or in regular “news reporting,” to refer to U.S.
efforts to establish ‘_________.’ The term refers to systems in which control over
resources and the means of violence ensures the rule of elements that will serve the needs
of U.S. power.”
B. Identifications – What do the following words and phrases mean?














Orwellian
Elite domination, established power, special interests that dominate the state and private
activity, major power groups (pick one)
Self-censorship
Fundamental dissent
News filters
Dichotomization
Marginalization of dissent
Advertising as a license to do business
Oligopoly / oligopolistic structure
Worthy victims
Principle of bureaucratic affinity
Quality of coverage
Premises of discourse
Flak
C. What are the key elements of the Herman & Chomsky “propaganda model?”
11/1/05
9
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
The Propaganda Model – How Not To Evaluate a Theory
Chomsky and Herman’s “propaganda model” is an analysis (or theory) that purports to
explain “the forces that cause the mass media to play a propaganda role, the processes
whereby they mobilize bias, and the patterns of news choices that ensue.”6 (italics mine)
As a theory it has testable consequences that can be used to validate or refute its
underlying assumptions. Among these testable consequences or “symptoms” are
predictions about





Useful news. The range of news cover that will be covered in the mass media
Big news. What stories will get the most and highest quality attention
Marginalization. What groups and issues will systematically fall outside the
media spotlight
Dichotomization. The mass media tendency to differentially treat similar events,
actions and individuals based upon their political orientation
Framing. The broad parameters that determine discussion topics and the issues,
evidence and questions which are relevant to the discussion
The remainder of Manufacturing Consent presents a series of case studies that purport to
establish the validity of this analysis of the role of the mass media in the “free” market
economy.
In order to show that an explanatory theory is incorrect you can dispute the facts it
purports to explain, call into question its explanatory power or show that its predictions
are incorrect. What you cannot do is simply reject it out of hand. To make an informed
judgment about the validity of Chomsky’s hypothesis you might, e.g., consider the actual
evidence upon which the analysis is based and evaluate the degree to which this evidence
supports Chomsky’s conclusions. Or you might to investigate whether there are other
explanations that better account for those data. Or you might show that there is other
evidence, that Chomsky fails to consider, that argues against his theory. Or you might
surface questionable assumptions crucial to the theory that are not discussed. The point
is, you must do something. Chomsky may not be correct in his views. But the
considerations he raises are important and he offers substantial support for them. A
critical evaluation of his position therefore requires first an understanding what he is
saying and second a careful consideration of the reasons he uses to back his position.
A good example of a criticism which fails for the first reason, a misunderstanding of
Chomsky’s position, is offered by Karl Meyer, Editorial Writer for the New York Times.7
Against Chomsky Meyer argues that the process of selecting the news that’s fit to print is
a “more mysterious process” than Chomsky let’s on. It’s more like “making sausage”
than following a specific political, social or cultural agenda. He suggests that many things
influence the choice and texture of mass media articles including personal preference and
serendipity. Therefore, he maintains, the notion of particular new sources as “agenda
6
7
E. Herman & N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent (NY: Pantheon, 1988), pp. xi-xii
Mark Achbar & Peter Wintonick, Manufacturing Consent (Zeitgeist Video), chapter 8
11/1/05
10
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
setters” is not valid. How might Chomsky reply? Can Meyer’s remarks be seen as
supporting rather than disconfirming Chomsky’s analysis?
Tom Wolfe8 provides an example of a criticism that fails for the second reason, a refual
to consider Chomsky’s position and the support he offers in favor of it. We’ll return to
this criticism in a few weeks when we explicitly consider some of the explicit fallacies
that he employs against Chomsky.
Chomsky challenges some of our most deeply entrenched mental models. The notion of a
“free press” is one of our most cherished democratic ideals. For this reason he is one of
those at the margins of political discussion in this country. He may be wrong. He’s
certainly controversial. But he also provides a very different lens through which to see
the world we think that we live in.
8
Ibid.
11/1/05
11
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
Advertising as a license to do business
The standard model of the news industry is something like the following. A news
organization (e.g., a newspaper, TV news bureau, news magazine, etc.) has a product –
news – which it sells to its customers – the news-reading public. As with any business
there is a bottom line to worry about and, on this model, it’s a function of the cost of
producing the news and the revenue generated from selling its product to its readership.
The larger the readership, the higher the profits and the more successful it is. In general
it’s natural to assume that there is a direct positive connection between the quality of a
product – on this model, the news – and the size of the customer base – on this model, the
readership. Hence, on this model, market forces (a discerning readership) will drive a
news organization to improve the quality of the news that it provides.
There are a number of problems with this analysis; the most serious is that the standard
model is wrong. The standard model describes mass media as it existed a hundred and
fifty years ago before advertising became its primary revenue stream. The introduction of
advertising has completely changed the business model under which news and other
media organizations operate. Under the current model a media organization still has a
product, but the product is no longer the news. It still has customers, but the customers
are no longer the news readers (or viewers). Under the current model the primary
revenue stream for media organization is advertising revenue rather than sales to readers.
The customers are therefore the corporations who purchase ad time or space. And what
the media organization sells to these corporations is its readership. The corporation is
purchasing accessibility to individuals in an audience. On this model “news” becomes a
vehicle for creating an audience. News is no longer than a product that individuals in the
audience purchase. It’s still true that there’s a direct connection between the quality of the
product and the size of the customer base. But the product and customer have changed.
The “better” the audience a media organization provides, the more likely it is that a
corporation will purchase advertising from that organization. Unfortunately, what makes
an audience attractive to a corporation (its size, socio-economic orientation, demographic
characteristics, etc.) has very little to do with the “quality” of the message delivered by
the organization. The customers – the corporations that purchase advertising – expect
media organizations to a deliver a “good” product – large audiences with substantial
buying power. How this is done is not their concern.
As with any business the primary function of a media organization is to please its
customers. Once we understand the role of advertising as a license to do business we can
also understand who these media customers really are. In this model there is no longer
any reason to suppose that market forces will drive a news organization to improve the
quality of the news that it provides. They will, instead, drive a news organization to
improve the size and “purchasing quality” of its audience.
11/1/05
12
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
Critical Thinking
The standard model
Information
Product
Customer
News
Sell to
Reader/
Viewers
“The Factory”
ISAS 302, Fall 2003
Critical Thinking
Advertising as a license …
News
Product
Customer
Audience
Sell to
Advertisers
“The Factory”
ISAS 302, Fall 2003
11/1/05
13
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
What’s Wrong With Propaganda?
In asking the question we don’t need to seek some absolute moral imperative according
to which we can judge propaganda good or bad, right or wrong in abstraction from any
specific context. This is unlikely to particularly productive or even interesting. So let’s
narrow the question a bit. Let’s consider the question with respect to the kind of society
in which we find ourselves. What, if anything, is wrong with the use of propaganda in the
sort of democratic society in which we live? There are many directions to take in looking
at this question. I’ll take a systems thinking approach in which propaganda is first
situated in a broader system of which it is a component.
In thinking about systems it’s often useful to think in terms of loops rather than lines. A
characteristic of systems is that changes in one part of the system will generally have
broader (systemic) effects that may ultimately circle back on the component that initiated
the change. This is known as a “causal loop.” At the highest level democracy can usefully
be seen in this way. Consider the following “causal loop diagram”:
Representatives
make decisions
Citizens select
representative based upon
information
"Normal" Domain
of Propaganda
Consequences for
citizens
Information Flow
Distorted, sequestered,
delayed?
A causal loop diagram allows you trace the influence of an action throughout a system.
You can start any place. E.g., in a representative democracy citizens select their
representatives through the ballot box based upon the information they have about the
candidates. Once selected representatives make decisions that, in turn, have consequences
for the electorate. This is the upper half of the above loop. Based upon information about
these consequences citizens will decide either to elect new representatives or continue
support for the incumbents. This is representative democracy in its ideal “schematic”
form.
11/1/05
14
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
Note that the electorate makes decisions about who to elect based upon information about
representatives’ actions. To the extent to which this information unreliable, these
decisions may be misguided and may not have the expected consequences. There are at
least three different ways in which this information loop (the bottom half of the diagram)
can fail: it may be inaccurate, it may be delayed, or it may simply be hidden. This is the
domain in which propaganda normally works. Propaganda seeks to disrupt the timely
flow of accurate and relevant information to the public. In class we’ve consider some of
the ways in which this disruption is actually accomplished. We’ve also briefly considered
the reasons for the disruption. An organization (e.g., corporation, political part, advocacy
group, etc.) with specific agenda will generally present only that information that
supports the agenda. Depending upon the degree of commitment to the cause the
organization may use any one of the three information distortion techniques (delay,
distortion and covering up) to achieve its aim. Success is measure by the degree to which
the information campaign changes the views of the target audience on the issue in
question.
Representatives
make decisions
Citizens select
representative based upon
information
Consequences for
citizens
Distorting
Lens of
Propaganda
"Normal" Domain
of Propaganda
Information Flow
Distorted, sequestered,
delayed?
11/1/05
15
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
This provides a context for our question, “What’s wrong with propaganda?” Propaganda,
by definition, is a systematic dissemination of information reflecting the views and
interests of those advocating a particular position.9 By its nature propaganda offers a
distorted or skewed view of an issue. To the extent to which propaganda dominates the
“marketplace of ideas” its content and tactics will therefore diminish open and balanced
discussion of these ideas. In particular, it will distort the reality on which the electorate
makes its choices. Those choices ultimately depend upon accurate information. The more
that information reflects the specific point of view of special interests with the ability and
funding to disseminate their position, the less the choices reflect what the electorate
understands to be in its own best interests. Seen in this way propaganda subverts a
fundamental presupposition of representative democracy: the necessity for an informed
citizenry.
Propaganda is obviously most effective when it’s not recognized for what it is. Over time
this sort of tacit skewing information can have a profound effect not just on an
individual’s decisions about specific issues but upon the way in which he or she sees the
world. In our discussion of mental models we observed that mental models can and
should change in relation to the environment. Failure to do so renders the individual
unable to effectively function in the changed surroundings. But the real basis for
changing mental models is often not that environment itself but our beliefs and
assumptions about it (as in the ladder of inference). This is the domain in which
propaganda can be most effective.
There are obviously a host of additional considerations that need to be investigated in far
more detail in order to answer the question. There is also wealth of relevant factual
evidence about the impact and effectiveness of propaganda. The point of these remarks is
not to answer the question. It’s to present a general context in which the question can be
meaningfully considered.
Issues Ads “for One”
Let’s consider one additional “non-standard” propaganda technique. This is the practice
of using “personalized” mass media issue ads that are actually intended to influence a
very small and select group of people. Since this practice so clearly illustrates the
systematic dangers of propaganda it’s worth a closer look.
The specific example involves an NPR report10 on pending legislation (the TauzanDingel bill) concerning deregulation of the telecommunications industry. The industry
supported deregulation and opposed the bill. It ran prime time TV and radio ads in
several large markets to support its position. So far this is nothing out of the ordinary.
The problem was that the content of these ads was so technical and specific that they
were virtually incomprehensible to anyone except a small number of lawmakers and
agency employees intimately involved in the deregulation debate. The NPR report
describes the realization of one FCC employee that the ad was actually directed at him
9
American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition
Steve Inskeep & Erika Fauk, “Issue Ads”, Morning Edition, National Public Radio (June 29, 2003)
<<http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1314805>>
10
11/1/05
16
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
personally. He realized that the point of the ad was to convince him (and others involved
in the deregulation process) that there was (or was going to be) overwhelming public
opposition to the pending legislation. He should therefore not support the bill.
This is a remarkable example. It’s a case where propaganda (systematic dissemination of
partisan information) is use not just to distort reality. Propaganda is here used in a selfreflexive way to create the perception of a non-existent reality. The intent of the ad
campaign is to make the target audience (the FCC employees and legislators) believe that
the electorate strongly opposes the bill based solely upon the existence of the campaign
itself. In doing so it attempts to eliminate the electorate from the whole legislative
process. The basics of this tactic are captured in the following variation on the above
diagrams:
Representatives
make decisions
Consequences for
corporations
Citizens select
representative based upon
information
"Normal" Domain
of Propaganda
Issue ads misrepresent
peoples desires
Consequences for
citizens
Information Flow
Distorted, sequestered,
delayed?
If representatives make decisions based upon issue ads that simply fabricate the views of
the electorate, then the input of citizens is effectively eliminated from the legislative
process. The large loop that represents democracy will be overwhelmed by the inner loop
of corporate interests. I leave it to you to investigate the likelihood of this or related
scenarios.
11/1/05
17
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
Mental Models & Media Filters – FAQ
In a previous I asked:
What’s the muddiest point about mental models or the Herman & Chomsky
propaganda model? What’s the question you most want answered?
The result was a list of important and insightful questions about the material covered so
far. I provide summary answers below. I’ve grouped the questions into “affinity groups”
that reflect a common theme.
Mental Models
 Is a mental model, at its core, simply the way you think? That is, the process and/or
what you base it on?
 Is a mental model an actual outline that our thought process follows or just bits of
info we piece together?
What are mental models? We’ve discussed a number of characteristics and “salient
features” of mental models. We considered their effect on perception, problem solving
and our attitudes towards the world. But what are they? What do they look like? How,
e.g., do they relate to the Ladder of Inference that we’ve talked about?
According to Senge mental models are “deeply held internal images of how the world
works, images that limit us to familiar ways of thinking and acting.”11 Instead of
“images” or pictures I prefer to think of mental models as deeply held beliefs or
assumptions about how the world works. I sometimes refer to mental models as “core
beliefs.” They are generally tacit or unacknowledged and they provide a framework for
our thinking about ourselves and the world. They are the “box” within which we usually
think. They are not really “an actual outline that our thought process follows.” These core
beliefs generally provide a substantial amount of latitude in our thinking. But they do
constrain it in certain ways. Like Leonard’s tattoos they are always there behind the
scenes guiding our reasoning and influencing our actions. They are what our thinking is
based upon.
In terms of the ladder of inference, mental models can work at every stage. Our mental
models determine the data we select, what we see. E.g., a fundamental belief about the
shape of the earth can block visual evidence to the contrary; a pathological belief that one
is overweight (as in severe cases of anorexia) can cause a person to actually see
themselves in the mirror as obese. Core beliefs guide the way we interpret or add
meaning to the data we select. E.g., if you are convinced that a co-worker is antagonistic
you’re likely to misinterpret a friendly gesture or remark as more evidence for your
original belief. If you think someone is a relatively dim bulb (if you’ve “flipped the bozo
bit” on the person) you’re likely to discount or misinterpret anything they say. Mental
models can determine the assumptions we make. In our elevator example one mental
11
Peter Senge, The Fifth Discipline (NY: Doubleday, 1990), p. 174
11/1/05
18
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
model apparently shared by most of the class was that “Speed is absolute. Slow is slow.”
Another was “Technology’s the answer.” The tacit assumptions gave rise to others such
as “We have to do something about the elevator,” “We must increase the elevator’s
speed.” Finally, working in the background, they influence the conclusions we draw.
More on this in the coming weeks. The material in Browne and Keeley on hidden
assumptions in reasoning (chapters 5 and 6) is also relevant and worth reviewing.
Are mental models essentially different from other beliefs we hold? Yes and no. They are
usually general. They don’t concern specific incidents, events or objects. E.g., A
candidate for a mental model might be “Liberal rhetoric is not worth listening to” rather
than “Ted Kennedy’s remark on health care last Tuesday evening was fatuous.” They are
usually tacit. And they are fairly central to our system of beliefs. That is, there’s a lot
riding on them, a lot of what we believe derives from them. But “centrality” is a matter of
degree. Leonard’s tattoos clearly functioned as mental models. Did the notes and
statements on the pictures? It’s impossible to say. It needs to be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. It depends upon how central each statement was to his view of the world and
the sort of counter-evidence he might accept as a refutation.

Where do mental models begin and do they need to be factual (“factual”, relevant to
the individual)?
Mental models begin in the same was as any other belief. From parents, experiential
learning, newspapers, friends, etc. Whether a particular belief becomes a “core” belief
central to our system of understanding and values depends upon many things including
our culture, societal norms, scientific proclamations, parental values and the propaganda
to which we are suggested. Mental models, like consent, can be and very frequently are
manufactured. They certainly do not need to be “factual” in the sense of being true. Every
one of us holds many deep-seated beliefs that are false. To claim otherwise is to claim
omniscience. They are certainly “relevant to the individual” in that they arise through and
individual’s personal experience and guide the individual’s actions.





How do we know/learn to use them?
What is the most effective way to challenge or test our mental models?
How does one get around the ladder of inference?
How do we change them? How do we know which one’s to change?
How do we know which mental model is good and which we should keep?
The first step in changing mental models is to recognize that we even have them. This
means recognizing that there are many, varied, and powerful tacit assumptions that
govern the way we see and interact with the world. The second step is developing
openness to and even a curiosity about our own mental models. The third step is actually
reflecting on what those core beliefs might be. This is where our tools come in. Mind
Maps can help make explicit fundamental connections between our beliefs. There’s no
way to “get around” the ladder of inference. It’s how we operate. But once we’re aware
that we operate in this way we can begin to make visible the hidden steps in our
interaction with the world and ask others to do the same. Another good technique is
11/1/05
19
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
seeing something from a different perspective as with a foreign newspaper. The result is
surfacing hidden assumptions and core beliefs. The fourth step is challenging and testing
the beliefs that have been surfaced. This means investigating the reasons we have for
holding them. And this is the subject matter for the rest of the course.
Questioning
 If we question the source of everything in the news – won’t we find that every story
has a source and therefore we will question everything we read – that’s hard and
makes me feel like a paranoid?
 If we evaluate everything constantly we won’t have time to do anything else. How do
we select what is worth evaluating and sifting through?
Everything has a source and everything can be questioned. We have to pick our battles
and this is a personal decision. What (and even whether) you question something will
depend several things. First, it depends upon your particular system of values. If one feels
that, e.g., civil liberties are an essential part of a democratic society and that promoting a
democratic society is worth some time and effort, then discussions and issues concerning
civil liberties should perhaps receive close scrutiny. Similarly for any other “big issue.”
Second, we all trust certain sources of information. If we are convinced – and convinced
for good reasons – that these are reliable sources, we may want to forgo further
evaluation. The trick is to find the reliable sources, something we’ll consider in our
discussion of appeals to authority.
Propaganda Model
 How do we connect all 5 (filters)? Should we?
 How to apply the propaganda model and also the filters are very confusing to me.
These questions are discussed in the Propaganda Model notes above.

The ruling elite is the one that controls the media. Are they the ones who truly control
the Bush Administration or the government?
The propaganda model does not suggest that the media oligopoly controls the
government. It suggests that there is a symbiotic relationship due to a convergence of
interests. This is discussed in the section on “Sourcing” and very briefly in Toolkit
/Materials/Notes/3-Propaganda Model. It’s also important to note that the model does not
postulate that this relationship is explicit, conscious or even intentional. It suggests that it
is a systemic consequence of the structure of a capitalist society such as ours. This gives
us yet another way to test the validity of the model.

Is there ever a piece of information that does not get filtered by the media?
Yes and no. Every piece of information goes through the sieve. But the sieve is not
perfect. Information that is inconsistent with one or more filters will occasionally pass
11/1/05
20
Draft Only. To Be Continued ...
through the filters and be made available in the mass media. The publication of the
Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War is a case in point. Watergate is another. The
leak of the pre-9-11 NSA security tapes may be yet another. The model predicts that this
will be infrequent (due to the first four filters) and the quality of reports will often be
compromised. It’s important to note, as Chomsky does, that this fact (the relatively
infrequent publication of “renegade” stories by the mass media) actually works to make
the filters even more effective. It is often used by the mass media establishment to show
that we do indeed have a completely “free” press unconstrained by external pressure.

I am a little fuzzy about the anticommunist/religion filter in the model. Are they
important because they help determine who we prosecute in the media? Help
legitimatize our actions because we need to feel we are doing the just thing?
You may be less fuzzy than you think. This is discussed in more detail in the Propaganda
Model notes.
Team Building
 How are mm’s helpful if only one person in the group understands them?
If you understand them you can use tools such as the ladder of inference to help the
others see the tacit assumptions that underlie their reasoning. You can do this through
both advocacy and inquiry – making your own reasoning and assumptions clear to the
group and inviting feedback, and focused questioning to understand the reasoning of your
group members.
11/1/05
21
Ultra Concentrated Media12
12
Charts are from Todd Belt, Political Science 403S, University of Hawaii. Homepage. 3 June 2004. <http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~tbelt/Pols430S.html>
11/1/05
22