Dear Friend and Reader:
Alex Brocklehurst, one of our participants here, mentioned a “propaganda model” a few days ago in response to Fe Bongolan’s article on pig flu, the most recent Fe-911 — and I asked him for a clarification of what that model was.
It explains how we live in a corporate culture that actually represents just one dominant view rather than what it is sold as, a diversity of views in a free market of ideas. It will help explain what the corporate state is about.
Here is his reply, and here is the Wiki page on Noam Chomsky. He developed this with someone named Edward Herman. The Propaganda Model has its own Wiki page. His conslusion reminds me of something my friend and esoteric teacher Arthur Joseph Kushner would say: the shape of the shadows reveals the shape of what’s hidden.
Very curious as to your feedback. Alex, this is a fine summary; I can tell because (in part due to being exposed to the subversive Steve Bergstein’s ideas and reading list for the past 20 years), I recognize all of what you’re talking about.
Readers: please read the first sentence a few times. It’s all right in the first few words. — efc
Eric,
The Propaganda Model basically accounts forВ a system of control far tighter than any Orwellian-visioned one or even practised by totalitarian states. The control is largely invisible, because masquerading as aВ facet of unrestricted freedom, (namely market forces), the values underpinning which are internalised through pervasive advertising. Of course, the media are central in dissemination and are sponsored by powerful elites who manipulate subliminally to direct from broad strategy to minutiae of details by priming a system that replicates its values by creating ‘reality versions’.
Business friendly ‘reality versions’ get endorsed while problematic (awareness-fuelled) ones don’t. Herman and Chomsky propose five filters to strain out unwanted modalitiesВ within mainstream reporting 1) Media wealth & ownership and the pre-eminence of the corporate values underpinning the modus operandi 2) Advertising as a revenue stream. Publish business friendly stuff – or else (Chomsky himself had to get published through Pluto Press — mainstream would not touch him)В 3) News sourcing that for logistical purposes revolves around sources such as The White House, Pentagon, State Department, Business Corporations and Trade Groups. 4) Flak machines set up to attack unsupportive media. 5) What was anti-communism, designed to mobilise the collective imagination against a common enemy/threat (The War on Terror since the Berlin Wall collapse).
These filters inoculate against alternative views and are imbibed en masse, such that this is internalised in the unwitting (who have ‘reality’ engineered for them).
As a critical perspective, phenomenologically speaking, if you are not party to the facts then discern the true message through what the subtext is.В It is possible to piece together a framework of what a real agenda is by noticing how these ‘stories’ are put together (deconstructing the editorial gloss, so to speak).В The subliminal content can be teased out via understanding the configurations/presentations of the ‘reality versions’, in terms of what the overt material trajectories toward.
A key question to ask is therefore “What message are we SUPPOSED to be receiving here? What is the subtext?” Also, as Fe’s article intimates, phenomenologically, what other pressing issues seem to be presentingВ around the chosen locus of emphasis? “Why Mexico?” etc “Why birds and animals?” “Why emphasise mutations?”…and so on. Once the salient subtext questions are identified, they can be cross-referenced to build a more complete picture. Yes there is an element of the speculative. Yes, talk of conspiracy and paranoia is commonplace in response.
Nevertheless, mostВ paranoids have arguably been ‘raped’ by power at some point. Such people are vulnerable precisely because they are not powerful enough to gain access to the facts. The powerless scream and cry out in anger and sometimes resort to violence (which the powerful use to ‘moralise’ proof of the victim’s culpability) while the untouchables simply go silent (they don’t need to say anything. Silence is the ultimate tool of abused power in such differentialsВ — you get no accountability). Even without access to the drivers of corporate control we must strive to construct pictures. We may err on detail at times, yet the imperative is binding.
Hope this is of use.
Alex
Does seem opportunist, like the gold rush sort of. But remember Tricky Dick said the sign of a good leader is to get people to do what they don’t want to do. The media can be manipulated easily. I watched Chris Matthews last night for the first time in over a year, and he was still gushing about Obama. I’m thinking that whatever Obama says we have to do, his little media groupies will carry the message to the world with glee. Leaves me a little paranoid.
So, I came, I glanced, I comment:
My basic problem with HW’s view is that it (and most post-Althusserian theory) assigns agency where there is (arguably) only opportunism. I’d be the last person to ignore the obvious ties in the Middle East/Petroleum Houston/Riyahd cabal, but postMarxian theory posits a level of cooperation and lucid scheming that would take a demi-god to pull off.
And here’s the thing: if such coordination *is* happening at that level (and I’m not saying it’s not), there are other potencies to bring to bear on it. It simply does not behoove us to keep assigning intention to something that has a certain Schroedinger’s cat quality to it….
Other potencies emerge when you consider the serendipity, the tyche of the whole political tarpit. . .
One of which I am off to go tickle right a b o u t
now
Just a footnote here: Much depends on your taste and proclivities around intellectualism and/or theoretical models and the philosophy of science, when it comes to the material you wish to stomach.
A more field-orientated approach, with easily readable supporting information, can be found in the writing of journalist and documentary maker, John Pilger.
His work, Hidden Agendas (London:Vintage, 1999) provides a very interesting entry point (especially in how it elucidates Britain’s role) and is written in a style that is less demanding than Chomsky’s (more biographical in style), as well being informed by field perspective, rather than intellectually and critically detailed, armchair analysis (no criticism of Chomsky inferred).
Pilger’s situatedness is raw, at points – but this gives a poignant feel.
A touch of Orwell here…Iran and Iraq take turns being the official enemy. During the late Carter days, Iran had the hostages…Mysti, this is the dawn of modern terrorism, which took over for the Cold War…but Bush/Reagan cut an arms trade deal that made sure the hostages stayed in until the Inauguration so Carter lost. (Repubs never win an election, they always steal it.) At the time we were official allies with Iraq to a degree that most people would find stunning today – we (Major’s UK and Reagan’s Amerikkka) sold them WMDs. Meanwhile were selling weapons to Iran illegally (against something called the Boland Amendment) and diverting the profits to the Contras in Nicaragua, which were bombing schools and farming coops, vis, ‘soft targets’ to terrorize the country into dumping Ortega in the next election). That made the Iran-Contra scandal, circa 1987. Then suddenly Iraq was the enemy, when they “invaded Kuwait” and Dick Cheney et al waged Bush War 1. When you look at the history of Iran and Iraq post WWII you see that they are basically fake countries; their cultures are real, their heritage is real, the people are real, but as Pink Floyd said, the lines on the map get moved from side to side. So we feel this entitlement to mess with them and it goes back long before WWII ended. Okay back to my Buddha nature.
Rhetorical Poem:
Like A Mirror,
The Shadow Reflects
The Form Of The Object;
But, What Gives Both
Their Power?
–Kristen, Circa Many Yrs Ago
I have witnessed and experienced paranoia as a condition of anger held within due to radical self-doubt, but not self-abuse, but lacking self-confidence brings this condition to a foreground location. Anger has a proper use, as does paranoia, and many times folks have been taken advantage of by others – Alex’s words above on this subject resonate for me, though I do not wallow therein, rather experience as fact.
For example, shyness is as much an egoic problem as boastfulness – just consider this idea – the person is drawing attention to themselves albeit via sympathy.
But, sympathy is not empathy.
We are each enlightened to the extent we understand exactly what it is we are doing. This is how and why the zen path is the “short” path to unity. If you can realize – FULLY – that you are a beautiful flower with petals you can move and honey you give as gift to those attracted to your individuality, then you are enlightened. You are Buddha, right here, right now.
K
This sort of reminds me of when I was working. In the early 90s an Iranian with green card applied for employment with my agency and insisted on veteran preference for having served during the Iraq conflict . ANGH (buzzer) – wrong conflict/not American military therefore not eligible for preference/wrong side of the conflict at the time.
Gee whiz it sure gets mighty confusing to figure out who the derned enemy is doesn’t it. The man had been a soldier during the 1980 Iraq war with Iran, during which time we supported Iraq – so he was even on the wrong side at the time. I never was able to explain to his satisfaction why he wasn’t entitled to the 5 extra points for being a veteran during a conflict, but I congratulated him for serving his country to help the situation. I mean, what’s a mother to do?
In case everyone has forgotten, during the Gulf War we had better relations with Iran again, but now they are the enemy again.
We should have a lottery on who the enemy will be in 2019, and where the virus will hit hardest next winter.
Morning HdW…
It is true that my refutation and response are not particularly clear, and for that I apologize. I am not merely indulging in the ‘traditional conflictual approach (right/wrong nonsense)’ . Your overall argument falls in line with neomarxist apologetics and it’ll take too long to dive in right now (I gotta bus to catch, aerating my prole roots).
I appreciate the gentle touch, “beware the . . .” insinuations. Yes, there are –as you say– fragments of ideas that I can examine for validity, but *right* this *minute* we have a full moon to appease and cultivate, so no more pomo for me until after Mother’s Day.
This morning, my eye is on the Scorpio ball – which is enough to ‘thus far. . . lack’ for the nonce.
Love,
M
if yer really interested, here are some utoob links to a conference held in 2007 (http://www.uwindsor.ca/propaganda) with Chomsky & Herman explaining this themselves, unfortunately (for now) it is chopped up into 9 pieces due to its length;
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_k3ao-s5t4
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHUSNKD7I40
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycyjAZMxcMI
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yabmO-ponEE
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4drY2P8pi0
6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJTpwy-ll1k
7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10n19-egcW4
8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWeyXVSOsbY
9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz07O743U7w
Manufacturing Consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent) is also based on much of this information, you can watch the video here;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730
I had the pleasure of seeing Amy Goodman last month (highly recommend!) and she told a story about being asked about what she thought about mainstream media, her response was “i think it’s a good idea.”
Reporter: “Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?”
Gandhi: “I think it would be a good idea!”
and if you’re interested in who owns what (as of 2001 – i cannot find it yet, but last i heard it was down to 5! transnational corporations that control most if not all the “public” airwaves);
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml
No analysis explains anything fully (ah yes Half Witte said this), however, we do have some ‘splainin to do about what those talking heads are doing on CNN selling us wars all day and night. At least lately they seem to be selling us legalized weed. Every time I randomly flip on the set I see Jack Cafferty reading emails from his readers to that effect.
His conslusion reminds me of something my friend and esoteric teacher Arthur Joseph Kushner would say: the shape of the shadows reveals the shape of what’s hidden.
————————————————————–
This describes what Eric’s photo (above) embodies very well. Actually, this parallels my current facebook profile picture! It feels very ‘Taoist’. It also resonates with a figure within Norse Mythology, named, ‘Vardoger’. It is a type of spirit that visits before the enfleshed reality arrives – somewhat like a dog knows its owner is nearly home, several minutes before she bursts through the door. The vardoger is more positively construed than a Doppelganger.
I like this metaphor as a means of producing a workable mythology – one that is more easily accessible to folk than trawling the depths of social criticism or intensive foreign policy analysis.
Mystes: “Typical postmodern, late-capitalist, neomarxist diatribe.”
—————————————————————
Is this Mystes diatribe? 😉
Seriously. Postmodern is neither good nor bad. It has positive and negative facets – it is a movement rooted in history. It is part of a complex, entwining flux of human experience. No? A test tube, rational discursive assessment will inevitably be distorted. For sure, as I mentioned the other day, being ‘dismissive’ is instructive – it too reveals blind spots.
One of the fantastic contributions of the much maligned postmodernism is that it brings our attention back toward perspectivalism. No single perspective thoroughly maps ‘truth’. The traditional conflictual approaches (real diatribe) are based upon a narrative that asserts “I’m right because you’re wrong”. This has been an infantile facet of human psychology since, well, who knows when?
A more evolutionary perspective must surely acknowledge fragments of truth, wherever we find them, as reflecting the completeness of the sun glistening, refracted in the prism, of each early morning dew drop.
Beware the person who settles for the awareness that they already possess, at the expense of that which they, thus far, lack.
Just back from my bus ride to Heaven (the Hilton where I keep my spa).
Hoo boy… what can I say?
Typical postmodern, late-capitalist, neomarxist diatribe. I spent too many years in graduate school, in a department (actually two) that genuflected at the altar of the Great Orwellian Threat. Even my anarcho-socialist kid –ready to believe the worst of humanity at this point– thought these posts were ironic. When I assured him of Alex’s solemnity, \he said – “well, at least he says it’s speculative.”
I sat in on discussions with some of the advisor/architects of NAFTA in 93-94 — and I know that it, like all trade agreements, is crock of boogers, stitched together by fallible, so human-all-too humans. The fact that we tend to do venal things when we get in groups of more than 8 should be measured against the (completely, adorably feckless) tendency to moralize all over each other when we notice. Morality is a reflex – a way *not* to engage/confront destructive behavior on its own terms. Morality is ineffectual in the bigger picture, but it makes a damn fine gobstopper for the more egregious evils.
But more to the point – here are a couple of wtf’s…
“What was anti-communism, designed to mobilise the collective imagination against a common enemy/threat (The War on Terror since the Berlin Wall collapse).”
a) The ‘War on Terror’ was not ponied up until the Bush Administration. There was a long period between the Fall of Communism and this little seizure. During which the Net came into being, we all got stinkin’ rich on trading information and information structures while Monica played with cigars.
“Publish business friendly stuff – or else (Chomsky himself had to get published through Pluto Press — mainstream would not touch him)”
b) Chomsky was only *initially* published by Pluto (and I don’t even really know that, but I’ll take Alex’s word). Now he’s handled by Henry Holt (big enough to have a conflict of interest with the likes of Noam) and Routledge. Likewise Henry Miller, Wm Burroughs, Sandy Stone… all published by bitty houses, then picked up by ginormous ones after their outrageous, Panopticon-busting, houseburning books sold better than than the (other) pamphleteers on the Right.
Okay, that’s it from the hoi polloi.
oops forgot one; what’s a TNC?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tncs/indxmain.htm
if yer really interested, here are some utoob links to a conference held in 2007 (http://www.uwindsor.ca/propaganda) with Chomsky & Herman explaining this themselves, unfortunately (for now) it is chopped up into 9 pieces due to its length;
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_k3ao-s5t4
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHUSNKD7I40
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_k3ao-s5t4
4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yabmO-ponEE
5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4drY2P8pi0
6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJTpwy-ll1k
7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10n19-egcW4
8) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWeyXVSOsbY
9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz07O743U7w
Manufacturing Consent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent) is also based on much of this information, you can watch the video here;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730
I had the pleasure of seeing Amy Goodman last month (highly recommend!) and she told a story about being asked about what she thought about mainstream media, her response was “i think it’s a good idea.”
Reporter: “Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?”
Gandhi: “I think it would be a good idea!”
and if you’re interested in who owns what (as of 2001 – i cannot find it yet, but last i heard it was down to 5! transnational corporations that control most if not all the “public” airwaves);
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml