1.
Twenty-seven years ago, you wrote in
‘Manufacturing Consent’ that the primary role of the mass media in Western
democratic societies is to mobilise public support for the elite interests that
lead the government and the private sector. However, a lot has happened since
then. Most notably, one could argue that the Internet has radically
decentralised power and eroded the power of traditional media, and has also
given rise to citizen journalism. News from Ferguson, for instance, emerged on
Twitter before it was picked up by media organisations. Has the internet made
your ‘Propaganda Model’ irrelevant?
2.
Actually, we have an
updated version of the book which appeared about 10 years ago with a preface in
which we discuss this question. And I think I can speak for my
co-author, you can read the introduction, but we felt that if there have been
changes, then this is one of them. There are other [changes], such as the
decline in the number of independent print media, which is quite striking. As far as we can
see, the basic analysis is essentially unchanged. It’s true that the
internet does provide opportunities that were not easily available before, so
instead of having to go to the library to do research, you can just open up
your computer. You can certainly release information more easily and also
distribute different information from many sources, and that offers
opportunities and deficiencies. But fundamentally, the system hasn’t
changed very much.
3.
Emily Bell, Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism
at Columbia Journalism School, said the
following in her recent speech at Oxford: “News spaces are no longer owned by
newsmakers. The press is no longer in charge of the free press and has lost
control of the main conduits through which stories reach audiences. The public
sphere is now operated by a small number of private companies, based in Silicon
Valley.” Nearly all content now is published on social platforms, and
it’s not Rupert Murdoch but Google’s Larry Page and Sergei Brin and Facebook’s
Mark Zuckerberg who have much more say in how news is created and disseminated.
Are they “manufacturing consent” like their counterparts in so-called ‘legacy’
media?
4.
Well, first of all, I don’t agree with the
general statement. Say, right now, if I want to find out what’s going on in
Ukraine or Syria or Washington, I read The New York Times, other national
newspapers, I look at the Associated Press wires, I read the British press, and
so on. I don’t look at Twitter because it doesn’t
tell me anything. It tells me people’s opinions about lots of things, but very
briefly and necessarily superficially, and it doesn’t have the core news. And I think it’s
the opposite of what you quoted - the sources of news have become narrower. So
for example, take where we are now, Boston. Boston used to have a very good
newspaper, The Boston Globe. It still exists but it’s a pale shadow of what it
was twenty or thirty years ago. It used to have bureaus around the world, fine
correspondents, and some of the best journalism on Central America during the
Central American wars, and good critical journalism on domestic events and on
many other topics. Go to a newsstand and have a look now. What you
see is local news, pieces from the wire services, some pieces from The New York
Times, and very little else. Now that’s happened around the country, and in
fact, around the world. And it’s a narrowing of these sources of journalism
about what’s happening on the ground. That doesn’t mean that reports in the NYT
have to be read uncritically, or those in The Guardian or The Independent or
anywhere else. Sure, they have to be read critically, but at least they’re
there. There
are journalists there on the scene where major events are taking place and, now
there are fewer of them than before, so that’s a narrowing of the sources of
news. On the other hand, there is a compensating factor. It’s
easier now to read the press from other countries than it was twenty years ago
because of instead having to go to the library or the Harvard Square
International Newsstand, I can look it up on the Internet. So you have multiple
effects. As far as Silicon Valley is concerned, say
Google, I’m sure they’re trying to manufacture consent. If you want to buy
something, let’s say, you look it up on Google. We know how it works. The first
things on the list are the ones that advertise. That doesn’t mean that they’re
the most important ones. But it’s a reflection of their business model, which
is of course based on advertising, which is one of the filters [in our model],
in fact. I use Google all the time, I’m happy it’s there. But just
as when I read The New York Times or the Washington Post, or the Wall Street
Journal knowing that they have ways of selecting and shaping the material that
reaches you, you have to compensate for it. With Google, and others of course,
there is an immense amount of surveillance to try to obtain personal data about
individuals and their habits and interactions and so on, to shape the way
information is presented to them. They do more [surveillance] than the NSA.
5.
In his essay “Bad News about News,” Robert G. Kaiser, former
Editor of the Washington Post says, “News as we
know it is at risk. So is democratic governance, which depends on an effective
watchdog news media. Both have been undermined by changes in society wrought by
digital technologies—among the most powerful forces ever unleashed by mankind.”
Not only are the biggest news organisations like the New York Times, and the Washington Post
(which was sold to the founder of Amazon for US$250 million, a small fraction
of its worth just a few years before), and others are financially
suffering and lack a clear roadmap for survival, but also numerous local
newspapers across the United States and United Kingdom are shutting down every
week. I know you see some of these organisations as “manufacturers of consent,”
but how can we fund quality journalism in this new digital age?
6.
How is the BBC funded?
7.
By the public.
8.
And take the United States. When the United
States was founded, there was an understanding of the first amendment that it
has a double function: it frees the producer of information from state control,
but it also offers people the right to information. As a result, if you look at
postwar laws, they were designed to yield an effective public subsidy to
journals in an effort to try to provide the widest range of opinion,
information, and so on. And that’s a pretty sensible model. And it goes back to
the conception of negative and positive liberty. You have only negative
liberty, that is, freedom from external control, or you have positive liberty
to fulfill your legitimate goals in life - in this case, gaining information.
And that’s a battle that’s been fought for centuries. Right after the Second
World War, in the United States, there was major debate and controversy about
whether the media should serve this double function of giving both freedom from
x amount of control – that was accepted across the board - and additionally,
the function of providing the population with fulfilling its right to access a
wide range of information or opinion. The first model, which is sometimes
called corporate libertarianism, won out. The second model was abandoned. It’s
one of the reasons why the US only has extremely marginal national radio
businesses compared to other countries. It relates to what you’re asking--an
alternative model is public support for the widest possible range of
information and analysis and that should, I think, be a core part of a
functioning democracy.
9.
In the absence of a good business model, new
media organisations from Buzzfeed to Vice have pioneered so-called “native
advertising,” a form of online advertising that seeks to fool the consumer into
believing that they are reading "editorial" content rather than paid
advertisements. Basically, they are advertorials. Ironically, even a
progressive newspaper like The Guardian publishes sponsored content from
Goldman Sachs. What’s your view on native advertising?
10.
This [native advertising] is exaggerating and intensifying a
problem that is serious and shouldn’t even exist in the first place. The
reliance of a journal on advertisers shapes and controls and substantially
determines what is presented to the public. Again, if you go back to
our book, it’s one of the filters. And if you look back, the very idea of
advertiser reliance radically distorts the concept of free media. If you think
about what the commercial media are, no matter what, they are businesses. And a
business produces something for a market. The producers in this case, almost
without exception, are major corporations. The market is other businesses -
advertisers. The product that is presented to the market is readers (or
viewers), so these are basically major corporations providing audiences to
other businesses, and that significantly shapes the nature of the institution.
You can determine by common sense that it would, but if you investigate it up
front as well, it does [bear out], so what you’re now talking about is an
intensification of something which shouldn’t exist in the first place.
11.
I was shocked to see
that the global PR firm Edelman did some research on whether readers can actually
tell whether what they are reading is an advertisement or an article... and 60%
of readers didn’t notice that they were reading adverts.
12.
And that’s always been true. The effect of advertiser reliance and public relations firms
is noticeable in the nature of what the media produce, both in their news and
commentary. And how could it be otherwise, that’s the market.
13.
Recently, The Guardian and The Washington Post
revealed widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency through
Edward Snowden. Such reporting surely undermines the idea of what you would
call the ‘elite interest’ that dominates the government and private sector.
Does this case undermine your propaganda model or is it an exception to the
rule?
14.
For the propaganda model, notice what we explain
there very explicitly is that this is a first approximation - and a good first
approximation - for the way the media functions. We also mention that there are
many other factors. In fact, if you take a look at the book ‘Manufacturing
Consent’, about practically a third of the book, which nobody seems to have
read, is a defence of the media from criticism by what are called civil rights
organisations - Freedom House in this case. It’s a defence of the
professionalism and accuracy of the media in their reporting, from a harsh
critique which claimed that they were virtually traitors undermining government
policy. We should have known, on the other hand, that they were quite
professional. The media didn’t like that defence because what we said is – and
this was about the Tet Offensive - that the reporters were very honest,
courageous, accurate, and professional, but their work was done within a
framework of tacit acquiescence to a propaganda system that was simply
unconscious. The propaganda system was ‘what we’re doing in Vietnam is
obviously right and just’. And that passively supports the doctrinal system.
But on the other hand, it was also undermining the government. It was showing
that government claims are false. And take, say, the exposure of Watergate, or
the exposure of business corruption. One of the best sources of information on
business corruption is the businessperson. The media do quite a lot of very
good exposes on this, but the business world is quite willing to tolerate the
exposure of corruption. The business world is also quite willing to tolerate
exposure of governments intervening in personal life and business life in a way
that they don’t like, as they don’t want a powerful and intrusive state. That’s
not to criticise The Guardian and The Post for providing an outlet for the
Snowden/Greenwald material - of course they should have, they’re professional
journalists. There are a lot of factors, but we picked out factors we think are
very significant but not all-inclusive, and as a matter of fact, we gave
counter-examples.
15.
And do you think this is a counter-example, in
some sense?
16.
It’s not a counter example, it’s a demonstration
that there are other things. That in addition to the major factors, there are
also minor factors which we discussed, like professionalism and professional
integrity, which is also a factor.
17.
Do you think that crowdfunding can help make
journalism more independent? Noam Chomsky: I think it’s a good general
principle that almost anything that increases the variety and range of
available media is beneficial. Of course, this particular approach will have
its own problems. Every approach does. There’s no ideal type with no problems
connected with it, but in general the wider the range of variety of what’s
available, the better off you are.
18.
Can I ask your opinion on Charlie Hebdo? What do
you think of this ‘freedom of speech no matter what’ principle?
19.
Well, I think we should strongly support freedom
of speech. I think one of the good things about the United States, incidentally,
as distinct from England, is that there is much higher protection of freedom of
speech. But freedom of speech does not mean a lack of responsibility. So for example, I’m in favour of freedom of speech, but
if somebody decided to put up a big advertisement in Times Square, New York,
glorifying the sending of Jews to gas chambers, I don’t think it should be stopped by the state, but I’m not in favour of it.
20.
Also, regarding the specific incident of Charlie
Hebdo, do you think the cartoonists lacked responsibility?
21.
Yes, I think they
were kind of acting in this case like spoiled adolescents, but that doesn’t
justify killing them. I mean, I could say the same about a great deal
that appears in the press. I think it’s quite irresponsible often. For example,
when the press in the United States and England supported the worst crime of
this century, the invasion of Iraq, that was way more irresponsible than what
Charlie Hebdo did. It led to the destruction of Iraq and the spread of the
sectarian conflict that’s tearing the region to shreds. It was a really major
crime. Aggression is the supreme international crime under international law.
Insofar as the press supported that, that was deeply irresponsible, but I don’t
think the press should be shut down.
No comments:
Post a Comment