Understanding the 'propaganda model' requires the appreciation of some subtlety. Our media system is not
propaganda in the sense that it is the result of conscious efforts on the part of ruling elites, (at least it wasn't yet as of 1986, when Manufacturing Consent was written) but rather it
functions as propaganda and has the same effect.
Chomsky and Herman show in great and persuasive detail how our news media system serves the interests of ruling elites, and bolsters their position, while ignoring or degrading opposing positions.
This happens because our media system is subject to filters that invariably skew the content. The filters, explained in exhausting detail by Chomsky and Herman, and only briefly summarized here are:
1) Concentration of ownership of the media and inherent conflicts of interest.
Major media outlets in our society are owned and controlled by some of the largest mega-corporations. This was true when the book was written 15 years ago, and has gotten exponentially worse since then. A short survey will reveal that between Viacom, AOL/Time Warner/Turner, General Electric and Cap Cities/Disney/Paramount, and Jacor, that's about it for television networks and local television stations, not to mention movie studios, record labels, radio stations, and magazines, and a bunch of newspapers and internet sites. Of course these corporate entities will not encourage news reports or features that are detrimental to their interests or portray them in a bad light, and if all of the interconnected cross-ownership, subsidiaryship, and deals between these and other corporations is factored in, what is detrimental to their interests or portrays them in a bad light could be just about anything. Thus news in our society tends to avoid reporting that raises or sheds any new light on any major issues, often focusing on so called 'human interest' stories, or when current events are reported, limiting the range of debate and skewing the coverage. A recent survey revealed that 70% of television reporters have had stories they were working on cancelled by producers due to the fact that those stories would negatively impact the parent company in some way.
2) Advertising orientation of the media.
The fact that the source of revenue for the news media in our society is advertising only further serves to bolster the tendency described above, for even if by some miracle through the vast web of ownership the corporate owners of a certain media outlet don't have a conflict of interest in how a particular story is slanted, the advertisers might, in which case the story is slanted or withdrawn. Chomsky and Herman provide many examples of this. Furthermore, news programs must first and foremost be of a nature that encourages consumption, and encourages consumption of the particular products advertised, and the result is that the news and range of debate is skewed this way. And lastly, news programs must, by their nature as a vehicle for advertising, be aimed at attracting the segments of the population most likely to engage in conspicuous consumption, further skewing their coverage toward the 'human interest' stories mentioned above, and away from coverage that might raise difficult issues. A recent study revealed that the percentage of articles on the front page of the New York Times that dealt with government declined nearly 50% from 1975 to 1999, while the percentage of articles about celebrities or sports increased by about the same amount. And of course the Times is the 'paper of record,' so we can expect that things are even worse in other newspapers and especially television.
3) Reliance on official sources.
The tendency in reporting in the US is for official sources, whether government or corporate officials or representatives, to 'carry' the story, through sound bites and brief softball interviews. Relatively little interpretation is left to the reporters, and this would in fact be a fair and accurate way of presenting news if entire speeches were quoted rather than just sound bites, and if opposing sources were given equal time. Unfortunately, opposing sources are not given equal time, and are portrayed in the light that their opinion is less than expert and 'lay,' while the empty triumphant sound bites of officials are given official weight. This serves to further skew coverage and debate.
4) The relentless pursuit of government and corporate 'flack' machines.
On the rare occasion that a report that reflects badly on the status quo and ruling elites makes it through the previous three filters, it will likely be subject to a barrage of flack from those that have an interest in squelching its effect. As an example, those parties can draw on vast resources to flood the airwaves with positive content that negates the effect of an item of bad publicity, as Philip Morris has done recently. Or they can draw on their resources and connections within the web of ownership to demand response time, to an extent that other aggrieved parties cannot.
5) Capitalism as the 'national religion.'
This final filter was entitled "Anti-communism as the national religion" by Chomsky and Hermann, but deserves updating because although communism has disappeared from the world stage, this filter hasn't disappeared from our media. This filter explains why in the past the atrocities of Pol Pot were headlines every day, while the larger death toll in East Timor, carried out by the Indonesian government with the support of the US government, or the atrocities under Augusto Pinochet, in Chile, carried out with CIA trained armies, were barely reported at all. Today, this filter bolsters the tendency by the media, already there from filters 1 and 2, to equate society with 'the economy.'
The result of all of this skewed coverage and reporting is that the news media in America functions as propaganda just as well as any system concocted by a dictator. The range of debate and issues presented on, say, CNN, is as narrow as anything Pravda could have some up with. What a fine book Manufacturing Consent is.