With the greatest respect, this model is outdated by about 20 years. Most regime media outlets are struggling to survive. Their revenue pales in comparison to what it was before the introduction of social media. What little ad revenue that remains has been diluted by subscriber revenue and even govt subsidies. And many of the biggest news outlets are no longer owned by successful corporate media empires, with some exceptions. Many of them are owned by billionaires who regard their acquisitions as nostalgic play things.
Thanks for the comment. You're right that social media have changed things almost unrecognisably, but I think the Propaganda Model is still useful. Messrs Chomsky and Herman have been asked about this, and I'll try to summarise their arguments.
- Ownership is more concentrated and globalised than it used to be because of weakened anti-trust regulations.
- Competition with online media has made the focus on the bottom-line MORE intense, leading to a greater integration of news and PR: there's more product placement, less investigative reporting, and a greater reliance on government and business sources.
- Government flak is now so powerful the British Army was spying on its own citizens who dared to question the lockdown policy.
- The traditional media outlets are online and have prominent places there. They have the resources and pre-existing readership to give them a huge advantage over their competitors.
- The biggest players online (Google, Facebook, YouTube) are heavily dependent on advertising revenue. Many critics of the lockdown policy were banned from these platforms or de-monetised.
- The best of the alternative online media specialise in analysis, not news-making or investigative journalism.
For now, the regime media still plays an outsized role as information gatekeepers. I call it regime media because govt and corporations still use it to disseminate information. In this sense, they set the agenda and determine what news is being discussed.
In the US, the regime media still dominates the whitehouse press gallery. They get to ask all the questions at press conferences, they get the official govt news releases, they get the leaks from govt insiders.
Yet, the Chomsky model is becoming increasingly irrelevant. We are in a transition period where the regime media wields power and clout that no longer reflects its actual direct influence on consumers.
The decline in ad revenue has crippled the industry. It has made ownership less profitable and much weaker. Everyone, big and small, is competing for subscribers, which now provide the largest source of a shrinking revenue base. The New York Times is still the largest newspaper in the world, with 1,700 reporters, but a single man named Joe Rogan is competing with it for consumer influence. One man.
Ron DeSantis doesn’t even bother talking to the national media anymore. He gets his message out directly through Twitter and conservative influencers on podcasts and independent media. If he is ever elected president, expect big changes to the whitehouse press gallery.
Think of Substack. No one heard of it five years ago. Yet here we are. What will happen in five more years, 10 more years. Bari Weiss is hiring writers and growing her influence. In 10 years, her stable of writers could potentially rival that of any newspaper in the country. Or maybe someone else comes along.
A friend of mine works for the National Post in Canada, the last remaining national newspaper chain in the country, which is hanging on by a thread. Like the rest of the regime media in Canada, it receives govt subsidies, because the business model is broken and the federal govt needs its gatekeeping services.
He used to work in a massive office building that at one time housed hundreds of reporters. There’s less than 50 of them now and they work in a common virtual newsroom that serves three different publications. It’s virtual because none of them have returned to the office since Covid lockdowns and it’s unlikely they ever will. That massive office building sits empty now, a rusty relic of what used to be.
What we are experiencing now is like an echo or background noise. The regime media still wields tremendous influence with newsmakers and casual consumers, but gone are the days of waking up and starting the morning with a coffee and your favourite rag.
The hollowed-out media has made it easier for govt to manipulate information. Despite this influence, we have access to more information than ever. Think of the Great Barrington Declaration. The regime media, big tech and the state all colluded to shut it down. Yet it received widespread attention because the authors went directly to alternative media, sidestepping the regime media and gatekeepers altogether.
We seem to be at an inflection point. It could go one way, with the state absolutely owning the narrative and controlling information even more tightly. More likely, there are more eyes than ever scrutinizing the state and spreading information through a much more diffuse media platform.
Whatever happens, the regime media will get weaker. It’s influence will be less pervasive. It’s just a matter of time before it’s irrelevant.
I might be missing something, but I'm struggling to see how the falling revenues of the regime media invalidate the propaganda model. Which of the five "filters" no longer applies?
1. Ownership: all the social media companies are huge, private corporations.
2. Advertising: social media rely heavily on advertising revenue. Joe Rogan has ads both on YouTube and Spotify.
3. Sources: people writing on Substack (and other platforms) still depend on government and business sources. How many newer writers are actually in the press gallery or at question time? As you say, many independent media are getting their news straight from Mr DeSantis.
4. Flak: I see no signs this is going away soon.
5. Fear: Is probably much more intense on social media than anywhere else.
I think you're right, though: Substack provides a huge opportunity to break open the consensus. It's why I'm here.
“On this model, the mass media systematically convey information, frame debate, and formulate controversies in a way that supports the corporate worldview.”
This is the essence of the Chomsky model. Although the regime media still plays a powerful role in this regard, it has been crippled by shrinking revenues. It can’t possibly have the same power. There are fewer regime media outlets and they have less reach.
In fact, any power it now possesses is an artifact of its former dominance. CNN and the NYT have outsized influence, based on their reputations, not on their ability to connect with consumers.
Chomsky’s model was published in 1988. The industry doesn’t look anything like it did back then. Social media didn’t exist. It’s true that social media has taken over the gate keeping role, but it does not produce content. Twitter and Facebook merely distribute it.
Social media depends on the regime media for content, and the regime media depends on social media for distribution. The regime media was much more powerful when it controlled both content and distribution.
Alternative media didn’t exist 20 years ago. The rise of podcasts, independent media and Substack has been spectacular. While social media might always play a powerful role as gatekeepers, alternative media is forging direct links with consumers and news makers as well. The information landscape is much more diffused now.
I’ll refer back to the Great Barrington Declaration. Despite extraordinary efforts by the state, the regime media and big tech to wipe it off the map, millions of people heard about it. Twenty years ago, consumers didn’t have the ability to know because there was no alternative media platform. We got what info we were given.
At some point, the regime media actually has to make money and influence consumers directly. It can’t rely on govt and billionaire benefactors to prop it up financially. And it can’t rely on social media to distribute its content.
Interesting, in-depth analysis. I really need to watch that Murray/Gladwell debate; I keep hearing about it. Growing up as an upper middle-class kid in Southern California (and as an intellectually curious punk rocker as a teen) I of course started reading Chomsky. As always, he became my leftist God for a while. I grew out of him at some point. Now I’m 40. I tried reading him again a few years ago and, intelligent and knowledgeable as he is, I found him basically unreadable. His extreme bias is so flagrant, so over the top, that I just couldn’t read it.
The media conversation is complex. Up until 2020 I was mainly reading NYT, the New Yorker, and WaPo. I lived in Manhattan. But ever since Trump’s rise in 16 I’d been noticing subtle shifts in language and approach in major media outlets. Then after Floyd everything shifted religiously. NYT has since then routinely misrepresented stories (Central Park Karen, for example); buried unfavorable pieces (black guy who ran car into Wisconsin parade; NYC black racist subway shooter); or falsified information to continue a narrative (black men beating up Asians in the city was ‘white supremacy’). I could go on. NYT and others still have great reporting. There’s still plenty worth reading. That said: They are no longer totally trustworthy institutions, sadly. Neither are any outlets on the right side of the ledger. I’ve turned to podcasts like The 5th Column and Bill Maher.
Anyway. Fun article. Sounds like we have some things in common.
How interesting - thank you for sharing! You were a teenage punk rocker? I was a teenage metalhead.
Yes, you're right: you need a very strong stomach to handle a lot of Mr Chomsky's work, even if you gorged on it in your youth. I, too, noticed a shift in the media after 2016, even in Australia. There are heaps of good podcasts, but they almost exclusively provide analysis and commentary, not news.
Nice! I got into metal post-punk. Ever listen to the band D.R.I.? They had a record called Crossover which was their shift from hardcore punk yo metal. Good stuff. Yeah: I think most intellectually curious people go through a Chomsky Phase. The News definitely shifted starting round 16, then majorly in 2020. Hopefully it course-corrects. Interesting to recall that the term ‘fake news’ originated on the left and got co-opted by trump.
No, I hadn't heard D.R.I. - though I just gave the first track of Crossover a listen. I probably would have loved it ten years ago, but I fear I might be getting too old for that sort of stuff now.
I would suggest not reading, watching or listening to any mainstream media. If you want to know about, say, economics go and read 3 books on the subject (then you'll know more than 99.9% of the world on the subject.) Don't worry, if something really important happens eg the passing of the Queen, someone will tell you about it.
Find a number of different types of journalistic/current affair blogs, that allow comments, and read the same story (and user comments) on them. Then, I believe, you'll have a (more) accurate idea of what actually happened.
I suspect all of this is actually a diversion. have us debating things we have no control over: like telling us that today we have no power (of course as individuals we never had any power). The goal of the very rich can only ever be to get richer, which means at our expense.
Interesting idea. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. The rich can become richer without NECESSARILY making others poorer, and a good deal of philanthropy does exist... I hope you're wrong but suspect you're right.
It’s also okay to agree to disagree.
With the greatest respect, this model is outdated by about 20 years. Most regime media outlets are struggling to survive. Their revenue pales in comparison to what it was before the introduction of social media. What little ad revenue that remains has been diluted by subscriber revenue and even govt subsidies. And many of the biggest news outlets are no longer owned by successful corporate media empires, with some exceptions. Many of them are owned by billionaires who regard their acquisitions as nostalgic play things.
Thanks for the comment. You're right that social media have changed things almost unrecognisably, but I think the Propaganda Model is still useful. Messrs Chomsky and Herman have been asked about this, and I'll try to summarise their arguments.
- Ownership is more concentrated and globalised than it used to be because of weakened anti-trust regulations.
- Competition with online media has made the focus on the bottom-line MORE intense, leading to a greater integration of news and PR: there's more product placement, less investigative reporting, and a greater reliance on government and business sources.
- Government flak is now so powerful the British Army was spying on its own citizens who dared to question the lockdown policy.
- The traditional media outlets are online and have prominent places there. They have the resources and pre-existing readership to give them a huge advantage over their competitors.
- The biggest players online (Google, Facebook, YouTube) are heavily dependent on advertising revenue. Many critics of the lockdown policy were banned from these platforms or de-monetised.
- The best of the alternative online media specialise in analysis, not news-making or investigative journalism.
For now, the regime media still plays an outsized role as information gatekeepers. I call it regime media because govt and corporations still use it to disseminate information. In this sense, they set the agenda and determine what news is being discussed.
In the US, the regime media still dominates the whitehouse press gallery. They get to ask all the questions at press conferences, they get the official govt news releases, they get the leaks from govt insiders.
Yet, the Chomsky model is becoming increasingly irrelevant. We are in a transition period where the regime media wields power and clout that no longer reflects its actual direct influence on consumers.
The decline in ad revenue has crippled the industry. It has made ownership less profitable and much weaker. Everyone, big and small, is competing for subscribers, which now provide the largest source of a shrinking revenue base. The New York Times is still the largest newspaper in the world, with 1,700 reporters, but a single man named Joe Rogan is competing with it for consumer influence. One man.
Ron DeSantis doesn’t even bother talking to the national media anymore. He gets his message out directly through Twitter and conservative influencers on podcasts and independent media. If he is ever elected president, expect big changes to the whitehouse press gallery.
Think of Substack. No one heard of it five years ago. Yet here we are. What will happen in five more years, 10 more years. Bari Weiss is hiring writers and growing her influence. In 10 years, her stable of writers could potentially rival that of any newspaper in the country. Or maybe someone else comes along.
A friend of mine works for the National Post in Canada, the last remaining national newspaper chain in the country, which is hanging on by a thread. Like the rest of the regime media in Canada, it receives govt subsidies, because the business model is broken and the federal govt needs its gatekeeping services.
He used to work in a massive office building that at one time housed hundreds of reporters. There’s less than 50 of them now and they work in a common virtual newsroom that serves three different publications. It’s virtual because none of them have returned to the office since Covid lockdowns and it’s unlikely they ever will. That massive office building sits empty now, a rusty relic of what used to be.
What we are experiencing now is like an echo or background noise. The regime media still wields tremendous influence with newsmakers and casual consumers, but gone are the days of waking up and starting the morning with a coffee and your favourite rag.
The hollowed-out media has made it easier for govt to manipulate information. Despite this influence, we have access to more information than ever. Think of the Great Barrington Declaration. The regime media, big tech and the state all colluded to shut it down. Yet it received widespread attention because the authors went directly to alternative media, sidestepping the regime media and gatekeepers altogether.
We seem to be at an inflection point. It could go one way, with the state absolutely owning the narrative and controlling information even more tightly. More likely, there are more eyes than ever scrutinizing the state and spreading information through a much more diffuse media platform.
Whatever happens, the regime media will get weaker. It’s influence will be less pervasive. It’s just a matter of time before it’s irrelevant.
I might be missing something, but I'm struggling to see how the falling revenues of the regime media invalidate the propaganda model. Which of the five "filters" no longer applies?
1. Ownership: all the social media companies are huge, private corporations.
2. Advertising: social media rely heavily on advertising revenue. Joe Rogan has ads both on YouTube and Spotify.
3. Sources: people writing on Substack (and other platforms) still depend on government and business sources. How many newer writers are actually in the press gallery or at question time? As you say, many independent media are getting their news straight from Mr DeSantis.
4. Flak: I see no signs this is going away soon.
5. Fear: Is probably much more intense on social media than anywhere else.
I think you're right, though: Substack provides a huge opportunity to break open the consensus. It's why I'm here.
“On this model, the mass media systematically convey information, frame debate, and formulate controversies in a way that supports the corporate worldview.”
This is the essence of the Chomsky model. Although the regime media still plays a powerful role in this regard, it has been crippled by shrinking revenues. It can’t possibly have the same power. There are fewer regime media outlets and they have less reach.
In fact, any power it now possesses is an artifact of its former dominance. CNN and the NYT have outsized influence, based on their reputations, not on their ability to connect with consumers.
Chomsky’s model was published in 1988. The industry doesn’t look anything like it did back then. Social media didn’t exist. It’s true that social media has taken over the gate keeping role, but it does not produce content. Twitter and Facebook merely distribute it.
Social media depends on the regime media for content, and the regime media depends on social media for distribution. The regime media was much more powerful when it controlled both content and distribution.
Alternative media didn’t exist 20 years ago. The rise of podcasts, independent media and Substack has been spectacular. While social media might always play a powerful role as gatekeepers, alternative media is forging direct links with consumers and news makers as well. The information landscape is much more diffused now.
I’ll refer back to the Great Barrington Declaration. Despite extraordinary efforts by the state, the regime media and big tech to wipe it off the map, millions of people heard about it. Twenty years ago, consumers didn’t have the ability to know because there was no alternative media platform. We got what info we were given.
At some point, the regime media actually has to make money and influence consumers directly. It can’t rely on govt and billionaire benefactors to prop it up financially. And it can’t rely on social media to distribute its content.
Yes, I see your point - that's something for me to think about.
Interesting, in-depth analysis. I really need to watch that Murray/Gladwell debate; I keep hearing about it. Growing up as an upper middle-class kid in Southern California (and as an intellectually curious punk rocker as a teen) I of course started reading Chomsky. As always, he became my leftist God for a while. I grew out of him at some point. Now I’m 40. I tried reading him again a few years ago and, intelligent and knowledgeable as he is, I found him basically unreadable. His extreme bias is so flagrant, so over the top, that I just couldn’t read it.
The media conversation is complex. Up until 2020 I was mainly reading NYT, the New Yorker, and WaPo. I lived in Manhattan. But ever since Trump’s rise in 16 I’d been noticing subtle shifts in language and approach in major media outlets. Then after Floyd everything shifted religiously. NYT has since then routinely misrepresented stories (Central Park Karen, for example); buried unfavorable pieces (black guy who ran car into Wisconsin parade; NYC black racist subway shooter); or falsified information to continue a narrative (black men beating up Asians in the city was ‘white supremacy’). I could go on. NYT and others still have great reporting. There’s still plenty worth reading. That said: They are no longer totally trustworthy institutions, sadly. Neither are any outlets on the right side of the ledger. I’ve turned to podcasts like The 5th Column and Bill Maher.
Anyway. Fun article. Sounds like we have some things in common.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
How interesting - thank you for sharing! You were a teenage punk rocker? I was a teenage metalhead.
Yes, you're right: you need a very strong stomach to handle a lot of Mr Chomsky's work, even if you gorged on it in your youth. I, too, noticed a shift in the media after 2016, even in Australia. There are heaps of good podcasts, but they almost exclusively provide analysis and commentary, not news.
Nice! I got into metal post-punk. Ever listen to the band D.R.I.? They had a record called Crossover which was their shift from hardcore punk yo metal. Good stuff. Yeah: I think most intellectually curious people go through a Chomsky Phase. The News definitely shifted starting round 16, then majorly in 2020. Hopefully it course-corrects. Interesting to recall that the term ‘fake news’ originated on the left and got co-opted by trump.
No, I hadn't heard D.R.I. - though I just gave the first track of Crossover a listen. I probably would have loved it ten years ago, but I fear I might be getting too old for that sort of stuff now.
I would suggest not reading, watching or listening to any mainstream media. If you want to know about, say, economics go and read 3 books on the subject (then you'll know more than 99.9% of the world on the subject.) Don't worry, if something really important happens eg the passing of the Queen, someone will tell you about it.
Find a number of different types of journalistic/current affair blogs, that allow comments, and read the same story (and user comments) on them. Then, I believe, you'll have a (more) accurate idea of what actually happened.
Heartily agreed - though I depend on the mainstream media for football gossip.
Most remarkably, Chomsky himself was captured by The Narrative - COVID Edition.
Indeed he was. I'm a little surprised he hasn't realised it.
I suspect all of this is actually a diversion. have us debating things we have no control over: like telling us that today we have no power (of course as individuals we never had any power). The goal of the very rich can only ever be to get richer, which means at our expense.
Interesting idea. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. The rich can become richer without NECESSARILY making others poorer, and a good deal of philanthropy does exist... I hope you're wrong but suspect you're right.
The TV crime shows always remind us to "follow the money".