Talk:Propaganda model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Propaganda model has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The current article seems to be a parroting of Chomsky's views, which doesn't seem neutral to me. Patrickdavidson 00:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggest improvements instead of complaining. Chamaeleon 11:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well surely there ought to be a section 'Criticism of the Propaganda model'. Contrary to what Chomsky says there has been serious criticism (I don't count criticism by loonbats like Horowitz et al, i mean serious criticism). I'll write the section of no one else wants to........BScotland.

The previous version of the article was extremely poor and barely intelligible. I have rewritten it completely. If you feel I left something valuable behind, by all means merge it with the new version. Sir Paul 07:09, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It probably belongs under communism or Marxist theory. --68.45.161.241 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] patrick lelay quote

The old link http://actu.voila.fr/Article/article_multimedia_040709152529.oiggf44w.htm no longer works (and someone removed it from the article). i'll see if i can find another link, because even if this has been quoted fairly widely in France, it's best to have a direct link if possible... Boud 15:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. For the record's sake, i'll put the original French here (yes, of course, this should go to the fr.wikipedia, i'm just too lazy to translate the full (en) article right now and integrate it properly in the (fr) one - the problem is that there is already a good article fr:propagande and i'm not (yet) sure if translating the whole chomsky/herman model makes sense. Probably, yes,...).

From this url

The book name:

"Les dirigeants face au changement" (Editions du Huitième jour).

The citation:

Il y a beaucoup de façons de parler de la télévision. Mais dans une perspective business, soyons réaliste : à la base, le métier de TF1, c'est d'aider Coca-Cola, par exemple, à vendre son produit. ... Or pour qu'un message publicitaire soit perçu, il faut que le cerveau du téléspectateur soit disponible. Nos émissions ont pour vocation de le rendre disponible : c'est-à-dire de le divertir, de le détendre pour le préparer entre deux messages. Ce que nous vendons à Coca-Cola, c'est du temps de cerveau humain disponible. ...

Just a side comment. I was under the impression that much of the mainstream media was harshly critical of the Reagan policy in Central America, and many news outlets did question whether the Contras should be considered as freedom fighters or terrorists kept alive solely by the CIA. Of course, I wasn't alive during the time, but I've looked in some archives and it seems to be the case. It certainly doesn't seem like the Times or other prominent news sources were trying to indoctrinate Americans into anti-Sandinista fervor. Trey Stone 06:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's surprising. Can you give references and/or quote a mainstream article extract criticising intervention? Chamaeleon 12:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Critique - Ethnocentric

The article doesn't seem to account for the fact that portions of the Propaganda Model is ethnocentric and deterministic - you could not, say, apply the ownership filter to the British or European media scene which is, for historical reasons, organised very differently. It also overshoots journalistic autonomy almost entirely, assuming to some degree that professional ethics are either equal to that of the corporation, or irrelevant. Snooo 18:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, it is based on the US situation. The US is not an ethnicity or race, so it is not "ethnocentric". It is, however, mostly applicable to the US media, and that is a valid criticism. If you can find an academic paper pointing this out, then you should mention it in the article. Do not fail to notice, however, that with a few tweaks the Propaganda Model is indeed universal.
Journalistic autonomy and ideology is covered by the fifth filter: the ideology of the journalist, which includes a lot of internalised system-supporting values.
"Deterministic" is probably one of the most meaningless epithets out there. You might as well call it "gay". It is a term used to describe any theory that seeks to explain something that the critic does not want explained. Chamaeleon 14:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And 'Universal' is not equally a meaningless epithet? Not all media suits a propaganda model. I am not claiming that the propaganda model is not valid, in some contexts it certainly is. But in some contexts it is invalid. Snooo 00:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As for the fourth filter covering for journalistic ethics, there is much evidence to show that, in some cases, journalistic ethics may run opposed to dominate ideology or the proprietors wishes. A good example is the resistence of British Observer journalists to Tiny Rowland's attempts to change the news agenda to suit his business' interests. Snooo 18:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, "universal" means that if I go to Uganda and discover that the media are largely in the hands of big corporations and greatly rely on advertising revenue, then I would expect to see bias towards the interests of these people in the same way as we see bias in the US.
The fifth filter is journalists' beliefs. It is quite rightly put after the other four, both in terms of its negative effects (elite bias is caused more by the other four) and its positive effects (as shown by the fact that those Observer journos are the exception rather than the rule). Chamaeleon 14:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] implications/criticisms of the Propaganda Model

Shouldn't we be transcribing the nature of the propaganda model (PM), and then later as an exstension the particular crtiques (such as the charge of 'determinism'). In Neccesary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies (1989) Chomsky maintains that the PM refers to 'democratic' institutions rather than explicitly US institutions - the plurality in the title of the latter book suggests this. This seems to be Chomsky's firm position - that the PM is inherent within a wider system. I think perhaps to mention his position (possibly Herman's too?)would convey a more accurate description.

Also, there is indeed room for a discussion of criticism of the model, indeed I content it is necessary to understand the PM fully, in Neccesary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies (1989) Chomsky describes the various strands of criticism directed towards the PM (see appendixes 1-3) and his frank discussion is crucial in understanding an implied logic of the PM: that the 'democratic' (Chomsky's quotes, not mine) institutions will dismiss the PM through various tactics. In other words the PM predicts the institutions have an inbuilt bias and further cannot aknowledge that bias - Chomsky maintains that unaknowledgment of the PM occurs in -

1. ignoring cited cases of propaganda that exposes 'atrocities' carried out by the 'democratic' institutions, or at least where the institutions are to some extent (perhaps tacitly) involved. (e.g in ignoring comments about Vietnam)

2. Making occasional passing references to 'atrocities' cited that do not involve (to a lesser degree)the 'democratic' institutions (e.g the IRA)

3. The highest level of 'recognition' (not so much in the findings of the PM but rather in its existance) occurs in 'atrocities' carried out by 'enemies' of the 'democartic' institutions (or what Chomsky calls states that do not serve the said institutions) where the institutions refute claims of unfair reporting (e.g the Soviets war in Afghanistan).

  • I put quotation marks arround 'democracy' to highlight the disparity of definitions. The forementioned findings are crucial implications to the PM and its 'relationship' to citicism: the logic being that for the institutions to conform to the PM they would be required not to aknowledge the findings - through the said methods of complete ignorance/slim akmowledgment/complete refussion.

Does anyone think there are any particular problems with the above, with the condition of using direct quotations to confirm the implications? To me, a mention of citicisms are important - particularly when we consider the actual topic at the heart of the study - one criticism of the propaganda model might be that it is itself a form of propaganda (indeed, according to Chomsky - this is a necessary crticism that the institutions need to perpetuate, this too conforms to the PM). Indeed, I consider the notion of repression important here (in a marxist sense), accordingly the institutions will repress the PM. Repression might be a criticism in a different sense: to repress the findings of the PM would confirm its validity, whilst to recognise the findings would too (or would it!?) Paradoxically, would the PM also have to recognise its own inherent propaganda to validitate itself?

- there is considerable room for discussion on these topics, but to my mind acheiving a Npov would be hard because of the nature of the topic at hand, though the nature of wikipedia is surely the best place for a discussion of this nature (a domain free, to a larger extent, from the 'institutional repression': in short I argue that an accurate overview of the implications of the PM have and the criticisms. (N.Coleman)

I think a summary of the criticisms of the propaganda model would be useful. It does not apply in every single sinario and, due to the emphasis on the american media model, requires subtle modification to be applicable to other media landscapes. One problem I find is that there is little disscusion within the model of what could be a better alternative. On your propaganda point, there is always an assumption in leftist critiques of the media that there is a valid truth to defend - this valid truth could also be put up to question.
I don't think the Propaganda Model isn't valid, but it is over a decade old and this article, as it stands, does not cover any possible shortcomings within the framework. Snooo 18:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally just for clarification: in the Bruce Sharp article I quoted from, he does NOT mention Karl Popper or Induction. What he does say (in this article here: http://jim.com/canon.htm) is 'The mistake that I think Noam Chomsky makes is a pretty common one. He has formulated a theory about collusion between the government and the media, and he looks for evidence to support his theory ... To emphasize: he looks for evidence to support his theory. He doesn't simply examine evidence objectively. He seeks out evidence that supports his theory, and disregards evidence that tends to dispute it.' Sophal Ear says the same: The empirical process was turned upside down, first came theory, followed by evidence.'.

I have interpreted this as Sharp and Ear saying that the Propaganda Model(PM) is essentially unfalsifiable (or at least unfalsifiable by Chomsky and Herman). They (according to Sharp and Ear) never look for evidence that might contradict or falsify the theory, but only ever look for evidence that supports it. So to say that this is part of Popper's critique of inductivism is propblematic. On the contrary, they are really saying that Chomsky and Herman aren't inductive ENOUGH: they start off with a theory and never look for evidence that might contradict the theory. Another problem, I might add, is that Chomsky doesn't seem to understand that theories (especially in the social sciences) tend to be underdetermined. Even if the PM explained all the evidence, this doesn't mean that another theory might not explain all the evidence as well (or better than) the PM. For example it might be argued that the difference in death tolls and the difficulty of reaching East Timor, might explain the difference between coverage of Cambodia and East Timor as well as (or better than) the PM. As well as being underdetermined theories in the social sciences tend to be overdetermined (polycausal). Chomsky and Herman tend to assume that the news we get is mono-causal: i.e. PM causes 'News'. But in reality there may be many many causes for an individual news story, of which various aspects of the PM might only be one. 86.3.29.137 13:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TDC recent edits

Chamaeleon has objected to my recent edits claiming that the model is not disputed. All one has to do is go the the main Noam Chomsky article to see that there are many critics of Chomsky's propaganda model.

And since Chamaeleon brought it up, I now feel obliged to include a much more detailed and specific criticism section on the propaganda model, so as to respond to Chamaeleon’s contention that no one disagrees with it and all parts of the model are uncontroversial.

Sometimes you really should leave well enough alone. TDC 20:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] what is source for 75% of "profits" of NT times comes from advertising?

I was a little surprised at this statement. Shouldn't it be "revenue"? --Silverback 01:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It might be. How much do you think the profits would be? Chamaeleon 09:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem is not the quantity of profits, but that profits are not usually allocated to revenue sources. It would take some strange permutation on cost accounting that would be subjective, especially since it is a non-linear situation, yes it may be cheaper to get more advertising than to get more subscriptions, but without the subscriptions there would be nothing to attract the advertisers. Chomsky and the other guy would be incorrect to use profit rather than revenue in this circumstance. Can you provide evidence that they made this error?--Silverback 19:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Best ask whoever originally put that in the article. In any case, crudely put, profits are revenues minus costs. If NY Times rake in, say, $25m from sales and $75m from ads, that's 75% of $100m revenues from ads. If they have costs equal to half of their revenues, then they have profits of $50m and 75$ of that is due to ads. You can't say that more of the costs were due to making the news than to printing the ads, because — as you say — there is no such separation: they couldn't sell the ad space if they didn't have a newspaper, etc. Change the wording to "revenue" if you believe it is the word that economists would prefer, but I don't believe it makes any difference on the ground. Chamaeleon 19:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This issue is extremely dependant on how the New York Times Co structures varying income and operating expenses from different divisions and revenue sources. Revenue sources require some form of investment to have them generate revenue. Some revenue sources provide a higher return on investment than others. Multiple revenue streams of varying return provide a business with a more broad income base. Overall, income vs expenses is not directly proportional to the individual micro-components that make up those macro values. But, by your logic, the actual "profits", since they are the same proportion to revenues, are not even 75%, but 60.99% in 2004 and 60.18% in 2003 [1]. TDC 23:46, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think I may have stumbled onto something, if the 75% number comes from the book, it should be easy enough to verify whether or not this is true. What do you want to bet that Chomsky has once again deliberately misrepresented a source? The answer to this will be found out very shortly. TDC 23:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
Although Marxoid types believe they possess a deep and rich understanding of economics, I think this clearly shows otherwise. TDC 01:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Les dirigeants face au changement citation, original research

Am I to assume that the quote from the president of TF1 has been specifically mentioned by Chomsky or Herman as being evidence of the funding filter of "the propaganda model", or is this just another example of original research? TDC 23:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a quotation from a major TV boss "original research" here, but I don't mind if it's taken out. It will be put back in though, if anything attacking the Model is added. Chamaeleon 11:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are just too cute sometimes! Seriously though, it does not matter what you consider original research. If someone other than yourself has used the above citation from Les dirigeants face au changement in some an academic work or polemic, then it can stay. Otherwise, bye bye. Oh, and nice threat about the attacking the Model, that just provides me with all the more reason to make this criticism section my piece de resistance.TDC 18:26, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Please read what original research is: WP:NOR - However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Let's repeat that: collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged.
Original research would be if, for example, i was the person interviewing Patrick Le Lay and writing the book, and the book was not actually published, and i expected other wikipedia people to trust me that i was correctly reporting what Patrick Le Lay stated. That would be original research. But that is not the case.
If the organizing and collecting of information is wrong, i.e. if Le Lay's quote has nothing to do with finansing of the media, then it would be justified to remove it. But that is also not the case IMHO. Boud 02:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
If this were a more general article on the media, then I don’t think there would be a problem with the inclusion of this quote. But since this deals with a specific theory, the "Propaganda model", adding material that seems to support it without a proper citation claiming as much, would be, IMO, OR. The information is not being added to inform, in this case, it is being added to support the model. Ten Dead Chickens 16:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
i'll cite again from WP:NOR: collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. If you do not like WP:NOR, then please try to explain to people why the policy should be changed. Boud 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I too, will cite the relevant section again: "It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." /'
The application of either the TF1 statement or the truthout article constitutes this. This article deals with a specific theory and the material added is being used to support specific tenants of this theory. These particular examples act to support the Propaganda model theory and, as such, must be attributed to someone who uses them for this purpose. This is not informative information, this is being used to support the argument, and as such is a violation of WP:NOR unless it can be attributed to someone who uses these specific examples in this manner. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The article on the Great Disappointment cites Cognitive Dissonance as an example of a failed prophecy in a religious context: the Great Disappointment. Whoever introduced this did not make the connection themselves. Cognitive Dissonance, like the Propaganda Model is a specific theory and when examples are going to be applied to it, they need to attributed to someone notable who has made the connection; in that case of the Great Disappointment and CD it was James T. Richardson, not the editor who added it. In the case of this particular article, the TF1 statement, while a seemingly good example, must be attributed to someone as such, otherwise it falls under the statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position portion of WP:NOR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Torturous Devastating Cudgel's point here, and agree partly with his objection. Therefore, I have removed the phrase, "An example is that" so that the two examples (TF1 and the government-produced videos) are provided as related facts without any claims that they are actual instances of the article's subject matter. This does not violate the passage of WP:NOR to which TDC refers. Publicola 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] parent conglomerate ownship filter

When reporting news involving their parent conglomerates, media companies are required to disclose the relationship, thus alerting viewers/readers to the possible conflict of interest. --Silverback 09:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the ownership filter increased by shareholder control?

It seems to me that shareholder control is more remote and less involved that private ownership. Their point doesn't make sense.--Silverback 09:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"[the giant media companies] have legislative and regulatory needs in Washington. They have the imperative of increasing stockholder value. What we've learned in the last 25 to 35 years is that this creates all kinds of potential pressures and influences on what news consumers get." -- Dan Rather October 9th 2006
But hey that's just Dan Rather, can't trust him right? And the very notion of a corporation attempting to increase the value of their stock is so insane it isn't even worthy of contemplation. LamontCranston 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People try to act in their own best interests

People try to act in their own best interests. And this book and theory spell out the consequences of that in datail in the setting of commercial "news". Its less of a theory and more of commonsense results of application of known facts.4.250.168.238 13:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disclosure

no, but disclosure allows the listener to decide whether it is propoganda or not, and makes the broadcasters more conscious of what they are doing and perhaps more careful

Does every Fox News broadcast begin with an announcement in which it is pointed out that Rupert Murdoch has control of the network, and, being very rich, has an interest in tax cuts for the rich (to take one specific example) and (in general) the maintenance of the status quo? If not, it is not sensible to suggest that the ownership filter is seriously diminished by anaemic disclosure laws. Chamaeleon 14:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You should look at the scope of the ownership filter as described in this article. It just has to do with news that impacts the owning conglomerate, it isn't generalized to all news. There are disclosures quite often when news impacts the owning conglomerate, or one of its direct competitors, such a mergers, regulatory changes, etc. Business related news is tightly regulated, not only is ownership of the media outlet disclosed, but commentators of the various stocks are required to disclose any position they hold in the stock, and the interviewer explicitly asks for this disclosure.--Silverback 14:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are assuming a difference between "news that impacts the owning conglomerate" (by which you perhaps imagine news that mentions it by name) and "all news" (by which you perhaps mean coverage of wars, etc, not directly to do with the corporation). There is no such difference: the most important form of bias is the general Weltanschauung that is pushed. Chamaeleon 14:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You appear to be taking an argument they make regarding "certain information", and trying to generalize it to all information. Rich people are shareholders in the other conglomerates, and yet the other networks didn't favor tax cuts for the rich. By taking your interpretation, the theory is robbed of its predictive value.--Silverback 15:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say that all such powerful people would necessarily make their media outlets actively advocate that specific goal on which they have a conflict of interest (tax cuts for the rich). I just said that there was such a conflict of interest and cast doubt on the idea that any media outlet anywhere would ever publicly (i.e. daily on their TV show or newspaper) admit the fact that such conflicts existed. In reality, they admit to only a subset of their conflicts, and the info is kept largely secret. Fox News, to take one example, does manage to find the space to claim more than daily that they are "fair and balanced" etc, whereas they inform viewers about their conflicts of interest much, much less, if at all. Chamaeleon 19:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] removal of qoutes

The old version of the article with the quotes from the authors is more sensible. And I don't think it has anything to do with NPOV. It would be better to revert the changes. Alex 14:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the quotes was done where the authors point was already expressed in the preceding paragraph. To add quotes, which basically reinforces the prior explanation, is overkill and not encyclopedic. TDC 14:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
The quotes make it easier to understand the explantion. Either make the explanations clearer, or put the quotes back there. Alex 14:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the explanations are more than clear without the quotes. And as I said, an article so heavily laden with quotes is extremely unencyclopedic. But if you need clarification, open up a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, go to an article and note the lack of long winded quotations. TDC 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diffiuclt to access East Timor...

"whereas it was more difficult to access East Timor." Well now that’s not entirely true, there were 6 journalists operating out of Australia who got there easily enough...of course 5 of them were brutally slaughtered by the Indonesians during their invasion and the 6th was summarily executed, without trial naturally, when he went looking for them a few weeks later. -- LamontCranston 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory?

The Propoganda Model is not a theory. A theory is simply guesswork without substanciation. The PM is based on research by Chomsky, etc. Therefore it should not be called a theory. More of a method of anaylsis of media functionality.

"A theory is simply guesswork without substanciation" oh wow, you've been to the Christian School of Debating haven't you? A 'theory' is "A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena" & "A field of study attempting to exhaustively describe a particular class of constructs" – Exactly what the Propaganda Model does. You however make the word ‘theory’ out to be something Bubba and I thought up last night while cooking Ice and dynamiting for fish. - LamontCranston 22:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You however make the word ‘theory’ out to be something Bubba and I thought up last night while cooking Ice and dynamiting for fish, thats actually a pretty fair assesment of what Chomsky and Herman have put together. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh? Could you provide an example or two? LamontCranston 13:27, 02 April 2006 (UTC)
Umm sure, In 1976, the New York Times, one of the primary examples of the model published 66 articles on Chile’s human rights record and four on Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge and only 3 such articles on the human rights situation in Cambodia. A similar patter was seen untill 1980, when it became impossible to deny. Tell me again how this points to the anti communist bias? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
So your only contention is with the 5th and final qualifier, anti-communism/ideology? And based on that, you consider the whole thing bunk? LamontCranston 15:43, 02 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] presence of journalists

In the "criticism" section the underreporting of the genocide in East Timor in comparison to Cambodia is explained by pointing to the fact that journalists were already present in the Combodja region. This argument is fallacious because, as Chomsky himself has pointed out many times, these same "present reporters" were not reporting the clandestine US bombings of Eastern Combodia after 1969. The first one of the horrific genocides the Cambodians had to endure in a decade.

So, obviously the presence of reporters cannot have been the crucial factor for the difference in reporting of the two genocides.

--- Depends what you mean by 'crucial factor': whether journalists can physically reach an area is certainly a factor which affects the extent to which they can cover a story: whether it is a (or the) 'crucial' factor is a subjective call. This cuts both ways, incidentally. For example, it is generally agreed that in '76 and '77 coverage of Khmer Rouge atrocities in the West diminished. There are doubtless many reasons for this but one of them (surely) is that at this point the KR greatly tightened up border controls and journalists simply found it difficult to get access to Cambodia. Coverage zoomed up again in '78 and '79. In the same way journalists had not one but three major problems in covering East Timor: First, getting into Indonesia itself (which was at this time a fascist regime run by Suharto), then getting to East Timor (an island, let's never forget) and then escaping Indonesian death squads (as the commentator above points out). Even at its worst, in Cambodia people could still escape from the country and journalists could talk to refugees, but in East Timor hardly anyone got off the island, and so journalists had no one (or very few people) to talk to.

This is not a 'one off': Chomsky's approach here derives directly from his philosophy of science and view of what constitutes an 'explanation'. He has been tireless in advocating a Galilean/Newtonian/Cartesian view of the social sciences, in which they should model themselves as much as possible on physics (i.e. physics as seen by Newton or Einstein). In other words, he sees social phenomena (like natural phenomena) as resulting from essentially simple, deterministic laws (or models). In other words, he likes simple explanations for complex problems: for example: 'how can we learn language?': answer, 'Language Acquiring Device'.

Chomsky is perfectly happy to accept that large aspects of human behaviour is not amenable to this kind of analysis, but he simple draws a line round this 'stuff' and says 'well this is a chaos that science will never understand'. The question is: is 'why do we get the news we do' in the first or second category? Is it, in other words, a complex problem with a simple solution (i.e. the propaganda model) or a complex problem with many many different, complex solutions? Chomsky tends to assume that it is in the first category, which may be true or false or whatever, but is still an assumption which must be argued for. User: BScotland

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Talk%7EPropaganda_model_b015.html"