8/8/2019 16634959 Noam Chomsky Media Politics Action

1/2

ENDADECEMBER 1998

Propaganda

in a Free Press

The Propaganda ModelChomsky has helped develop and

defend exhibits several filterspreventing sustained dissent from

reaching the public even in a

somewhat democratic society.

Entrance cost into the media market:

Labor newspapers and other grassrootsmedia once reached large audiences. But

dominant radio and TV licenses have

literally been handed over to corporate

titans, and advertiser strikes have madeindependent newspapers more costly to the

reader than their corporate competitors.Result: most global media is consolidated in

the hands of a few mammoth corporations, an

interlocking cartel representing hugearmsmakerslike General Electric (NBC) andWestinghouse (CBS)and labor abusers

like Disney (ABC) [see Reader Action, page21. And as with most hierarchically-organizedbusinesses, editors and reporters quickly learn

what will and wont please the boss.

Media as profitable businesses:

To make money, major media outlets have tosell audiences to advertisers; the more

privileged the audience the better the advertis-

ing rates. Chomsky notes It would hardlycome as a surprise if the picture of the

world they present were to reflect theperspectives and interests of the sellers,

the buyers, and the product the productbeing audiences willing and able to spend big.

There are other filters, like the need for asteady flow of news, which government and

business are happy to provide in the form ofpress conferences and experts. Theseinteract with instances ofjournalistic self-

censorship, and with flakdirected to-wards media elements that fall out of line,

to form a sophisticated propagandasystem with little overt censorship, yetwith an effective range of mainstreamopinion and debate as narrow as any

totalitarian system.

Chomsky stresses that this model

is not a conspiracy theory.Rather, it is an analysis of thebehavior of the major media

based on their automaticinstitutional structure in thecontext of contemporary

capitalism.

Noam Chomsky onedia,Politics,Action

by Aaron Stark

cember 7, 1998, Noam Chomsky will be 70 years

Alternately ignored and reviled in much of the

tream national discourse, Chomskys critiques of

ociety address crucial questions of ideology and

; of propaganda and of the institutional roots of

cietys ugliest flaws. His prodigious work hased several generations of activists, with its high

for evidence and its power to induce both horror

pe in readers. Much of Chomskys work has been

mination of the role of intellectualstheir rela-

with and typical subservience to institutions of

nd private capital. Chomskys more hopeful writ-

however, recall old notions of freedom and jus-

tent within human nature itself. These different

s of Chomskys thought are usually not balanced

y within any particular work. But its necessary

p them both in mindhorror and shame evoked

mes committed in our name, and hope in the pos-

y of a society more worthy of the label human.

orate Media

of Chomskys most valuable insights into con-

rary society come from his analysis of the role of

media (major newspapers like the New York Times

e Washington Post) in a democracy. Some praise

dia for service to the public, for devotion to truth,

r independence. Some even say the media go too

their search for truthone acclaimed review of

coverage of the Vietnam War argued that the

s alleged anti-government bias effectively lost

ar for the U.S. (Necessary Illusions, p. 6). But if

homsky one examines the structure of media in-

ons and their actual day-to-day performance, aifferent picture emerges. Chomsky finds that with

xceptions, the mass media confine themselves to

ting a picture of the world skewed in favor of

hy and powerful elites. The debate over policies

sues appearing in major media is thus narrowly

ed, with many positions simply unthinkable.

onsider just one of Chomskys examples: how the

media treated the 1990 Nicaraguan elections. Af-

ars of US-sponsored Contra attacks on soft tar-

ike health centers and schools, after an economic

go that had caused millions of dollars in dam-

and after a threat by the US government that all

ould continue if their favored party did not win,

clear what the result of the elections would be.theless, the vast majority of the mainstream press

sed these elections as if they were a free expres-

f the will of the Nicaraguan people. At the liberal

me of the mainstream discussion, Tom Wicker of

w York Times recognized that the Sandinistas lost

use the Nicaraguan people were tired of war and

f economic deprivation, but concluded that the

ns were free and fair and untainted by coercion.

r details on mechanisms that distort media, see

bble Propaganda in a Free Press.

hy is the confinement of discussion within the

s of elite ideology necessary? Chomsky attributes

the relative freedom of thought and expression

ble in Western capitalist democracies: Since theacks the capacity to ensure obedience by force,

ht can lead to action and therefore the threat

er must be excised at the source. So typical

Free Markets, Democracy & Human Rig

The belief that U.S. power is intrinsically bene

motivated by a desire to do good, underlies mai

discussion of U.S. government policy, both fore

domestic. From time to time, true believers ac

edge that we do make mistakes, but consider th

products of good intentions. These assumption

basic that they usually do not need to be explicitly

except in the process of refuting arguments ch

ing the dominant way of thinking.

As with his analysis of the role of the

Chomsky examines the actual behavior of th

rather than taking these assumptions on faith.gues that we can discern systematic patterns

foreign policy that derive from the pursuit of

goals deeply rooted in U.S. institutions. Chom

sometimes described these specific goals as th

Freedom, a reference to President Roosevelt

War II-era announcement that the Allies were

for Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, free

worship, freedom from want, and freedom fro

The Fifth Freedom, the most important [is] th

dom to rob and to exploit (Turning the Tide

Within regions controlled by enemy powers, vi

of the four freedoms bring anguished concern a

for action. But within the vast regions controlle

U.S., Chomsky argues, it is only when the fifundamental freedom is threatened that a

and short-lived concern for other forms of fr

manifests itself (Turning the Tide, p. 47).

One of Chomskys sources of evidence for th

relates to human rights. Conventional wisdom ho

U.S. foreign policy is dedicated to preserving

tending human rights around the world. Ho

Chomsky and coauthor Edward Herman (an eco

at the University of Pennsylvania) conclude th

deterioration of the human rights climate i

Free World dependencies [including Brazi

Guatemala, and Chile; after US-sponsored

correlates rather closely with an increase in

and support (The Washington Connection anWorld Fascism, p.43). These findings build on

results from earlier studies by Lars Schoultz, a

academic specialist on the relation between

rights and US foreign policy in Latin America (S

Comparative Politics, 1981, cited in Turning th

pp. 157-58). One possible explanation of these p

is that the U.S. government simply hates human

Chomsky and Hermans alternative explanation

in another factor the investment climate; re

tax laws of a country, to the possibility of investo

and to the nature and scale of government con

wages and trade unions, among other things. Th

For most of the sample countries, US-contro

has been positively related to investment climinversely related to the maintenance of a dem

order and human rights (The Washington C

tion and Third World Fascism, p. 44). To put it

countries with governments that are willing and

kill union organizers and others who work for th

of the poor and oppressed, generally offer the p

of more stable profits than countries with gover

concerned about the well-being of their popul

the concern is for the Fifth Freedom, not human

For a glimpse into what U.S. policy planners

another about such things, as opposed to what t

us, see the sidebar For Your Leaders Eyes On

What about the communist threat, often r

an explanation for such policies, when they aacknowledged? Chomsky cites a 1955 study

Woodrow Wilson Foundation and the Nation

ning Association which concluded that the p

thought and opinion (especially among the educated

sectors of the public) must be kept strictly in line with

the tenets of the state ideology. But what is this state

ideology, and how would honest discussion of its conse-

quences lead to action that might be a threat to order?

8/8/2019 16634959 Noam Chomsky Media Politics Action

2/2

DECEMBER 1998AGE

of communism was the economic transformation

communist powers in ways that reduce their

gness and ability to complement the industrial

mies of the West (cited in The Chomsky Reader,

). So, according to Chomsky, U.S. anti-commu-

s not provoked by the real crimes committed by

vernments of the communist states, but rather

ir unwillingness to subordinate their economies

industrial Western economies. He notes that thecommunism, when used in U.S. propaganda, is

y a technical term that has little relation to so-

olitical or economic doctrines but a great deal

with a proper understanding of ones duties

unction in the global system as defined by the

On Power and Ideology, p. 10).

omsky has taken on another fundamental belief

d to the Fifth Freedomthe idea that the U.S.

nment seeks free markets. He repeatedly points

importance of military spending to the strength

ructure of the U.S. economy, not primarily for

nefit of military industry, but as a system of state

ention in the economy. This intervention,

sky maintains, sustains research and developmentsectors of the economy, (such as aircraft, elec-

, computers and the internet, and more recently,

hnology)paid for by taxpayer subsidy through

ntagon system, including NASA, the Department

rgy, and other government agenciesuntil re-

f the research become profitable. At this point,

ch spinoffs begin to produce revenue for pri-

orporations. He cites articles from the business

n the early days after World War II, when this

m of public subsidy, private profit was devel-

n its current form. The business world then rec-

d that advanced industry cannot satisfactorily

n a pure, competitive, unsubsidized, free enter-

prise economy, and that the government is their only

possible savior (cited in Powers and Prospects, p.

122). He also notes the hugely protectionist measures

of the U.S. and the other industrial powers that, ac-

cording to the World Bank, reduce the national income

of the Third World by twice the amount of official de-

velopmental assistance (Year 501, p. 106). Only the

weak, both domestically and internationally, are to be

subjected to free market discipline; the rich profitthrough the corporate welfare of Newt Gingrichs

nanny state (See Year 501, Ch. 4, Powers and Pros-

pects, Ch. 5).

What Can Be Done?

It can be unpleasant to learn of crimes committed by

ones government and to learn of the apologetics of

respected commentators. Reading Chomsky, or listen-

ing to him speak, is often an ordeal. Undergone as a

course in intellectual self-defense (see bubble), how-

ever, it can be a helpful means to constructive action.

If Chomskys philosophy of the mind and human

nature is near correct (see Chomsky on Language

on the next page), there is an innate human nature with

separate subcomponents for language and other aspects

of cognition. Perhaps another part of the human mind

is some fixed system of moral principles (with some

principles being variable, in order to accommodate

cross-cultural differences). Chomskys assumption

about the value of intellectual self-defense would seem

to be made sounder if this view can be supported. If

so, one could say that obvious cases of atrocities and

oppression are not opposed just because one is taught

that they are bad, but also because such crimes go

against at least certain aspects of an innate human moral

system. And if the actions of the powerful are revealed

for what they are, there is a chance that the bett

of human naturecooperation, solidarity, comp

perhaps reflected somewhere in a shared mor

temcould come to the fore. (For the record, Ch

cautions that his remarks about possible conn

between the linguistic/philosophical sense in w

speaks of human nature, and the political sens

use of the term, are speculative and sketchy.

There is another assumption lurking here, o

Chomsky has referred to as an instinct for fre

possibly latent in human nature. Chomskys c

tion of this instinct is similar to the 19 th-centu

sian anarchist Bakunins idea that liberty cin the full development of all the material, inte

and moral powers that are latent in each pers

erty recognizes no restrictions other than th

termined by the laws of our own individual na

(cited in Notes on Anarchism, Chomskys In

tion to Daniel Guerins Anarchism: From Th

Practice, 1970). In Chomskys view, this inst

freedom has driven struggles for justice through

tory, and can lead to a more just society today, i

movements undertake concerted action and edu

including helping people acquire the means o

lectual self-defense.

How does one know, however, that any o

assumptions are correct? Is it, for Chomsky, simatter of faith? He states I dont have faith t

truth will prevail if it becomes known, but w

no alternative to proceeding on that assum

whatever its credibility may be. His treatm

the question of human freedom is similar: On

sue of human freedom, if you assume that

no hope, you guarantee that there will be no

However, if you assume that such a thing as an

for freedom exists, then hope may be justified

may be possible to build a better world. Ch

notes,Thatsyour choice.

Chomskys work in linguistics, philosophy

cal and social analysis throughout the 70 year

life does not leave readers with many comfortaswers or cherished assumptions about the way th

works. But for those who seriously consider h

spective (with a necessary degree of intellectu

defense), it is not clear that this is the only way

can be. Chomskys contribution, perhaps, lies

an enumeration of exact blueprints for the j

ture society, or for the final theory of the mi

in his elaboration of possibilities that people ca

shouldstrive for. R

For Your Leaders Eyes only ...omsky calls attention

this 1948 top-secret

port (PPS 23) by

orge Kennan, head of

e State Dept Policy

anning Staff after

rld War II.

emphasizes the

portance of the

fth Freedom.

50% of the worlds

alth refers to

obal holdings from

lonialism and

unty from WWII.)

Intellectual Self-Defense

We must adopt towards the power of government, media, schools, universities and other dominant institutions in our society the samerational, critical stance that we take towards the institutions of any other power, even in an enemy state. Its got to get to the point where

its like a reflex to read the first page of the L.A. Times and to count the lies and distortions and to put it into some sort of rational framework.

Media sources that are somewhat independent from corporate control (often called alternative media) can help construct this framework, though of coursesource should be embraced uncritically. Challenging the propaganda system is hard work, but can be made easier and more meaningful in cooperation wit

social movements, if one minimizes the splendid opportunities for isolation that our society provideseach person an atom of consumption alone infront of the TV or computer screen.

Chomsky sees intellectual self-defense as leading normal people to dissent from and resist state crimes. If people reallyknew what corporate capital and their government were up to, both at home and abroad, they would not

stand for it and something would have to change.