Mass media today exercises most control in influencing public opinion. It is responsible for the views people have about the world in general. The media today, fails to remain mere neutral observers, but instead exercise heavy influence through their analysis and reporting (Neel, 2019). What we often mistake for reality is nothing but a constructed reality. This constructed reality is simply what media houses want us to know and believe. Every coin has two sides, but the media only shows us the side they want us to see; one which is most convenient for them and works in their favour. So in this ‘New Age of Media’, what is the exact role of the media in influencing public opinion? For that, it is important to understand what leads to the suppression of truth and the factors that affect reporting and analysis (Neel, 2019). This paper will use Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman’s propaganda model to understand the role of the media in contemporary India.
Introduction
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman provides an effective framework to analyse the functioning of the media. Often called one of the “most influential books ever written about the media”, Manufacturing Consent explains in detail the ‘propaganda model’. Despite being written in the ’90s, the five filters of the model that affect editorial bias still function even today, in the 21st century. It helps us understand how the news is structured. This model seeks to explain “how populations are manipulated and how consent for economic, social, political policies is manufactured in the public’s mind due to this propaganda” (Wajid, 2019). It views “private media as businesses interested in the sale of a product to readers, viewers and listeners rather than that of quality news to the public” (Wajid, 2019). This means that media houses are more interested in maximizing their profit in this capitalistic society, instead of giving the public facts and quality news.
Five Filters of the Propaganda Model
The propaganda model is explained with the help of five filters- ownership, advertising, sourcing, flak and anti-communism.
Ownership:
Chomsky and Herman explain that mass media outlets are usually large corporations and companies. The media outlets have to protect the interests of the company and in order to do this, they end up filtering out the information being supplied to the masses. Thus, news goes through a process of ‘self-censorship’. A conflict of interest arises because any news that augers well for the company is encouraged while any news that could harm the image of the company is filtered out (Chomsky & Herman, 1988). In India, most outlets are owned either directly or indirectly by politicians or people have strong political affiliations and so these media outlets are varied about sending out news that opposes the government due to the fear of potentially jeopardising any future contracts. For example, the popular Times Now channel is a part of the Times Group. Times Group is owned by Bennet and Coleman and Robert Mindo, a relative of Sonia Gandhi has a share in the group. Sonia Gandhi is the president of the Congress party and so the news sent out by the Times group was found to often favour the party.
Advertising:
Revenue generated through advertisements is essential for media outlets to survive. The survival and growth of the media house depend on this revenue. The revenue earned through advertisements is higher than the revenue earned by subscriptions and sales. If the media house cannot cover the costs of production and make a profit as an incentive; they will have to either increase the selling price of their product or stop production altogether. Increasing the selling price of the product in a field with so much competition might not work as customers will switch to other cheaper alternatives. Hence, it is imperative that the media houses keep in mind the economic, political and social preferences of the advertisers in order to keep them happy and keep the revenue flowing. This is reflected in the messages sent out to the public because they fear losing them as advertisers. Take the example of the ban on Nestle’s 2- minute noodles. When Maggi was banned in India due to a high amount of lead found in the noodles, it was all over the news; with most newspapers and television channels covering the story. However, since Nestle often buys huge advertising space in Times of India newspapers, TOI barely ran 5 articles about the issue and underplayed it in order to not lose out on revenue from Nestle.
Sourcing:
The next top story can break out at any time at any part of the world and media houses cannot afford to place correspondents all over the place. Media outlets instead place correspondents and personal at locations where news stories are most likely to break out like the Supreme and high courts, the Parliament house, etc. Hence, they “enter into a symbiotic relationship with various sources of information” (Neel, 2019) They enter into such relationships out of lack of choice. Such sources are considered credible and any media outlet or journalist that questions the credibility of the source could offend them and they might stop providing them with such information in the future. Thus, the media does not run any story that might hurt the interests of their informants and runs stories without checking their credibility in some cases. Examples of such sources could be government spokespersons, business firms or publicists. Take the instance of the Balakot airstrikes in 2019. When the Indian Army carried out an airstrike and bombed certain regions in Pakistan, the only source of information for the media was the government spokespersons. The ruling party at the time, BJP gave out information in such a way, that painted them in good light and since they were the only source, the masses had no choice but to believe the information given to them.
Flak:
Flak refers to the negative response to a media statement (Chomsky & Herman, 1988). Flak can be damaging for any media outlet and can take the form of complaints, lawsuits or any disciplinary legislative actions. Such complaints or actions can be raised by the government, companies, advertisers or other individuals. When a media house is on the receiving end of flak, the cost of legally defending themselves could prove to be very costly. Further, they are likely to lose out on revenue through advertisements as many advertisers are likely to back out. Take the example of the highly publicised Rafale deal between the Indian government and France. Anil Ambani, owner of Reliance Infrastructure; filed for defamation suits against multiple news media outlets for raising ‘uncomfortable’ questions and issues about the deal. These suits led to the media houses facing severe losses.
Anti-Communism:
To make the public accept authority, oftentimes artificial fears are created for the public (Chomsky & Herman, 1988). The Anti-communism filter is also called the ‘fear of the enemy’ filter. Lately, the media has often been accused of encouraging public vigilantism. Many regional news channels have given out tips to distinguish “seditious intellectuals hiding in plain sight” (Wajid, 2019).
Conclusion
Today, it is almost impossible for media houses to escape the five filters. In order to survive in the face of competition and grow, they eventually have to give in to some, if not all of the filters. The media in a country like India has all the more power to influence public option because most of our population does not have access to education and so, easily fall into the trap of the media. Most people depend on these media houses to get their information and make their decisions based on such news given out to them. Only independent journalists have the option of escaping these five filters if anyone.
While all the filters influence the news we receive today, in my opinion, the first filter, i.e., ownership has most significance and influence over the news we receive. For example, a rural man with no access to education will rely on newspapers and radios for his information. The newspaper he reads the most or the radio channel he listens to the most will shape his opinions and ideas about current affairs, etc. The news he receives from these sources will depend on the owners of the media house. Thus, the news he receives will be extremely biased, especially with regard to politics since most media outlets in the country; especially regionals ones, are owned by people with political links. His thoughts and ideas will, therefore, be biased and without him knowing it, he will be in favour of the party that owns the media house of his source of news. Hence, when voting season comes, he will automatically vote for that party. Political parties hence can manipulate and control the vote share in the country in such away. Once they capture a sizeable part of the public through their propaganda, they can easily come into power and control the nation.
The effects of the propaganda model are huge and its effects are detrimental to the nation at large. At a time where news is created based on capital and other such variants, the media remains extremely divided even amongst itself. It is said that the media is the “fourth pillar of democracy”, but in Contemporary India, nothing about it seems democratic anymore.
References
Chomsky, N., & Herman, E. (1988). A Propaganda Model, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Manufacturing Consent). Retrieved 4 March 2020, from https://chomsky.info/consent01/
Wajid, S. (2019). As India heads for polls, does its media pass Chomsky’s five-filter test?. [online] Quartz India. Available at: https://qz.com/india/1516311/indian-media-can-learn-from-noam-chomsky-ahead-of-2019-elections/ [Accessed 20 Apr. 2019].
Mehak Neel; With the Indian elections round the corner, does the media pass the five-filter test? (2019).
English, A. (2018). Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent revisited | The Listening Post [Video]. Al Jazeera English.
