Editing Propaganda model (section)

==Reception==
On the rare occasions the propaganda model is discussed in the [[mainstream media]] there is usually a large reaction. In 1988, when Chomsky was interviewed by [[Bill Moyers]], there were 1,000 letters in response, one of the biggest written reactions in the show's history. When he was interviewed by [[TV Ontario]], the show generated 31,321 call-ins, which was a new record for the station.
In 1996, when Chomsky was interviewed by [[Andrew Marr]] the producer commented that the response was "astonishing". He commented that "[t]he audience reaction was astonishing... I have never worked on a programme which elicited so many letters and calls".{{sfn|Edwards|1998}}

In May 2007, Chomsky and Herman spoke at the [[University of Windsor]] in Canada summarizing developments and responding to criticisms related to the model.<ref name=20years>[http://www.uwindsor.ca/units/commstudies/propaganda.nsf/intoc/dc899988bd643987852572cd006efae1 20 Years of Propaganda] University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada, May 2007</ref> Both authors stated they felt the propaganda model is still applicable (Herman said even more so than when it was introduced), although they did suggest a few areas where they believe it falls short and needs to be extended in light of recent developments.{{sfn|Mullen|2007}}

Chomsky has insisted that while the propaganda role of the media "is intensified by ownership and advertising" the problem mostly lies with "ideological-doctrinal commitments that are part of intellectual life" or [[Intellectual history|intellectual culture]] of the people in power. He compares the media to scholarly literature which he says has the same problems even without the constraints of the propaganda model.<ref>[https://chomsky.info/20011115/ Chomsky In First Person], Frontline</ref>

At the Windsor talk, Chomsky pointed out that [[Edward S. Herman]] was primarily responsible for creating the theory although Chomsky supported it. According to Chomsky, he insisted Herman's name appear first on the cover of ''Manufacturing Consent'' because of his primary role researching and developing the theory.<ref name=20years />

===Harvard media torture study===
{{quote box|width=30%|align=right|quote=From the early 1930s until...2004, the newspapers that covered [[waterboarding]] almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture: ''The New York Times'' characterized it thus in 81.5% (44 of 54) of articles on the subject and the ''Los Angeles Times'' did so in 96.3% of articles (26 of 27). By contrast, from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture.|source=—Desai et al.<ref name="HarvardStudy">[http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4420886/torture_at_times_hks_students.pdf Torture at Times: Waterboarding in the Media]</ref>}}

In April 2010, a study conducted by the [[John F. Kennedy School of Government|Harvard Kennedy School]] showed that media outlets such as ''[[The New York Times]]'' and ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' stopped using the term "[[torture]]" for [[waterboarding]] when the US government committed it, from 2002 to 2008.<ref name="HarvardStudy"/> It also noted that the press was "much more likely to call waterboarding torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator."<ref name="HarvardStudy"/> The study was similar to media studies done in ''Manufacturing Consent'' for topics such as comparing how the term "genocide" is used in the media when referring to allied and enemy countries. [[Glenn Greenwald]] said that "We don't need a [[state-run media]] because our media outlets volunteer for the task..." and commented that the media often act as propaganda for the government without coercion.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/|title=New study documents media's servitude to government|date=June 30, 2010|website=Salon}}</ref>

===Studies of media outside the United States===
Chomsky has commented in the "ChomskyChat Forum" on the applicability of the Propaganda Model to the media environment of other countries: 
<blockquote>That's only rarely been done in any systematic way. There is work on the British media, by a good U[niversity] of Glasgow media group. And interesting work on British Central America coverage by Mark Curtis in his book ''Ambiguities of Power''. There is work on France, done in Belgium mostly, also a recent book by Serge Halimi (editor of ''Le Monde diplomatique''). There is one very careful study by a Dutch graduate student, applying the methods Ed Herman used in studying US media reaction to elections (El Salvador, Nicaragua) to 14 major European newspapers. ... Interesting results. Discussed a bit (along with some others) in a footnote in chapter 5 of my book ''Deterring Democracy'', if you happen to have that around.<ref name=forumacrh /></blockquote>
For more than a decade, a British-based website [[Media Lens]] has examined their domestic broadcasters and liberal press. Its criticisms are featured in the books ''[[Guardians of Power]]'' (2006)<ref>{{cite news |first=Peter |last=Wilby |title=On the margins |newspaper=New Statesman |date=30 January 2006 |url=http://www.newstatesman.com/200601300049}}</ref> and ''Newspeak in the 21st Century'' (2009).<ref>{{cite news |first=Stephen |last=Poole |title=Non-fiction review roundup |newspaper=The Guardian |date=3 October 2009 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/oct/03/nonfiction-review-roundup-stephen-poole}}</ref>

Studies have also expanded the propaganda model to examine news media in the [[People's Republic of China]]{{sfnm |1a1=Hearns-Branaman |1y=2009 |2a1=Hearns-Branaman |2y=2015}} and for film production in Hollywood.{{sfn|Alford|2009}}

====''News of the World''====
{{Main|News of the World phone hacking affair}}

In July 2011, the journalist [[Paul Mason (journalist)|Paul Mason]], then working for the BBC, pointed out that the [[News International phone hacking scandal]] threw light on close links between the press and politicians. However, he argued that the closure of the mass-circulation newspaper ''[[News of the World]]'', which took place after the scandal broke, conformed only partly to the propaganda model. He drew attention to the role of [[social media]], saying that "large corporations pulled their advertising" because of the "scale of the social media response" (a response which was mainly to do with the newspaper's behaviour towards [[Milly Dowler]], although Mason did not go into this level of detail).<ref name=PMason>"[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14093772 Murdoch: the network defeats the hierarchy]", BBC.</ref>

Mason praised ''[[The Guardian]]'' for having told the truth about the phone-hacking, but expressed doubt about the financial viability of the newspaper.
<blockquote>One part of the Chomsky doctrine has been proven by exception. He stated that newspapers that told the truth could not make money. ''The Guardian''...is indeed burning money and may run out of it in three years' time.<ref name=PMason /></blockquote>