The totalizing effect (as used by C

The totalizing effect (as used by Condit (1993) in her critique of “cookie-cutter” leftist theory) of the IPA and IGS classifying all persuasion as propagandistic and harmful eventually led to the IPA suspending its efforts in 1942 for fear that it might affect national unity during World War II. In fact, after the suspension of efforts for the war, Scholastic (once IPA’s publication intended to educate high school students about propaganda) began highlighting positive uses of propaganda. The Institute for General Semantics quickly fell out of favor as well. The downfall of these two organizations are likely the result of the war effort and scholars like Kenneth Burke pointing out the inherent flaws in their generalizations. Of particular importance is his essay titled “The Virtues and Limitations of Debunking.” Burke noted that propaganda analysts engagement in debunking technique leaves them with no justifiable techniques to argue against an opponents’ position (Nicotra, 2009). This ideology toward propaganda is shared by Lasswell (1927b) when he noted that the objective of propaganda “may be revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, reformist or counter-reformist, depending upon whether institutional change is involved” (p. 629). In other words, propaganda techniques may be used for any cause. The question of legitimacy should fall heavily on the ends not the means. From a Burkean viewpoint, the judgment should be placed on the motives of the propagandist rather than the techniques of identification.

Hegemonic Propaganda Theory

Herman and Chomsky developed a propaganda model to explain the propagandistic properties of mass media. The model combines Marxist arguments with classical propaganda theory. Some scholars term this evolution as hegemonic propaganda theory. While Gramsci, the usual name attributed to hegemony, is not quoted by Herman and Chomsky, the model contains notions of hegemony (Young, 2006). Their study of the economics of mass media led them to argue that all mass media in the United States are a propaganda machine for capitalism (or quasi-capitalism as Chomsky terms it) and corporations. They argue that there are certain filters that make up the propaganda model. Messages must go through these filters that represent each phase of the production process. Herman and Chomsky (1988) detail the filters in the model as this:

(1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth, and profit orientation of 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 government, business, and “experts” funded and approved by these primary sources and agents of power; (4) “flak” as a means of disciplining the media; and (5) “anticommunism” as a national religion and control mechanism. (p. 2)

As a message is filtered it gets sterilized of any dissident ideology and made to reinforce the dominant ideology (E. S. Herman & Chomsky, 1988). The model is a product of its time and mentions anticommunism as the controlling ideology. The term anticommunism needs to be changed to anti-Muslim for today’s purposes. Of course, that will eventually change also. For posterity, anticommunism should be changed to “dominant hegemonic ideology.” One key flaw, among others that will be noted, is the broad generalizations of the filters in the model. This oversimplification has left researchers unable to precisely identify these areas in communication phenomena (Boyd-Barrett, 2004). Also, the model’s totalizing aspect of implicating all mass media as propaganda leaves little critical use for researchers. This has likely led to its downfall in scholarly application.

Lang and Lang (2004) wrote an article critical of hegemonic propaganda theory. They argued that Chomsky, in particular, is ideologically and politically motivated in his study of propaganda. This has led to his unwavering commitment to his model despite glaring deficiencies. The propaganda model has left out important developments in propaganda research that could enhance our understanding. More specifically, Barthes and Marcuse’s insights into ideology would bring greater breadth and depth and more explanatory power to the propaganda model. What’s more, the model would create a continuum rather than a strong non-falsifiable proposition. The cynicism that Chomsky shows leads to no real change and leads scholars down a self-destructive road. His commitment to bifurcating between good and evil and his truisms leave no room for subjectivity or critical insight. Lang and Lang (2004) contend this commitment is hurting leftist ideology.