Applying ‘Manufacturing Consent’ By Noam Chomsky to Indian Context

Applying ‘Manufacturing Consent’ By Noam Chomsky to Indian Context.

This has been written by Kapil Suravaram as a Project paper for P.G. Diploma in Media Laws, for Module – I (Media & Public Policy) in AUGUST 2004 AT NALSAR UNIVERSITY OF LAW, HYDERABAD, INDIA

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION.. 3

Methodology.. 5

SIZE, OWNERSIP, AND PROFIT ORIENTATION OF THE MASS MEDIA: THE FIRST FILTER 6

THE ADVERTISING LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS: THE SECOND FILTER.. 9

SOURCING MASS – MEDIA NEWS: THE THIRD FILTER.. 12

FLAK AND THE ENFORCERS: THE FOURTH FILTER.. 15

ANTICOMMUNISM AS A CONTROL MECHANISM... 17

DICHOTOMIZATION AND PROPOGANDA CAMPAIGNS. 19

CONCLUSIONS. 21

BIBILOGRAPHY.. 23

ENDNOTES. 24

INTRODUCTION

‘Manufacturing Consent – The Political Economy of Mass Media’ authored by Edward S. Herman[i] & Noam Chomsky[ii] was first published in 1988. To put it in their own words “…we sketch out a ‘Propaganda Model’ and apply it to the performance of Mass Media in the United States.”[1] It is based on the premise that the Media is serving to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate the state and private activity.[2]

The first chapter of the book propounds the ‘PROPOGANDA THEORY’ which in the remaining pages is applied to various media reports of the preceding years. Manufacturing Consent presents a clinically systematic study and expounds the theory that Media through the free market has been moulded into a thoroughly biased perspective then could have been possible through the Iron Age tool of Censorship.[3]

Manufacturing Consent strives to put forward the point that media is in servitude to the dominant elite in whose hands the wealth is concentrated. However the authors make it clear that this elite does not sit across the board and decide the working of the media but it is a soico-economic process through which their common interests govern the complicated hierarchy of the society and in turn the media.

Manufacturing Consent has become a common term in all media circles especially for those who are left of center. Even today it is readily applied in such magnanimity as if it were written today taking into consideration the developments till date. From this I surmise that ‘Propaganda Theory’ is a wholesome theory in the set of factors existent then. However there is a need to study any variation in factors since then.

Through this study I propose to apply Manufacturing Consent’s Propaganda Theory to the local situation (India, Especially Andhra Pradesh) here and study its relevance. I believe this study is valid seen in the context of liberalization of Indian economy[4] having made the corporates and the elite almost as powerful in the United States of America. Though American media has not made major inroads into the Indian media[5] because of existing Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) restrictions, still the theory can be applied to the Indian media houses in the background of their changed roles and priorities.

Methodology

This study aspires to apply Manufacturing Consent’s Propaganda Theory to media in India, specifically to vernacular media in Andhra Pradesh. The methodology should be carefully justified considering that the theory was originally propounded for study of the Media in the United States.

The corresponding variables (factors) are American Media – Indian Media, American Wealthy Elite – Foreign and Indian Corporates and Elite, American Administration – Indian Government and Bureaucracy. Similarly the Case studies will be from the issues in the local media.

Herman & Chomsky trace the routes by which money and power money and power are able to filter out the news fit to print, marginalize dissent, and allow the government and the dominant private interests to get their messages across to the public. These filters fall under the following headings:[6]

1. The size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of th the dominant mass-media firms.

2. Advertising as the primary income source of the mass media.

3. The reliance of the media on information provided by the government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power.

4. “Flak” as a means of disciplining the media.

5. “Anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism.

These same filters will be applied and compared to the local context and comparison on parity will check the relevance of the theory in present Indian context.

SIZE, OWNERSIP, AND PROFIT ORIENTATION OF THE MASS MEDIA: THE FIRST FILTER

James Curran & Jean Seaton describe how the evolution of media in Great Britain witnessed the emergence of a radical press in the early nineteenth century that reached a national working class audience. The revolutionary speeds at which it aroused working class unity attracted libel laws and prosecutions including expensive security bonds and gigantic taxes to keep the working-class media at bay. These coercive efforts were unsuccessful and were dumped by the mid-century in favour of market controlled responsibility. Curran and Seaton show that the market did successfully accomplish what state intervention failed to do. The national radical press was completely eclipsed by the new capital intensive press. In contrast to under a thousand pounds required to establish a profitable weekly with a break even circulation of 6,200, the industrialization of media led to the Sunday Express launched in 1918 to spend over two million pounds before it broke even with a circulation of over 250,000.[7]

Similarly in USA the start-up cost of a new paper in New York City in 1851 was $69,000 compared to the $456,000 yielded from the public sale of the St. Louis Democrat in 1972. Even small newspaper publishing became a big business and it was no longer a trade that one keeps up lightly even if he has substantial cash. The limitation on ownership of media with any substantial outreach by the requisite large size of investment – was applicable over a century ago and has become increasingly effective over time.[8]

In 1986 there were some 1,500 daily newspapers, 11,000 magazines, 9,000 radio and 1,500 TV stations, 2,400 Book Publishes, and seven movie studios in the United States – over 25,000 media Entities in all. Despite the large numbers the twenty nine largest media systems account for over half of the output of newspapers, and most of the sales and audiences in magazines, broadcasting, books, and movies. This reflects the common ownership, sometime extending through virtually the entire set of media variants.[9] The rest of the numerous small entities are dependent on larger networks for news and other inputs. Apart from this, most of these companies have major interests in other fields or have diversified later. These are large profit seeking corporations, owned and controlled by wealthy people. Each of them have become so powerfully wealthy that even the larger firms among them are not exempt from the threat of take over, forget the small fish.

The Situation in India is no different despite glorious figures of the thousands of media entities; very few of them have enough reach to have influence on public opinion. The pre-independence Indian media was very similar to that of the west. Many centrist and leftist forces started newspapers that became powerful mouthpieces that triggered world-shattering movements. This pro-action media in its infancy itself created many vernacular media centers. However the passage of time, saw the industrialization of media, capitalization of the media ownership and now we cannot think of a full scale daily newspaper without at least fifteen editions. There are only a handful of newspapers with widespread reach at the national and the state level. The national majors include The Times of India, Indian Express (Now split into four papers) and The Hindu. At the State level there are Eenadu, Vaartha, Andhra Jyothi and Deccan Chronical. The advent of private television networks in the last decade saw most of these media houses going for the broadcast media. The Times group has newspaper, Magazines, Net Portals, TV News Channel and a radio channel. Similarly the regional media houses have grown powerful. The Chennai based Sun Network has various channels in four states. The Hyderabad based Eenadu group has Channels in eight languages, large newspaper and Magazines. The group has interests in a array of other industries including finance sector, food industry, film industry, etc.

These media houses and their wealthy owners have enough manoeuvrability over public opinion to influence political decisions of the government. Two of AP’s largest newspapers took opposite sides of the political contours and each of them has potentially benefited when their camp is in power.

In sum, as in the case of US, the dominant Indian media firms are quiet large businesses; they are controlled by very wealthy people or by managers who are subject to sharp constraints by owners and other market-profit-oriented forces; and they are closely interlocked, and have important common interests, with other major corporations, banks and government. This is the first powerful filter that will affect news choices[10] according to Manufacturing Consent and it holds true in Indian context.

THE ADVERTISING LICENSE TO DO BUSINESS: THE SECOND FILTER

In arguing for the benefits of the free market as a means of controlling dissident opinion in the mid-nineteenth century, the Liberal Chancellor of the British exchequer, Sir George Lewis, noted that the market would promote those papers “enjoying the preference of the advertising public. Advertising did, in fact, serve as a powerful mechanism weakening the working class press. The “…advertisers thus acquired a de facto licensing authority since, without their support, newspapers ceased to be economically viable (in the light of the increased capital costs).”[11]

Before advertising became prominent, the price of the newspapers had to cover the entire costs of doing the business. The ad-based media received an advertising subsidy that gives them a price-marketing-quality edge, which allows them to encroach on and further weaken their ad-free (or disadvantaged rivals). Even if ad-based media cater to an affluent (“upscale”) audience, they easily pick up a large part of the “downscale” audience, and their rivals lose market share and are eventually driven out or marginalized. [12]

Furthermore advertisers prefer to advertise in media which caters to people who have deep pockets and can afford to buy there products. One advertising executive stated in 1856 that some journals are poor vehicles because “their readers are not purchasers, and any money thrown upon them is as much as thrown away.” The same force took a heavy toll of the post-world war II social-democratic press in Great Britain, with the Daily Herald, News Chronicle, and Sunday Citizen, failing or absorbed into establishment systems between 1960 and 1967, despite a collective average daily readership of 9.3 million. As James Curran points out, with 4.7 million readership in its last year, “The Daily Herald actually had almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian combined.” What is more, surveys showed that its readers “thought more highly of their paper than the regular readers of any other popular newspaper,” and “they also read more in their paper than the readers of other popular papers despite being overwhelmingly working class…” The Herald with 8.1 percent of national daily circulation, got 3.5 percent of net advertising revenue; the Sunday Citizen got one one-tenth of the net advertising revenue of the Sunday Times and one-seventh that of the observer (on a per thousand basis). The Death of the Herald, as well as of the News Chronicle and Sunday Citizen, was in large measure a result of progressive strangulation by lack of advertising support.[13]

Curran argues persuasively that the loss of these three papers wan an important contribution to the declining fortunes of the Labour Party, in the case of the Herald specifically removing a mass-circulation institution that provided “an alternative framework of analysis and understanding that contested the dominant systems of representation in both broadcasting and mainstream press.”[14]

Working-Class and radical media also suffer from the political discrimination of the advertisers.[15] The public-television station WNET lost its corporate funding from Gulf + Western after the station showed documentary ‘Hungry from Profit,” which contains material critical of multinational corporate activities in the third world.[16] Erik Barnouw recounts the history of a proposed documentary series on environmental problems by NBC at a time of great interest in these issues. Barnouw notes that although at that time a great many large companies were spending more money on commercials and other publicity regarding environmental problems, the documentary series failed for want of sponsors. The problem was one of excessive objectivity in the series, which included suggestions of Corporate or Systematic failure, whereas the corporate message ‘was one of reassurance’[17].

In the local scenario the scenario appears much worse with the state being the single largest advertising entity, giving it a powerful control over the media. Most of the regional parties have unwritten cross supporting structures with media houses. The Sahara Group and Samajwadi Party in the Hindi belt, The Sun Group and the DMK in Tamil Nadu, The Eenadu Group and the Telugu Desam in Andhra Pradesh, and more recently Vaartha Group from Sanghi Industries and Congress in Andhra Pradesh are clear examples of this fact. Interestingly the power of the media houses is as powerful or more on the state as the power of the state over the media houses.

The early twentieth century had seen a phenomenal rise of radical, revolutionary or progressive newspapers in India. These entities survived despite systematic repression by the then rulers, through frequent change of names, place of publication, etc. They played a powerful role in the freedom struggle and the post independence nation building debates. All the major media houses, gave importance to their moral responsibility in presenting constructive critiques and counter critiques on all major issues confronting the people of the country. In the turbulent times of the Emergency the media vehemently fought to shake of the state over their backs. However the advent of market economy at the end of the century proved to be a turning point not only for the nation in general, but also the perspectives of the media.

The advent of MNC’s made the media houses dependent on a few corporate giants for major advertising corporate revenues in comparison to a varied lot previously. The advent of more advertising budgets in luxury items and cosmetics required the media houses to give a fresh thrust to page three news and target more at readers who have the ability to buy. Resultantly the page three came to page one. The socio-political news replaced by sensational news studded with gossip and entertainment.

The power of the media houses over the state ensured that they got incredible benefits not only for the media house concerned but also for other companies in their group. The ban of Cosmetics Advertisements by then Information & Broadcast Minister Sushma Swaraj on Doordarshan & AIR on the line that cosmetics are not important for women; can be only linked to the power of the private television networks.

All major newspapers, including vernacular dailies are expected to have at least fifteen editions for being in the competition. The working-class press has been stamped out by the multi-million competition. Any working-class perspective in the capitalist press has also been blown out. Television Networks are way out from the reach of working class groups considering that thirty crores are required to establish a transmission station.

SOURCING MASS – MEDIA NEWS: THE THIRD FILTER

The mass media are drawn into a symbiotic relationship with powerful sources of information by economic necessity and reciprocity of interest. The media need a steady, reliable flow of raw material of news. They have daily news demands and imperative news schedules that they must meet. They cannot afford to have reporters and cameras at all placed where important stories may break. Economics dictates that they concentrate their resources where significant news often occurs, where important rumors and leaks abound, and where regular press conferences are held.[18]

In USA, The White House, The Pentagon, The State Department, City Halls & police departments are central nodes of news activity. Similarly in India The Parliament House, The Prime Ministers and ministers offices, Headquarters of the ruling party and the chief opposition party are the central nodes of news sources. Of course the police department is always there for scintillatingly sensational news. Similarly at the provincial level we have our Secretariat, Assembly, Police Headquarters, High Court and the offices of the chief political entities. Business Corporations and trade groups are also regular and credible purveyors of stories deemed newsworthy. They are the subjects of regular news “beats” for reporters.

Be it in US or locally these central corridors of power produce insurmountable loads of newsworthy material. In the eyes of the media houses these are unquestionably reliable, trust worthy sources without need for any kind of crosscheck in the usual circumstances. These bureaucracies turn out a large volume of material that meets the demands of news organizations for reliable, scheduled flows.

Mark Fishman calls this “the principal of bureaucratic affinity: only other bureaucracies can satisfy the inputs of news bureaucracy.”[19] Government and Corporate sources also have the great merit of being recognizable and credible by their status and prestige. This is important to the mass media. As Fishman notes, “Newsworkers are predisposed to treat bureaucratic accounts as factual because news personnel participate in upholding a normative order of authorized knowers in the society. Reporters operate with the attitude that that officials