The Myth of the Liberal Media: The Propaganda Model of News



Uploaded by: ChallengingMedia
Video Description:
http://www.mediaed.org
Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky demolish one of the central tenets of our political culture, the idea of the "liberal media." Instead, utilizing a systematic model based on massive empirical research, they reveal the manner in which the news media are so subordinated to corporate and conservative interests that their function can only be described as that of "elite propaganda."


Tags for this video: Chomsky Critical Education Educational Edward Herman Industry Jhally Liberal Literacy Mass Media MEF Noam Politics Sut

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by ChallengingMedia

Related Videos
Noam Chomsky: Is Capitalism Making Life Better?9/11: BUSH STUMBLES OVER HIS 9/11 LIES AT A PRESS CONFERENCENoam Chomsky On Corporate Propaganda
noam-chomsky-is-capitalism-making-life-better.htmlnoam-chomsky-is-capitalism-making-life-better.htmlnoam-chomsky-is-capitalism-making-life-better.html
Noam Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley Debate : Part 1 of 2Bill O'Reilly on the "heavily liberal" mediaNoam Chomsky: Mass Media and Control Part 2/2
noam-chomsky-is-capitalism-making-life-better.htmlnoam-chomsky-is-capitalism-making-life-better.htmlnoam-chomsky-is-capitalism-making-life-better.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
As for whether or ... ( 6 days ago by timleebee)
As for whether or not the things I mentioned are Marxist - Marx believed the poor would take the power, property and wealth from the state. But first, the state had to own the property and wealth under Socialism. We see government increasing in size today. We see mroe rights being denied and more property, wealth and finances being claimed by the government. I think Marx believed class awareness would occur after socialism causing a revolution. It seems to me that we are moving toward that.
Brilliant comment ... ( 6 days ago by jtking2504)
Brilliant comment TasinAkiwo, for a 19 yo u hav great insightfulness!
The US media does absolutely play to fears & prejudices, as seen in several comments here around 'Marxism', which is as far away from US system as it gets. Giving back working ppl benefits of the tax they pay in basic healthcare etc. is nothing to do with Marxism. Ensuring the vulnerable, old, needy, mentally ill hav basic needs met is not a 'Marxist' system. Rewarding failed corporations with tax dollars is socialism.
I disagree with you ... ( 6 days ago by TasinAkiwo)
I disagree with you there, as do most socialists. Rewarding failed corporations with tax dollars is just Keneysian economics at work. If it was socialism, the money would be going directly into the pockets of the people who've been screwed over by those corporations. To be more precise, if it was socialism, all the work places that went under because of the capitalist class' greed would be taken over by the workers and kept open, just without capitalist control over them.
I hope that we are ... ( 6 days ago by TasinAkiwo)
I hope that we are moving toward revolution. I do think that the working class is becoming aware of its own power, but I hope that it doesn't choose the Marxist route, because that will only be trading one boss for another.
And I agree that the government has been increasing in size, but it hasn't been because of socialized institutions, its been the military and other "national security" organizations that have been taking the most from us.
I'm using the term ... ( 6 days ago by jtking2504)
I'm using the term loosely! The term is 'corporate socialism', it's not a scientific theory. A capitalist system should not be rewarding corporations for bad behaviour, particularly greed and corruption, abuse of power at the highest levels. Many ppl think the rich are that way b/c they work harder, many corpns just abuse their power. Ppl confuse unchecked corporate corruption as capitalism and 'free market', it also needs to be free of conflict of interest, taxes are being misused.
5d for the music ... ( 5 days ago by Renegen1)
5d for the music alone. The intelligent banter is icing on the cake. (ok the topic are very well discussed)
Isn't deregulation ... ( 5 days ago by TasinAkiwo)
Isn't deregulation (moving toward laissez-faire capitalism) what caused this mess to happen, though?
Within the "free-market" wealth will always centralize around fewer and fewer people. This means that they will gain greater and greater influence in society. When they (inevitably) screw up, they HAVE to turn to the state to save them. Capitalism can't survive without a state. They are necessary bedfellows.
No, don't confuse ... ( 4 days ago by jtking2504)
No, don't confuse corruption with capitalism. Without checks in place to prevent corruption, conflicts of interest etc, the market is not free it is corrupt and we have inefficiencies. No bid contracts are a prime example, caused by rampant conflict of interest with government and corporations.
They are necessary ... ( 4 days ago by jtking2504)
They are necessary bedfellows, but that means keeping things in check, it certainly doesn't mean allowing them to 'screw up' then going and fixing it when disaster strikes!!! The state should be keeping the system in check in the first instance, not patching it up because the state didn't do its job.
It isn't corruption ... ( 4 days ago by TasinAkiwo)
It isn't corruption because it is the very nature of capitalism itself. Capitalism pits human being against human being, with only the most ruthless succeeding. The state is there to preserve the status quo, the status quo is that we have a corporate dictatorship, so it only makes sense that the state would save Big Business at the expense of the working class.
WHAT?! No it is not ... ( 4 days ago by jtking2504)
WHAT?! No it is not, LOL. You think a free market is the same as an unchecked criminal playground, come on. What is the government there for, just to clean up the mess after the crims have robbed and destroyed companies and put thousands out of jobs, only then should the government step in & clean up with tax payers money! So every mismanaged corrupt company has a right to tax payers money? What are u smoking?
Its nothing to do ... ( 4 days ago by jtking2504)
Its nothing to do with 'ruthlessness', free competition means the most profitable survive, this ensures efficiency. If they fail, via corruption or any other means, they are inefficient and propping them up with money for failing is hardly an efficient system where only the best survive. Those that are unprofitable go out of business, rewarding the unprofitable, least efficient is not free market.
"You could find ... ( 3 days ago by succeedfromunion)
"You could find that 99% of the, uh, journalists are members of the socialists workers party...and that in itself would prove nothing."
Sometimes I like Chomsky, but that statement is comical. People slant, filter and interject all the time and at different levels. If you found that 99% of the employees at an investment firm hated you and wanted to see you ruined, would you trust them with your IRA? After all, you have no proof that they will mismanage your money.
I've already ... ( 3 days ago by TasinAkiwo)
I've already explained that. The point of the state is to maintain the status quo. The status quo is a corporate dictatorship, so the state will save people like Warren Buffet before they save working people like us.
You're living in a fantasy if you think that within the system you yourself explained the "profitable businessmen" won't use their economic influence to gain political influence. Depressions are a normal part of capitalism, saving the rich from them is also part of it.
You are assuming ... ( 3 days ago by TasinAkiwo)
You are assuming that journalists decide what gets aired or not. They don't, they just recite scripts which are approved by their higher ups. Now if their bosses are all voting a certain way, you might have a case, but how journalists vote doesn't matter.
Depressions will ... ( 3 days ago by jtking2504)
Depressions will happen when the unprofitable are allowed to fail. Saving them is not part of it, that would be socialism.
I try to assume ... ( 3 days ago by succeedfromunion)
I try to assume nothing, you are making the assumptions.
The concerns of the "higher ups" are at a much macro and amoral level. Journalist will be reviewed, after the fact, based on ratings and balanced with the ability to keep sponsors. What they sneak-in within that range, is clearly open to bias.
In fact, some of the most successful "news" personalities are blatantly and patently biased. I do agree that the bigger bias does go to the status quo in favor of big business and big brother.
Where in socialist ... ( 3 days ago by TasinAkiwo)
Where in socialist theory does saving big business exist? Or are you just labeling anything you disapprove of "socialism"? Every socialist I know from every stripe of socialism thinks that saving big business is the stupidest thing they've seen in a long time.
Just call it what it is, capitalism in crisis.
Try to connect the ... ( 2 days ago by jtking2504)
Try to connect the dots when ppl refer to 'corporate socialism' it does not require a scientific explanation. I'm done here.
Chomsky's point was ... ( 2 days ago by fuzzfilm)
Chomsky's point was to say that journalists must conform to the status quo, that they must slant themselves toward their corporate masters or else they will not be printed, broadcasted or have a job. It doesn't matter if they are socialists or whatever.
You're done because ... ( 2 days ago by fuzzfilm)
You're done because you're wrong. It is definitly capitalism in crisis, the system is failing because there is no more room for expansion. Under capitalism the worker must sell him/her self out just so a business can be profitable. Now on top of that they want that same worker to bail the bosses out with worker tax dollors. That is by no means no where near any kind of socialism. You have to do a better job connecting the dots for your self.
I have already ... ( 2 days ago by succeedfromunion)
I have already agreed that the bigger bias is to the status quo. In fact, I've argued the same point before even seeing this video. However, to say it doesn't matter is an overstatement of the facts.
For example, Chomsky has already stated that voting for Obama is the lesser of two evils. So if the media is biased in its support for Obama, then they are helping to make a difference.
great video... i ... ( 1 day ago by GstateBALLER925)
great video... i have always questioned the myth that the media is liberal. but there is always something that someone says that makes you think otherwise. its all manipulation.
I'm done b/c I'm ... ( 1 day ago by jtking2504)
I'm done b/c I'm tired of simpletons like you who cannot get their head around the most simple linguistic concept, it's boring trying to explain the obvious. Aside from keeping out of other people's discussions, you have completely missed the point, and you are continuing to rant on without having a clue what this discussion was about. Try connecting no and where & your and self together, they're both one word. Looks like someone failed Grade school.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code