Comments on: Revisiting “Manufacturing Consent” http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/298 Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:09:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Matt Wood http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/298#comment-4417 Matt Wood Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:55:53 +0000 http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/298#comment-4417 Ben- Reconnecting with your original post, there's a debate buried in the following article that nicely illuminates some of the Propoganda Model's filters: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800328.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/entertainmentnews" rel="nofollow"> WashPost: Olbermann News Commentaries Target Bush </a> Jeff Cohen, a former producer for (liberal) Phil Donahue's abortive talk show on MSNBC, appears to at least partially attribute Olbermann's freedom of speech to a shift in MSNBC's "political zeitgeist". [Cohen apparently alleges in his new book that MSNBC put pressure on Donahue to book more conservative than liberal guests and imitate Bill O'Reilly.] But NBC News senior vice president Phil Griffin claims that the Donahue show was simply too expensive and didn't draw adequate ratings: "People try to ascribe motives to us, that somehow we're trying to keep liberals off the air and it's all about ideology. If you get ratings, there's no issue." Quote from Olbermann: "As dangerous as it can sometimes be for news, it is also our great protector. Because as long as you make them money, they don't care. This is not Rupert Murdoch. And even Rupert Murdoch puts `Family Guy' on the air and `The Simpsons,' that regularly criticize Fox News. There is some safety in the corporate structure that we probably could never have anticipated." --- A couple of observations: 1) The pressure applied to Donahue (if true) suggests that ideology can influence coverage, but apparently (at least in this case) in the service of ratings, and not as an unconscious filter. [This may be irrelevant to the Model, which I understand addresses ideology primarily in the context of domestic papers' coverage of foreign affairs. This observation may be better associated with the 'funding' filter, which operates via the structural necessity of acquiring appreciable audiences in order to attract advertisers/customers. Although it seems to promote a plurality of opinion in this case, the funding filter cuts both ways, and could conceivably at some point result in pressure on Olbermann to dilute his tirades if they promoted, say, widespread regulation of certain business interests.] 2) MSNBC is apparently owned by General Electric Co., which raises interesting questions about the potential for news-suppression, particularly investigations of malfeasance by GE or its subsidiaries. (Organizational ownership prong. Compare with the Olbermann's comments about Murdoch.) Ben-
Reconnecting with your original post, there’s a debate buried in the following article that nicely illuminates some of the Propoganda Model’s filters:

WashPost: Olbermann News Commentaries Target Bush

Jeff Cohen, a former producer for (liberal) Phil Donahue’s abortive talk show on MSNBC, appears to at least partially attribute Olbermann’s freedom of speech to a shift in MSNBC’s “political zeitgeist”. [Cohen apparently alleges in his new book that MSNBC put pressure on Donahue to book more conservative than liberal guests and imitate Bill O’Reilly.]

But NBC News senior vice president Phil Griffin claims that the Donahue show was simply too expensive and didn’t draw adequate ratings: “People try to ascribe motives to us, that somehow we’re trying to keep liberals off the air and it’s all about ideology. If you get ratings, there’s no issue.”

Quote from Olbermann: “As dangerous as it can sometimes be for news, it is also our great protector. Because as long as you make them money, they don’t care. This is not Rupert Murdoch. And even Rupert Murdoch puts `Family Guy’ on the air and `The Simpsons,’ that regularly criticize Fox News. There is some safety in the corporate structure that we probably could never have anticipated.”

—
A couple of observations:
1) The pressure applied to Donahue (if true) suggests that ideology can influence coverage, but apparently (at least in this case) in the service of ratings, and not as an unconscious filter. [This may be irrelevant to the Model, which I understand addresses ideology primarily in the context of domestic papers’ coverage of foreign affairs. This observation may be better associated with the ‘funding’ filter, which operates via the structural necessity of acquiring appreciable audiences in order to attract advertisers/customers. Although it seems to promote a plurality of opinion in this case, the funding filter cuts both ways, and could conceivably at some point result in pressure on Olbermann to dilute his tirades if they promoted, say, widespread regulation of certain business interests.]

2) MSNBC is apparently owned by General Electric Co., which raises interesting questions about the potential for news-suppression, particularly investigations of malfeasance by GE or its subsidiaries. (Organizational ownership prong. Compare with the Olbermann’s comments about Murdoch.)

]]>