Editing Propaganda model (section)

==Criticism==
The propaganda model has received criticism, including accusations of being a [[conspiracy theory]], being a solely structural model that does not "analyze the practical, mundane or organizational aspects of newsroom work.", being analogous to the "[[gatekeeper model]]" of mass media, failing to "theorize audience effects.", assuming "the existence of a unified ruling class.", and being "highly deterministic".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Klaehn |first=Jeffery |date=January 2003 |title=Behind the Invisible Curtain of Scholarly Criticism: revisiting the propaganda model |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616700306487 |journal=Journalism Studies |language=en |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=359–369 |doi=10.1080/14616700306487 |issn=1461-670X|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== ''The Anti-Chomsky Reader'' ===
Eli Lehrer of the  [[American Enterprise Institute]] criticized the theory in ''[[The Anti-Chomsky Reader]]''. According to Lehrer, the fact that papers like ''The New York Times'' and ''The Wall Street Journal'' have disagreements is evidence that the media is not a monolithic entity. Lehrer also believes that the media cannot have a corporate bias because it reports on and exposes [[corporate corruption]]. Lehrer asserts that the model amounts to a Marxist conception of right-wing [[false consciousness]].{{sfn|Lehrer|2004}}

Herman and Chomsky have asserted that the media "is not a solid monolith" but that it represents a debate between powerful interests while ignoring perspectives that challenge the "fundamental premises" of all these interests.{{sfn|Herman|Chomsky|2002|p=Ix}} For instance, during the Vietnam War there was disagreement among the media over tactics, but the broader issue of the legality and legitimacy of the war was ignored (see [[#Coverage of "enemy" countries|Coverage of "enemy" countries]]). Chomsky has said that while the media are against corruption, they are not against society legally empowering corporate interests which is a reflection of the powerful interests that the model would predict.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu1ONVg362o  Chomsky "Media" interview by Andrew Marr] ''The Big Idea'', 1996</ref> The authors have also said that the model does not seek to address "the effects of the media on the public" which might be ineffective at shaping [[public opinion]].{{sfn|Herman|Chomsky|2002|p=xii}} Edward Herman has said "critics failed to comprehend that the propaganda model is about how the media work, not how effective they are".<ref>"[http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm The Propaganda Model: A Retrospective] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040603191844/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20031209.htm |date=2004-06-03 }}" Edward Herman</ref>

===''Inroads: A Journal of Opinion''===
Gareth Morley argues in an article in ''Inroads: A Journal of Opinion'' that widespread coverage of [[Israel]]i mistreatment of protesters as compared with little coverage of similar (or much worse) events in sub-Saharan Africa is poorly explained.{{sfn|Morley|2003}} This was in response to Chomsky's assertion that in testing the Model, examples should be carefully paired to [[Scientific control|control]] reasons for discrepancies not related to political bias.{{sfn|Chomsky|1989|p=152}} Chomsky himself cites the examples of government mis-treatment of protesters and points out that general coverage of the two areas compared should be similar, raising the point that they are not: news from Israel (in any form) is far more common than news from sub-Saharan Africa. Morley considers this approach dubiously empirical.{{sfn|Morley|2003}}

===''The New York Times'' review===
Writing for ''The New York Times'', the historian [[Walter LaFeber]] criticized the book ''Manufacturing Consent'' for overstating its case, in particular with regards to reporting on Nicaragua and not adequately explaining how a powerful propaganda system would let military aid to the Contra rebels be blocked.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/06/books/whose-news.html?scp=1&sq=Manufacturing+consent&st=nyt | work=The New York Times | title=Whose News? | first1=Walter | last1=Laferber | date=6 November 1988}}</ref> Herman responded in a letter by stating that the system was not "all powerful" and that LaFeber did not address their main point regarding Nicaragua. LaFeber replied that:
<blockquote>Mr. Herman wants to have it both ways: to claim that leading American journals "mobilize bias" but object when I cite crucial examples that weaken the book's thesis. If the news media are so unqualifiedly bad, the book should at least explain why so many publications (including my own) can cite their stories to attack President Reagan's Central American policy.<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/11/books/l-news-and-propaganda-307488.html?scp=2&sq=Manufacturing+consent&st=nyt | work=The New York Times | title=News and Propaganda | date=11 December 1988 | access-date=22 May 2010}}</ref></blockquote>

Chomsky responds to LaFeber's reply in ''[[Necessary Illusions]]'':
<blockquote>What is more, a propaganda model is not weakened by the discovery that with careful and critical reading, material could be unearthed in the media that could be used by those that objected to "President Reagan's Central American policy" on grounds of principle, opposing not its failures but its successes: the near destruction of Nicaragua and the blunting of the popular forces that threatened to bring democracy and social reform to El Salvador, among other achievements.{{sfn|Chomsky|1989|pp=148–151}}</blockquote>