230 likes | 369 Views
The Propaganda Model. Updates and Evidence. I. The Model: Five filters. Corporate: Size and ownership limits stories that can be reported (owners are elite) Advertising: Appeal to affluent audience, avoid killing the “buying mood”
E N D
The Propaganda Model Updates and Evidence
I. The Model: Five filters • Corporate: Size and ownership limits stories that can be reported (owners are elite) • Advertising: Appeal to affluent audience, avoid killing the “buying mood” • Sourcing: Reliance on government and interest group PR (need for flows of information) • Flak: Institutions (e.g. AIM, embedding) to enforce discipline • Ideology (Anti-Communism Spread of Free Markets Anti-Terrorism): Need for “national religion”
Blogs: Elite drive, General reinforce, political and tail are driven
Top Blogs: Are they subject to the filters? • Top blogs and Top political blogs – Reliance on venture capital and advertisers.
II. Recent Findings on Media Bias • “Hostile Media Effect” – Most people think media is biased against their side • Systematic Bias: • Partisan Bias (preference for one party): Appears to be rare (ratios of positive:negative stories about each party roughly similar) • Ideological Bias (preference for left or right) • Some studies find right-wing (Fox, WSJ) or left-wing (NYT, CSM) bias BUT • Differences in news reports are quite small: Owners are conservative but reporters tend to be liberal • Opinion/editorial biases much more pronounced
4. “Politically-neutral” biases • Spin Bias: Great deal of evidence suggests focus on sensational events and scandals • Official Source Bias: Government sources overrepresented, particularly in foreign affairs stories (limited information, desire to preserve contacts)
C. Effect of Bias: Remarkably Small • Selection Effect: People choose to watch news sources with which they agree • Example: Availability of Fox News did not increase pro-conservative views among viewers. Instead, people who were already conservative tuned in. • “Neutral” Biases (Spin and Official Source) probably most influential: hard to filter out
III. The Vietnam Case: Recent Findings A. Style of reporting • 1965-1970 = 2300 evening news reports on Vietnam -- Only 76 showed both fighting and casualties within view • Gear prevented most close-up shots (nearly impossible to film while prone) or instantaneous reporting in the field (Vietnam was a videotape war). • All three networks agreed not to air recognizable images of US dead (feet only, not faces)
B. A New Kind of War? • Compare Korea and Vietnam support against casualties:
Battle-Deaths and Support for Wars Afghanistan Iraq
C. Media Bias and Opinion Journalism • Before Tet: Speakers in favor of war quoted 26.3% of the time, speakers against war quoted only 4.5% of the time • After Tet: 28.4% supporters, 26.1% opponents • Opponents: 49% are government officials, 16% are reporters expressing opinions, 35% are antiwar activists or soldiers • What happened? Bias towards official sources change in reporting when officials turned against the war • Media opposition actually lagged public opposition! Opponents consistently underrepresented compared to share of US population
IV. Evidence Against the Model • Public/elite gap? Herman responds (2000): “It is a model of media behavior and performance, not of media effects.” Problem: if no effects model, why do we care? • Reversing the causal arrow: The “CNN Effect” (news shapes and alters state policy, contrary to “official source bias”)
IV. Evidence Against the Model • Public/elite gap? Herman responds (2000): “It is a model of media behavior and performance, not of media effects.” Problem: if no effects model, why do we care? • Reversing the causal arrow: The “CNN Effect” (news shapes and alters state policy, contrary to “official source bias”) • General issue: Is the model falsifiable? “How much” opposition is required?
New Documentary • Archival footage: • Atomic Café: The firstminutes. • Zapruder – stabilized Zapruder • Compare: Bigfoot and Stabilized Bigfoot • Which is more “truthful?” • Is cinema verité a lie? Errol Morris critique…