|
Some of the recent GBS China thread conversations about the same topics led me here.Sekhem posted:Well, yeah, I think it's pretty necessary to qualify whether a fringe batshit polemic was produced by the same methods which also led to scholarly well received works by the same author. That seems like a pretty pressing question that would need to be discussed, imo. Herman reached his conclusions because of the Propaganda Model. The key flaw with the PM is that it conflates breadth and uniformity of coverage with to what degree a topic serves US imperialism and gives inherent credence to fringe minority voices which face opposition from the mainstream (because this opposition only happens because the mainstream is countering any narrative that doesn’t align with US imperialism.) You can literally see this in action with Herman’s work. The Rwandan genocide was an inherently newsworthy event, and the coverage generally followed the same narrative: that a genocide was happening and that the West allowed it to take place because they ignored clear warning signs. But if we approach this event through the PM we are led to immediately distrust this coverage, with the implication that we should question these facts. And not only should we distrust the mainstream story we should instead trust alternative explanations which are met with derision and pushback - in this case that there was no genocide and the true victims were the supposed perpetrators of the genocide. Because if this narrative wasn’t true then it wouldn’t face pushback - the pushback grants inherent credibility - regardless of how wrong the idea is, or how justified that pushback was. And this is exactly the argument Herman made. That the genocide did not take place. You can argue that this is a misuse of PM because PM is simply a descriptive model which does not offer comments on the veracity of information, just provides guidance on how this information is presented, but in practice - including the practice of its authors - it’s used to not only question framing but content. And that’s how you end up denying a genocide. I have other serious issues with the model (mainly that it is wrong to argue that it only exists in the west), but this is a serious problem: it leads to ignoring reality in favor of ideological opposition and elevates fringe theories which are, quite frankly, dismissed as nonsense for valid reasons. Spoiler fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jun 23, 2021 |
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 3, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
Red and Black posted:And yet, you have consistently failed to provide even one concrete example of either Herman or Chomsky using the Propaganda Model to "deny genocide". Something which literally can't be done, because as you have been repeatedly told, the PM predicts aggregate media behavior. It cannot be used to predict whether an individual news story is true or false, and never has been used to make such a prediction. Maybe you missed my post, but Herman does that in his book on the Rwandan genocide. Part of the evidence he uses to argue that the genocide as we understand did not take place (and that the Hutus were the victims, not the Tutsis) is how the genocide was covered in Western media in line with his Propaganda Model. His argument hinges on using the context of the coverage - how it was framed, what happened - as prima facie evidence that we should distrust the content of the coverage and question the facts of the reporting. And from this first principle he then gives inherent credence to alternative viewpoints, i.e. the viewpoint he shares, which is that there was no genocide of the Tutsis, because those facts are untainted by Western imperialism, and therefore must be true. You could argue that this is an incorrect application of the model, because the PM makes no judgement on the veracity of facts, just describes how those facts are reported, but in practice that is not how Herman has used the model. His entire book is an example of this. Edit: Another excellent example is anything Chomsky has said on the Cambodia genocide pre-1995 or so. Also, to add, I think its absurd that we are debating the connection between the one of the author's of the PM model and a later book by that same author called "Enduring Lies: The Rwandan Genocide in the Propaganda System". Its self-evident, and frankly a little gross that you're trying to carve out the "good" contributions by someone who has denied three genocides. Three! Spoiler fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:That's fine, just provide quotes from his book then showing the application of the PM I'm not going to buy a book and give money to the estate of someone who denies genocide, but I would encourage you to read this passage:  What do you think the "propaganda system" is?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:What you have claimed is that the Propaganda Model has been used to deny genocide. But what you're linking to are quotes, the majority of which make use of references to a propaganda system. That the media produces propaganda is indeed a conclusion of the PM, one heavily supported by evidence which opponents in this thread continue to ignore. But saying that the media produces propaganda isn't an exclusive conclusion of the PM (other models can produce the same result), nor is the conclusion itself the model. No. What I'm saying is that the specific type and purpose of propaganda described by the PM - a unified media conglomerate serving the interests of Western imperialism that actively suppresses any counter narratives that don't serve Western imperialism - leads to a pattern of its authors dismissing the facts of genocides while ostensibly critiquing their media coverage. There is a world of difference between discussing how the media covered the Rwandan genocide in contrast to other genocides and dismissing the facts of the Rwandan genocide to such an extent that you're arguing the victims are actually the perpetrators. You seem to think the PM is only "valid" when used in the former context - and I am saying that, based on the work of its authors, it inevitably results in the latter: in using uniformity and reach of coverage as prima facie evidence to doubt not just the tone and framing of an event, but the facts of the event itself. We can see this again in practice with Chomsky and Cambodia: he dismissed survivor testimony from The Killing Fields and argued the Western media was reporting a genocide without any direct evidence to serve Western imperialism. This isn't just critiquing the tone and extent of coverage, its critiquing the facts of what's reported, and denying them. And this is specific to the Propaganda Model, because the Propaganda Model specifically frames this media coverage as a tool of furthering American imperialism. That is starkly different than arguing that media functions as propaganda, or that all media is biased to some degree; instead, the Propaganda Model not only identifies this bias, it argues that a specific bias exists which serves a specific purpose. That's the issue here. If you instead want to simply point out that bias exists, media companies have mixed incentives that shape their coverage, and sometimes the media interests can align with those of the government to promote a singular message, then yes, that is largely uncontroversial. But because its uncontroversial and even universal it's not particularly meanignful, and its remarkably different than what Chomsky and Herman are claiming.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Sekhem posted:I think this directly indicates that it's not the PM which is leading him to these conclusions. It's just poor scholarship. A biased political analysis based on collecting first hand reports isn't using the framework of media analysis, it's a completely different methodology. I think my argument comes down to the fact that in practice the Propaganda Model has been used by its authors not only to assess how an event is covered (its tone, how its framed, the extent of coverage) but to doubt the facts of the event itself. I do not think you can do the former without also doing the latter - or at least laying the groundwork for someone else to do so. Spoiler fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The last bit contradicts the first. Citing (false) first-hand accounts is not using a model designed to analyze articles in aggregate. It's probably fair to say that Herman is reflexively anti whatever he considers US propaganda, to the point that he believes the opposite what that concludes, but that says nothing about the model he had a hand in creating which directly contradicts his approach/conclusion. The Propaganda Model doesn't predict anything, its not a predictive model. Its a descriptive model which describes specifically how and why events are covered in the media in the United States, namely that this coverage serves the interests of American imperialism. Beyond what we're discussing here, the other two critiques of the PM are that it is wrong in thinking that this type of propagandistic coverage is unique to the West (its not), and that it assumes a homogeneity and intention in coverage that does not exist. But I think those are less important critiques than pointing out that, in practice, it leads to genocide denial. And again, this isn't the same thing as pointing out that media can be biased, or act as a propaganda organ or the government, etc. The PM makes a specific claim. Rejecting this claim, or the model, does not mean you uncritically accept all media coverage, or that you do not think that US media often aligns with the interests of the federal government, or even that the US media can support imperialism. Spoiler fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:So you admit you're criticizing the conclusions of the model and not the model itself. Good. Now that we've established that, the only thing remaining is to ask: is that conclusion true? Is there a system of private media serving the interests of Western imperialism (still not exclusive to the PM, by the way)? If it is true, it doesn't matter if it "leads to a pattern of dismissing genocides", because it's the truth regardless and the truth is by definition valid. If it's false then I guess there's an additional reason not to believe on top of it being false? Not to be a jerk, but I am somewhat confounded with your reply. I have offered three specific criticisms of the model: 1. it assumes a level of intention and homogeneity in American media which I do not think exists; 2. it argues that the PM is specific to the US/the West, which I do not agree with; and most importantly, 3. that in practice and use the PM leads to people conflating the coverage of an event with validity in doubting the facts being reported, which unfortunately in several notable instances have led its author's to denying genocides. The first two criticisms have been around for decades, and the last criticism has emerged when people have seen how Chomsky and moreso Herman have used the idea of Western propaganda as prima facie evidence that a reported genocide did not occur. If you're arguing that the PM cannot fail, people can only fail the PM, then I don't really know how to counter that belief. If in practice a model leads to horrific conclusions, then that model has no value. (Also, as an aside, in general the burden of proof is on someone who is arguing that something is true, not on those who do not believe it is. If I came in here and said "all newspapers are controlled by sentient lizard brains who are communicating their lust for badminton rackets" there would be an expectation that I would provide some evidence that this is happening.) Spoiler fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Red and Black posted:I am so glad you have finally decided to make arguments about the Propaganda Model. I don't think the intention of the authors was to say the PM can only be applied in the West, it can be applied in any society where the fundamental conditions are similar to the United States. That is, a large degree of private ownership in the media, a dependence on advertising, etc. The Propaganda Model makes a very specific claim on the purpose and organization of media in the West. I disbelieve that claim. There are many examples of a breakdown between the ostensible imperialist goals of the American government and coverage of events that would justify those goals, and clear differences in coverage between different media outlets, despite those outlets both being privately owned by large corporate media conglomerates. See: later coverage of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon Papers, changing coverage of the Iraq War, etc. The PM dismisses these distinctions as simply existing on the margins and therefore insignificant in shaping public opinion, which I think is incorrect - they are often front and center, especially over the last decade. If you instead want to argue that the Propaganda Model does not make this specific claim, that instead that it more generally points that that the media can be biased, or that the government can influence direction and scope of coverage, or that for profit media organizations look towards their shareholders first, not the validity or purpose of coverage when making editorial decisions, than I would agree with all those claims, but at this point they're both universal and tautological, so I don't think they're particularly useful for this discussion, which is supposedly about deciding which sources are appropriate to use on SA and which aren't. If all sources are biased and can function as propaganda organs, then you can't really make specific distinctions along those lines, and have to look elsewhere for judging what sources are "valid" and which are not. I also think there are just simply better media theories and critiques, including the work of Walter Benjamin and the Frankfurt School. Spoiler fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jun 23, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
The problem with the PM is that the specific claim it makes - that the media is biased in a specific way, for a specific reason, and that this exists only in the West - is wrong. I've posted several examples of why this specific claim is wrong. If you instead want to argue that the PM doesn't make a specific claim, but rather points out the media is biased, and this bias frequently operates to further the agenda of the government and powerful interests, then I would say that this claim is so obvious and universally true to be tautological, and you don't need a model to tell you that. If the "value" of the PM is to tell me the media is biased then I don't need the PM, because I already know that. Pointing out that how the media covers events is often motivated and influenced by factors other than "objectively reporting what occurred" is not meaningful in 2021, because all of us, on the internet, have lived that truth for over an decade at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
To elaborate, here are my specific issues with PM: 1. There are many examples of events where media coverage in aggregate do not align with the interests of Western imperialism, or fail to reach a consensus. The PM acknowledges that this may happen but says its not meaningful because this disagreement functions on the margins and does not effectively change the effect of the coverage - I disagree. There are many events where media disagreement, or disagreement between what the Western world ostensibly wants, are front and center. Or, to put it pithily, consent is not manufactured. 2. I do not believe the relationship between media, government, and profit centers is unique to the West, and you can find ready examples of it in non-capitalist countries. This is a problem because the PM argues that one of the specific frames that drives how events are covered and consensus is reached is anti-communism (later "the War on Terror"). When asked where the PM is applicable, Chomsky has only spoken about countries in the West. 3. I believe that is an inherent tendency with the type of thinking promoted by the PM to question not only how an event is covered, but the facts of an event itself. I've posted about this previously, but it is not a coincidence that Herman and Chomsky have not only questioned the presentation of genocide in the media, but the facts of genocides themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Sekhem posted:Sure, but you understand that your argument that it's wrong is actually pretty distinct from the one that Vox is making? As far as I can tell, you're discrediting it because its predictions and empirical applications fail to justify its hypotheses. Which is very distinct from the idea that it fails because it's unfalsifiable and its terms are too vaguely defined. If Vox's arguments were accurate, the model wouldn't be able to directly fail to explain events in the way you're describing, it would simply fail to commit to a stance which could be tested in this way. In my eyes people who are talking about falsifiability interpret the PM to be a fairly general model which simply argues that there is a level of government influence on media sources, and this influence can be seen on how events are framed and what events are covered, which I think is incorrect. I think the PM makes a specific claim that not only is there bias in the media, but that bias operates in a specific way, towards a specific outcome, and there is a level of homogeneity and consensus in media coverage that can be expected in line with this outcome. I think that this can be empirically tested, and I think you can easily demonstrate that this model is false. I don't know why you think PM isn't presented as specific to the West - it's very clear in the type of framing described, and the purpose that the media serves that this is specifically presented as a Western phenomenon. (And, to that point, for the PM to be meaningful and "testable" it has to make a specific claim. Not only do the "the elites" wield influence over the media, it has to be a specific, observable influence in a single direction. Otherwise it's not testable because everything can be dismissed as a product of the elites: or, a model that explains everything, explains nothing.) And that isn't even surprising. Manufacturing Consent was written against the backdrop of a bipolar world that was, to a large extent, simpler. There was much more consensus found in the media, and the connection between media framing and messaging and Western imperialism and goals was much clearer because foreign policy was really a conflict between two competing ideologies. That just simply isn't the world we live in in 2021. Look at how Western (and even just American) media has covered recent stories: from controversy over the election, to the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The type of consensus and direction of that consensus that PM would argue would be apparent just isn't there: there are significant disagreements between large media conglomerates in how events are framed, and this framing is often at odds with ostensible goals fo Western imperialism. And that's not to say there isn't bias in the media, or the media can't serve as a propaganda tool, or that the government doesn't influence media coverage. All of those things are true. They're just not true in the way the PM argues they are, and the PM isn't useful in understanding how these biases work. Spoiler fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Jun 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Something being subjective does not necessarily make something unfalsifiable. For example, if I tell you I see a unicorn standing in front of me, that is a subjective and falsifiable statement. Most of the time, being incapable of being directly observed could render something unfalsifiable. For this reason, much of psychology is unfalsifiable as the human mind cannot be directly measured and human observation of it is unreliable at best. Meanwhile, dark matter, dark energy, and sting theory in general are completely incapable of being observed. How is the statement "I see a unicorn standing in front of me" subjective? The argument that the PM is unfalsifiable is that, according to some posters, how the PM explains things means that there's an explanation for everything. One of the key components of the PM is that it argues that elite interest shape media coverage to serve their own goals, so however the media covers something is inline with the interests of the elite. If that coverage seems at odds with what the government wants, or changes over time, or disagrees with itself, that isn't proof the model is wrong, it's just proof that the interests of the elites are inscrutable. Its like I said that weather is caused by alien space lasers, and those lasers want every Wednesday to be sunny. Except when they don't want ti to be sunny. You can't disprove that because the model has room for every outcome: Wednesday is sunny or isn't sunny because of space lasers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I realized that was a bad example and removed it before you finished posting. Falsifiability is important here because some posters have presented the PM as useful for understanding media while other posters have disagreed. One way to show that the PM isn't useful is to show that it reaches incorrect conclusions, because then it's not very useful (or at least much less useful) because there are things it either fails to explain, or explains incorrectly. The other, more important piece of this discussion, is the falsifiability question also shows what different posters believe the model says. For some the PM makes several very specific claims about how media coverage works and you can show those claims are wrong. For other posters, the claims are seen as less specific (mostly resting on the fact that the model argues that coverage is in line with the desires of a nebulous group of elites) to the point that the model can't be falsified, because it has an explanation for everything. What's important is if this is true, then the model also isn't useful because it doesn't tell us anything - if everything can be ascribed to the desires of the elites, then, so what? How is that functionally useful? It's not a useful tool for helping you discriminate between media sources. Edit: I'm not sure what fields are not falsifiable, maybe theoretical physics? But other than that I'm not sure of a discipline in which a model doesn't involve some sort of testing and empirical evidence. Falsifiability, or proof, is generally what distinguishes science from faith. Spoiler fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jun 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:"Functionality" has no impact on validity especially in the world of criticism. It is a largely "useless" field after all. Functionality is what this thread is about, though. The purpose of this thread is to give posters tools to help them discriminate between different media sources and to have a better understanding of biases amongst sources they rely on. The PM is being discussed because some posters believe its a useful model that posters should use. This isn't a theoretical conversation, its a practical conversation. Cpt_Obvious posted:I listed 4 examples in the post you quoted: The field of psychology, dark matter, dark energy, and String Theory. I don't know anything about theoretical physics but I'm not sure why you would say the field of psychology is unfalsifiable...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 3, 2024 11:48 |
|
|
fool of sound posted:This is not a productive avenue capt obvious On some level you're the audience for this thread, where are you falling right now in terms of how useful the PM is?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 21:50
|
|