Talk:Propaganda model/Archive 1

Rewrite
The previous version of the article was extremely poor and barely intelligible. I have rewritten it completely. If you feel I left something valuable behind, by all means merge it with the new version. Sir Paul 07:09, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It probably belongs under communism or Marxist theory. --68.45.161.241 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

patrick lelay quote
The old link http://actu.voila.fr/Article/article_multimedia_040709152529.oiggf44w.htm no longer works (and someone removed it from the article). i'll see if i can find another link, because even if this has been quoted fairly widely in France, it's best to have a direct link if possible... Boud 15:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. For the record's sake, i'll put the original French here (yes, of course, this should go to the fr.wikipedia, i'm just too lazy to translate the full (en) article right now and integrate it properly in the (fr) one - the problem is that there is already a good article fr:propagande and i'm not (yet) sure if translating the whole chomsky/herman model makes sense. Probably, yes,...).

From this url

The book name:
 * "Les dirigeants face au changement" (Editions du Huitième jour).

The citation:
 * Il y a beaucoup de façons de parler de la télévision. Mais dans une perspective business, soyons réaliste : à la base, le métier de TF1, c'est d'aider Coca-Cola, par exemple, à vendre son produit. ... Or pour qu'un message publicitaire soit perçu, il faut que le cerveau du téléspectateur soit disponible. Nos émissions ont pour vocation de le rendre disponible : c'est-à-dire de le divertir, de le détendre pour le préparer entre deux messages. Ce que nous vendons à Coca-Cola, c'est du temps de cerveau humain disponible. ...

Just a side comment. I was under the impression that much of the mainstream media was harshly critical of the Reagan policy in Central America, and many news outlets did question whether the Contras should be considered as freedom fighters or terrorists kept alive solely by the CIA. Of course, I wasn't alive during the time, but I've looked in some archives and it seems to be the case. It certainly doesn't seem like the Times or other prominent news sources were trying to indoctrinate Americans into anti-Sandinista fervor. Trey Stone 06:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * That's surprising. Can you give references and/or quote a mainstream article extract criticising intervention?  Chamaeleon 12:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Critique - Ethnocentric
The article doesn't seem to account for the fact that portions of the Propaganda Model is ethnocentric and deterministic - you could not, say, apply the ownership filter to the British or European media scene which is, for historical reasons, organised very differently. It also overshoots journalistic autonomy almost entirely, assuming to some degree that professional ethics are either equal to that of the corporation, or irrelevant. Snooo 18:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, it is based on the US situation. The US is not an ethnicity or race, so it is not "ethnocentric".  It is, however, mostly applicable to the US media, and that is a valid criticism.  If you can find an academic paper pointing this out, then you should mention it in the article.  Do not fail to notice, however, that with a few tweaks the Propaganda Model is indeed universal.


 * Journalistic autonomy and ideology is covered by the fifth filter: the ideology of the journalist, which includes a lot of internalised system-supporting values.


 * "Deterministic" is probably one of the most meaningless epithets out there. You might as well call it "gay".  It is a term used to describe any theory that seeks to explain something that the critic does not want explained.  Chamaeleon 14:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And 'Universal' is not equally a meaningless epithet? Not all media suits a propaganda model. I am not claiming that the propaganda model is not valid, in some contexts it certainly is. But in some contexts it is invalid. Snooo 00:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the fourth filter covering for journalistic ethics, there is much evidence to show that, in some cases, journalistic ethics may run opposed to dominate ideology or the proprietors wishes. A good example is the resistence of British Observer journalists to Tiny Rowland's attempts to change the news agenda to suit his business' interests. Snooo 18:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No, "universal" means that if I go to Uganda and discover that the media are largely in the hands of big corporations and greatly rely on advertising revenue, then I would expect to see bias towards the interests of these people in the same way as we see bias in the US.


 * The fifth filter is journalists' beliefs. It is quite rightly put after the other four, both in terms of its negative effects (elite bias is caused more by the other four) and its positive effects (as shown by the fact that those Observer journos are the exception rather than the rule). Chamaeleon 14:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment
The current article seems to be a parroting of Chomsky's views, which doesn't seem neutral to me. Patrickdavidson 00:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Suggest improvements instead of complaining. Chamaeleon 11:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well surely there ought to be a section 'Criticism of the Propaganda model'. Contrary to what Chomsky says there has been serious criticism (I don't count criticism by loonbats like Horowitz et al, i mean serious criticism). I'll write the section of no one else wants to........BScotland.

implications/criticisms of the Propaganda Model
Shouldn't we be transcribing the nature of the propaganda model (PM), and then later as an exstension the particular crtiques (such as the charge of 'determinism'). In Neccesary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies (1989) Chomsky maintains that the PM refers to 'democratic' institutions rather than explicitly US institutions - the plurality in the title of the latter book suggests this. This seems to be Chomsky's firm position - that the PM is inherent within a wider system. I think perhaps to mention his position (possibly Herman's too?)would convey a more accurate description.

Also, there is indeed room for a discussion of criticism of the model, indeed I content it is necessary to understand the PM fully, in Neccesary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies (1989) Chomsky describes the various strands of criticism directed towards the PM (see appendixes 1-3) and his frank discussion is crucial in understanding an implied logic of the PM: that the 'democratic' (Chomsky's quotes, not mine) institutions will dismiss the PM through various tactics. In other words the PM predicts the institutions have an inbuilt bias and further cannot aknowledge that bias - Chomsky maintains that unaknowledgment of the PM occurs in -

1. ignoring cited cases of propaganda that exposes 'atrocities' carried out by the 'democratic' institutions, or at least where the institutions are to some extent (perhaps tacitly) involved. (e.g in ignoring comments about Vietnam)

2. Making occasional passing references to 'atrocities' cited that do not involve (to a lesser degree)the 'democratic' institutions (e.g the IRA)

3. The highest level of 'recognition' (not so much in the findings of the PM but rather in its existance) occurs in 'atrocities' carried out by 'enemies' of the 'democartic' institutions (or what Chomsky calls states that do not serve the said institutions) where the institutions refute claims of unfair reporting (e.g the Soviets war in Afghanistan).


 * I put quotation marks arround 'democracy' to highlight the disparity of definitions. The forementioned findings are crucial implications to the PM and its 'relationship' to citicism: the logic being that for the institutions to conform to the PM they would be required not to aknowledge the findings - through the said methods of complete ignorance/slim akmowledgment/complete refussion.

Does anyone think there are any particular problems with the above, with the condition of using direct quotations to confirm the implications? To me, a mention of citicisms are important - particularly when we consider the actual topic at the heart of the study - one criticism of the propaganda model might be that it is itself a form of propaganda (indeed, according to Chomsky - this is a necessary crticism that the institutions need to perpetuate, this too conforms to the PM). Indeed, I consider the notion of repression important here (in a marxist sense), accordingly the institutions will repress the PM. Repression might be a criticism in a different sense: to repress the findings of the PM would confirm its validity, whilst to recognise the findings would too (or would it!?) Paradoxically, would the PM also have to recognise its own inherent propaganda to validitate itself?

- there is considerable room for discussion on these topics, but to my mind acheiving a Npov would be hard because of the nature of the topic at hand, though the nature of wikipedia is surely the best place for a discussion of this nature (a domain free, to a larger extent, from the 'institutional repression': in short I argue that an accurate overview of the implications of the PM have and the criticisms. (N.Coleman)


 * I think a summary of the criticisms of the propaganda model would be useful. It does not apply in every single sinario and, due to the emphasis on the american media model, requires subtle modification to be applicable to other media landscapes. One problem I find is that there is little disscusion within the model of what could be a better alternative. On your propaganda point, there is always an assumption in leftist critiques of the media that there is a valid truth to defend - this valid truth could also be put up to question.


 * I don't think the Propaganda Model isn't valid, but it is over a decade old and this article, as it stands, does not cover any possible shortcomings within the framework. Snooo 18:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally just for clarification: in the Bruce Sharp article I quoted from, he does NOT mention Karl Popper or Induction. What he does say (in this article here: http://jim.com/canon.htm) is 'The mistake that I think Noam Chomsky makes is a pretty common one. He has formulated a theory about collusion between the government and the media, and he looks for evidence to support his theory ... To emphasize: he looks for evidence to support his theory. He doesn't simply examine evidence objectively. He seeks out evidence that supports his theory, and disregards evidence that tends to dispute it.' Sophal Ear says the same: The empirical process was turned upside down, first came theory, followed by evidence.'.

I have interpreted this as Sharp and Ear saying that the Propaganda Model(PM) is essentially unfalsifiable (or at least unfalsifiable by Chomsky and Herman). They (according to Sharp and Ear) never look for evidence that might contradict or falsify the theory, but only ever look for evidence that supports it. So to say that this is part of Popper's critique of inductivism is propblematic. On the contrary, they are really saying that Chomsky and Herman aren't inductive ENOUGH: they start off with a theory and never look for evidence that might contradict the theory. Another problem, I might add, is that Chomsky doesn't seem to understand that theories (especially in the social sciences) tend to be underdetermined. Even if the PM explained all the evidence, this doesn't mean that another theory might not explain all the evidence as well (or better than) the PM. For example it might be argued that the difference in death tolls and the difficulty of reaching East Timor, might explain the difference between coverage of Cambodia and East Timor as well as (or better than) the PM. As well as being underdetermined theories in the social sciences tend to be overdetermined (polycausal). Chomsky and Herman tend to assume that the news we get is mono-causal: i.e. PM causes 'News'. But in reality there may be many many causes for an individual news story, of which various aspects of the PM might only be one. 86.3.29.137 13:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"...they start off with a theory and never look for evidence that might contradict the theory." If Harman and Chomsky had significant counter examples, they wouldn't have proposed the model. Both authors are well known scholars and wouldn't put forth a model that they had privately falsified.

"Another problem, I might add, is that Chomsky doesn't seem to understand that theories (especially in the social sciences) tend to be underdetermined."

A theory may be underdetermined, by that's why you construct an argument. The force of an argument is in demonstrating that the theory is consistent with observation. It's up to critics of the theory to demonstrate the flaw. Incidently, Universal Grammar pretty much gets started with an observation that the languages that humans learn are underdetermined by the data provided from experience. So I would say Chomsky understands underdetermination pretty well.

"Even if the PM explained all the evidence, this doesn't mean that another theory might not explain all the evidence as well (or better than) the PM."

This is how analytic thought works, a model is proposed and if a new model makes it obsolete it either rejected or subsumed.

Nothing here seems to challenge the PM model in particular. More like a general critique of systematic inquiry of any kind.

Azymuthca 11:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

TDC recent edits
Chamaeleon has objected to my recent edits claiming that the model is not disputed. All one has to do is go the the main Noam Chomsky article to see that there are many critics of Chomsky's propaganda model.

And since Chamaeleon brought it up, I now feel obliged to include a much more detailed and specific criticism section on the propaganda model, so as to respond to Chamaeleon’s contention that no one disagrees with it and all parts of the model are uncontroversial.

Sometimes you really should leave well enough alone. TDC 20:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

what is source for 75% of "profits" of NT times comes from advertising?
I was a little surprised at this statement. Shouldn't it be "revenue"? --Silverback 01:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be. How much do you think the profits would be?  Chamaeleon 09:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the quantity of profits, but that profits are not usually allocated to revenue sources. It would take some strange permutation on cost accounting that would be subjective, especially since it is a non-linear situation, yes it may be cheaper to get more advertising than to get more subscriptions, but without the subscriptions there would be nothing to attract the advertisers.  Chomsky and the other guy would be incorrect to use profit rather than revenue in this circumstance.  Can you provide evidence that they made this error?--Silverback 19:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Best ask whoever originally put that in the article. In any case, crudely put, profits are revenues minus costs.  If NY Times rake in, say, $25m from sales and $75m from ads, that's 75% of $100m revenues from ads.  If they have costs equal to half of their revenues, then they have profits of $50m and 75$ of that is due to ads.  You can't say that more of the costs were due to making the news than to printing the ads, because &mdash; as you say &mdash; there is no such separation: they couldn't sell the ad space if they didn't have a newspaper, etc.  Change the wording to "revenue" if you believe it is the word that economists would prefer, but I don't believe it makes any difference on the ground. Chamaeleon 19:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This issue is extremely dependant on how the New York Times Co structures varying income and operating expenses from different divisions and revenue sources. Revenue sources require some form of investment to have them generate revenue. Some revenue sources provide a higher return on investment than others. Multiple revenue streams of varying return provide a business with a more broad income base. Overall, income vs expenses is not directly proportional to the individual micro-components that make up those macro values. But, by your logic, the actual "profits", since they are the same proportion to revenues, are not even 75%, but 60.99% in 2004 and 60.18% in 2003 . TDC 23:46, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I may have stumbled onto something, if the 75% number comes from the book, it should be easy enough to verify whether or not this is true. What do you want to bet that Chomsky has once again deliberately misrepresented a source? The answer to this will be found out very shortly. TDC 23:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Although Marxoid types believe they possess a deep and rich understanding of economics, I think this clearly shows otherwise. TDC 01:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Les dirigeants face au changement citation, original research
Am I to assume that the quote from the president of TF1 has been specifically mentioned by Chomsky or Herman as being evidence of the funding filter of "the propaganda model", or is this just another example of original research? TDC 23:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call a quotation from a major TV boss "original research" here, but I don't mind if it's taken out. It will be put back in though, if anything attacking the Model is added. Chamaeleon 11:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You are just too cute sometimes! Seriously though, it does not matter what you consider original research. If someone other than yourself has used the above citation from Les dirigeants face au changement in some an academic work or polemic, then it can stay. Otherwise, bye bye. Oh, and nice threat about the attacking the Model, that just provides me with all the more reason to make this criticism section my piece de resistance.TDC 18:26, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read what original research is: WP:NOR - However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Let's repeat that: collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged.
 * Original research would be if, for example, i was the person interviewing Patrick Le Lay and writing the book, and the book was not actually published, and i expected other wikipedia people to trust me that i was correctly reporting what Patrick Le Lay stated. That would be original research. But that is not the case.
 * If the organizing and collecting of information is wrong, i.e. if Le Lay's quote has nothing to do with finansing of the media, then it would be justified to remove it. But that is also not the case IMHO. Boud 02:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If this were a more general article on the media, then I don’t think there would be a problem with the inclusion of this quote. But since this deals with a specific theory, the "Propaganda model", adding material that seems to support it without a proper citation claiming as much, would be, IMO, OR. The information is not being added to inform, in this case, it is being added to support the model. Ten Dead Chickens 16:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * i'll cite again from WP:NOR: collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. If you do not like WP:NOR, then please try to explain to people why the policy should be changed. Boud 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I too, will cite the relevant section again: "It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." /'


 * The application of either the TF1 statement or the truthout article constitutes this. This article deals with a specific theory and the material added is being used to support specific tenants of this theory. These particular examples act to support the Propaganda model theory and, as such, must be attributed to someone who uses them for this purpose. This is not informative information, this is being used to support the argument, and as such is a violation of WP:NOR unless it can be attributed to someone who uses these specific examples in this manner. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The article on the Great Disappointment cites Cognitive Dissonance as an example of a failed prophecy in a religious context: the Great Disappointment. Whoever introduced this did not make the connection themselves. Cognitive Dissonance, like the Propaganda Model is a specific theory and when examples are going to be applied to it, they need to attributed to someone notable who has made the connection; in that case of the Great Disappointment and CD it was James T. Richardson, not the editor who added it. In the case of this particular article, the TF1 statement, while a seemingly good example, must be attributed to someone as such, otherwise it falls under the  statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position portion of WP:NOR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Torturous Devastating Cudgel's point here, and agree partly with his objection. Therefore, I have removed the phrase, "An example is that" so that the two examples (TF1 and the government-produced videos) are provided as related facts without any claims that they are actual instances of the article's subject matter. This does not violate the passage of WP:NOR to which TDC refers. Publicola 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

parent conglomerate ownship filter
When reporting news involving their parent conglomerates, media companies are required to disclose the relationship, thus alerting viewers/readers to the possible conflict of interest. --Silverback 09:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disclosure
no, but disclosure allows the listener to decide whether it is propoganda or not, and makes the broadcasters more conscious of what they are doing and perhaps more careful


 * Does every Fox News broadcast begin with an announcement in which it is pointed out that Rupert Murdoch has control of the network, and, being very rich, has an interest in tax cuts for the rich (to take one specific example) and (in general) the maintenance of the status quo? If not, it is not sensible to suggest that the ownership filter is seriously diminished by anaemic disclosure laws. Chamaeleon 14:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You should look at the scope of the ownership filter as described in this article. It just has to do with news that impacts the owning conglomerate, it isn't generalized to all news.  There are disclosures quite often when news impacts the owning conglomerate, or one of its direct competitors, such a mergers, regulatory changes, etc.  Business related news is tightly regulated, not only is ownership of the media outlet disclosed, but commentators of the various stocks are required to disclose any position they hold in the stock, and the interviewer explicitly asks for this disclosure.--Silverback 14:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You are assuming a difference between "news that impacts the owning conglomerate" (by which you perhaps imagine news that mentions it by name) and "all news" (by which you perhaps mean coverage of wars, etc, not directly to do with the corporation). There is no such difference: the most important form of bias is the general Weltanschauung that is pushed.  Chamaeleon 14:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You appear to be taking an argument they make regarding "certain information", and trying to generalize it to all information. Rich people are shareholders in the other conglomerates, and yet the other networks didn't favor tax cuts for the rich.  By taking your interpretation, the theory is robbed of its predictive value.--Silverback 15:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that all such powerful people would necessarily make their media outlets actively advocate that specific goal on which they have a conflict of interest (tax cuts for the rich). I just said that there was such a conflict of interest and cast doubt on the idea that any media outlet anywhere would ever publicly (i.e. daily on their TV show or newspaper) admit the fact that such conflicts existed.  In reality, they admit to only a subset of their conflicts, and the info is kept largely secret.  Fox News, to take one example, does manage to find the space to claim more than daily that they are "fair and balanced" etc, whereas they inform viewers about their conflicts of interest much, much less, if at all.  Chamaeleon 19:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

removal of qoutes
The old version of the article with the quotes from the authors is more sensible. And I don't think it has anything to do with NPOV. It would be better to revert the changes. Alex 14:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The removal of the quotes was done where the authors point was already expressed in the preceding paragraph. To add quotes, which basically reinforces the prior explanation, is overkill and not encyclopedic. TDC 14:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The quotes make it easier to understand the explantion. Either make the explanations clearer, or put the quotes back there. Alex 14:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that the explanations are more than clear without the quotes. And as I said, an article so heavily laden with quotes is extremely unencyclopedic. But if you need clarification, open up a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, go to an article and note the lack of long winded quotations. TDC 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Diffiuclt to access East Timor...
"whereas it was more difficult to access East Timor." Well now that’s not entirely true, there were 6 journalists operating out of Australia who got there easily enough...of course 5 of them were brutally slaughtered by the Indonesians during their invasion and the 6th was summarily executed, without trial naturally, when he went looking for them a few weeks later. -- LamontCranston 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This article applies the Propaganda Model to the Canadian media coverage of East Timor:
 * 1) Jeffery Klaehn, "Corporate Hegemony: A Critical Assessment of the Globe and Mail’s News Coverage of Near-Genocide in Occupied East Timor 1975–80", Gazette, Vol. 64(4): pp.301–321, 2002.

Why is the ownership filter increased by shareholder control?
It seems to me that shareholder control is more remote and less involved that private ownership. Their point doesn't make sense.--Silverback 09:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "[the giant media companies] have legislative and regulatory needs in Washington. They have the imperative of increasing stockholder value. What we've learned in the last 25 to 35 years is that this creates all kinds of potential pressures and influences on what news consumers get." -- Dan Rather October 9th 2006
 * But hey that's just Dan Rather, can't trust him right? And the very notion of a corporation attempting to increase the value of their stock is so insane it isn't even worthy of contemplation. LamontCranston 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

People try to act in their own best interests
People try to act in their own best interests. And this book and theory spell out the consequences of that in datail in the setting of commercial "news". Its less of a theory and more of commonsense results of application of known facts.4.250.168.238 13:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. If someone can point to a period in history when the bulk of people weren't controlled by a comparatively small group I would like to hear it. The theory doesn't seems to say there is a vast conspiracy, just that in general wealthy and powerful individuals try to spin information so it sounds best for them. This is probably true in a general sense but is it true in specific?, is there evidence of actions designed to subvert truth (eg: bribes of journalists, covering up of stories or facts on orders of higher ups, intimidation of various types?). What about examples of journalists going to jail for refusing to divulge sources for example?, or expose's on homelessness?, or the working conditions of people working in foreign sweatshops?, or the Enron scandal? etc. etc. And a point made briefly in earlier on the talk page, what about the internet?, it seems pretty open to non-mainstream viewpoints to me, is it controlled by the propaganda model?, and if so how?. And when was the media controlled by anyone but the wealthy and the goverment?. The point seems to me that if these things described in the propaganda model are actually occuring, so what?. If they are occuring naturally and without controls then they weren't created by us and can't be turned off by us, they are just a part of democratic capitalism. And if they are being controlled by the government or business interests in a quantifiable way then I am going to need evidence showing its not just a rather generic left-wing conspiracy theory. Colin 8 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Theory?
The Propoganda Model is not a theory. A theory is simply guesswork without substanciation. The PM is based on research by Chomsky, etc. Therefore it should not be called a theory. More of a method of anaylsis of media functionality.

It's very important to remember that in the hard sciences, it's a hypothesis that is more of a guess, backed by experience. Once you test a hypothesis with some formal evidence gathering, it can, if it conforms to the evidence, become a theory. It would usually be changed in the process as well. Just by reading Chomsky and Herman you can see that they went throough various formulations and are content with it. It is a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.20.191 (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"A theory is simply guesswork without substanciation" oh wow, you've been to the Christian School of Debating haven't you? A 'theory' is "A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena" & "A field of study attempting to exhaustively describe a particular class of constructs" – Exactly what the Propaganda Model does. You however make the word ‘theory’ out to be something Bubba and I thought up last night while cooking Ice and dynamiting for fish. - LamontCranston 22:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You however make the word ‘theory’ out to be something Bubba and I thought up last night while cooking Ice and dynamiting for fish, thats actually a pretty fair assesment of what Chomsky and Herman have put together. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh? Could you provide an example or two? LamontCranston 13:27, 02 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm sure, In 1976, the New York Times, one of the primary examples of the model published 66 articles on Chile’s human rights record and four on Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge and only 3 such articles on the human rights situation in Cambodia. A similar patter was seen untill 1980, when it became impossible to deny. Tell me again how this points to the anti communist bias? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So your only contention is with the 5th and final qualifier, anti-communism/ideology? And based on that, you consider the whole thing bunk? LamontCranston 15:43, 02 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, judging by the quality of his response i'd hafta say it looks like you've managed to sum up his entire understanding of science, research, theory, and evidence in a nutshell, there, Lamont. Stone put to sky 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

presence of journalists
In the "criticism" section the underreporting of the genocide in East Timor in comparison to Cambodia is explained by pointing to the fact that journalists were already present in the Combodja region. This argument is fallacious because, as Chomsky himself has pointed out many times, these same "present reporters" were not reporting the clandestine US bombings of Eastern Combodia after 1969. The first one of the horrific genocides the Cambodians had to endure in a decade.

So, obviously the presence of reporters cannot have been the crucial factor for the difference in reporting of the two genocides.

--- Depends what you mean by 'crucial factor': whether journalists can physically reach an area is certainly a factor which affects the extent to which they can cover a story: whether it is a (or the) 'crucial' factor is a subjective call. This cuts both ways, incidentally. For example, it is generally agreed that in '76 and '77 coverage of Khmer Rouge atrocities in the West diminished. There are doubtless many reasons for this but one of them (surely) is that at this point the KR greatly tightened up border controls and journalists simply found it difficult to get access to Cambodia. Coverage zoomed up again in '78 and '79. In the same way journalists had not one but three major problems in covering East Timor: First, getting into Indonesia itself (which was at this time a fascist regime run by Suharto), then getting to East Timor (an island, let's never forget) and then escaping Indonesian death squads (as the commentator above points out). Even at its worst, in Cambodia people could still escape from the country and journalists could talk to refugees, but in East Timor hardly anyone got off the island, and so journalists had no one (or very few people) to talk to.

This is not a 'one off': Chomsky's approach here derives directly from his philosophy of science and view of what constitutes an 'explanation'. He has been tireless in advocating a Galilean/Newtonian/Cartesian view of the social sciences, in which they should model themselves as much as possible on physics (i.e. physics as seen by Newton or Einstein). In other words, he sees social phenomena (like natural phenomena) as resulting from essentially simple, deterministic laws (or models). In other words, he likes simple explanations for complex problems: for example: 'how can we learn language?': answer, 'Language Acquiring Device'.

Chomsky is perfectly happy to accept that large aspects of human behaviour is not amenable to this kind of analysis, but he simple draws a line round this 'stuff' and says 'well this is a chaos that science will never understand'. The question is: is 'why do we get the news we do' in the first or second category? Is it, in other words, a complex problem with a simple solution (i.e. the propaganda model) or a complex problem with many many different, complex solutions? Chomsky tends to assume that it is in the first category, which may be true or false or whatever, but is still an assumption which must be argued for. User: BScotland
 * The Balibo Five got into East Timor just fine, same goes for a 6th journalist that went looking for them (East Timor is just a short flight from Darwin), while getting out was a different matter of course...Amy Goodman & Allan Nairn got in and out in 1991. And for a 'fascist regime', Gerald Ford & Henry Kissinger had no problem flying to Jakarta to meet with Suharto to personally arrange the invasion and occupation, their only requirement being that it not start until they had left the country. While Clinton employed every trick in the book through the 1990s to continue supplying arms and funds for what was going on. LamontCranston

I don't think this is the place to be arguing the Propaganda Model, either for or against. The Criticisms section should be left alone, and reduced to simple, one- or two-sentence summaries of the positions taken. However, i'd suggest that all criticisms be held to a single standard: they must make specific mention of the Propaganda Model. If they do, then they may be allowed to stand. If they don't, however, then they are general criticisms of Chomsky/Herman and are not allowable.

Similarly, there should not be any extrapolation from what people are "obviously" talking about to widely acknowledged definitions or gossip about what the Propaganda Model is or isn't. Instead, only specific instances where people mention the Propaganda Model, kept to summaries that are as brief as can be managed while still communicating the general idea.

Personally, i'm a big fan of the Propaganda Model, and i think it's a valuable theoretical tool. For the sake of the page, though, we mustn't allow a single section to get bogged down in "he said, she said, but that's not right, but some complain...." crap. Stone put to sky 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia NPOV is laughable
Wikipedia is not NPOV. Every not mainstream topic is flooded by a criticism section, whereas mainstream POVs are hardly ever critizised. In this article the size of the criticism section is totally disproportinate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.59.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'bewildered herd' language is a quote from Walter Lippman, not Chomsky/Hermann
Chomsky often quotes any number of past public relations/advertising/political people in referring to the public. 'the bewildered herd' is just one of the many terms. so, at least that bullet point is a fraud and should be removed immediately.

The bullet point references the 'anti-chomsky reader' book, not the source of the alleged quote - the reason for this is because the source of the quote itself will in fact be quoted - pointing to the fact that it is used in reference to Walter Lippman's term for the public, and is not a direct quote of Chomsky/Hermann. --shmooth- (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons begin...
Above, with "Criticisms' Section". My latest edit was undertaken on that basis. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See earlier discussions above.Ultramarine (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section Clarity
The current version of this section begins with a single sentence"Eli Lehrer, former editor of the The American Enterprise at the American Enterprise Institute, has criticized the theory on several points."

This implies that the rest of the criticism section is simply what one dude says about the theory. Is that correct? If not, can we get a better intro to the section. If so, can we get more points of view than one guy's on problems with the theory? Lot49a (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I removed the Lehrer section. His opinion was given undue weight, as his views occupies as space as the non-criticism parts. American Enterprise Institute is not a reliable source. It's a neo-con think tank. They are like the masters of media manipulation. It's obvious that they are biased. Critism should come from respected and less baised scientific analysis institution as stated by someone above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baller92 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also concur. This section - the way is formatted and written - is completely unencyclopedic. Two or three quick examples:
 * "The theory ignores revelations by the media of government and corporate misconduct..." This should be attributed to Eli Lehrer of the AIE.
 * "Chomsky neglects that major media such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times sharply disagree on most issues in their editorials." Ditto, needs to be attributed to Lehrer.
 * "Critics claim the model is inconsistent..." Who exactly? Is it merely Lehrer again? If so, it needs to be expressed clearly.
 * "When commenting, he [Chomsky] seems to have a poor knowledge of the Internet..." According to whom - Lehrer?
 * It's not acceptable to fleetingly reference a single critic and then write in a style that can be easily misinterpreted by the reader. The section also lacks sources and reeks of undue weight. In addition, the subsection on Indonesia is supported by a single reference (this ). Not once does it mention the Propaganda model. For these reasons and more, and as other editors agree, the section should be removed. ~ smb 19:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The published book cites numerous sources. I will make the attribution clearer to this book clearer.Ultramarine (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't you take the objectional text to sandbox, where you can improve it? ~ smb 20:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The objections raised is that the AEI is not a reliable source. Regardless of the truth of this the AEI is not the source. It is published book. Another that the attribution is lacking. This has been improved. The section title also makes the attribution clear. The Indonesia material is from a another source. That should resolve all objections. If anything else, then please state it. Claimed POV is not an excuse for deleting material, see WP:NPOV. Instead, add more sourced views if some are missing.Ultramarine (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's just keep the disputed section in the discussion page until we reach an agreement. No need for an edit war.
 * Being a former editor of AEI, Lehrer is most likely a neo-con, since it's a neo-con think tank. Then we can't exactly say his views are unbiased and reliable. Just like we can't consider the opinions of dictators on democracy to be unbiased and reliable. All 6 sections of Lehrer criticism came from within 20 pages of the book, while we only have 6 sections describing the entire propaganda model which came from hundreds of pages from various books written by Chomsky and others. Isn't this giving Lehrer's opinion undue weight? Wikipedia is meant to have summaries of viewpoints, not a complete essay.
 * I propose that either we shorten Lehrer opinion into one short section or we cite other more reliable criticism.Baller92 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. There is no justification for numerous sub headers, stretching this one individual source beyond breaking point. His criticism can be consolidated into one section, with clear attribution throughout. ~ smb 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Being a former editor of AEI, Lehrer is most likely a neo-con, since it's a neo-con think tank. Then we can't exactly say his views are unbiased and reliable" Again, see NPOV. Claimed POV is not a reason for excluding material. Otherwise WP should simply exclude all Marxist material for example. Again, if a view is missing, add a source opposing one. Chomsky and Herman are two individuals so arguing that there is too much space to one individual does not hold unless we reduce the rest of the article correspondingly.Ultramarine (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Chomsky and Herman are two individuals so arguing that there is too much space to one individual does not hold unless we reduce the rest of the article correspondingly." No, this page is about the Propaganda model, so we can use as much space as necessary to describe the work of media analyst Edward S. Herman and Professor Noam Chomsky. Equal-time, or equal-space, is not owed a single critic - particularly one whose specialty is, um, insurance - and whose claims are not considered serious enough to have solicited a single scholarly response.  ~ smb 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOAP and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapboax for the views of one side. Now you have completely removed Lehrer from the article. Again, this is not only Lehrer's personal views. He cites many sources and studies supporting him.Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. If notable criticism of any one subject exists then, yes, it's expected that we find space for it, but there is no such policy that freely allows an editor to overstate and massively expand a criticism section, adding material of dubious origin he or she happens to find on the Internet. There are important guidelines to be observed when crafting such a section. Please respect them. In this case, three different editors have remarked that Lehrer's views were given undue-weight. Nobody is arguing the criticism be excluded altogether - just reduced. ~ smb 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
 * I did not find the material on the internet but cited a published book. Here is a a single paragraph version: . Concrete objections?Ultramarine (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop being obtuse. The problem with Lehrer's criticism is expressed clearly by three different editors. ~ smb 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You said that material was given undue weight, should be shortened, and should not have sub headers. You asked for a sandbox. This has been done. Again, concrete objections.Ultramarine (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your proposed edit goes against consensus. Please re-read the objections of User:Lot49a, User-Baller92, myself (User:Smb) and User:Giovanni33. It remains the case that far too much weight/space is given a biased source with little or no background in media analysis. We don't need numerous sub headers or bullet points to resolve this matter; two or three short paragraphs will suffice. ~ smb 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Baller92 is has made only a few edits to WP and almost all to this article. Lots49a did not argue for removing material. Giovanni33 is is likely to get banned from WP very. No subheaders. Bullet points can be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I summarized the Lehrer's criticism in the section below and added it into the article. Any corrections and revisions are welcomed.
 * Baller92 is has made only a few edits to WP and almost all to this article. Irrelevant. Frequent contributor or occasional contributor, we all have equal say here. Furthermore, you are not in a position to know whether this user has edited previously under a now defunct username, or if the same editor has contributed extensively anonymously. Lots49a did not argue for removing material. No, but this editor also wanted unambiguous attribution, in keeping with guidelines. Giovanni33 is is likely to get banned from WP very. (sic) It matters not. Three editors, including myself, have asked that this particular criticism be scaled back. You alone disagree. Therefore there is no real dispute here, just a failure of acceptance on your part. ~ smb 23:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a violation of NPOV and SOAP. Sourced critical views are unduly excluded.Ultramarine (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

revision
Since we can't agree on whether neo-conservative organizations have POV, can't we agree that Lehrer's opinion is given undue weight? Chomsky and Herman are both professor emeritus in respected universities, but their opinion only take up as much space as a single neo-con writer. The sections on Lehrer's criticism are very poorly written as well. For example, the priest murder argument have nothing to do with US media revealing US government and corporate misconduct. The priest murder argument only gives alternative explanation to why one incident is given undue weight as opposed to another similar incident. There are also sections where the criticism is immediately countered by explanations of the theorist, such as debates in media and belittles public choice. The first paragraph in debates in media claims that the model can't explain why the media does not have a consensus, while the second refutes it by saying the debates only happen within the certain acceptable parameters. These criticisms which are countered immediately are useless and only serves to take up space. Here is my rewrite, which summarized and condensed Lehrer's criticism:

"Eli Lehrer, former editor of the The American Enterprise at the American Enterprise Institute, criticizes that the propaganda model ignores revelations by the media of government and corporate misconduct and that it is this kind of reporting that wins rewards and gives reputation.Lehrer also claims that the model is presented with inconsistency, sometimes arguing that the media only serves to distract people with unimportant entertainment and little real news, but sometimes instead arguing that the media move public opinion on all important issues and current events.New media such as the many forms of Internet media isn't included in the model. Although the Manufacturing Consent was published before the Internet, Chomsky has continued to almost entirely ignore these media also in recent publications and speeches." Baller92 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Since we can't agree on whether neo-conservative organizations have POV, can't we agree that Lehrer's opinion is given undue weight?" Absolutely, yes. Herman and Chomsky have been studying media output for decades, written countless papers, had their observations published in notable journals. It seems that Eli Lehrer's only foray into media analysis was to 'refute' Chomsky. Simply not serious. Lehrer should stick to predicting the impact of flood damage on the insurance markets, and deserves no more than a two or three paragraphs. ~ smb 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with majority here. Giving a whole section to the views of the American Enterprise Institute in this topic is undue-weight. If they are a reliable source then we can present a concise summary of what they say, along with other pov's. The text for this should be floated on talk for consensus first, as well.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now all the material has been removed which violates NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The opposing views material completely removed can be seen here: .Ultramarine (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia
This section is almost entirely plagiarised from an undergraduate's dissertation (!) posted on an unknown website named jim.com. The thesis itself doesn't mention the Propaganda model once, and Chomsky only in part. An unproved statement put forward by a university student who has not yet received a first degree is not an acceptable form of criticism on any subject matter. This is, absolutely, the worst criticism section I have ever seen on Wikipedia since I began editing in 2003. I'm removing it immediately. ~ smb 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Who put it in the article in the first place?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added better refs.Ultramarine (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, would you kindly answer the following question: Have you actually read the cited essay by William Shawcross or are you relying upon the aforementioned dissertation for an accurate description of it? And if you have a copy before you, can you please inform me, does Shawcross specifically mention the Propaganda model, or is he responding directly to an earlier piece of work in some way connected to Herman and Chomsky's later published work? Thanks. ~ smb 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Shawcross criticizes Chomsky's claims of propaganda by Western press regarding Cambodia. Would you kindly answer the following question: Have you actually read Eli Lehrer's article? The source for the content you have completely deleted? Which of his sources are you objecting to? Thanks.Ultramarine (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour is not acceptable. Do you have trouble understanding plain English? ~ smb 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your incivility has be noted. Read WP:CIVIL. Chomsky used the word "propaganda model" first in the 1988 book but had made such claims earlier. Which Shawcross criticzed in his 1983 article. Now answer my questions, please.Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a serious point. You have displayed a lack of care and attention when replying to other editors - this may be because you have a problem with English, or it's possible you are deliberately obfuscating the issue, in the hope editors will grow weary and not respond. For the record, you didn't answer either of my two questions, but it doesn't matter now, because I intend to examine the source material firsthand. ~ smb 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered regarding the content question. You have not answered mine.Ultramarine (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I read it over again. The Indonesian section is horrible written. That section contained little or no direct criticism of the propaganda model. Half that section, "The bias concerned...... was the perpetrator", was unnecessary and inflates the section. The claims by chomsky of the bias was not criticized nor was evidences added to repute the claim of bias. If anything, the quote of shawcross, "The American Government was very anxious to say nothing of Timor", only strengthened the claim of media bias from chomsky. All shawcross did was to suggest an alternative reasons to the blackout of media, which hardly counts as a criticism. Also shawcross's paper was directed at Cambodia, which only indirectly mentions PM, so it shouldn't be as the main "criticism" at the indonesia example provided by Chomsky and Herman. Added the plagarization part, there are more than enough reasons to remove the indonesia section, at least until it could be dramatically improved.Baller92 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Source for this criticism please. Shawcross directly names Chomsky and criticizes his claims of Western media propaganda.Ultramarine (talk) 14:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What?!? A source for a criticism on how a section of an article on wikipedia at some point in time is poorly written? How did shawcross tackle charge of bias which Chomsky and Herman level against the media? How is the sentences: "The bias ...... the perpetrator." disproven by shawcross? Shawcross may directly names Chomsky, but did he criticize the model, or did he merely suggest another explanation? Shawcross's article is about Cambodia, not indonesia. Since you asked me for the page number, what's the page number of the quote about different explanation? -Baller92
 * Continued below in the Camobodia section.Ultramarine (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag
I'm removing the unbalanced that UltraMarine recently inserted. This page already includes criticism of the Propaganda model (see section 5.0) and nobody is preventing more from being added, providing guidelines are understood and respected. ~ smb 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ongoing dispute. You are in fact objecting to inserting sourced material.Ultramarine (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are in error. Nobody is rejecting sourced material. The objection was over attribution and length. Three editors agreed this particular critic be given limited space. You alone have difficulty accepting consensus. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to place a 'disputed' tag on the page, therefore I'm removing it. I will try and find updated sources for the other sections soon, when I have time. ~ smb 23:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Much sourced material removed as discussed in other sections.Ultramarine (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your objection is circular. Please address the legitimate objections raised in each individual section. Thankyou. ~ smb 11:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Chomskychat material
First, it is questionable that forum is a reliable source.

"Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases." Exactly where in the long text is this stated? Quote please.Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis
"During the year 2005 in the USA, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticised the George W. Bush administration for the preparation and distribution of videos which falsely give the impression of being interviews made independently of the administration. The New York Times reported that "more than 20 federal agencies, including the State Department and the Defense Department, now create fake news clips. The Bush administration spent $254 million in its first four years on contracts with public relations firms, more than double the amount spent by the Clinton administration." In April 2008, the New York Times revealed how the US Pentagon and Defense Department traded access to valuable information and powerful decision makers to ex-military officers, many now military contractors, who were parroting administration talking-points and providing favorable "analysis" regarding the Iraq War and related topics on/in major television, radio and print media. "

Original research to argue that this is an example of the propaganda model. If excluding critics pf Chomsky, then no reason at all to include material not mentioning Chomsky.Ultramarine (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave a better source. From the book "Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model", there is a whole chapter directly used the model to explain Bush's propaganda machine. There are tons of other sections talking about different applications of PM as well......Baller92 (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Page number please.Ultramarine (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Page 21-62, Chapter 2: In 'Sync': Bush's War Propaganda Machine And The American Mainstream Media. -Baller92

Removing the unbalanced tag?
I didn't see Ultramarine object further, so if no one objects that the article is still unbalanced, I will remove the tag in 2 days. The criticism section got trimmed down to reasonable level with all of the main points intact, proportional to the criticism sections of other articles. Baller92 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still disagree per abovbe.Ultramarine (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But your complaint above isn't rational. It basically says, 'I hate Noam Chomsky and I won't stop until this page is stuffed full of criticism, even if I have to lift material directly from an undergraduate thesis that doesn't even mention the Propaganda Model once.' ~ smb 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Cambodia section below and please reply there for that material.Ultramarine (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cambodia
Creating new section for this since it is about Cambodia and not Indonesia.

Proposed modified version:


 * ''Herman and Chomsky made claims of propaganda by Western media also before their 1988 book. One example is claims of bias and propaganda in Western media against the Khmer Rogue. William Shawcross in his 1983 essay "Cambodia: Some Perceptions of a Disaster" found 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 out of over a million Timorese, Chomsky and Herman asserted, a proportion roughly equal to that suggested for Cambodia where Ponchaud had said in 1977 that 1.2 million had died out 7 million. 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: "A different, less conspiratorial, but perhaps more structurally serious explanation is that there has been a comparative lack of sources [in the case of Timor]. The American Government was very anxious to say nothing of Timor. So was the Indonesian Government. There were not many refugees; there was no "border" for journalists to visit" "

Furthermore, what is wrong with this source: ? An undergraduate political science thesis. That means that is has been subject to far more review than Chomsky&Herman's books. So is a more reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More sourced material removed:
 * ''Accuracy in 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.Irvine, AIM Report, November 1977, Part I, No. 21, p. 1

Source given. Regarding the thesis, see above.Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Herman and Chomsky made claims of propaganda by Western media also before their 1988 book." This page should describe the analytical framework of the Propaganda Model (who wrote it, what does it say, etc) and any notable criticism relating directly to it. William Shawcross can't possibly be criticising the Propaganda Model in 1983 because Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media wasn't published until 1988. And so, for a second time, I object to this revision.


 * An undergraduate political science thesis. That means that is has been subject to far more review than Chomsky & Herman's books. So is a more reliable source. That undergraduate thesis doesn't mention the Propaganda Model once. Moreover, Professor Chomsky's work is likely proof red and fact checked. On the other hand, you have no idea how this thesis was scored. So rather than speculate, why don't you go directly to the source material, and remove all doubt?


 * The last criticism was removed because, as I stated in my edit summary, it was plagiarized from the aforementioned undergraduate thesis. Again, there's nothing preventing you from obtaining the source material firsthand. ~ smb 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chomsky & Herman presented similar ideas also before their 1988 book which Shawcross criticzed. Chomsky's work is likely not fact checked since it was published by the non-academic publisher Pantheon Books and Chomsky was writing outside his area of expertise. A Honor Thesis on the other hand is reviewed. The other sources do not depend on the thesis but stand on their own.Ultramarine (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Link removed
Why was the link to the appropriate section about the propaganda model in The Anti-Chomsky Reader removed?Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Anti-Chomsky Reader is a hot link that points directly to Eli Lehrer's criticism. ~ smb 20:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is fine but not have a main or further information link so that the reader can easily see that there is more material regarding this? Ultramarine (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this? Now there's a link to The Anti-Chomsky Reader and another pointing directly to Lehrer's essay. ~ smb 22:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That seem to be a reasonable compromise.Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Offending text
''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, says Metzl, one would expect that the number of articles discussing the crimes of the Khmer Rouge would exceed the number discussing the American bombing. But, according to Metzl, this in incorrect: 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.''