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

The most startling thing to me is this footage is nearly a quarter century old. The myth hasn't died, it's grown.

This was originally made in the early 90s

May have been true back then but definitely not true today

IN THE PAST 5 YEARS I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE USA OR THE OLD USSR

The media is all about the bottom line. The almighty dollar. Making sure their sponsors are happy regardless. Example: Presidential debates=very important matter yet the media has to cut the candidate off to get to a very important message about laundry detergent instead.

I would like to see a remake of this video

Interview with an US comedian doing a show in Norway.: The Iraq, Afghan war came up, and the comedian went on about freedom and democracy for the Muslim people. When asked about Norwegian comedians, he found them to be too weak in criticizing their own government. At that point the journalist could not hold back, and replied: Here in Norway we let our free press criticize our government. Relying on comedians to criticize the people in power, were something we did back in the middle ages....

@educheny @educheny I think the most effective way to look at the media question is to remember that what comes out of the television is a product, so to speak- paid for by advertisers, and a news organization is not free to put whatever they like on the air, it must first be profitable. This means first that news that might be important (but boring) will get passed over because it doesn't increase viewership, and secondly stories that might do harm to advertisers will likewise be buried (cont)

we need more people like these guys because there are so many similair things happening in our world we are aware of, and i like hearing this type of thing that gets me thinking more about my surroundings.

The problem is Choamsky cant see his own liberal bias, which is especially true because the more liberal you are, the less the world around you seems liberal (rather conservative). Another issue is using the term "the media" because as he points out, that includes a lot of people. Editorials are the worst example of liberalism, whereas raw "fact-reporting" tends to be less so. 1: He teaches in the most liberal state in the country "Massachusetts has since gained a reputation as being a politically liberal state and is often used as an archetype of liberalism, hence the usage of the phrase "Massachusetts liberal"." 2. He teaches at MIT: Also liberal by obvious reasons (rich, and liberal area). E.g. "In my opinion, MIT is CONSIDERABLY more liberal than Harvard." 3. He is a college professor: again, not only predictable as urban, and wealthy, with little fear of job loss = all traits of liberal societies. 4. I can rip into almost any media piece and show its HIDDEN liberal bias, but since it tends to be more sophisticated (e.g. money-driven), it is harder to deconstruct. It is biased against the poor. Since Choamsky is wealthy, we can also assume the risk for liberal bias, since poor societies tend to be conservative. 5. It will always be natural in a wealth-increasing society for the society to increase in liberalism, throwing tradition out the window, and the news is simply an amplifier of such societies, so we would suggest slightly liberal in general; but if wealth is accelerating, or in concentrated areas, then more liberal. So if conservative ideas and leaders are making a comeback, it's probably a sign of the decrease in wealth in times to come, not the enemy of liberalism. This is not to say all media is liberal 6. He makes a point that if all journalists voted liberal then that wouldnt prove anything, but makes no statement as to why that idea is false. How could personal bias not be reflected in everything we do, esp. in what we attempt to teach others. 7. He assaults anyone with terms like "cynicism" "idiotic" and others to suggest that no one should even dare attempt to try to claim that media is biased 8. All major media outlets are urban (and wealthy). Urban is a synonym for liberal. He is also urban. What do poor, rural, immigrants really think? We will never know. 9. He claims that if news is run by conservatives, then it must have a conservative slant--yet no proof as well. For all we know, the wealthy that own the media simply feed society whatever sells the most papers, and makes them the most rich, so conservative/liberal makes no difference. 10. He says that obviously, the average American is wrong, even though so many letters pour into news stations--mass delusion, or perhaps Noam doesnt understand the average person. I'd have a debate myself with Noam, but I am powerless, a nobody, and obviously not worth talking to since I am a delusional person who doubts the legitimacy of "news" www.candeor.com

Noam Chomsky describes himself as an anarcho-syndicalist and libertarian socialist, and is considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of politics of the United States.

They asserted the existence of research showing a conservative bias, then critiqued the methodology of studies purporting to show a liberal bias. They never gave examples of the studies showing conservative bias or gave an example of this bias in action.

The funny thing is the media has turned even more right wing since this was put together.

Um yeah....so this didn’t age well.

"MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE SAYS REPUBLICANS OWN MEDIA, WE DON'T HAVE THAT EVIDENCE BUT JUST TRUST US."

12 years later...

Boy has this changed in 2019! MEDIA is disgustingly left these days.

The mistake Noam makes is that yes, many of the business owners of media are very capitalist conservatives that do not care what bias is among the journalist employees, but the body of journalists clearly have an overwhelming liberal bias in both persoanl views and the content they produce. This matters most because it determines the content people consume.

This aged well..

@trallala Here is the issue you may be missing: The liberal bias that is typically found is on social issues. On the other hand, however, the conservative bias is on an economic level. When I say a conservative bias, I'm being mainstream. In reality, the conservative bias in media is a neoliberal bias on economic issues. Think bias on social security, bailing out the corporations, etc., etc. When you receive any bias on these issues, do some research on the specific issue.

I like how Chomsky says that by asserting the opposite position you can control dialogue without evidence, then asserts that the media leans right without evidence. Smart guy.

Brilliant!

And the few wealthy banking families owns both parties. You won't find that on the news, because they don't want it known.

Another thing about open, democratic or free societies is that the state is no longer the single influence on policy and such. Because citizens can now control their own fate, increase capital and grow rich, naturally they will want to further their own power and capital process and so they funnel money into these major media conglomerates (7 companies own over 98% of all media, 6 own over 90% of all internet access). These companies have deals to work with each other at our cost.

Does anyone know what happened to the New York Times Ombudsmen that came out and admitted that the Times was biased? He went on vacation right after his statement and I don't think we have heard from him since.

Even Karl Marx said as much in his writings. Marx was no friend of religion or the family, but he claimed that it was bourgeois capitalism that was already destroying both religion and the family. He hated all three.

@lennhart An even bigger clue: I'm a progressive liberal and my voice is nearly absent within the major institutions that disseminate information (I would call it news, but there is no such thing as news, there is only marketing in one form or another).

He said that "even if the facts were correct (he's saying IF 80% of journalist voted democrat) it proves absolutely nothing about the MEDIA OUTPUT. Edward Herman follows up with something along the lines of "saying that journalists choose the media output is like saying factory workers choose what the factory creates." the journalists do not choose what the media portrays, they simply do the job they are told to do by shareholders, who are only interested in profit. profit comes from advertisers

Andy Rooney, a Democrat, said that in 2004 the opinion of the media was equally biased; "half of them liked Kerry, the other half hated Bush"

@leardrum1 Here is the issue you may be missing: The liberal bias that is typically found is on social issues. On the other hand, however, the conservative bias is on an economic level. When I say a conservative bias, I'm being mainstream. In reality, the conservative bias in media is a neoliberal bias on economic issues. Think bias on social security, bailing out the corporations, etc., etc. When you receive any bias on these issues, do some research on the specific issue.

The problem with the "80% of journalists vote democratic" is that it ignores how media products are made. Journalists are employees who are given assignments from editors, who then in turn have to answer to higher ups. If 100% of the workers at Ford wanted to build lower emission vehicles, that would mean nothing since decisions are made by owners and not employees. If you want a good example of right-wing bias in the news, just compare the coverage of the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street.

this guy is distorting chomsky and herman's views, they do indeed agree that the media lean left, chomsky has himself said it. Chomsky does not say or think the media is biased to conservatives. Herman and Chomsky say the media is subordinated to power through advertising and does their bidding by bounding debate between certain limits.

That depends on the nation. The UK and Spain both have higher debt per ration of their wealth output a year than the US.

The reason your understanding of what constitutes "left" and "right" is so skewed is because it is shaped by corporate media. The fact that you see the media as being liberal is a sign of how the propaganda system works; it discourages you from looking outside the system because you think Olberman and Maddow are as far left as they come. Here are just a few things they wouldn't be able to say: "Factories should be owned by those who work in them" "American exceptionalism is wrong."

Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: the business connections among the owning corporations, the identity of the controlling investors, and the personal, political, and financial affiliations of external directors.

Archbishop Charles Chaput -- "We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith - and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices.” If you can't believe these sources about religion, can you believe anything else they print?

"Conservatives often defend Fox ’s rightward slant by claiming that it simply counterbalances a predominantly left-leaning media. But previous FAIR studies have found that, across the supposedly “liberal” media, Republican sources dominate-and Fox simply skews even farther to the right."

@owingawat A better understanding of the terms "right-wing" and "conservative" is that, in the English language sense, conservative means, "disposed towards preserving existing conditions, institutions, etc. or to restore traditional ones, to limit change." In the political science sense, it is best understood to be a synonym for rightist. This invalidates the idea that the media is somehow right-wing or conservative in the political science sense for two reasons:

I was told in Journalism school that studies show that while individual journalist tend to be liberal the one's who decide (the editors, producers, owners etc) are usually conservative. The one's who control the actual message are more often conservative.

This is like the pot telling the kettle "we're not black".

Put simply; the news is no longer news--it's advertising.

Here is the most concise answer I can give: There is a substructure to society (i.e. natural resources, the means of production, means of distribution) and superstructure (i.e. cultural norms that arise to protect the owners of that substructure). Whenever technology changes the relations of production, that superstructure is no longer needed and changes......

there is a lot more to this video. Herman goes on to discusses the news media's impact on world politics.

In the democracy of the media marketplace where the viewers of the news are its voters, the lack of patronage to Chomsky's ideas is its primary weakness. In this same marketplace democracy where beliefs are its commodities, truth is essentially the belief that most people buy into. While it is easy to deride the current media industry status quo, those who want to debunk it have not advanced a commercially feasible alternative to what is already out there.

Boy are Americans liberal with the use of the word 'liberal'.

Only the Khmer Rouge is liberal enough for Chomsky. Perhaps that is why he supported them early on and continued to apologize for their genocide even after 2 million innocent people had been murdered.

Perhaps the correct question to ask is not whether or not some media outlet has "right-leaning" or "left-leaning" bias (because definitions and understandings of "right" & "left" shift overt time), but the correct question to ask is "are the media free to allow expression from whatever view-point there is?" I can certainly tell you there's nothing left-leaning about a MeetThePress brought to me by Lockheed. That pretty-much tells me I'll never get comprehensive coverage of our foreign policy.

It's important to distinguish between (capital L) "Liberal" and (small l) "liberal". The former is political/ideological, the latter ethical. The news media (like education) SHOULD be liberal, but NOT "Liberal". Sadly on social/cultural issues they are Liberal, while on foreign policy and war and govt.power, they are Conservative. Economically, they're just pro-consumerism and globalization.

Read "Manufacturing Consent." The evidence he and Edward Herman provide in it is simply overwhelming. And when I say "overwhelming," I mean it cannot be encapsulated in some mindless, jingoistic cliche.

duh, YT does not allow me to enter url normally. it's in my comment above, after the "remove whitespaces" remark.

debating whether or not the media favours the left or the right is a futile exercise.The important thing to remember is who owns the media and what is their agenda.It should not take a huge leap of faith for anyone to believe what information you receive from the media will be biased ,and that bias will be in the best interest of the entity that funded the broadcast whether it is from the left the right or whoever.

@TreyIsFly This video continues on...I'm not sure why they don't have the full video posted here, but I'll look for it. What it goes on to detail is how the majority of the people who control the media, for example, like Conrad Black (before he was jailed), and Rupert Murdoch, are profoundly conservative people, and that it is their viewpoints that shape the direction and focus of their media entities- newspapers, news channels, et cetera.

I've read that article, and it suggests the same things that this clip is saying, that there is really no leftist media bias, and that the one example they showed as being most biased was the Wall Street Journal, which I'm sure most would agree is not a left wing media tool, to be only slightly left leaning. Just because a news outlet doesn't prop up your lies, doesn't make it biased. It's called journalism.

First, Olberman and Maddow don't "own" their show just because their name is on it. The show was given to them by a producer, who is most likely conservative. These pundits are selected to reach a certain demographic, but they can not get away with saying what ever they want. Suppose Olberman and Maddow did start to go further and called for sit-in strikes or that democracy should also extend to the work place--their shows would not last more than a week.

... In socialism, the means of production is placed in the hands of the workers. It can potentially be done through nationalization in the context of a workers' state, but it can also be done directly by workers' councils, as in council communism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. In capitalism, the means of production is in the hands of the bosses and the elite. This control of capital can be enforced by government (as in Pinochet's Chile) or through "representative" democracy, as in the US.

"Total government" is *totalitarianism*. This refers to the mode of government. Socialism is more economic philosophy than a mode of government, which is why socialism doesn't prescribe anything about the type of government. Socialist governments can be democratic (that's what social democrats believe), it can be absent (anarchists), etc. etc. What makes socialism distinct is who gets control of the means of production, distribution and exchange. These are economic, not political issues. ...

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group-whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called the common good.

99.9999% of people who don't know their history, ok.

Liberalism, ever since the Renaissance period, has always contended against various forms of absolutism - that is, the religious fundamentalism and the various fascist and/or authoritarian ideologies that has always been prevalent throughout history. A true "liberal bias" always questions the validity of established authority, which is at the heart of the liberal tradition. Demonizing the "liberal bias" is just one of the ways those in the commanding heights maintain their choke hold on power.

The questions I posed to you were important because they speak to how it is anybody can claim the media has liberal bias, despite the fact that it's extraordinarily subjected to the influence concentrated private power. My argument was far more nuanced than "since it's part of a corporation it can't be a government loving liberal perspective." That's precisely why i asked if you could distinguish between SUPERFICIAL forms of bias. My argument, rather was more to the effect that the media advance

Actually Obama said that "American exceptionalism is wrong" when he compared it to British and Greek patriotism (nothing unique). Olberman and Maddow may not have said that particular phrase but they are liberal on religion, family values, gun rights, etc. They're Liberal, not Socialist. They're certainly not Conservative.

what has changed since this research? Large corporations have decided through democrat/liberal pressure to fold their capitolistic ways and join the democrat party (when they are in power) and go with the 'if you can't beat em', join em'. GE is one of the largest corporations with some of the largest government subsidized contracts. Yes it is still manipulated by corporations but not all are conservative interests. Basically liberals have persuaded large media co's and corp's as well.

I would tend to believe Chomsky, his rather eccentric ideology notwithstanding. His academic achievments are legend. He is widely recognized as the foremost intellectual of our day and has been cited as a source more often than any other living scholar.

Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky need to produce more videos. It does more damage to their liberal views than anyone on the right could ever accomplish. They are so narrow minded, for educated men, that it is amusing to watch. Thanks for the laughs!

Oh, I forgot. You have to copy and paste those links into the adderssbar (the one on the top of the browser... the browser... that thing you use to go on the internett)

@nfgpunk That wasn't the argument. You weren't listening.

@educheny (such as exposing worker abuse etc). This would indicate that any for-profit media center is not going to be free to report news as it is, and not tailored to any particular political or social angle.

@Vebinz Because I want info as close to the original source as possible, and I don't want it to be filtered through the ideology of a group of people who think they know better than I what I should think. If I'm going to listen to biased accounts (and all accounts are biased), I want to hear the authentic biases of people at the source, and judge for myself.

Before people start hailing Chomsky as a genius, I suggest they read the book -The Anti-Chomsky reader by Horowitz. Then you will realize whether Chomsky is really a genius or just a stooge.

@jerthemessiah Did you actually watch/absorb the video?

This is hardly a demolition. Mr Chhomsky's ideas work in his mind, but his formulas don't stand up.

And since you're such an expert please let me know where I can find books you've written or lectures you've done regarding the propaganda model. I want to learn from the master who has a great knowledge on the subject.

Instead we live in world presented as open, ever evolving into the perceived myth of uncorrupted transparency, and the more we are told that we are getting closer to our ultimate goal, the lower the veil is pulled over our eyes. So question everything, because the most evil yet efficient way to subjugate a society is to coercively foster it into believing that it’s free.

Yes, Democrats and Republicans constitute two factions of the same de-facto political party: If it had a name, it would be called the Pro-War Business Party. My point on FOX News was that they might be partisan, but many conservatives & libertarians may be shocked to find out that they're not all that "free market" oriented, assuming --of course-- that you care to hold them accountable to their own supposed free market credentials. As a former libertarian, I love to bring that up!

My argument rather was to the effect that the media advance the interests of powerful interest groups, including the military sector, the crime control sector, and the financial services sector. I look at the actual overall CONTENT of the media to make this judgment. I don't look at some superficial statistic on how many journalists supposedly vote Democrat or how many positive or negative stories there were about conservatives or liberal movements. It's useful to identify what is superficial.

The county I live in is evenly divided, there are republicans in the north, democrats in the south, and the center where i live is purple. I hear the arguments all the time, and more than a few democrats have stated that we should put the rich in the poor house. Though my area is not rich, so there are no rich lberals here, the rich ones usually are republicans in the suburbs

@kjv387 Well, they could understand "corporations own the media and they want to make cash, so they are for any laws that could push them to make more cash even if it mean that the news are shitty."

"there is almost no evidence to support a liberal media bias".... unless you watch CNN, CBS or MSNBC. Now, FOX obviously has a conservative bias but gimme a break about the other outlets being objective or left leaning. Look at what stories get their attention vs those that don't. Listen to how the story is described and think to yourself "is there another way in which the same information could be communicated that doesn't seem as if it is trying to shape my opinion?"

That's a very far stretch to say that NPR's listeners got Williams fired. The relationship is not that direct & there are other nuanced realities to take into consideration that I've touched on before. I wouldn't even say that the listeners endorse infringements on free speech, but rather targeted boycotts to express their own personal outrage -- if it ever came to that, which it never did. I don't think it ever would have either. My guess is that NPR might have over-reacted.

US health care ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization.

@wojciechidzikowski It does not take away the fact that you have to search to find, that you have to try to spread your message or information. Media (not counting internet) is still the main institution that spreads information and messages to, at least what I think, more than the majority of the public. Of course this is very difficult to make a good calculation about.

A lot of people don't understand the nature of things, ponder this. In a democratic republic society, you cannot go around stabbing and killing dissidents because you will lose power. In an authoritarian government you can and there is really one strong influence, the state/leader. In a democratic republic, citizens ideally can disseminate information for themselves but if they followed their own agenda, then we would have unbreakable unions, higher wages, more social change, etc etc. So

I agree with Dr. Chomsky that the true measure of media bias is not "how the media votes" but rather "how free the media is to report what they feel is important." However, how free is the media from the tendency that has been observed (in the wider population at least) to feel a sense of ownership of the party which they voted for? In other words, do journalists not unconsciously play "team politics" like the rest of the population does? If in fact they do, then 80% of journalists voting for democrats certainly would indicate some form of media bias (although it would not indicate that "net media bias"--which takes into account all sources of bias--favors democrats.)

Chomsky has stated that there is a liberal tilt in the media. What he denies is that it is free. Within the spectrum of the U.S. political process traditional mainstream media has definitely leaned center-left. But that's not the same as saying that it is "leftist" in the general spectrum. It certainly isn't. But then the population itself is not "leftist", or definitely not in the sense that Chomsky is. But they could become so if they had more access to leftist ideas in the main media.

And Obama didn't wage war in the Middle East, he couldn't even if he wanted to--that's Congress. And he also didn't torture anyone. Not sure where you got that from. That's not him who's doing that.

@FreeAgain2 \ I looked up a couple of sites, but I kept getting error messages when I tried to post the lings. One said that certain brain structures begin development in the 5th week, but didn't mention cognitive development or a cerebral Cortex Another site said that brainwaves can be detected in 13-16 weeks, but never said if it's possible to have brainwaves before then. Apparently, something like this is going to take an exhaustive about of research.

Yes, you're right. Williams can go to other media outlets which have other policies tan NPR. Still, when it's policy of NPR not to allow that sort of statements, I guess they presume that their viewers don't like such statements. So, company policies react to the opinions of their clientele and therefor you can say that the people who watch NPR got Williams fired. And if they don't like it, it's their choice and it's the choice of NPR to respond to that. I agree.

@owingawat 1) While many people, including a political science professor I once had, often confuse or associate the English language meaning of conservative with the political science meaning, they are not the same. What’s conservative in the English language sense is not necessarily conservative in the political science sense. Many conservatives want to see Row V Wade overturned, while many liberals want to see it kept in place.

first of all, Chomsky wasn't a 'world-renowned public intellectual' back in the 70's. second, PLEASE read the linked article and THEN answer.

Yes I did. You said my argument was ridiculous, albeit you identify the wrong reason because I never made my argument upon the premise you presented. I did say the the media can be said to be "right leaning" on matters concerning wide-scale structural features of our economy and foreign policy. That's why I originally talked about the big picture. That's why I wanted to start off defining what is liberal or conservative. It's why I wanted to differentiate between the superficial & the important

@DrCruel I'm not sure how you can prefer "opinion pieces" over, say biased news sources, when it's the same thing basically. A biased "fact" is not much different than a subjective point of view.

Did you not hear his analogy to car manufacturing? Do you think reporters assign and OK their own work as it appears in the newspaper? Newspapers are products of large corporations, almost exclusively, these days.

@Pomme843 Funny how quickly you went from "That's why people have arguments, to teach to and learn from eachother," to "Quit this 'See if you can learn something while you're there'-tone with people."

This was definitive, thorough and authoritative. All my doubts about the media were addressed and questions answered-every single one. A slam dunk. The "liberal media" myth is dead and boy am I glad! Thanks, gentlemen.

@Vebinz My reasoning is that it's easier to deal with people who are trying to cater their propaganda to an alien culture than with accomplished professionals from a liberal or Leftist perspective, who work through an institution with an ideological agenda and with decades of experience in crafting high-quality, self serving propaganda. It's the same reason I'd rather hear an account of a crime from participants and witnesses rather than from lawyers.

That's a terrible analogy. That's an officer catching a crime in progress. The Clinton-Lewinsky relationship was not criminal. There's nothing illegal about having an affair. The only legal issue had to do with Clinton's testimony about the affair which was wholly irrelevant to WHitewater. If you're in court challenging a speeding ticket, the prosecution will not be allowed to ask if you've ever had an extra-marital affair.

Again, almost anything is impeachable, that doesn't mean as much as you think. I can't even begin to imagine what point you think you're making.

Not an argument, just an observation.

@SpectacleofDebord not if you hold a doctorate in economics. they're both pro-capitalist, but their opinions on government intervention and policy are enormous polar opposites.

However it is that you personally want to define concentrated power as either "right" or "left" is up to you. "Culture war" issues are largely irrelevant. In the lead up to the Iraq war, all the mainstream media appeared to agree on the inevitability of war. It wasn't until the Occupy movement that the media finally talked about income inequality. The media can be said to be "right leaning" on matters concerning wide-scale structural features of our economy and foreign policy. You see?