2008 marks the 20th anniversary of the publication of Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. This comment briefly assesses how the Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model (PM) has been received within the field of media and communication studies in the United Kingdom

Mullen, Andy

English

Northumbria University Research Portal

Citation:  Mullen,  Andy  (2008)  Twenty  years  at  the  margins:  the  Herman-Chomsky propaganda model,  1988-2008. Fifth-Estate-Online:  International Journal of Radical Mass Media Criticism. Published by: Fifth-Estate-OnlineURL: This  version  was  downloaded  from  Northumbria  Research  Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2787/Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners.  Single copies of full items can be reproduced,  displayed or  performed,  and given to  third parties in  any format  or medium for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, title and full bibliographic details are given, as well  as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata page. The content must  not  be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any format or medium without  formal  permission  of  the  copyright  holder.   The  full  policy  is  available  online: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/policies.htmlThis document may differ from the final, published version of the research and has been made available online in accordance with publisher policies. To read and/or cite from the published version of the research, please visit the publisher’s website (a subscription may be required.)Twenty Years at the Margins: The Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model, 1988-2008   Introduction 2008 marks the 2oth anniversary of the publication of Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. This comment piece briefly assesses how the Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model (PM) has been received within the field of media and communication studies. Britain has a proud record of media and communication scholars adopting a critical/structuralist approach to media analysis, addressing key issues such as bias, ideology, ownership, power, etc. Such a framework infused two readers, Mass Communication and Society and Culture, Society and the Media, published in 1976 and 1982 respectively, and the Media, Culture and Society journal, launched in 1979. It also underpinned the work of the Glasgow University Media Group, which put out a number of publications in the 1980s. Therefore, it seems reasonable to surmise that the PM would have found a natural home within this political economy tradition. However, this was not to be the case. Herman and Chomsky sought to explain the behaviour and performance of the mass media in the United States (US) by advancing and empirically testing a number of hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the propaganda system only works effectively where there is consensus amongst the elite, specifically the government, plus the leaders of the corporate and media sectors. Herman argued that where the elite are united in their concern about an issue, and where the general public is apathetic or ignorant, the media would effectively serve elite interests. A similar thesis was advanced by Ferguson, who argued that where the major investors in political parties agree on an issue, the parties will not compete on that issue, no matter how strongly the public might want an alternative. Conversely, Herman and Chomsky conceded that the propaganda system does not work as efficiently when there is dissensus; where the elite disagrees about a particular issue, such division will be reflected in the media coverage of that issue in a way that opens up space for dissent. In this situation, the media, and critical voices within and without it, can influence the policy process rather than just reflect elite interests. Indeed, the political contest model put forward by Wolfsfeld and the policy-media interaction model advanced by Robinson both suggest that the media may play an active rather than merely passive role in elite policy formation. The second hypothesis is that in capitalist, liberal-democratic regimes, such as the US, where the mass media is under corporate rather than state control, media coverage is shaped by what is, in effect, a ‘guided market system’ underpinned by five filters – the operative principles of the PM. In their own words: Money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalise dissent and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message across to the public. The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set of news ‘filters’, fall under the following headings: (1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the reliance of the media on information provided by governments, business and ‘experts’ funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) ‘flak’ as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) ‘anti-communism’ as a national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premise of discourse and interpretation, and the definitions of what is newsworthy in the first place (Herman and Chomsky, 1988, p.2).  The third hypothesis relates to the way in which the PM will be received within academia and wider society. As Chomsky explained The model also makes second-order predictions about how media performance will be discussed and evaluated. And it makes third-order predictions about the reactions to studies of media performance. The general prediction, at each level, is that what enters the mainstream will support the needs of established power (Chomsky, 1989, p.153).   Since its publication in 1988, the PM has received very little attention within the field of media and communication studies, the wider social sciences or society more generally, as Herman and Chomsky predicted. Those who did engage with the PM were overwhelmingly negative, again as predicted. Such criticisms, emanating from a variety of sources on the left and right of the political spectrum, included the notion that the PM presented a conspiratorial view of the media, that it overstated the power of the propaganda system and downplayed popular opposition to elite preferences, that it was deterministic, functionalist and simplistic, that it neglected of impact of journalistic professionalism, that it was overly ambitious, projecting a ‘total’ and ‘finalising’ perspective, and that, in the post-Cold War period, given the redundancy of anti-communism, it too is obsolete. Furthermore, one scholar questioned whether the PM supported or opposed liberal principles, whether those involved in the propaganda system were conscious of its operation and effects, and whether, by deploying notions such as ‘brainwashing under freedom’ and ‘thought control’, the PM was indeed concerned with media effects rather than just media behaviour and performance. Since its publication, several scholars have presented evidence in support of the central hypotheses of the PM. However, as predicted, this work has received very little attention. Furthermore, although they did not utilise the PM, a number of other scholars in Britain and the US concurred that the mass media tended to manufacture consent for elite preferences, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. Again, this work was marginalised. While the PM has been applied within the Canadian and US contexts, and while a number of scholars have alluded to its explanatory potential in terms of the British media, there has been no attempt to empirically test the PM within the British context. Indeed, one critic questioned whether it could be applied in countries with very different media systems and political structures. These criticisms, which were rebutted by Herman and Klaehn, are little more than obfuscation, for none of these critics, some of whom used to work within the political economy tradition, have actually addressed or engaged with the operative principles of the PM, its predications nor the vast amount of empirical, supportive data presented by Herman and Chomsky. Why is this? First, scholars neglect the PM, and the work of Herman and Chomsky more generally, because they are seen as ‘outsiders’ to the discipline; consequently they are not considered to be ‘legitimate’ analysts within the field of media and communication studies. Second, Chomsky in particular has been regularly smeared by his opponents as an apologist for totalitarian regimes and a ‘self-hating Jew’. Consequently many scholars avoid such a seemingly ‘controversial’ figure. Third, following the ‘cultural turn’ in media and communication studies in the 1980s and 1990s, with its focus on culture, discourse and identity, there has been move away from empirical and political economy-based studies of the media, of which the PM is exemplary. Fourth, the PM challenges the mainstream consensus. That the PM should be ignored by liberals and those on the centre-left should come as no surprise; after all, the model, or more specifically its predictions and the wealth of empirical evidence that support these, effectively demolish their worldview of how the media and political systems operate. What is more surprising is how many academics on the left, who probably claim to be empirical social scientists, have also neglected the PM and its radical implications for the operation of the mass media in contemporary capitalist societies. The practical implications of such marginalisation are lamentable. Media and communication students are often not exposed to the PM as it rarely features in mainstream textbooks and seldom appears in the curricula of undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Likewise, media and communication scholars do not engage in debates about the PM in their journals or at their conferences. The result has been twenty years at the margins; a devastating indictment of the state of academia given that the PM is, as Chomsky argued, one of the most tested models in the social sciences.   Dr Andy Mullen, Politics Division, Northumbria University   Bibliography Aronson, J. (1990) The Press and the Cold War, Revised Edition, New York: Monthly Review Press Babe, R. (2005) ‘Newspaper Discourses on Environment’ in Klaehn, J. (Ed.) Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, London: Black Rose Books Bennett, L. (1990) ‘Towards a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United States’, Journal of Communication, Vol.40, No.2, pp.103-125 Carruthers, S. (1995) Winning Hearts and Minds: British Governments, the Media and Colonial Counter-Insurgency, 1944-1960, London: Leicester University Press Chomsky, N. (1989) Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, London: Pluto Corner, J. (2003) ‘Debate: The Model in Question – A Response to Klaehn on Herman and Chomsky’, European Journal of Communication, Vol.18, No.3, pp.367-375 Curran, J. and Seaton, J. (1991) Power without Responsibility: The Press and Broadcasting in Britain, Fourth Edition, London: Routledge Curtis, L. (1984) Ireland: The Propaganda War, London: Pluto Domhoff, W. (1979) The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America, New York: Vintage Books Edwards, D. and Cromwell, D. (2006) Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media, London: Pluto Eldridge, J. (Ed.) (1993) Getting the Message, New York: Routledge Entman, R. (1991) ‘Framing US Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents’, Journal of Communication, Vol.41, No.4, pp.6-27 Ferguson, T. (1995) Golden Rule, Chicago (Illinois): University of Chicago Press Glasgow University Media Group (1985) War and Peace News, Milton Keynes: Open University Press Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (1991) ‘Culture, Communications and Political Economy’ in Curran, J. and Gurevitch, M. (Eds.) Mass Media and Society, London: Edward Arnold Greenslade, R. (2003) Press Gang: How Newspapers Make Profits from Propaganda, London: Pan Books Hallin, D. (1986) The Uncensored War, Berkeley: University of California Press Hallin, D. (1994) We Keep America on Top of the World, New York: Routledge Hammond, P. and Herman, E. (Eds.) (2000) Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis, London: Pluto Press Herman, E. (1982) The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda, Boston: South End Press Herman, E. (1992) Beyond Hypocrisy: Decoding the News in an Age of Propaganda, Boston: South End Press Herman, E. (1996) ‘The Propaganda Model Revisited’, Monthly Review, July Herman, E. (2000) ‘The Propaganda Model: a retrospective’, Journalism Studies, Vol.1, No.1, pp.101-112 Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, London: Pantheon Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (2002) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Updated Edition, New York: Pantheon Books Herman, E. and O’Sullivan, G. (1989) The “Terrorism” Industry: The Experts and Institutions that Shape Our View of Terror, New York: Pantheon Books Hollingsworth, M. (1986) The Press and Political Dissent: A Question of Censorship, London: Pluto Klaehn, J. (2002) ‘A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s ‘Propaganda Model’, European Journal of Communication, Vol.17, No.2, pp.147-182 Klaehn, J. (2003) ‘Debate: Model Construction and Various Other Epistemological Concerns – A Reply to John Corner’s Commentary on the Propaganda Model’, European Journal of Communication, Vol.18, No.3, pp.377-383 Klaehn, J. (2005) ‘Corporate Hegemony: A Critical Assessment of The Globe and Mail’s News Coverage of Near-Genocide in Occupied East Timor, 1975-1991’ in Klaehn, J. (Ed.) Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, London: Black Rose Books Klaehn, J. (Ed.) (2006) Bound by Power: Intended Consequences. London: Black Rose Books Knightley, P. (2003) The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, Propagandist and Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq, Third Edition, London: André Deutsch Lashmar, P. and Oliver, J. (1998) Britain’s Secret Propaganda War, 1948-1977, Stroud (Gloucestershire): Sutton Publishing LaFeber, W. (1988) ‘Whose news?’ New York Times, 6 November Lee, M. and Solomon, N. (1990) Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in News Media, New York: Lyle Stuart Lemann, N. (1989) ‘Book Reviews’, The New Republic, 9 January McMurtry, J. (1998) Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market as an Ethical System, Toronto: Garamond Press McNair, B. (2003) News and Journalism in the UK, Fourth Edition, London: Routledge Mermin, J. (1999) Debating War and Peace, Princeton: Princeton University Press Miliband, R. (1969) The State in Capitalist Society, London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson Miller, D. (Ed.) (2004) Tell me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq, London: Pluto Mitchell, P. and Schoeffel, J. (Eds.) (2002) Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky – Chapter 1 Footnotes [Available at: www.understandingpower.com (Accessed: 1 March 2007)]   Parenti, M. (1986) Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media, New York: St Martins Philo, G. and McLaughlin, G. (1993) The British Media and the Gulf War, Glasgow: Glasgow University Media Group Robinson, P. (2001) ‘Theorising the Influence of Media on World Politics: Models of Media Influence on Foreign Policy’, European Journal of Communication, Vol.16, No.4, pp.523-544  Schlesinger, P. (1989) ‘From Production to Propaganda’, Media, Culture and Society, Vol.11, pp.283-306 Winter, J. (1992) Common Cents: Media Portrayal of the Gulf War and Other Events, Montreal: Black Rose Books Winter, J. (1998) Democracy’s Oxygen: How the Corporations Control the News, Second Edition, Montreal: Black Rose Books Winter, J. (2002) MediaThink, Montreal: Black Rose Books Winter, J. and Klaehn, J. (2005) ‘The Propaganda Model Under Protest’ in Klaehn, J. (Ed.) Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, London: Black Rose Books Wolfsfeld, G. (1997) The Media and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Zaller, J. and Chui, D. (1996) ‘Government’s Little Helper: US Press Coverage of Foreign Policy Crises, 1945-1991’, Political Communication, Vol.13, pp.385-405 

Culture, Communications and Political

Twenty years at the margins: the Herman-Chomsky propaganda model, 1988-2008

Northumbria Research Link

Northumbria Research Link
Citation: Mullen, Andy (2008) Twenty years at the margins: the Herman-Chomsky propaganda model, 
1988-2008. Fifth-Estate-Online: International Journal of Radical Mass Media Criticism. 
Published by: Fifth-Estate-Online
URL: 
This version was downloaded from Northumbria Research Link: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/2787/
Northumbria University has developed Northumbria Research Link (NRL) to enable users to access 
the University’s research output. Copyright © and moral rights for items on NRL are retained by the 
individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners.  Single copies of full items can be reproduced, 
displayed or performed, and given to third parties in any format or medium for personal research or 
study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, provided the authors, 
title and full bibliographic details are given, as well as a hyperlink and/or URL to the original metadata 
page. The content must not be changed in any way. Full items must not be sold commercially in any  
format or medium without formal permission of the copyright holder.  The full policy is available online: 
http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/pol  i cies.html  
This  document  may differ  from the  final,  published version of  the research  and has been made 
available online in accordance with publisher policies. To read and/or cite from the published version 
of the research, please visit the publisher’s website (a subscription may be required.)
                        
Twenty Years at the Margins: 
The Herman-Chomsky Propaganda Model, 1988-2008 
 
 
Introduction 
2008 marks the 2oth anniversary of the publication of Manufacturing Consent: 
The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward Herman and Noam 
Chomsky. This comment piece briefly assesses how the Herman-Chomsky 
Propaganda Model (PM) has been received within the field of media and 
communication studies. 
Britain has a proud record of media and communication scholars adopting a 
critical/structuralist approach to media analysis, addressing key issues such as 
bias, ideology, ownership, power, etc. Such a framework infused two readers, 
Mass Communication and Society and Culture, Society and the Media, 
published in 1976 and 1982 respectively, and the Media, Culture and Society 
journal, launched in 1979. It also underpinned the work of the Glasgow 
University Media Group, which put out a number of publications in the 1980s. 
Therefore, it seems reasonable to surmise that the PM would have found a 
natural home within this political economy tradition. However, this was not to be 
the case. 
Herman and Chomsky sought to explain the behaviour and performance of 
the mass media in the United States (US) by advancing and empirically testing a 
number of hypotheses. The first hypothesis is that the propaganda system only 
works effectively where there is consensus amongst the elite, specifically the 
government, plus the leaders of the corporate and media sectors. Herman argued 
that where the elite are united in their concern about an issue, and where the 
general public is apathetic or ignorant, the media would effectively serve elite 
interests. A similar thesis was advanced by Ferguson, who argued that where the 
major investors in political parties agree on an issue, the parties will not compete 
on that issue, no matter how strongly the public might want an alternative. 
Conversely, Herman and Chomsky conceded that the propaganda system does 
not work as efficiently when there is dissensus; where the elite disagrees about a 
particular issue, such division will be reflected in the media coverage of that issue 
in a way that opens up space for dissent. In this situation, the media, and critical 
voices within and without it, can influence the policy process rather than just 
reflect elite interests. Indeed, the political contest model put forward by Wolfsfeld 
and the policy-media interaction model advanced by Robinson both suggest that 
the media may play an active rather than merely passive role in elite policy 
formation. 
The second hypothesis is that in capitalist, liberal-democratic regimes, such 
as the US, where the mass media is under corporate rather than state control, 
media coverage is shaped by what is, in effect, a ‘guided market system’ 
underpinned by five filters – the operative principles of the PM. In their own 
words: 
Money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalise dissent 
and allow the government and dominant private interests to get their message 
across to the public. The essential ingredients of our propaganda model, or set 
of news ‘filters’, fall under the following headings: (1) the size, concentrated 
ownership, owner wealth and profit orientation of the dominant mass-media 
firms; (2) advertising as the primary income source of the mass media; (3) the 
reliance of the media on information provided by governments, business and 
‘experts’ funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; 
(4) ‘flak’ as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) ‘anti-communism’ as a 
national religion and control mechanism. These elements interact with and 
reinforce one another. The raw material of news must pass through successive 
filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print. They fix the premise of 
discourse and interpretation, and the definitions of what is newsworthy in the 
first place (Herman and Chomsky, 1988, p.2). 
 
The third hypothesis relates to the way in which the PM will be received 
within academia and wider society. As Chomsky explained 
The model also makes second-order predictions about how media performance 
will be discussed and evaluated. And it makes third-order predictions about the 
reactions to studies of media performance. The general prediction, at each level, 
is that what enters the mainstream will support the needs of established power 
(Chomsky, 1989, p.153).  
 
Since its publication in 1988, the PM has received very little attention within 
the field of media and communication studies, the wider social sciences or society 
more generally, as Herman and Chomsky predicted. Those who did engage with 
the PM were overwhelmingly negative, again as predicted. Such criticisms, 
emanating from a variety of sources on the left and right of the political 
spectrum, included the notion that the PM presented a conspiratorial view of the 
media, that it overstated the power of the propaganda system and downplayed 
popular opposition to elite preferences, that it was deterministic, functionalist 
and simplistic, that it neglected of impact of journalistic professionalism, that it 
was overly ambitious, projecting a ‘total’ and ‘finalising’ perspective, and that, in 
the post-Cold War period, given the redundancy of anti-communism, it too is 
obsolete. Furthermore, one scholar questioned whether the PM supported or 
opposed liberal principles, whether those involved in the propaganda system 
were conscious of its operation and effects, and whether, by deploying notions 
such as ‘brainwashing under freedom’ and ‘thought control’, the PM was indeed 
concerned with media effects rather than just media behaviour and performance. 
Since its publication, several scholars have presented evidence in support of 
the central hypotheses of the PM. However, as predicted, this work has received 
very little attention. Furthermore, although they did not utilise the PM, a number 
of other scholars in Britain and the US concurred that the mass media tended to 
manufacture consent for elite preferences, both in terms of domestic and foreign 
policy. Again, this work was marginalised. While the PM has been applied within 
the Canadian and US contexts, and while a number of scholars have alluded to its 
explanatory potential in terms of the British media, there has been no attempt to 
empirically test the PM within the British context. Indeed, one critic questioned 
whether it could be applied in countries with very different media systems and 
political structures. 
These criticisms, which were rebutted by Herman and Klaehn, are little 
more than obfuscation, for none of these critics, some of whom used to work 
within the political economy tradition, have actually addressed or engaged with 
the operative principles of the PM, its predications nor the vast amount of 
empirical, supportive data presented by Herman and Chomsky. Why is this? 
First, scholars neglect the PM, and the work of Herman and Chomsky more 
generally, because they are seen as ‘outsiders’ to the discipline; consequently they 
are not considered to be ‘legitimate’ analysts within the field of media and 
communication studies. Second, Chomsky in particular has been regularly 
smeared by his opponents as an apologist for totalitarian regimes and a ‘self-
hating Jew’. Consequently many scholars avoid such a seemingly ‘controversial’ 
figure. Third, following the ‘cultural turn’ in media and communication studies in 
the 1980s and 1990s, with its focus on culture, discourse and identity, there has 
been move away from empirical and political economy-based studies of the 
media, of which the PM is exemplary. Fourth, the PM challenges the mainstream 
consensus. That the PM should be ignored by liberals and those on the centre-left 
should come as no surprise; after all, the model, or more specifically its 
predictions and the wealth of empirical evidence that support these, effectively 
demolish their worldview of how the media and political systems operate. What is 
more surprising is how many academics on the left, who probably claim to be 
empirical social scientists, have also neglected the PM and its radical implications 
for the operation of the mass media in contemporary capitalist societies. 
The practical implications of such marginalisation are lamentable. Media 
and communication students are often not exposed to the PM as it rarely features 
in mainstream textbooks and seldom appears in the curricula of undergraduate 
and postgraduate courses. Likewise, media and communication scholars do not 
engage in debates about the PM in their journals or at their conferences. The 
result has been twenty years at the margins; a devastating indictment of the state 
of academia given that the PM is, as Chomsky argued, one of the most tested 
models in the social sciences.  
 
Dr Andy Mullen, Politics Division, Northumbria University 
 
 
Bibliography 
Aronson, J. (1990) The Press and the Cold War, Revised Edition, New York: 
Monthly Review Press 
Babe, R. (2005) ‘Newspaper Discourses on Environment’ in Klaehn, J. (Ed.) 
Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomsky’s Propaganda Model, 
London: Black Rose Books 
Bennett, L. (1990) ‘Towards a Theory of Press-State Relations in the United 
States’, Journal of Communication, Vol.40, No.2, pp.103-125 
Carruthers, S. (1995) Winning Hearts and Minds: British Governments, the 
Media and Colonial Counter-Insurgency, 1944-1960, London: Leicester 
University Press 
Chomsky, N. (1989) Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic 
Societies, London: Pluto 
Corner, J. (2003) ‘Debate: The Model in Question – A Response to Klaehn on 
Herman and Chomsky’, European Journal of Communication, Vol.18, No.3, 
pp.367-375 
Curran, J. and Seaton, J. (1991) Power without Responsibility: The Press and 
Broadcasting in Britain, Fourth Edition, London: Routledge 
Curtis, L. (1984) Ireland: The Propaganda War, London: Pluto 
Domhoff, W. (1979) The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination 
in America, New York: Vintage Books 
Edwards, D. and Cromwell, D. (2006) Guardians of Power: The Myth of the 
Liberal Media, London: Pluto 
Eldridge, J. (Ed.) (1993) Getting the Message, New York: Routledge 
Entman, R. (1991) ‘Framing US Coverage of International News: Contrasts in 
Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents’, Journal of Communication, 
Vol.41, No.4, pp.6-27 
Ferguson, T. (1995) Golden Rule, Chicago (Illinois): University of Chicago Press 
Glasgow University Media Group (1985) War and Peace News, Milton Keynes: 
Open University Press 
Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (1991) ‘Culture, Communications and Political 
Economy’ in Curran, J. and Gurevitch, M. (Eds.) Mass Media and Society, 
London: Edward Arnold 
Greenslade, R. (2003) Press Gang: How Newspapers Make Profits from 
Propaganda, London: Pan Books 
Hallin, D. (1986) The Uncensored War, Berkeley: University of California Press 
Hallin, D. (1994) We Keep America on Top of the World, New York: Routledge 
Hammond, P. and Herman, E. (Eds.) (2000) Degraded Capability: The Media 
and the Kosovo Crisis, London: Pluto Press 
Herman, E. (1982) The Real Terror Network: Terrorism in Fact and 
Propaganda, Boston: South End Press 
Herman, E. (1992) Beyond Hypocrisy: Decoding the News in an Age of 
Propaganda, Boston: South End Press 
Herman, E. (1996) ‘The Propaganda Model Revisited’, Monthly Review, July 
Herman, E. (2000) ‘The Propaganda Model: a retrospective’, Journalism Studies, 
Vol.1, No.1, pp.101-112 
Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political 
Economy of the Mass Media, London: Pantheon 
Herman, E. and Chomsky, N. (2002) Manufacturing Consent: The Political 
Economy of the Mass Media, Updated Edition, New York: Pantheon Books 
Herman, E. and O’Sullivan, G. (1989) The “Terrorism” Industry: The Experts 
and Institutions that Shape Our View of Terror, New York: Pantheon Books 
Hollingsworth, M. (1986) The Press and Political Dissent: A Question of 
Censorship, London: Pluto 
Klaehn, J. (2002) ‘A Critical Review and Assessment of Herman and Chomsky’s 
‘Propaganda Model’, European Journal of Communication, Vol.17, No.2, 
pp.147-182 
Klaehn, J. (2003) ‘Debate: Model Construction and Various Other 
Epistemological Concerns – A Reply to John Corner’s Commentary on the 
Propaganda Model’, European Journal of Communication, Vol.18, No.3, 
pp.377-383 
Klaehn, J. (2005) ‘Corporate Hegemony: A Critical Assessment of The Globe and 
Mail’s News Coverage of Near-Genocide in Occupied East Timor, 1975-1991’ in 
Klaehn, J. (Ed.) Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomsky’s 
Propaganda Model, London: Black Rose Books 
Klaehn, J. (Ed.) (2006) Bound by Power: Intended Consequences. London: Black 
Rose Books 
Knightley, P. (2003) The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero, 
Propagandist and Myth-maker from the Crimea to Iraq, Third Edition, 
London: André Deutsch 
Lashmar, P. and Oliver, J. (1998) Britain’s Secret Propaganda War, 1948-1977, 
Stroud (Gloucestershire): Sutton Publishing 
LaFeber, W. (1988) ‘Whose news?’ New York Times, 6 November 
Lee, M. and Solomon, N. (1990) Unreliable Sources: A Guide to Detecting Bias in 
News Media, New York: Lyle Stuart 
Lemann, N. (1989) ‘Book Reviews’, The New Republic, 9 January 
McMurtry, J. (1998) Unequal Freedoms: The Global Market as an Ethical 
System, Toronto: Garamond Press 
McNair, B. (2003) News and Journalism in the UK, Fourth Edition, London: 
Routledge 
Mermin, J. (1999) Debating War and Peace, Princeton: Princeton University 
Press 
Miliband, R. (1969) The State in Capitalist Society, London: Weidenfeld and 
Nicholson 
Miller, D. (Ed.) (2004) Tell me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the 
Attack on Iraq, London: Pluto 
Mitchell, P. and Schoeffel, J. (Eds.) (2002) Understanding Power: The 
Indispensable Chomsky – Chapter 1 Footnotes [Available at: 
www.understandingpower.com (Accessed: 1 March 2007)]   
Parenti, M. (1986) Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media, New York: 
St Martins 
Philo, G. and McLaughlin, G. (1993) The British Media and the Gulf War, 
Glasgow: Glasgow University Media Group 
Robinson, P. (2001) ‘Theorising the Influence of Media on World Politics: Models 
of Media Influence on Foreign Policy’, European Journal of Communication, 
Vol.16, No.4, pp.523-544  
Schlesinger, P. (1989) ‘From Production to Propaganda’, Media, Culture and 
Society, Vol.11, pp.283-306 
Winter, J. (1992) Common Cents: Media Portrayal of the Gulf War and Other 
Events, Montreal: Black Rose Books 
Winter, J. (1998) Democracy’s Oxygen: How the Corporations Control the 
News, Second Edition, Montreal: Black Rose Books 
Winter, J. (2002) MediaThink, Montreal: Black Rose Books 
Winter, J. and Klaehn, J. (2005) ‘The Propaganda Model Under Protest’ in 
Klaehn, J. (Ed.) Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomsky’s 
Propaganda Model, London: Black Rose Books 
Wolfsfeld, G. (1997) The Media and Political Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press 
Zaller, J. and Chui, D. (1996) ‘Government’s Little Helper: US Press Coverage of 
Foreign Policy Crises, 1945-1991’, Political Communication, Vol.13, pp.385-405 


http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/2787/1/Mullen%20A_%20Fifth%20Estate%20Comment%20Piece.pdf

Twenty years at the margins: the Herman-Chomsky propaganda model, 1988-2008

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northumbria University Research Portal

Northumbria Research Link