Research Applications In a 2009 iss

Research Applications

In a 2009 issue of Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, scholars studied a variety of phenomena using the propaganda model. These included crisis reporting in the Daily Mirror (Freedman, 2009), Hollywood films (Alford, 2009), methodology (Klaehn, 2009), market manipulation in financial media reporting (Thompson, 2009), and critical considerations (Sparks, 2007). All but one (Alford, 2009), investigated media production in the United Kingdom. This is a clear change in most uses of the model. The propaganda model was developed to explain mass media in the United States (E. S. Herman & Chomsky, 1988). And the model has generally only been applied in that country (Freedman, 2009). Each of these studies revealed that Herman and Chomksy’s propaganda model has applications in other hegemonic mass media systems.

Patrick and Thrall (2007) conducted a study to test the arguments of hegemonic propaganda theory. The article analyzed messages and public opinion for the Iraq war. The researchers noted that public support for the Iraq war turned from 76% approval to a majority disapproving of the president’s handling of the war in just four months. Hegemonic propaganda theory does not seem to be able to explain this occurrence. Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model says that powerful elites are able to maintain the status quo through mass media. Content analysis combined with public opinion data revealed that President Bush dominated news coverage but was not able to control public opinion, which is opposite of the assumptions of the propaganda model. Using this evidence the researchers assert that classical propaganda theory is a better alternative (Patrick & Thrall, 2007). One failing of this study and possibly hegemonic propaganda theory is they fail to take into account rhetorical tactics. It is possible that President Bush did not employ the best available means to persuade his audience. In addition, the study did not take into account media literacy rates. Rather than abandoning hegemonic propaganda theory, it should be revised to account for a rhetor’s competency and the audience’s receptiveness.

In a study that preceded the previously mentioned British studies utilizing hegemonic propaganda theory, Young (2006) conducted an analysis of Australian media criticisms of the Howard government’s inflated advertising budgets. Labor Party members argued that the media buys were partially intended to silence critics. Content analysis revealed that media organizations that received more in advertising revenue from the Howard administration were less likely to report on criticisms of the practice. It is important to note that the analysis involved news coverage of Labor Party criticisms and not commentary. This means that the media producers were letting money affect news editorial decisions. This analysis confirms much of what hegemonic propaganda theory suggests. Hegemonic propaganda theory not only suggests that the powerful will control media content but also public opinion (Young, 2006). A shortcoming of this study is the lack of audience analysis.