Talk:Propaganda model

The current article seems to be a parroting of Chomsky's views, which doesn't seem neutral to me. Patrickdavidson 00:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Suggest improvements instead of complaining. Chamaeleon 11:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well surely there ought to be a section 'Criticism of the Propaganda model'. Contrary to what Chomsky says there has been serious criticism (I don't count criticism by loonbats like Horowitz et al, i mean serious criticism). I'll write the section of no one else wants to........BScotland.

---

The previous version of the article was extremely poor and barely intelligible. I have rewritten it completely. If you feel I left something valuable behind, by all means merge it with the new version. Sir Paul 07:09, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It probably belongs under communism or Marxist theory. --68.45.161.241 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

patrick lelay quote

The old link http://actu.voila.fr/Article/article_multimedia_040709152529.oiggf44w.htm no longer works (and someone removed it from the article). i'll see if i can find another link, because even if this has been quoted fairly widely in France, it's best to have a direct link if possible... Boud 15:15, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. For the record's sake, i'll put the original French here (yes, of course, this should go to the fr.wikipedia, i'm just too lazy to translate the full (en) article right now and integrate it properly in the (fr) one - the problem is that there is already a good article fr:propagande and i'm not (yet) sure if translating the whole chomsky/herman model makes sense. Probably, yes,...).

From this url

The book name:

"Les dirigeants face au changement" (Editions du Huitième jour).

The citation:

Il y a beaucoup de façons de parler de la télévision. Mais dans une perspective business, soyons réaliste : à la base, le métier de TF1, c'est d'aider Coca-Cola, par exemple, à vendre son produit. ... Or pour qu'un message publicitaire soit perçu, il faut que le cerveau du téléspectateur soit disponible. Nos émissions ont pour vocation de le rendre disponible : c'est-à-dire de le divertir, de le détendre pour le préparer entre deux messages. Ce que nous vendons à Coca-Cola, c'est du temps de cerveau humain disponible. ...

Just a side comment. I was under the impression that much of the mainstream media was harshly critical of the Reagan policy in Central America, and many news outlets did question whether the Contras should be considered as freedom fighters or terrorists kept alive solely by the CIA. Of course, I wasn't alive during the time, but I've looked in some archives and it seems to be the case. It certainly doesn't seem like the Times or other prominent news sources were trying to indoctrinate Americans into anti-Sandinista fervor. Trey Stone 06:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's surprising. Can you give references and/or quote a mainstream article extract criticising intervention? Chamaeleon 12:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Critique - Ethnocentric

The article doesn't seem to account for the fact that portions of the Propaganda Model is ethnocentric and deterministic - you could not, say, apply the ownership filter to the British or European media scene which is, for historical reasons, organised very differently. It also overshoots journalistic autonomy almost entirely, assuming to some degree that professional ethics are either equal to that of the corporation, or irrelevant. Snooo 18:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, it is based on the US situation. The US is not an ethnicity or race, so it is not "ethnocentric". It is, however, mostly applicable to the US media, and that is a valid criticism. If you can find an academic paper pointing this out, then you should mention it in the article. Do not fail to notice, however, that with a few tweaks the Propaganda Model is indeed universal.

Journalistic autonomy and ideology is covered by the fifth filter: the ideology of the journalist, which includes a lot of internalised system-supporting values.

"Deterministic" is probably one of the most meaningless epithets out there. You might as well call it "gay". It is a term used to describe any theory that seeks to explain something that the critic does not want explained. Chamaeleon 14:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And 'Universal' is not equally a meaningless epithet? Not all media suits a propaganda model. I am not claiming that the propaganda model is not valid, in some contexts it certainly is. But in some contexts it is invalid. Snooo 00:17, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for the fourth filter covering for journalistic ethics, there is much evidence to show that, in some cases, journalistic ethics may run opposed to dominate ideology or the proprietors wishes. A good example is the resistence of British Observer journalists to Tiny Rowland's attempts to change the news agenda to suit his business' interests. Snooo 18:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, "universal" means that if I go to Uganda and discover that the media are largely in the hands of big corporations and greatly rely on advertising revenue, then I would expect to see bias towards the interests of these people in the same way as we see bias in the US.

The fifth filter is journalists' beliefs. It is quite rightly put after the other four, both in terms of its negative effects (elite bias is caused more by the other four) and its positive effects (as shown by the fact that those Observer journos are the exception rather than the rule). Chamaeleon 14:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

implications/criticisms of the Propaganda Model

Shouldn't we be transcribing the nature of the propaganda model (PM), and then later as an exstension the particular crtiques (such as the charge of 'determinism'). In Neccesary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies (1989) Chomsky maintains that the PM refers to 'democratic' institutions rather than explicitly US institutions - the plurality in the title of the latter book suggests this. This seems to be Chomsky's firm position - that the PM is inherent within a wider system. I think perhaps to mention his position (possibly Herman's too?)would convey a more accurate description.

Also, there is indeed room for a discussion of criticism of the model, indeed I content it is necessary to understand the PM fully, in Neccesary Illusions: Thought control in democratic societies (1989) Chomsky describes the various strands of criticism directed towards the PM (see appendixes 1-3) and his frank discussion is crucial in understanding an implied logic of the PM: that the 'democratic' (Chomsky's quotes, not mine) institutions will dismiss the PM through various tactics. In other words the PM predicts the institutions have an inbuilt bias and further cannot aknowledge that bias - Chomsky maintains that unaknowledgment of the PM occurs in -

1. ignoring cited cases of propaganda that exposes 'atrocities' carried out by the 'democratic' institutions, or at least where the institutions are to some extent (perhaps tacitly) involved. (e.g in ignoring comments about Vietnam)

2. Making occasional passing references to 'atrocities' cited that do not involve (to a lesser degree)the 'democratic' institutions (e.g the IRA)

3. The highest level of 'recognition' (not so much in the findings of the PM but rather in its existance) occurs in 'atrocities' carried out by 'enemies' of the 'democartic' institutions (or what Chomsky calls states that do not serve the said institutions) where the institutions refute claims of unfair reporting (e.g the Soviets war in Afghanistan).

• I put quotation marks arround 'democracy' to highlight the disparity of definitions. The forementioned findings are crucial implications to the PM and its 'relationship' to citicism: the logic being that for the institutions to conform to the PM they would be required not to aknowledge the findings - through the said methods of complete ignorance/slim akmowledgment/complete refussion.

Does anyone think there are any particular problems with the above, with the condition of using direct quotations to confirm the implications? To me, a mention of citicisms are important - particularly when we consider the actual topic at the heart of the study - one criticism of the propaganda model might be that it is itself a form of propaganda (indeed, according to Chomsky - this is a necessary crticism that the institutions need to perpetuate, this too conforms to the PM). Indeed, I consider the notion of repression important here (in a marxist sense), accordingly the institutions will repress the PM. Repression might be a criticism in a different sense: to repress the findings of the PM would confirm its validity, whilst to recognise the findings would too (or would it!?) Paradoxically, would the PM also have to recognise its own inherent propaganda to validitate itself?

- there is considerable room for discussion on these topics, but to my mind acheiving a Npov would be hard because of the nature of the topic at hand, though the nature of wikipedia is surely the best place for a discussion of this nature (a domain free, to a larger extent, from the 'institutional repression': in short I argue that an accurate overview of the implications of the PM have and the criticisms. (N.Coleman)

I think a summary of the criticisms of the propaganda model would be useful. It does not apply in every single sinario and, due to the emphasis on the american media model, requires subtle modification to be applicable to other media landscapes. One problem I find is that there is little disscusion within the model of what could be a better alternative. On your propaganda point, there is always an assumption in leftist critiques of the media that there is a valid truth to defend - this valid truth could also be put up to question.

I don't think the Propaganda Model isn't valid, but it is over a decade old and this article, as it stands, does not cover any possible shortcomings within the framework. Snooo 18:18, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally just for clarification: in the Bruce Sharp article I quoted from, he does NOT mention Karl Popper or Induction. What he does say (in this article here: http://jim.com/canon.htm) is 'The mistake that I think Noam Chomsky makes is a pretty common one. He has formulated a theory about collusion between the government and the media, and he looks for evidence to support his theory ... To emphasize: he looks for evidence to support his theory. He doesn't simply examine evidence objectively. He seeks out evidence that supports his theory, and disregards evidence that tends to dispute it.' Sophal Ear says the same: The empirical process was turned upside down, first came theory, followed by evidence.'.

I have interpreted this as Sharp and Ear saying that the Propaganda Model(PM) is essentially unfalsifiable (or at least unfalsifiable by Chomsky and Herman). They (according to Sharp and Ear) never look for evidence that might contradict or falsify the theory, but only ever look for evidence that supports it. So to say that this is part of Popper's critique of inductivism is propblematic. On the contrary, they are really saying that Chomsky and Herman aren't inductive ENOUGH: they start off with a theory and never look for evidence that might contradict the theory. Another problem, I might add, is that Chomsky doesn't seem to understand that theories (especially in the social sciences) tend to be underdetermined. Even if the PM explained all the evidence, this doesn't mean that another theory might not explain all the evidence as well (or better than) the PM. For example it might be argued that the difference in death tolls and the difficulty of reaching East Timor, might explain the difference between coverage of Cambodia and East Timor as well as (or better than) the PM. As well as being underdetermined theories in the social sciences tend to be overdetermined (polycausal). Chomsky and Herman tend to assume that the news we get is mono-causal: i.e. PM causes 'News'. But in reality there may be many many causes for an individual news story, of which various aspects of the PM might only be one. 86.3.29.137 13:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"...they start off with a theory and never look for evidence that might contradict the theory." If Harman and Chomsky had significant counter examples, they wouldn't have proposed the model. Both authors are well known scholars and wouldn't put forth a model that they had privately falsified.

"Another problem, I might add, is that Chomsky doesn't seem to understand that theories (especially in the social sciences) tend to be underdetermined."

A theory may be underdetermined, by that's why you construct an argument. The force of an argument is in demonstrating that the theory is consistent with observation. It's up to critics of the theory to demonstrate the flaw. Incidently, Universal Grammar pretty much gets started with an observation that the languages that humans learn are underdetermined by the data provided from experience. So I would say Chomsky understands underdetermination pretty well.

"Even if the PM explained all the evidence, this doesn't mean that another theory might not explain all the evidence as well (or better than) the PM."

This is how analytic thought works, a model is proposed and if a new model makes it obsolete it either rejected or subsumed.

Nothing here seems to challenge the PM model in particular. More like a general critique of systematic inquiry of any kind.

Azymuthca 11:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

TDC recent edits

Chamaeleon has objected to my recent edits claiming that the model is not disputed. All one has to do is go the the main Noam Chomsky article to see that there are many critics of Chomsky's propaganda model.

And since Chamaeleon brought it up, I now feel obliged to include a much more detailed and specific criticism section on the propaganda model, so as to respond to Chamaeleon’s contention that no one disagrees with it and all parts of the model are uncontroversial.

Sometimes you really should leave well enough alone. TDC 20:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

what is source for 75% of "profits" of NT times comes from advertising?

I was a little surprised at this statement. Shouldn't it be "revenue"? --Silverback 01:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It might be. How much do you think the profits would be? Chamaeleon 09:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not the quantity of profits, but that profits are not usually allocated to revenue sources. It would take some strange permutation on cost accounting that would be subjective, especially since it is a non-linear situation, yes it may be cheaper to get more advertising than to get more subscriptions, but without the subscriptions there would be nothing to attract the advertisers. Chomsky and the other guy would be incorrect to use profit rather than revenue in this circumstance. Can you provide evidence that they made this error?--Silverback 19:42, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Best ask whoever originally put that in the article. In any case, crudely put, profits are revenues minus costs. If NY Times rake in, say, $25m from sales and $75m from ads, that's 75% of $100m revenues from ads. If they have costs equal to half of their revenues, then they have profits of $50m and 75$ of that is due to ads. You can't say that more of the costs were due to making the news than to printing the ads, because — as you say — there is no such separation: they couldn't sell the ad space if they didn't have a newspaper, etc. Change the wording to "revenue" if you believe it is the word that economists would prefer, but I don't believe it makes any difference on the ground. Chamaeleon 19:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This issue is extremely dependant on how the New York Times Co structures varying income and operating expenses from different divisions and revenue sources. Revenue sources require some form of investment to have them generate revenue. Some revenue sources provide a higher return on investment than others. Multiple revenue streams of varying return provide a business with a more broad income base. Overall, income vs expenses is not directly proportional to the individual micro-components that make up those macro values. But, by your logic, the actual "profits", since they are the same proportion to revenues, are not even 75%, but 60.99% in 2004 and 60.18% in 2003 [1]. TDC 23:46, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think I may have stumbled onto something, if the 75% number comes from the book, it should be easy enough to verify whether or not this is true. What do you want to bet that Chomsky has once again deliberately misrepresented a source? The answer to this will be found out very shortly. TDC 23:53, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Although Marxoid types believe they possess a deep and rich understanding of economics, I think this clearly shows otherwise. TDC 01:35, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Les dirigeants face au changement citation, original research

Am I to assume that the quote from the president of TF1 has been specifically mentioned by Chomsky or Herman as being evidence of the funding filter of "the propaganda model", or is this just another example of original research? TDC 23:20, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a quotation from a major TV boss "original research" here, but I don't mind if it's taken out. It will be put back in though, if anything attacking the Model is added. Chamaeleon 11:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are just too cute sometimes! Seriously though, it does not matter what you consider original research. If someone other than yourself has used the above citation from Les dirigeants face au changement in some an academic work or polemic, then it can stay. Otherwise, bye bye. Oh, and nice threat about the attacking the Model, that just provides me with all the more reason to make this criticism section my piece de resistance.TDC 18:26, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Please read what original research is: WP:NOR - However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Let's repeat that: collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged.

Original research would be if, for example, i was the person interviewing Patrick Le Lay and writing the book, and the book was not actually published, and i expected other wikipedia people to trust me that i was correctly reporting what Patrick Le Lay stated. That would be original research. But that is not the case.

If the organizing and collecting of information is wrong, i.e. if Le Lay's quote has nothing to do with finansing of the media, then it would be justified to remove it. But that is also not the case IMHO. Boud 02:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If this were a more general article on the media, then I don’t think there would be a problem with the inclusion of this quote. But since this deals with a specific theory, the "Propaganda model", adding material that seems to support it without a proper citation claiming as much, would be, IMO, OR. The information is not being added to inform, in this case, it is being added to support the model. Ten Dead Chickens 16:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

i'll cite again from WP:NOR: collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. If you do not like WP:NOR, then please try to explain to people why the policy should be changed. Boud 15:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I too, will cite the relevant section again: "It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." /'

The application of either the TF1 statement or the truthout article constitutes this. This article deals with a specific theory and the material added is being used to support specific tenants of this theory. These particular examples act to support the Propaganda model theory and, as such, must be attributed to someone who uses them for this purpose. This is not informative information, this is being used to support the argument, and as such is a violation of WP:NOR unless it can be attributed to someone who uses these specific examples in this manner. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Great Disappointment cites Cognitive Dissonance as an example of a failed prophecy in a religious context: the Great Disappointment. Whoever introduced this did not make the connection themselves. Cognitive Dissonance, like the Propaganda Model is a specific theory and when examples are going to be applied to it, they need to attributed to someone notable who has made the connection; in that case of the Great Disappointment and CD it was James T. Richardson, not the editor who added it. In the case of this particular article, the TF1 statement, while a seemingly good example, must be attributed to someone as such, otherwise it falls under the statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position portion of WP:NOR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I see Torturous Devastating Cudgel's point here, and agree partly with his objection. Therefore, I have removed the phrase, "An example is that" so that the two examples (TF1 and the government-produced videos) are provided as related facts without any claims that they are actual instances of the article's subject matter. This does not violate the passage of WP:NOR to which TDC refers. Publicola 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

parent conglomerate ownship filter

When reporting news involving their parent conglomerates, media companies are required to disclose the relationship, thus alerting viewers/readers to the possible conflict of interest. --Silverback 09:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why is the ownership filter increased by shareholder control?

It seems to me that shareholder control is more remote and less involved that private ownership. Their point doesn't make sense.--Silverback 09:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"[the giant media companies] have legislative and regulatory needs in Washington. They have the imperative of increasing stockholder value. What we've learned in the last 25 to 35 years is that this creates all kinds of potential pressures and influences on what news consumers get." -- Dan Rather October 9th 2006

But hey that's just Dan Rather, can't trust him right? And the very notion of a corporation attempting to increase the value of their stock is so insane it isn't even worthy of contemplation. LamontCranston 10 Oct 2006 (UTC)

People try to act in their own best interests

People try to act in their own best interests. And this book and theory spell out the consequences of that in datail in the setting of commercial "news". Its less of a theory and more of commonsense results of application of known facts.4.250.168.238 13:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. If someone can point to a period in history when the bulk of people weren't controlled by a comparatively small group I would like to hear it. The theory doesn't seems to say there is a vast conspiracy, just that in general wealthy and powerful individuals try to spin information so it sounds best for them. This is probably true in a general sense but is it true in specific?, is there evidence of actions designed to subvert truth (eg: bribes of journalists, covering up of stories or facts on orders of higher ups, intimidation of various types?). What about examples of journalists going to jail for refusing to divulge sources for example?, or expose's on homelessness?, or the working conditions of people working in foreign sweatshops?, or the Enron scandal? etc. etc. And a point made briefly in earlier on the talk page, what about the internet?, it seems pretty open to non-mainstream viewpoints to me, is it controlled by the propaganda model?, and if so how?. And when was the media controlled by anyone but the wealthy and the goverment?. The point seems to me that if these things described in the propaganda model are actually occuring, so what?. If they are occuring naturally and without controls then they weren't created by us and can't be turned off by us, they are just a part of democratic capitalism. And if they are being controlled by the government or business interests in a quantifiable way then I am going to need evidence showing its not just a rather generic left-wing conspiracy theory. Colin 8 05:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure

no, but disclosure allows the listener to decide whether it is propoganda or not, and makes the broadcasters more conscious of what they are doing and perhaps more careful

Does every Fox News broadcast begin with an announcement in which it is pointed out that Rupert Murdoch has control of the network, and, being very rich, has an interest in tax cuts for the rich (to take one specific example) and (in general) the maintenance of the status quo? If not, it is not sensible to suggest that the ownership filter is seriously diminished by anaemic disclosure laws. Chamaeleon 14:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should look at the scope of the ownership filter as described in this article. It just has to do with news that impacts the owning conglomerate, it isn't generalized to all news. There are disclosures quite often when news impacts the owning conglomerate, or one of its direct competitors, such a mergers, regulatory changes, etc. Business related news is tightly regulated, not only is ownership of the media outlet disclosed, but commentators of the various stocks are required to disclose any position they hold in the stock, and the interviewer explicitly asks for this disclosure.--Silverback 14:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming a difference between "news that impacts the owning conglomerate" (by which you perhaps imagine news that mentions it by name) and "all news" (by which you perhaps mean coverage of wars, etc, not directly to do with the corporation). There is no such difference: the most important form of bias is the general Weltanschauung that is pushed. Chamaeleon 14:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be taking an argument they make regarding "certain information", and trying to generalize it to all information. Rich people are shareholders in the other conglomerates, and yet the other networks didn't favor tax cuts for the rich. By taking your interpretation, the theory is robbed of its predictive value.--Silverback 15:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that all such powerful people would necessarily make their media outlets actively advocate that specific goal on which they have a conflict of interest (tax cuts for the rich). I just said that there was such a conflict of interest and cast doubt on the idea that any media outlet anywhere would ever publicly (i.e. daily on their TV show or newspaper) admit the fact that such conflicts existed. In reality, they admit to only a subset of their conflicts, and the info is kept largely secret. Fox News, to take one example, does manage to find the space to claim more than daily that they are "fair and balanced" etc, whereas they inform viewers about their conflicts of interest much, much less, if at all. Chamaeleon 19:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

removal of qoutes

The old version of the article with the quotes from the authors is more sensible. And I don't think it has anything to do with NPOV. It would be better to revert the changes. Alex 14:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the quotes was done where the authors point was already expressed in the preceding paragraph. To add quotes, which basically reinforces the prior explanation, is overkill and not encyclopedic. TDC 14:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

The quotes make it easier to understand the explantion. Either make the explanations clearer, or put the quotes back there. Alex 14:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the explanations are more than clear without the quotes. And as I said, an article so heavily laden with quotes is extremely unencyclopedic. But if you need clarification, open up a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica, go to an article and note the lack of long winded quotations. TDC 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Diffiuclt to access East Timor...

"whereas it was more difficult to access East Timor." Well now that’s not entirely true, there were 6 journalists operating out of Australia who got there easily enough...of course 5 of them were brutally slaughtered by the Indonesians during their invasion and the 6th was summarily executed, without trial naturally, when he went looking for them a few weeks later. -- LamontCranston 18:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Theory?

The Propoganda Model is not a theory. A theory is simply guesswork without substanciation. The PM is based on research by Chomsky, etc. Therefore it should not be called a theory. More of a method of anaylsis of media functionality.

It's very important to remember that in the hard sciences, it's a hypothesis that is more of a guess, backed by experience. Once you test a hypothesis with some formal evidence gathering, it can, if it conforms to the evidence, become a theory. It would usually be changed in the process as well. Just by reading Chomsky and Herman you can see that they went throough various formulations and are content with it. It is a theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.20.191 (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"A theory is simply guesswork without substanciation" oh wow, you've been to the Christian School of Debating haven't you? A 'theory' is "A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena" & "A field of study attempting to exhaustively describe a particular class of constructs" – Exactly what the Propaganda Model does. You however make the word ‘theory’ out to be something Bubba and I thought up last night while cooking Ice and dynamiting for fish. - LamontCranston 22:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You however make the word ‘theory’ out to be something Bubba and I thought up last night while cooking Ice and dynamiting for fish, thats actually a pretty fair assesment of what Chomsky and Herman have put together. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh? Could you provide an example or two? LamontCranston 13:27, 02 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm sure, In 1976, the New York Times, one of the primary examples of the model published 66 articles on Chile’s human rights record and four on Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge and only 3 such articles on the human rights situation in Cambodia. A similar patter was seen untill 1980, when it became impossible to deny. Tell me again how this points to the anti communist bias? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So your only contention is with the 5th and final qualifier, anti-communism/ideology? And based on that, you consider the whole thing bunk? LamontCranston 15:43, 02 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, judging by the quality of his response i'd hafta say it looks like you've managed to sum up his entire understanding of science, research, theory, and evidence in a nutshell, there, Lamont. Stone put to sky 08:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

presence of journalists

In the "criticism" section the underreporting of the genocide in East Timor in comparison to Cambodia is explained by pointing to the fact that journalists were already present in the Combodja region. This argument is fallacious because, as Chomsky himself has pointed out many times, these same "present reporters" were not reporting the clandestine US bombings of Eastern Combodia after 1969. The first one of the horrific genocides the Cambodians had to endure in a decade.

So, obviously the presence of reporters cannot have been the crucial factor for the difference in reporting of the two genocides.

--- Depends what you mean by 'crucial factor': whether journalists can physically reach an area is certainly a factor which affects the extent to which they can cover a story: whether it is a (or the) 'crucial' factor is a subjective call. This cuts both ways, incidentally. For example, it is generally agreed that in '76 and '77 coverage of Khmer Rouge atrocities in the West diminished. There are doubtless many reasons for this but one of them (surely) is that at this point the KR greatly tightened up border controls and journalists simply found it difficult to get access to Cambodia. Coverage zoomed up again in '78 and '79. In the same way journalists had not one but three major problems in covering East Timor: First, getting into Indonesia itself (which was at this time a fascist regime run by Suharto), then getting to East Timor (an island, let's never forget) and then escaping Indonesian death squads (as the commentator above points out). Even at its worst, in Cambodia people could still escape from the country and journalists could talk to refugees, but in East Timor hardly anyone got off the island, and so journalists had no one (or very few people) to talk to.

This is not a 'one off': Chomsky's approach here derives directly from his philosophy of science and view of what constitutes an 'explanation'. He has been tireless in advocating a Galilean/Newtonian/Cartesian view of the social sciences, in which they should model themselves as much as possible on physics (i.e. physics as seen by Newton or Einstein). In other words, he sees social phenomena (like natural phenomena) as resulting from essentially simple, deterministic laws (or models). In other words, he likes simple explanations for complex problems: for example: 'how can we learn language?': answer, 'Language Acquiring Device'.

Chomsky is perfectly happy to accept that large aspects of human behaviour is not amenable to this kind of analysis, but he simple draws a line round this 'stuff' and says 'well this is a chaos that science will never understand'. The question is: is 'why do we get the news we do' in the first or second category? Is it, in other words, a complex problem with a simple solution (i.e. the propaganda model) or a complex problem with many many different, complex solutions? Chomsky tends to assume that it is in the first category, which may be true or false or whatever, but is still an assumption which must be argued for. User: BScotland

The Balibo Five got into East Timor just fine, same goes for a 6th journalist that went looking for them (East Timor is just a short flight from Darwin), while getting out was a different matter of course...Amy Goodman & Allan Nairn got in and out in 1991. And for a 'fascist regime', Gerald Ford & Henry Kissinger had no problem flying to Jakarta to meet with Suharto to personally arrange the invasion and occupation, their only requirement being that it not start until they had left the country. While Clinton employed every trick in the book through the 1990s to continue supplying arms and funds for what was going on. LamontCranston

I don't think this is the place to be arguing the Propaganda Model, either for or against. The Criticisms section should be left alone, and reduced to simple, one- or two-sentence summaries of the positions taken. However, i'd suggest that all criticisms be held to a single standard: they must make specific mention of the Propaganda Model. If they do, then they may be allowed to stand. If they don't, however, then they are general criticisms of Chomsky/Herman and are not allowable.

Similarly, there should not be any extrapolation from what people are "obviously" talking about to widely acknowledged definitions or gossip about what the Propaganda Model is or isn't. Instead, only specific instances where people mention the Propaganda Model, kept to summaries that are as brief as can be managed while still communicating the general idea.

Personally, i'm a big fan of the Propaganda Model, and i think it's a valuable theoretical tool. For the sake of the page, though, we mustn't allow a single section to get bogged down in "he said, she said, but that's not right, but some complain...." crap. Stone put to sky 08:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms Section

The Metzl "criticisms" seem to have little, if anything, to do with the Propaganda Model per se; they are only general criticisms and do not appear to address the theory in any particulars. Unless a specific quotation mentioning the Propaganda Model can be provided, i will remove the material as off-topic. Stone put to sky 06:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The Metzl study directly criticze the H&C's media claims.Ultramarine 11:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is up to the contributor to provide sources, page numbers, and quotations. Unless you can provide a clear quotation from the document -- one that specifically mentions the Propaganda Model and the author's criticism of it -- then it will be removed. Stone put to sky 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the page back to what is clearly POV language. Also, please stop reverting the "criticisms" section; the material you are adding (Ear, Sharp, etc) is clearly off-topic. The Ear article does not mention the Propaganda Model once, and Sharp's article deals with it only tangentially and makes no categorical statements regarding the model, instead using it only as a rhetorical tool to re-examine Chomsky's statements about Cambodia and the coverage of the Khmer Rouge. These papers are clearly not intended as a criticism of that theory but rather of Chomsky's concepts and statements about media coverage of 1970's era Cambodia and the media coverage surrounding it.

Also, i have removed the incorrect "fact" flags on the sources i have provided; if citation of the theory itself is not enough to prove that it does not touch Marxist theories or preconceptions about social order and human intellect, then i do not know what else possibly could. As the appendices and papers show, the model itself says nothing whatsoever about the intellect of the general public and makes no mention regarding specific economic, social, or political dogma.

Final/propagandaly, the appendix and papers cited as showing that the model does predict the five criticisms listed is quite transparent. I can only presume that you have not read the sources, because unambiguous mention is made of each of the points provided by your critic. Stone put to sky 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove studies you do not like. Can you explain why the language is POV here? Also, please explain how the theory answers these objections, despite your claim, I cannot find this in the given sources, like the "ChomskyChat Forum"Ultramarine 19:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Far left views Chomsky advocates" is clearly POV language. For my part, i do not consider Chomsky's views to be "far left", but mere common sense.

Second, i have not removed the studies because i don't like them; i have already given clear explanations above: one of the studies doesn't even mention the propaganda model at all, and the other makes no direct criticisms of the model itself but only mentions it in the context of an entirely different critique.

So besides neither being on-topic, the statements you assert they make don't even appear in the text. I am deleting them again, and reminding you of the 3RR. Stone put to sky 19:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "Anarchist views Chomsky advocates"? The studies given explicitly criticze Chomsky's media model, as can be seen in the quotations from them.Ultramarine 19:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. Sophal Ear's doesn't even mention the Propaganda Model, and Sharp's mentions it only in the context of his criticism of Chomsky's Cambodia analysis: nowhere in Sharp is there any clear criticism made of the Propaganda Model itself. Instead, his criticism is of Chomsky's activity and analysis, with only tangential mention of the Propaganda Model.

If you want to include something in this article, then you need to make sure that it directly addresses the Propaganda Model; saying that somebody criticized Chomsky because he used the Propaganda Model says nothing about the Propaganda Model itself. Stone put to sky 19:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

All of these studies criticze H&Cs claims about the media coverage regarding Cambodia.Ultramarine 19:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So? This is an article about the Propaganda Model, not "Chomsky's claims regarding Cambodia." Stone put to sky 19:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please cite me correctly "H&Cs claims about the media coverage regarding Cambodia", which they make using their theory. Prediction given, did not happen, theory false.Ultramarine 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting the way you phrase this. Perhaps that would be a useful line of argument. Regardless, it hasn't appeared on the article page and so is irrelevant to our discussion.

In addition: Ear's article doesn't mention the Propaganda Model, and so cannot be included. Period. I suggest you get something on-topic. Stone put to sky 13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about NPOV language? The theory doesn't suggest that people should be reading Anarchist theory or left-wing publications; the theory is talking about news, and suggests that people aren't getting the whole story. So if you want to put this criticism into the article, that's what you must say: people getting more complete news coverage, or something to that effect.

Otherwise, the statement is POV-pushing, not to mention off-topic.

The theory answers these objections as explained in the Appendix; see the section about "first", "second" and "third order predictions".

The propaganda model clearly predicts that criticisms of the sort Lehrer is making will be made, and specifically addresses all five in some form or another. It predicts this will happen not only against the propaganda model itself, but against various types of media content that happen to challenge the established power structure. Stone put to sky 19:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Still does not explain why you are deleting the results from study showing bias against business in entertainment programming.Ultramarine 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple: because they're not necessary. What is important in the criticism section is the substance of the criticism, not the stuff used to support it. First, you don't have any citations or evidence to back up those statements. Second, even if you did they'd be superfluous, because what we're interested in here is not the secondary data that some guy brings in to bolster his argument, but rather the argument itself.

I have made good-faith edits on all of your "criticisms" material, making it concise and sacrificing none of its meaningful content. The section you are speaking of at this moment is very poorly written, to the point of approaching nonsense. If it is to be kept it must be re-worked. Stone put to sky 19:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They are certainly necessary. Empirical studies are always better than mere opinions. I can cite the name and so of the study if you want.Ultramarine 19:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not necessary because they are beside the point; the only relevant thing is Lehrer's criticisms. Those are studies which Lehrer uses to strengthen his argument -- they are not the argument itself. Thus, unnecessary. Stone put to sky 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Empirical studies are always better than mere opinions. Arguments that have empirical support are always better than mere opinions.Ultramarine 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that we're not making an argument here, we're simply reporting what Lehrer has said; likewise, empirical studies are only better than opinions when you are doing some sort of research. When you are trying to explain to people what somebody believes you don't start off with telling them the empirical studies they used to back up their ideas. You start off by telling them what the person thinks.

That's what this section should be doing: telling people what Lehrer thinks. This other material is not necessary to convey his ideas and distracts from the main point, making it harder to understand. Since this is an article that is only mentioning Lehrer's ideas -- and not examining them -- it's best if they're not included.

In other words: this is an article about the Propaganda Model. Lehrer's ideas about the Propaganda Model are what is important. The evidence he uses to back those ideas up, however, is not.

Go ahead and include them if you want. It's not important to me. But the other stuff -- Ear, Sharp, etc -- that must go, along with the POV language. Stone put to sky 20:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lehrer is reporting this study. Again, arguments having empirical support is always stronger than mere opinions. Not including the empirical arguments misrepresents Lehrer's arguments and the source. You are arguing that if we report Einstein's ideas, we should not mention the empirical support for those ideas.Ultramarine 20:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are in prinicple arguing that the article about the theory of relativity should remove all the statements about empirical support, and instead only state that "Einstein opinions" or something similar.Ultramarine 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, i am not arguing that at all.

This is an article about the Propaganda Model. If we use your analogy of Relativity, then what i am protesting is the inclusion of evidence that supports criticisms of the theory. Criticism sections should not include the evidence used to support them; they should only have the criticisms themselves, nothing else. Stone put to sky 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If including supporting empirical evidence, then the article must also include opposing empirical evidence.Ultramarine 20:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please address the objections to the content, or it will continue to be deleted per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DE. Stone put to sky 10:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already done that above. Is there something specifc you are thinking about? Ultramarine 10:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You have addressed none of the concerns that have already been repeated for you some three or four times. You have continually reverted good-faith edits which attempted to preserve the material, and you have refused to meet even basic wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of content. Please attempt to revise the material in a way that meets WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PN, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DE. Stone put to sky 10:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your arguments. Please do not completely delete all the sourced opposing views. Would you accept Wikipedia:Mediation to attempt to resolve the dispute? Ultramarine 11:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation? No; i think we should take this directly to an RfC (RfD? whatever). Stone put to sky 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer mediation, but if you want to do a RfC, that is fine also.Ultramarine 12:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then; we should proceed with it. I'll let you do the honors. Stone put to sky 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I prefer mediation, at least first. If you start a RfC, I will certainly participate.Ultramarine 13:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no mediation necessary here; the dispute is clear cut and beyond question:

• Three of the sources you provide are criticisms of Chomsky's perspective on Cambodia and the coverage therein, and make no declarative or definitive statements regarding the veracity, viability or analysis of the Propaganda Model itself. Therefore, including them here is a violation of WP:OR: clearly, when an article says that Chomsky's ideas about '70's era news media coverage of Cambodia is flawed, it does not necessarily say anything about the theory itself. Just as an erratic Mercurial orbit doesn't invalidate the theory of Relativity, so also one or two people's opinions about media coverage of Cambodia doesn't address the Propaganda Model.
  • H&C made predictions and claims about the media coverage of Cambodia based on their theory. The 3 last sources criticizes this based on empirical examination of the media coverage. This is sourced criticism which must be included per NPOV. The question of when a theory should be reject due to contrary evidence is a philosophical one, but such contrary evidence should certainly be mentioned when discussing the theory.
    • The last 3 sources do not purport to criticize or analyze any aspect of the Propaganda Model but are instead criticisms of Chomsky's overall approach as a social scientist; they mention the Propaganda Model only very briefly -- as a small part of his academic activity and do not make any criticisms of the theory itself -- are not relevant to any section which purports to discuss criticisms of the Propaganda Model per se. You are re-interpreting their research and putting your own words and meaning into papers. That is a violation of WP:SYN, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. For the record, there are these paragraphs from the page, where i have highlighted your own language and subtracted the quotations from your sources:
      • Chomsky and Herman claimed that the... In response, Jamie Frederic Metzl analyzed relevant media reporting and concluded that media coverage on Cambodia at the beginning of 1977 had in fact all but disappeared. Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model suggests that the crimes of United States enemies will be highlighted, and crimes of the West will be downplayed. If this were true, one would expect that the number of articles discussing the crimes of the Khmer Rouge would exceed the number discussing the American bombing.....

This is clearly a violation of WP:OR, and WP:SYN. Again:

• • • • Sophal Ear lists several more contradicting studies. Accuracy in the Media (AIM) found that for 1976, there were many times more stories and editorials by the New York Times and the Washington Post on the condition of human rights in South Korea and Chile than there were on Cambodia, Cuba, and North Korea, combined. Further examination of the media by William Shawcross...reveals that, contrary to Chomsky and Herman, many reporters covering Cambodia were actually sympathetic to the Khmer Rouge. Shawcross also tackles charge of bias which Chomsky and Herman level against the media. The bias concerned differential coverage of East Timor versus Cambodia. In East Timor, the Indonesian government had allegedly killed 200,000...Chomsky and Herman asserted....Chomsky and Herman argued that the media did not cover the East Timor massacres because Indonesia, a country friendly to the U.S., was the perpetrator. Shawcross suggests instead that....

Again: clear violations of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Nowhere is Shawcross quoted on anything regarding the Propaganda Model; Instead, regarding the Propaganda Model we have only your own personal opinions about what the implications are. And, once again:

• • • • Bruce sharp also examines the reporting in the media at the time and draws results contradictory to the theory....

Once again, this is followed by a quotation which nowhere mentions the Propaganda Model, nor is quoted from a context that does. That is WP:OR and WP:SYN, and clearly undertaken as an exercise to see how far you can push WP:NPOV. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• One of the sources you provide doesn't even mention the Propaganda Model at all; one cannot get a clearer violation of WP:OR and WP:SYN than that.
  • Does not explictly use C&H name "Propaganda model" but uses other descriptions "As Bruce Sharp asserts, Chomsky created his theory of the Free Press and from then on sought only evidence that would support it. Together with Herman, Chomsky painted all other contrary evidence with wide strokes of the same color: imperialist media propaganda and disinformation"
    • If it does not explicitly mention the propaganda model then it simply is not criticizing the propaganda model; to use your Einstein analogy above: one cannot criticize the Theory of Relativity unless one mentions the Theory of Relativity. Re-interpreting material that does not directly address the theory in question is original research. Case closed. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• You refuse to take out clearly POV language, thus violating WP:NPOV. The propaganda model nowhere says anything about "far left views", and similarly says makes no predictions whatsoever about "the views of chomsky" -- or herman, or any other individual. Including references back to "the far-left views of Chomsky" is clearly an interjection of POV language into what should be a neutral article on the Propaganda Model.
  • Chomsky makes the claims that all mainstream media are biased and conservative, including what is usually called liberal newspapers. That leaves the far left as supposedly neutral and correct. I had suggested Anarchist views instead and still do, if you prefer. Regardless, that is no excuse for deleting everything.
    • Before i began deleting the material en masse, i re-wrote the material something between three and six times; each time, i replaced the NPOV language with something neutral. Each time, you reverted the material, even after having the reasons explained to you repeatedly. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Of the criticisms you have assembled that actually come from articles dealing with the Propaganda Model itself, they all come from a single article; the amount of material from that single article is close approaching half the amount of content of the entire Propaganda Model entry. The theory itself has been the subject of two books, three articles, and referred to innumerable times in articles and books treating related subjects. The criticisms you present come from a single article that's only some 30 or 40 pages long. Either you need to do some pruning, or the article's content should be increased by a few megabytes or so.
  • That is icncorrect, all of the sourced material deal with the theory. There is no Wikipeida rule that article coverage should proportional to some supposed real-world word count. What is important is the arguments.
    • It is not incorrect; there is only a small bit of material you have presented which directly addresses the Propaganda Material in any fashion whatsoever, and that i have been willing to let stand since the beginning. Unfortunately, you have continually tried to pad the entry with as many words as possible, even when those words are irrelevant and superfluous to the purpose of the entry or when they can be properly edited down to say the same thing, but more concisely, directly, and neutrally. Instead of allowing fellow editors to cooperate with you to make the necessary revisions on the material, you have stubbornly reverted any and all attempts to make improvements, in the process fluffing up what should be a short commentary on the criticisms of a single source into quite near half the article's total length. While i may be wrong, i do think that qualifies as "tendentious" editing. Stone put to sky 10:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Either you correct these problems or we will continue to remove the material. If you would like to take this to a higher authority then please -- start the RfC. It would be my great pleasure to plead my case there. Stone put to sky 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You disagree with some points. That is no excuse for removing all the material. I have already stated that I prefer mediation. If you want to start a RfC, I will certainly participate.Ultramarine 09:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, do start the RfC. The objections to the material -- listed above, in detail, several times, repeatedly -- have nothing to do with whether or not i "disagree" with some points; although i disagree with virtually all of them, i have attempted to preserve those which are relevant to the article and to re-work them so that they are consistent with WP:NPOV. I have pointed this out many times. If you capitulate under mediation there will be no formal record beyond this single page; with an RfC, there will be.

I would prefer that there be a record of our disagreement here, and so i am requesting an RfC in this matter. Stone put to sky 10:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What you have done repeatedly is removing all the sourced criticisms as can be seen in the page history. Again, if you want to start a RfC, then please do, I will participate.Ultramarine 10:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The record above and the history of the page plainly belie that assertion; i made good-faith edits and suggestions only to see them unceremoniously reverted. This current edit war began there. So, now that we are clearly at an impasse: are you going to start that RfC, or not? Stone put to sky 10:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Some recent examples of you blanking the whole section with sourced criticisms: [2][3][4][5] For RfC and other issues, see above.Ultramarine 10:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 The criticism section is awful.  I've seen nonsense, spelling, and punctuation errors.  The line about the propaganda model being a rehashing of "false consciousness" is absurd.  Anyone who has read Chomsky knows he doesn't use any marxist methods of analysis, and Herman is an economist, of all things.

 Id like to see a criticism section that deals with the propaganda model in a more scientific fashion.  The American Enterprise Institute is not a center of scientific analysis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.20.191 (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 

Wikipedia NPOV is laughable

Wikipedia is not NPOV. Every not mainstream topic is flooded by a criticism section, whereas mainstream POVs are hardly ever critizised. In this article the size of the criticism section is totally disproportinate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.59.1 (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

'bewildered herd' language is a quote from Walter Lippman, not Chomsky/Hermann

Chomsky often quotes any number of past public relations/advertising/political people in referring to the public. 'the bewildered herd' is just one of the many terms. so, at least that bullet point is a fraud and should be removed immediately.

The bullet point references the 'anti-chomsky reader' book, not the source of the alleged quote - the reason for this is because the source of the quote itself will in fact be quoted - pointing to the fact that it is used in reference to Walter Lippman's term for the public, and is not a direct quote of Chomsky/Hermann. --shmooth- (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons begin...

Above, with "Criticisms' Section". My latest edit was undertaken on that basis. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See earlier discussions above.Ultramarine (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section Clarity

The current version of this section begins with a single sentence

Eli Lehrer, former editor of the The American Enterprise at the American Enterprise Institute, has criticized the theory on several points.

This implies that the rest of the criticism section is simply what one dude says about the theory. Is that correct? If not, can we get a better intro to the section. If so, can we get more points of view than one guy's on problems with the theory? Lot49a (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the Lehrer section. His opinion was given undue weight, as his views occupies as space as the non-criticism parts. American Enterprise Institute is not a reliable source. It's a neo-con think tank. They are like the masters of media manipulation. It's obvious that they are biased. Critism should come from respected and less baised scientific analysis institution as stated by someone above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baller92 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. This section - the way is formatted and written - is completely unencyclopedic. Two or three quick examples:

• "The theory ignores revelations by the media of government and corporate misconduct..." This should be attributed to Eli Lehrer of the AIE.
• "Chomsky neglects that major media such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times sharply disagree on most issues in their editorials." Ditto, needs to be attributed to Lehrer.
• "Critics claim the model is inconsistent..." Who exactly? Is it merely Lehrer again? If so, it needs to be expressed clearly.
• "When commenting, he [Chomsky] seems to have a poor knowledge of the Internet..." According to whom - Lehrer?

It's not acceptable to fleetingly reference a single critic and then write in a style that can be easily misinterpreted by the reader. The section also lacks sources and reeks of undue weight. In addition, the subsection on Indonesia is supported by a single reference (this [6]). Not once does it mention the Propaganda model. For these reasons and more, and as other editors agree, the section should be removed. ~ smb 19:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The published book cites numerous sources. I will make the attribution clearer to this book clearer.Ultramarine (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take the objectional text to sandbox, where you can improve it? ~ smb 20:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The objections raised is that the AEI is not a reliable source. Regardless of the truth of this the AEI is not the source. It is published book. Another that the attribution is lacking. This has been improved. The section title also makes the attribution clear. The Indonesia material is from a another source. That should resolve all objections. If anything else, then please state it. Claimed POV is not an excuse for deleting material, see WP:NPOV. Instead, add more sourced views if some are missing.Ultramarine (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just keep the disputed section in the discussion page until we reach an agreement. No need for an edit war.

Being a former editor of AEI, Lehrer is most likely a neo-con, since it's a neo-con think tank. Then we can't exactly say his views are unbiased and reliable. Just like we can't consider the opinions of dictators on democracy to be unbiased and reliable. All 6 sections of Lehrer criticism came from within 20 pages of the book, while we only have 6 sections describing the entire propaganda model which came from hundreds of pages from various books written by Chomsky and others. Isn't this giving Lehrer's opinion undue weight? Wikipedia is meant to have summaries of viewpoints, not a complete essay.

I propose that either we shorten Lehrer opinion into one short section or we cite other more reliable criticism.Baller92 (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. There is no justification for numerous sub headers, stretching this one individual source beyond breaking point. His criticism can be consolidated into one section, with clear attribution throughout. ~ smb 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Being a former editor of AEI, Lehrer is most likely a neo-con, since it's a neo-con think tank. Then we can't exactly say his views are unbiased and reliable" Again, see NPOV. Claimed POV is not a reason for excluding material. Otherwise WP should simply exclude all Marxist material for example. Again, if a view is missing, add a source opposing one. Chomsky and Herman are two individuals so arguing that there is too much space to one individual does not hold unless we reduce the rest of the article correspondingly.Ultramarine (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"Chomsky and Herman are two individuals so arguing that there is too much space to one individual does not hold unless we reduce the rest of the article correspondingly." No, this page is about the Propaganda model, so we can use as much space as necessary to describe the work of media analyst Edward S. Herman and Professor Noam Chomsky. Equal-time, or equal-space, is not owed a single critic - particularly one whose specialty is, um, insurance [7] - and whose claims are not considered serious enough to have solicited a single scholarly response. [8] ~ smb 16:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a soapboax for the views of one side. Now you have completely removed Lehrer from the article. Again, this is not only Lehrer's personal views. He cites many sources and studies supporting him.Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia. If notable criticism of any one subject exists then, yes, it's expected that we find space for it, but there is no such policy that freely allows an editor to overstate and massively expand a criticism section, adding material of dubious origin he or she happens to find on the Internet. There are important guidelines to be observed when crafting such a section. Please respect them. In this case, three different editors have remarked that Lehrer's views were given undue-weight. Nobody is arguing the criticism be excluded altogether - just reduced. ~ smb 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

I did not find the material on the internet but cited a published book. Here is a a single paragraph version: [9]. Concrete objections?Ultramarine (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop being obtuse. The problem with Lehrer's criticism is expressed clearly by three different editors. ~ smb 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You said that material was given undue weight, should be shortened, and should not have sub headers. You asked for a sandbox. This has been done. Again, concrete objections.Ultramarine (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed edit goes against consensus. Please re-read the objections of User:Lot49a, User-Baller92, myself (User:Smb) and User:Giovanni33. It remains the case that far too much weight/space is given a biased source with little or no background in media analysis. We don't need numerous sub headers or bullet points to resolve this matter; two or three short paragraphs will suffice. ~ smb 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Since we can't agree on whether neo-conservative organizations have POV, can't we agree that Lehrer's opinion is given undue weight? Chomsky and Herman are both professor emeritus in respected universities, but their opinion only take up as much space as a single neo-con writer. The sections on Lehrer's criticism are very poorly written as well. For example, the priest murder argument have nothing to do with US media revealing US government and corporate misconduct. The priest murder argument only gives alternative explanation to why one incident is given undue weight as opposed to another similar incident. There are also sections where the criticism is immediately countered by explanations of the theorist, such as debates in media and belittles public choice. The first paragraph in debates in media claims that the model can't explain why the media does not have a consensus, while the second refutes it by saying the debates only happen within the certain acceptable parameters. These criticisms which are countered immediately are useless and only serves to take up space. Here is my rewrite, which summarized and condensed Lehrer's criticism:

"Eli Lehrer, former editor of the The American Enterprise at the American Enterprise Institute, criticizes that the propaganda model ignores revelations by the media of government and corporate misconduct and that it is this kind of reporting that wins rewards and gives reputation. Lehrer also claims that the model is presented with inconsistency, sometimes arguing that the media only serves to distract people with unimportant entertainment and little real news, but sometimes instead arguing that the media move public opinion on all important issues and current events. New media such as the many forms of Internet media isn't included in the model. Although the Manufacturing Consent was published before the Internet, Chomsky has continued to almost entirely ignore these media also in recent publications and speeches." Baller92 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Since we can't agree on whether neo-conservative organizations have POV, can't we agree that Lehrer's opinion is given undue weight?" Absolutely, yes. Herman and Chomsky have been studying media output for decades, written countless papers, had their observations published in notable journals. It seems that Eli Lehrer's only foray into media analysis was to 'refute' Chomsky. Simply not serious. Lehrer should stick to predicting the impact of flood damage on the insurance markets, and deserves no more than a two or three paragraphs. ~ smb 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with majority here. Giving a whole section to the views of the American Enterprise Institute in this topic is undue-weight. If they are a reliable source then we can present a concise summary of what they say, along with other pov's. The text for this should be floated on talk for consensus first, as well.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Now all the material has been removed which violates NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The opposing views material completely removed can be seen here: [10].Ultramarine (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

This section is almost entirely plagiarised from an undergraduate's dissertation (!) posted on an unknown website named jim.com. The thesis itself doesn't mention the Propaganda model once, and Chomsky only in part. An unproved statement put forward by a university student who has not yet received a first degree is not an acceptable form of criticism on any subject matter. This is, absolutely, the worst criticism section I have ever seen on Wikipedia since I began editing in 2003. I'm removing it immediately. ~ smb 21:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Who put it in the article in the first place?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added better refs.Ultramarine (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, would you kindly answer the following question: Have you actually read the cited essay by William Shawcross or are you relying upon the aforementioned dissertation for an accurate description of it? And if you have a copy before you, can you please inform me, does Shawcross specifically mention the Propaganda model, or is he responding directly to an earlier piece of work in some way connected to Herman and Chomsky's later published work? Thanks. ~ smb 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Shawcross criticizes Chomsky's claims of propaganda by Western press regarding Cambodia. Would you kindly answer the following question: Have you actually read Eli Lehrer's article? The source for the content you have completely deleted? Which of his sources are you objecting to? Thanks.Ultramarine (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your behaviour is not acceptable. Do you have trouble understanding plain English? ~ smb 07:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your incivility has be noted. Read WP:CIVIL. Chomsky used the word "propaganda model" first in the 1988 book but had made such claims earlier. Which Shawcross criticzed in his 1983 article. Now answer my questions, please.Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a serious point. You have displayed a lack of care and attention when replying to other editors - this may be because you have a problem with English, or it's possible you are deliberately obfuscating the issue, in the hope editors will grow weary and not respond. For the record, you didn't answer either of my two questions, but it doesn't matter now, because I intend to examine the source material firsthand. ~ smb 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered regarding the content question. You have not answered mine.Ultramarine (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

I'm removing the unbalanced that UltraMarine recently inserted. This page already includes criticism of the Propaganda model (see section 5.0) and nobody is preventing more from being added, providing guidelines are understood and respected. ~ smb 20:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute. You are in fact objecting to inserting sourced material.Ultramarine (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Chomskychat material

First, it is questionable that forum is a reliable source.

"Although the model was based mainly on the characterization of United States media, Chomsky and Herman believe the theory is equally applicable to any country that shares the basic economic structure and organizing principles which the model postulates as the cause of media biases." Exactly where in the long text is this stated. Quote please.