Talk:Propaganda model

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thelightwillshine.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Too long, too biased
This is way to long. Besides, criticism of the book is always followed by author's response which is not wikipedia standard. He has to have a final word. So article about propaganda model is actually a propaganda itself. What a lovely irony.

Criticisms Section
I have to agree that the Metzl "criticisms" seem to have little to do with the Propaganda Model. The argument by Chomsky relies on is based on a study of collumn inches. They argue there was very little noise being made about it at the time, in the popular media Zeitgeist. Books after the fact are hardly relevent. This hasn't been addressed for a year, though these problems with the criticism are known. I'm going to delete the Metzl "criticisms". --88.104.110.160 (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Metzl "criticisms" seem to have little, if anything, to do with the Propaganda Model per se; they are only general criticisms and do not appear to address the theory in any particulars. Unless a specific quotation mentioning the Propaganda Model can be provided, i will remove the material as off-topic. Stone put to sky 06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Metzl study directly criticze the H&C's media claims.Ultramarine 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is up to the contributor to provide sources, page numbers, and quotations. Unless you can provide a clear quotation from the document -- one that specifically mentions the Propaganda Model and the author's criticism of it -- then it will be removed. Stone put to sky 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the page back to what is clearly POV language. Also, please stop reverting the "criticisms" section; the material you are adding (Ear, Sharp, etc) is clearly off-topic. The Ear article does not mention the Propaganda Model once, and Sharp's article deals with it only tangentially and makes no categorical statements regarding the model, instead using it only as a rhetorical tool to re-examine Chomsky's statements about Cambodia and the coverage of the Khmer Rouge. These papers are clearly not intended as a criticism of that theory but rather of Chomsky's concepts and statements about media coverage of 1970's era Cambodia and the media coverage surrounding it.

Also, i have removed the incorrect "fact" flags on the sources i have provided; if citation of the theory itself is not enough to prove that it does not touch Marxist theories or preconceptions about social order and human intellect, then i do not know what else possibly could. As the appendices and papers show, the model itself says nothing whatsoever about the intellect of the general public and makes no mention regarding specific economic, social, or political dogma.

Final/propagandaly, the appendix and papers cited as showing that the model does predict the five criticisms listed is quite transparent. I can only presume that you have not read the sources, because unambiguous mention is made of each of the points provided by your critic. Stone put to sky 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove studies you do not like. Can you explain why the language is POV here? Also, please explain how the theory answers these objections, despite your claim, I cannot find this in the given sources, like the "ChomskyChat Forum"Ultramarine 19:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Far left views Chomsky advocates" is clearly POV language. For my part, i do not consider Chomsky's views to be "far left", but mere common sense.

Second, i have not removed the studies because i don't like them; i have already given clear explanations above:  one of the studies doesn't even mention the propaganda model at all, and the other makes no direct criticisms of the model itself but only mentions it in the context of an entirely different critique.

So besides neither being on-topic, the statements you assert they make don't even appear in the text. I am deleting them again, and reminding you of the 3RR. Stone put to sky 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about "Anarchist views Chomsky advocates"? The studies given explicitly criticze Chomsky's media model, as can be seen in the quotations from them.Ultramarine 19:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Sophal Ear's doesn't even mention the Propaganda Model, and Sharp's mentions it only in the context of his criticism of Chomsky's Cambodia analysis:  nowhere in Sharp is there any clear criticism made of the Propaganda Model itself.  Instead, his criticism is of Chomsky's activity and analysis, with only tangential mention of the Propaganda Model.


 * If you want to include something in this article, then you need to make sure that it directly addresses the Propaganda Model; saying that somebody criticized Chomsky because he used the Propaganda Model says nothing about the Propaganda Model itself.  Stone put to sky 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All of these studies criticze H&Cs claims about the media coverage regarding Cambodia.Ultramarine 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So? This is an article about the Propaganda Model, not "Chomsky's claims regarding Cambodia." Stone put to sky 19:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cite me correctly "H&Cs claims about the media coverage regarding Cambodia", which they make using their theory. Prediction given, did not happen, theory false.Ultramarine 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting the way you phrase this. Perhaps that would be a useful line of argument.  Regardless, it hasn't appeared on the article page and so is irrelevant to our discussion.
 * In addition: Ear's article doesn't mention the Propaganda Model, and so cannot be included.  Period.  I suggest you get something on-topic.  Stone put to sky 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about NPOV language? The theory doesn't suggest that people should be reading Anarchist theory or left-wing publications; the theory is talking about news, and suggests that people aren't getting the whole story. So if you want to put this criticism into the article, that's what you must say: people getting more complete news coverage, or something to that effect.

Otherwise, the statement is POV-pushing, not to mention off-topic.

The theory answers these objections as explained in the Appendix; see the section about "first", "second" and "third order predictions".

The propaganda model clearly predicts that criticisms of the sort Lehrer is making will be made, and specifically addresses all five in some form or another. It predicts this will happen not only against the propaganda model itself, but against various types of media content that happen to challenge the established power structure. Stone put to sky 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still does not explain why you are deleting the results from study showing bias against business in entertainment programming.Ultramarine 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple: because they're not necessary. What is important in the criticism section is the substance of the criticism, not the stuff used to support it. First, you don't have any citations or evidence to back up those statements. Second, even if you did they'd be superfluous, because what we're interested in here is not the secondary data that some guy brings in to bolster his argument, but rather the argument itself.

I have made good-faith edits on all of your "criticisms" material, making it concise and sacrificing none of its meaningful content. The section you are speaking of at this moment is very poorly written, to the point of approaching nonsense. If it is to be kept it must be re-worked. Stone put to sky 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They are certainly necessary. Empirical studies are always better than mere opinions. I can cite the name and so of the study if you want.Ultramarine 19:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not necessary because they are beside the point; the only relevant thing is Lehrer's criticisms. Those are studies which Lehrer uses to strengthen his argument -- they are not the argument itself. Thus, unnecessary. Stone put to sky 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Empirical studies are always better than mere opinions. Arguments that have empirical support are always better than mere opinions.Ultramarine 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that we're not making an argument here, we're simply reporting what Lehrer has said; likewise, empirical studies are only better than opinions when you are doing some sort of research. When you are trying to explain to people what somebody believes you don't start off with telling them the empirical studies they used to back up their ideas. You start off by telling them what the person thinks.

That's what this section should be doing: telling people what Lehrer thinks. This other material is not necessary to convey his ideas and distracts from the main point, making it harder to understand. Since this is an article that is only mentioning Lehrer's ideas -- and not examining them -- it's best if they're not included.

In other words: this is an article about the Propaganda Model. Lehrer's ideas about the Propaganda Model are what is important. The evidence he uses to back those ideas up, however, is not.

Go ahead and include them if you want. It's not important to me. But the other stuff -- Ear, Sharp, etc -- that must go, along with the POV language. Stone put to sky 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lehrer is reporting this study. Again, arguments having empirical support is always stronger than mere opinions. Not including the empirical arguments misrepresents Lehrer's arguments and the source. You are arguing that if we report Einstein's ideas, we should not mention the empirical support for those ideas.Ultramarine 20:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are in prinicple arguing that the article about the theory of relativity should remove all the statements about empirical support, and instead only state that "Einstein opinions" or something similar.Ultramarine 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, i am not arguing that at all.

This is an article about the Propaganda Model. If we use your analogy of Relativity, then what i am protesting is the inclusion of evidence that supports criticisms of the theory. Criticism sections should not include the evidence used to support them; they should only have the criticisms themselves, nothing else. Stone put to sky 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If including supporting empirical evidence, then the article must also include opposing empirical evidence.Ultramarine 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please address the objections to the content, or it will continue to be deleted per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DE. Stone put to sky 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already done that above. Is there something specifc you are thinking about? Ultramarine 10:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You have addressed none of the concerns that have already been repeated for you some three or four times. You have continually reverted good-faith edits which attempted to preserve the material, and you have refused to meet even basic wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of content. Please attempt to revise the material in a way that meets WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DE. Stone put to sky 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have answered your arguments. Please do not completely delete all the sourced opposing views. Would you accept Mediation to attempt to resolve the dispute? Ultramarine 11:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation? No; i think we should take this directly to an RfC (RfD?  whatever). Stone put to sky 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer mediation, but if you want to do a RfC, that is fine also.Ultramarine 12:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then; we should proceed with it. I'll let you do the honors. Stone put to sky 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I prefer mediation, at least first. If you start a RfC, I will certainly participate.Ultramarine 13:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no mediation necessary here; the dispute is clear cut and beyond question:


 * Three of the sources you provide are criticisms of Chomsky's perspective on Cambodia and the coverage therein, and make no declarative or definitive statements regarding the veracity, viability or analysis of the Propaganda Model itself. Therefore, including them here is a violation of WP:OR:  clearly, when an article says that Chomsky's ideas about '70's era news media coverage of Cambodia is flawed, it does not necessarily say anything about the theory itself.  Just as an erratic Mercurial orbit doesn't invalidate the theory of Relativity, so also one or two people's opinions about media coverage of Cambodia doesn't address the Propaganda Model.
 * H&C made predictions and claims about the media coverage of Cambodia based on their theory. The 3 last sources criticizes this based on empirical examination of the media coverage. This is sourced criticism which must be included per NPOV. The question of when a theory should be reject due to contrary evidence is a philosophical one, but such contrary evidence should certainly be mentioned when discussing the theory.
 * The last 3 sources do not purport to criticize or analyze any aspect of the Propaganda Model but are instead criticisms of Chomsky's overall approach as a social scientist; they mention the Propaganda Model only very briefly -- as a small part of his academic activity and do not make any criticisms of the theory itself -- are not relevant to any section which purports to discuss criticisms of the Propaganda Model per se.  You are re-interpreting their research and putting your own words and meaning into papers.  That is a violation of WP:SYN, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. For the record, there are these paragraphs from the page, where i have highlighted your own language and subtracted the quotations from your sources:
 * Chomsky and Herman claimed that the... In response, Jamie Frederic Metzl analyzed relevant media reporting and concluded that media coverage on Cambodia at the beginning of 1977 had in fact all but disappeared. Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model suggests that the crimes of United States enemies will be highlighted, and crimes of the West will be downplayed. If this were true, one would expect that the number of articles discussing the crimes of the Khmer Rouge would exceed the number discussing the American bombing.....

This is clearly a violation of WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Again:


 * Sophal Ear lists several more contradicting studies. Accuracy in the Media (AIM) found that for 1976, there were many times more stories and editorials by the New York Times and the Washington Post on the condition of human rights in South Korea and Chile than there were on Cambodia, Cuba, and North Korea, combined. Further examination of the media by William Shawcross...reveals that, contrary to Chomsky and Herman, many reporters covering Cambodia were actually sympathetic to the Khmer Rouge. Shawcross also tackles charge of bias which Chomsky and Herman level against the media. The bias concerned differential coverage of East Timor versus Cambodia. In East Timor, the Indonesian government had allegedly killed 200,000...Chomsky and Herman asserted....Chomsky and Herman argued that the media did not cover the East Timor massacres because Indonesia, a country friendly to the U.S., was the perpetrator. Shawcross suggests instead that....

Again: clear violations of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Nowhere is Shawcross quoted on anything regarding the Propaganda Model; Instead, regarding the Propaganda Model we have only your own personal opinions about what the implications are. And, once again:


 * Bruce sharp also examines the reporting in the media at the time and draws results contradictory to the theory....

Once again, this is followed by a quotation which nowhere mentions the Propaganda Model, nor is quoted from a context that does. That is WP:OR and WP:SYN, and clearly undertaken as an exercise to see how far you can push WP:NPOV. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the sources you provide doesn't even mention the Propaganda Model at all; one cannot get a clearer violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN than that.
 * Does not explictly use C&H name "Propaganda model" but uses other descriptions "As Bruce Sharp asserts, Chomsky created his theory of the Free Press and from then on sought only evidence that would support it. Together with Herman, Chomsky painted all other contrary evidence with wide strokes of the same color: imperialist media propaganda and disinformation"
 * If it does not explicitly mention the propaganda model then it simply is not criticizing the propaganda model; to use your Einstein analogy above:  one cannot criticize the Theory of Relativity unless one mentions the Theory of Relativity.  Re-interpreting material that does not directly address the theory in question is original research.  Case closed. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You refuse to take out clearly POV language, thus violating WP:NPOV. The propaganda model nowhere says anything about "far left views", and similarly says makes no predictions whatsoever about "the views of chomsky" -- or herman, or any other individual.  Including references back to "the far-left views of Chomsky" is clearly an interjection of POV language into what should be a neutral article on the Propaganda Model.
 * Chomsky makes the claims that all mainstream media are biased and conservative, including what is usually called liberal newspapers. That leaves the far left as supposedly neutral and correct. I had suggested Anarchist views instead and still do, if you prefer. Regardless, that is no excuse for deleting everything.
 * Before i began deleting the material en masse, i re-wrote the material something between three and six times; each time, i replaced the NPOV language with something neutral.  Each time, you reverted the material, even after having the reasons explained to you repeatedly. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of the criticisms you have assembled that actually come from articles dealing with the Propaganda Model itself, they all come from a single article; the amount of material from that single article is close approaching half the amount of content of the entire Propaganda Model entry.  The theory itself has been the subject of two books, three articles, and referred to innumerable times in articles and books treating related subjects.  The criticisms you present come from a single article that's only some 30 or 40 pages long.  Either you need to do some pruning, or the article's content should be increased by a few megabytes or so.
 * That is icncorrect, all of the sourced material deal with the theory. There is no Wikipeida rule that article coverage should proportional to some supposed real-world word count. What is important is the arguments.
 * It is not incorrect; there is only a small bit of material you have presented which directly addresses the Propaganda Material in any fashion whatsoever, and that i have been willing to let stand since the beginning.  Unfortunately, you have continually tried to pad the entry with as many words as possible, even when those words are irrelevant and superfluous to the purpose of the entry or when they can be properly edited down to say the same thing, but more concisely, directly, and neutrally.  Instead of allowing fellow editors to cooperate with you to make the necessary revisions on the material, you have stubbornly reverted any and all attempts to make improvements, in the process fluffing up what should be a short commentary on the criticisms of a single source into quite near half the article's total length.  While i may be wrong, i do think that qualifies as "tendentious" editing.  Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Either you correct these problems or we will continue to remove the material. If you would like to take this to a higher authority then please -- start the RfC. It would be my great pleasure to plead my case there. Stone put to sky 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You disagree with some points. That is no excuse for removing all the material. I have already stated that I prefer mediation. If you want to start a RfC, I will certainly participate.Ultramarine 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, do start the RfC. The objections to the material -- listed above, in detail, several times, repeatedly -- have nothing to do with whether or not i "disagree" with some points; although i disagree with virtually all of them, i have attempted to preserve those which are relevant to the article and to re-work them so that they are consistent with WP:NPOV. I have pointed this out many times. If you capitulate under mediation there will be no formal record beyond this single page; with an RfC, there will be.

I would prefer that there be a record of our disagreement here, and so i am requesting an RfC in this matter. Stone put to sky 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What you have done repeatedly is removing all the sourced criticisms as can be seen in the page history. Again, if you want to start a RfC, then please do, I will participate.Ultramarine 10:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The record above and the history of the page plainly belie that assertion; i made good-faith edits and suggestions only to see them unceremoniously reverted. This current edit war began there. So, now that we are clearly at an impasse: are you going to start that RfC, or not? Stone put to sky 10:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some recent examples of you blanking the whole section with sourced criticisms: For RfC and other issues, see above.Ultramarine 10:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is awful. I've seen nonsense, spelling, and punctuation errors. The line about the propaganda model being a rehashing of "false consciousness" is absurd. Anyone who has read Chomsky knows he doesn't use any marxist methods of analysis, and Herman is an economist, of all things.

Id like to see a criticism section that deals with the propaganda model in a more scientific fashion. The American Enterprise Institute is not a center of scientific analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.20.191 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

* Jeffery Klaehn, "A critical review and assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’", European Journal of Communication, 17, pp.147–182, 2002. * John Corner, "Debate: The Model in Question – A Response to Klaehn on Herman and Chomsky", European Journal of Communication, 18, pp. 367-375, 2003 * Jeffery Klaehn, "Debate: Model Construction: Various Other Epistemological Concerns – A Reply to John Corner’s Commentary on the Propaganda Model", European Journal of Communication, 18, pp. 377-383, 2003. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Noam Chomsky and the Manufacture of Consent for American Foreign Policy." Political Communication, 21, pp.93-101, 2004. * Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, "Reply to Kurt and Gladys Engel Lang", Political Communication, 21, pp.103-107, 2004. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Response to Herman and Chomsky", Political Communication, 21, pp.109-111, 2004. * Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, "Further Reply to the Langs", Political Communication, 21, pp.113-116, 2004. * Kurt Lang and Gladys Engel Lang, "Afterword", Political Communication, Volume 21, Issue 1 January 2004, 21, p.117, 2004. * Edward S. Herman, "The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective", Against All Reason, Decenber 9, 2003. (first published in Journalism Studies, 1:1 (2000), pp. 101–12.) * Jeffery Klaehn, "Behind the Invisible Curtain of Scholarly Criticism: revisiting the propaganda model", Journalism Studies, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 359-369, 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everything Changes (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this section recount and/or cite the major criticisms and the literature that has responded to these critiques:


 * The short answer is Yes. The current section is low quality and includes criticism from dubious sources. Would you like to start again, writing the section from scratch? ~ smb 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gareth Morley argues in an article in Inroads: A Journal of Opinion that widespread coverage of Israeli mistreatment of protesters as compared with little coverage of similar (or much worse) events in sub-Saharan Africa is poorly explained. - apples and oranges? LamontCranston (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New York Times Critic
The Times writer points out the failure of the Reagan Administration to provide unconditional support for the Contras, citing this as a failure of the model, but surely the Iran-Contra affair discounts this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.168.130 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

More plagiarism
Under Conflicting studies, the following line (attributed to Jamie Frederic Metzl, but unquoted) appears...

...for example, a search for articles containing "Cambodia" in the heading yields only 28 matches, far short of the 150+ articles that discussed the bombing in 1973

However, this text has been lifted almost entirely from the work of Bruce Sharp, who writes identically...

for 1977, for example, articles containing "Cambodia" in the heading yields only 28 matches, far short of the 150+ articles that discussed the bombing in 1973

It appears that the majority of these edits were were made by User:Ultramarine in the month of June and July 2007. ~ smb 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Not the only article where User:Ultramarine lifts text verbatim without proper attribution. Several places in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I've left a few notes about this at his Talk page. Yakushima (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious wikilinking
Examples:
 * 1) United States media to United States media
 * 2) George W. Bush administration to George W. Bush administration is OK, but the later
 * "Bush administration" to Bush administration is bad.

&mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it really worth edit-warring over? --Elonka 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's more the principle, as Arthur was originally destroying a lot more links. But isn't it more relevant (given the context) to direct a user to United States media than either United States or media?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In principle, it would be, but United States media then redirects to Media of the United States, which primarily descripes the different types of media used in the United States, rather than the different media outlets. It would be more accurate to unlink media entirely, as it was before the set of mysterious Wikilinks was added.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Anti-Chomsky Reader
'Eli Lehrer, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and former editor of The American Enterprise magazine, contributed a critique of the Propaganda Model to The Anti-Chomsky Reader.'

This section either needs to be fleshed out to at least describe the criticism or it needs to be removed. 68.154.234.72 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is cited that it is in fact a specific criticism of this model, I don't see why this should be removed just for not describing the criticism in detail.--Gloriamarie (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

British Slant
Does anyone else notice the five points have a British slant, refering to British examples more often that not. Also when I added the reaction to news of the El Mozote Massacre to the Flak as an example, it was removed - why? LamontCranston (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed criticisms
I have looked through the history of this article. An enormous amount of sourced criticisms have been removed without due reason. See for example the long and sourced (although this is occasionally shown poorly) "Criticism" sections here:. The current version is clearly a sanitized version that is not neutral. I propose restoring the sourced criticisms. Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually that version of the criticism aside, there was I think a larger section talking about the different "generations" in critical reaction to the model which warrants some attention (or maybe it was on a different language wiki). From the consensus of the earlier discussion, most of the criticisms by Eli, Sharpe etc. never actually mentioned the model and were specifically attacking the book in the broader context of a critique of Chomsky's work, which isn't what this article is about.


 * I'll see if I can find the generational criticism, as it stands I don't see a need for the neutrality dispute since much of it was agreed on earlier. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See no consensus in the talk page discussions. The criticisms are clearly against the model and not other aspects of Chomsky's works. Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't think it's difficult to explain, the criticisms by Sharpe and Eli etc. talked about Chomsky's discussion on the media in general and the book Manufacturing Consent in particular but at no point did they actually mention anything about the model. CartoonDiablo (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is simply false. For example's Eli's criticisms begins with describing the model and naming it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well then I see a stand still, on the one hand are people claiming it's not and on the other there's your claim. From what I can tell media analysis isn't even mentioned in The Anti-Chomsky Reader article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the book instead. To quote from the book, on page 67 after describing the premises, "Collectively, these premises make up what Chomsky calls the 'Propaganda model'". Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Added the chapter to the The Anti-Chomsky Reader article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The old criticism section clearly had many problems (self-published sources, undue weight, etc). — ThePowerofX 22:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which source was self-published? How was the weight undue when the rest of the article is a long promotion? Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * References 12 (jim.com) and 13 (mekong.net) are self-published. The deleted section also contained original research, with people advancing points, and people refuting points, where the Propaganda Model is not explicitly mentioned or described (The Khmer Rouge Canon 1975-1979 by Sophal Ear and Western Responses to Human Rights Abuses in Cambodia, 1975-80 by Jamie Frederic Metzl). Presumably these sources were added because they were adduced by Bruce Sharp. Please take the necessary time to read the concerns of different editors where examples of plagiarism and WP:SYNTH have been identified. It doesn't take very long to understand why it was removed. — ThePowerofX 00:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The material at jim.com by Sophal Ear is an undergraduate thesis which may or not be a reliable source but it is not self-published. He is certainly attacking Chomsky's argumentation. Anyway, you are just criticizing some of the less important sources and not Eli Lehrer's material which is most of the section. Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Allow me to correct myself. The first is unreliable and the second is self-published. Then we have several problems described by other editors above and in the archive. — ThePowerofX 00:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Problems with some of the sources do not make all material problematic. One can restore the good parts while not restoring the bad parts. Let us just discuss the Eli Lehrer material for now. What is problematic with this material? Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well after looking through a lot of the problems I don't see why the Anti-Chomsky Reader criticism shouldn't be included provided its not terribly written, uses NPOV language etc. like in the previous edits. If you can do a decent job creating a sub-section than it's fine. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Eli Lehrer material seems to follow the source. What exactly was wrong with it? Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem including Eli Lehrer either, proving his criticism is kept to a reasonable length. Devoting six sub sections to one critic from the Heartland Institute is absurd. — ThePowerofX 12:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The text can be condensed into one or two paragraphs if needed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?
This was your idea of reasonable length and a proper criticism? Using POV language like "force-feed right-wing views" and devoting significantly more length than the other criticisms?

Also on a side note, I know Herman and Chomsky never directly addressed Eli Lehrer but most of the criticisms are straw men they have addressed elsewhere. For instance,


 * Nowhere does the propaganda model claim that media act as "soapboxes" for CEOs
 * Chomsky has pointed out that the media does report on corporate corruption because corruption is antithetical to powerful interests, what the media doesn't report on is legal empowerment (ie "corruption") of corporations.
 * It never even claimed to examine the entertainment media.
 * One of the biggest points that the propaganda model makes is that the media isn't monolithic so disagreements between the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are not only expected but explored in the book. The point of the model (as was mentioned in the book) is that all the interests and perspectives that are explored are still undemocratic.
 * Some seems contradictory, how can the murders of priests both be widely known and not reported on?
 * Herman and Chomsky have looked at the propaganda model's impact on the internet, and finally
 * The term "bewildered herd" was used disparagingly at Walter Lipmann, the person the came up with it, not at the people it's directed against.

I honestly don't know what to do with it at this point. My proposal is to strip it down to its main parts, remove the POV language and have some kind of indirect response. CartoonDiablo (talk) 13:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have sources for your claims, then please add them. Do not delete sourced arguments. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the rest of the article is supporting Chomsky's views in various ways so there is nothing wrong and completely in accord with NPOV to also have some detailed criticisms. Lehrer's criticisms contains many more arguments than those in the other sources so it is natural that it longer. NPOV is not an "equal space" policy. If it was, then all the pro-Chomsky material and argumentation in the rest of the article should be dramatically cut.Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't exactly call listing the claims of the model and giving examples and citations to how it influenced people etc. to be "supporting" it especially since there is significant criticism. The Lehrer criticism, if you pardon my POV I suppose, is actually way out of left field in using straw men that are addressed immediately in the book. The problem with including every single claim is it amounts to massive undue weight given the dubious noteworthiness of the Anti-Chomsky Reader and it might warrant a responses by Herman and Chomsky which would balloon the section further. That's why I chose to use the biggest underling points he made. This is also ignoring the blatant POV language like "force-feed right-wing views."


 * It's worth noting that this is the format that each criticism section follows, not just in this article but in general for all articles. The underling points are used, not every single point of criticism made. CartoonDiablo (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim that the criticisms are straw-mans but have presented no evidence with sources for this to be the case. If you have any with sources, then present it. Wikipedia should include the criticisms and counter-criticisms regarding a subject. The article contains a very large amount of material supporting the model but yet you oppose presenting some detailed opposing views? The article is still overwhelming pro-Chomsky! If you disagree from the language, which is stated to be the view of Lehrer and not an undisputed fact, then you should change the language and not delete the argument itself. Academica Orientalis (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I have, literally from page Ix of Manufacturing Consent. Secondly, the fact that the criticism section is smaller than the non-criticism sections, does not mean the article is "supporting" it or that it's "pro-Chomsky" who wasn't even the principled creator of the theory if you bothered to read the article. You might want to find a Wikipedia guideline where an article violates NPOV because its non-criticism section is bigger because no such guideline exists. And that aside the article does not violate NPOV, it simply summarizes the theory and gives examples and influences etc.


 * To get to your response to ThePowerofX, do you seriously think that every point the model makes is addressed in the article? The chapters on the five filters alone have dozens of examples (this is not even including chapters on examples), do you see dozens of examples for just the five filters' sections, or even in the entire article? If it were "equivalent" to including every single bullet point made by Lehrer the article might be five times as large as it is, that's why we use general points. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I have only see you respond to some of the points Lehrer but yet you deleted almost all the material. Most of which you have never responded to in any way. You have not given sources for most of the claims you make.
 * If there are information missing in some sections, then that is not an excuse for deleting information in another section.
 * Listing examples supposedly supporting the model, as well as claimed empirical support, are obviously pro-model arguments rather than an simple description of the model. If all this material was gathered in a "Support" section it would be very long.
 * There seem to have a double standard. Using the same arguments regading excessive length and so on much of the pro-model material should be deleted. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * All the "responses" to the main points are cited.
 * "Most" of the dozens of examples of the model are not included in the article, the fact that you incorrectly did so for Lehrer does not justify it. If you think I left out a major point to his thesis then by all means let it be known.
 * Those examples are the main ones given by the authors which is exactly what you would expect from an article on the propaganda model. To call that a violation of NPOV is ridiculous.
 * But lets use a counter hypothetical, lets say there was an elaborate article on the "Liberal media" which cited examples and evidence, would you seriously consider it doing so to be a violation of NPOV?
 * No there is not, as I've said over and over, if most of the examples were included the article might well be five times as large as it is now, it uses the exact same standards as the criticism. If anything, the double standard is to not include all the examples for the model but to include every single point Lehrer makes.


 * As far as I can tell, the assertions of NPOV violations are based on non-existent standards meaning there is no real dispute. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets see. Here is the deleted material: . You have never replied to, for example, the points regarding false consciousness, conservative radio shows, or bias against business in media. You have given no sources for some the claims you make, like that it has been applied to the internet media. Some of the so called counter-arguments are just your own thoughts, not the authors, like your idea regarding contradictions regarding the claims regarding priests.Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By now I hope it's clear the material was deleted based on only using the main points. The claim of "false consciousness" is the outcome or logical extension of his criticisms so obviously Herman and Chomsky can't address it. The point about conservative talk radio, the internet and priests was excluded for the same reason that entertainment was, they're minor points that the model doesn't even claim to examine (in the case of priests it was a minor point).
 * And in terms of anti-business bias it most certainly is examined:
 * "As well, the media report on and expose corporate corruption so they cannot be said to have a corporate bias...As well, Chomsky has said that while the media is against corruption, they are not against society legally empowering corporate interests which is a reflection of the powerful interests that the model would predict."
 * By this point I'm starting to doubt you even read the section, did you not see the citations for the responses? That is, the book and the Marr interview?


 * Let me just end a good deal of the discussion here by saying that badgering me about minor points that were excluded for the reasons I've said over and over again and claiming that things were not cited when they were stops here and will not be replied to. If you have any legitimate concerns about major points that were left out then please bring them up, do not digress this into something that's been addressed ad infinitum. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you have not responded except by WP:OR thoughts that the arguments are wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works. You seem to be arguing that everything you personally think are "minor point" should be excluded. Do the same apply to supporting points that I happen to think are "minor points"?

The Eli Lehrer section is lengthy for one individual. And what is with the bulletin points? If you can't summarise the main criticisms in one or two paragraphs then it shouldn't be here. — ThePowerofX 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is like arguing that there is too much pro-model material from just two individuals. The bullets can obviously simply be changed into sentences. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What you erroneously describe as "pro-model material" is neutral, descriptive content. How can we characterise The Propaganda Model if we are unable to describe it? It is perfectly fine to describe the subject matter using as much space as necessary. Criticism, however, should be weighed by the quality of each source. An academic review, for example, would be given more space than a single individual with strong political affiliations. — ThePowerofX 19:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims of supporting examples and supporting empirical research, which fill much of the article, are obviously pro-model material and not a neutral description of the theory. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The book provides various case examples. I have changed the section header to something more neutral. If you are not happy with precise wording then don't hesitate to point it out. — ThePowerofX 21:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Section header does not change my argument. Case examples are supporting evidence. If you think the criticism section is too long we could move some of the material to other sections that only have supporting views currently.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the book Manufacturing Consent provides these examples, and our job is to describe what the book says using neutral language. So if you have a problem with specific wording then kindly say so, but be careful not to mistake descriptive content as pro this-or-that. It's no different than saying our article on The Anti-Chomsky Reader is pro The Anti-Chomsky Reader because it describes the book in detail! Look at all that supporting text! — ThePowerofX 21:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no wikipedia policy whereby cases are "support" for the article and thus are a violation of NPOV. By that standard most of the Global Warming article would be deleted. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there no comparison between this theory and global warming. But we can still see that also for a well-supported model such as global warming there are separate sub-articles for controversies. If you do no think that the criticisms fit on the current page, then a sub-page could be created for such controversies. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing of NPOV dispute template
CartoonDiablo has removed the disputed template despite there being an ongoing dispute. As such it should be restored. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No because the dispute is over Wikipedia standards of NPOV that don't exist and alternatively, if you wish to implement such standards it would require consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV states that all significant views should be included. As I am arguing that such are excluded, there is a NPOV dispute. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV doesn't say anything about non-criticism sections as being NPOV "support" for the article which was your original point and by this standard all significant views are included. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that important criticisms are excluded which violates NPOV. Sections titles has nothing to do with this. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lehrer criticism exclusion
Here is every instance of me answering why I removed the points:


 * diff - "as I've said over and over"
 * diff - "I hope it's clear the material was deleted based on only using the main points"
 * diff - "that's why we use general bullets."
 * diff - "The underling points are used, not every single point of criticism made."

If you ask the same question again it will result in a probe into your behavior and possible sanctions. The fact is you have asked the same exact question four/five times a row, sometimes mixed with other questions. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not asked the same question and you have answered differently in different replies but still not satisfactorily. You have refused to give any complete explanations for why the criticisms should be removed. The NPOV dispute is ongoing so you should not remove the disputed template.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's not the same question then what would be the problem with me answering differently (which I didn't do)? The fact is, for reasons of WP:Weight we only use the main points, not every single one used by the authors. This is, again, another bit of evidence, if not an admission, that you are only asking the same question as a form of disruption. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Weight says nothing about excluding important arguments. Furthermore, you are not presenting the main arguments but excluding them completely.Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright this has gone long enough, we are putting this into dispute resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Simplified way to cite the book
One of the biggest problems in the article is the lack of citation from a lot of the sections. I think it's best to use this section for codes on citing the book.

Here is the template with everything filled out except page numbers:



CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is those wanting to insert or keep something that should be provide the sources. If that is you, then you should provide the source. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It was done for whoever wanted to provide a source, myself included. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A proposal
I propose we mention the criticisms in more detail in the The Anti-Chomsky Reader article while only linking to it in this article and stating that the criticisms are presented in more detail there. Thoughts? Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Propaganda model". Thank you. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Kofi Annan
I quote from the article: "Kofi Annan and Richard Perle have said the Iraq War is illegal,[14][15] but this was never mentioned in the US media."

This is incorrect, Kofi Annan's stance on the Iraq War was mentioned on US television as seen in the following youtube video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EitbzTAJWws

Could someone please edit the article accordingly?

Thanks, anon


 * One mention doesn't change anything. You'd need hundreds just to make a blip. Even if the coverage was 50/50 it would still be biased because it's creating a false equivalency - it is illegal, and there's no debate.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.39.4 (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Annan Picture
I've removed the Annan picture due to the false caption that went along with it. The caption stated that "Kofi Annan and Richard Perle have said the Iraq War is illegal," which was correctly supported with two citations, but then it added "[but this was never mentioned in the US media," which was not supported with citations. That's probably because it's not true.--137.54.5.203 (talk) 14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Propaganda model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603191844/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060219145112/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200202.pdf to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/200202.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425061059/http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/?p=140 to http://www.fifth-estate-online.co.uk/?p=140

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations removed

 * 34 strings of at least 10 words from this (longest string) (longest string being 55 words)
 * 3 strings of at least 10 words from this (longest string being 19 words)

Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)