Areen Pabla

1. In "Manufacturing Consent,” the Propaganda Model is introduced to explain

propaganda and systemic biases in mass media. Chomsky argues that this model is
based on a “market analysis” rather than a conspiracy theory because it focuses on the
economic operations and structural factors that govern mass media institutions. This
market analysis suggests that the media results from market forces rather than a
deliberate conspiracy to manipulate people.

The first filter is the size, ownership, and profit orientation of the mass media. This filter
reflects the market analysis approach as it describes how the media's structure—large
corporations owned by wealthy individuals or shareholders—naturally produces a
particular type of news content. Profit motives drive the media organizations and are
likely to produce news that aligns with the interests of their owners, advertisers, and
other market forces. This affects the type of stories that are reported, how they are
presented, and the underlying narratives perpetuated.

The second filter is advertising as the primary income source of the mass media. Since
advertising revenue is the major source of income for media outlets, the media will
cater to the needs of advertisers. This creates a filtering process where news that
conflicts with the interests of advertisers may be downplayed, while content that
advertisers find favourable may be emphasized. Again, this is proven with market
analysis, and it is not a conspiracy but rather a systemic bias starting from the market
dynamics of the media industry.

Pamela Jackson's argument about news being a "contested commodity" suggests that
news should be understood not just as a product influenced by market forces but also as
a field where various stakeholders (such as journalists, audiences, and activists)
constantly negotiate its value and meaning. By framing news as a contested commodity,
Jackson implies that there is a dynamic process where the final product (news) is the
outcome of these multiple pressures and not just the result of corporate interests, as
Chomsky suggests. Jackson addresses the concept of market failures concerning the
news industry by noting that certain important news might not be covered because it is
not deemed profitable or may antagonize powerful advertisers. Thus, this can lead to a
lack of diversity in viewpoints and underreporting of issues crucial for a democratic
society.

Conceptualizing news as a contested commodity offers a critique of Chomsky's model by

suggesting that there are more factors at play than just market forces and by
highlighting the active role that various members have in shaping the news. It
acknowledges that while market forces are influential, they do not completely
determine the nature of the news. This perspective is partially successful since it
broadens the understanding of how news content is produced and emphasizes the role
 of professional powers, public interest, and other non-market forces. However, it does
not necessarily contradict Chomsky's model, as it can be seen as another layer to the
various complex factors that influence media outputs.

2. John Stuart Mill strongly advocates for the freedom of expression and press. Mill
provides two key reasons why opinions should not be silenced. First is the infallibility
argument. Mill argues that silencing an opinion is wrong because it assumes infallibility.
Since humans are fallible, no one can claim absolute truth. By silencing an opinion, we
may lose the opportunity to exchange error for truth or, if the opinion is true, to
exchange falsehood for truth. The second reason is the clearer perception and livelier
impression argument. Even if a silenced opinion is incorrect, Mill suggests that its
expression is beneficial as it forces the holders of the true opinion to understand and
articulate their position more clearly. The confrontation with differing opinions leads to
a clearer representation of the truth, preventing the received opinion from containing
biases.

Judith Lichtenberg raises concerns that Mill does not go far enough in defending
freedom of expression. This is because, according to Lichtenberg, freedom of the press
is not unconditional. She argues that practical considerations, such as property rights,
limit press freedom. The press is often owned by private individuals or corporations, and
thus, its freedom is limited by the owners' decisions and interests. In this light, the
press's freedom can be limited by what serves the owners' goals or what seems
negotiable. Additionally, Lichtenberg acknowledges that while property rights can
protect freedom of the press from government interference, they can also lead to a
concentration of media ownership that may restrict diversity of opinion and the open
discussion that Mill desires.

Onora O'Neill introduces the concept of "communicative obligations" into the

discussion, which can be crucial in this discussion. She suggests that the focus shouldn't
just be on the rights to freedom of expression but also on the associated obligations
that ensure communication is effective and respectful of others' rights. This perspective
adds a dimension of responsibility to the arguments surrounding freedom of expression,
emphasizing that communicators must consider the truthfulness, content, and
consequences of their speech. O'Neill's point underlines that freedom of expression is
not just a matter of individual liberty but also involves duties to communicate honestly
and contribute positively to the public discourse. This is significant because it extends
the debate from a focus solely on the freedom to express to the quality and impact of
that expression, resonating with concerns about misinformation and the ethical
responsibilities of media.

3. Silvio Waisbord and Rupert Read offer different perspectives on the concept of a post-
truth era, and each author provides different insights into how truth is perceived and
constructed. Silvio Waisbord suggests that the idea of "truth is what happens to news"
 is indicative of a media landscape where the traditional boundaries between news and
other forms of communication have been erased. In this context, truth is seen as a by-
product of news processes, which are influenced by a variety of factors such as political
or economic pressures, social media dynamics, and audience biases. Waisbord implies
that in the current media environment, news is less about conveying objective facts and
more about how it is received, interpreted, and shared by audiences. The implication
here is that truth has become relative and contingent on how it’s received and
circulated.

Rupert Read, on the other hand, connects the post-truth phenomenon to neoliberalism.
He argues that the economic and political practices of neoliberalism have contributed to
a climate where market values overshadow truth. In a neoliberal society, everything is
commodified, including information, leading to a situation where news is driven by the
imperative to attract viewers and generate profits, often at the expense of truthfulness
and integrity. Read could be highlighting how neoliberal policies have undermined
public trust in institutions, including the media, which contributes to the post-truth
condition. These notions reflect a broader concern that in a post-truth era, the value
placed on objective facts and reasoned debate is being erased in favour of narratives
that align with individual beliefs or ideologies.

As for the role of journalism, these perspectives present significant challenges.

Journalism's normative vision often includes ideals such as objectivity, truthfulness, and
serving the public good. In a post-truth era where subjective truths can overpower
objective facts, achieving this vision becomes increasingly complex. However, journalism
can still strive towards its normative goals by adhering to rigorous standards of fact-
checking and accountability, engaging in investigative reporting that uncovers the truth
regardless of political or economic pressures, providing a platform for diverse
perspectives and fostering public debate that values evidence and reasoned argument.
Despite the challenges, by committing to these principles, I believe journalism can
continue to pursue its normative vision even in a post-truth era. It may require
journalists to adapt and find new ways to maintain credibility and authority, but it is not
an impossible goal. It's also about educating audiences to be critical consumers of news
and to value the importance of truth in media.

4. Roger Silverstone's concept of "proper distance" refers to the idea that the media must
maintain a balance between being too emotionally involved with subjects and being too
detached. It's about finding the right degree of proximity and involvement—
emotionally, ethically, and politically—so that the representation of others is neither too
close nor too distant. This notion is rooted in respect and care for others while
acknowledging their autonomy and differences.
 Hannah Arendt's conception of politics emphasizes the importance of public space as a
place where individuals come together to discuss and deliberate, which influences
Silverstone's idea. In this space, people can reveal their distinct identities and
perspectives. Proper distance aligns with Arendt's view in that it requires a public space
where discourse can occur in a way that respects the presence and rights of others to
appear, speak, and be heard.

The main difference between Silverstone’s conception and Stephen Ward’s approach to
a global journalism ethic lies in their philosophical beliefs. Ward advocates for a liberal,
"contractual approach" to ethics, which suggests that ethics are based on mutual
agreements and consensus among individuals. This is an approach rooted in liberal
individualism and focuses on establishing universal principles that can be applied across
different contexts.

On the other hand, Silverstone’s conception, inspired by Arendt, places greater

emphasis on relationality and the uniqueness of ethical action. It's less about applying a
set of agreed-upon rules and more about responding appropriately to the specificities of
situations and relationships, recognizing the interconnectedness of the global media
landscape.

In terms of enabling the possibility of a global civil society, I believe Silverstone’s

conception may be more suitable. It considers the diversity and complexity of global
interactions and the need for sensitivity toward different cultures and contexts. This is
particularly important in a global civil society where media representations can shape
international perceptions and relations.

Silverstone’s notion suggests that media must engage with global issues in a way that
neither universalizes nor marginalizes, but rather seeks to understand and communicate
the particularities of different societies while maintaining a sense of shared humanity.
This approach can help foster a global civil society that is inclusive, respectful of
difference, and receptive to the kind of dialogue and deliberation that Arendt saw as
central to the political.

5. Matthew Kieren and Stephen Ward critique the traditional conception of objectivity in
journalism, which suggests that journalists can and should simply "tell it the way it is,"
that is, to present an accurate reality. This conception is deemed naïve because it
assumes that journalists can be completely neutral and that there is a straightforward,
singular reality that can be captured and transmitted without interpretation or bias.

Both Kieren and Ward suggest that this traditional notion fails to acknowledge the
complexities involved in news reporting, including the journalists’ own biases, the
influence of language, and the choices made in what to include or exclude from the
narrative. They argue for a more nuanced understanding of objectivity, one that
recognizes these challenges but still upholds the importance of striving for fairness,
accuracy, and impartiality in reporting.

Modifying the conception of objectivity does not equate to the radical position of
Richard Rorty, who critiques the idea of objectivity by rejecting the notion that there are
universal truths to be discovered independent of language, culture, or society. Kieren
and Ward do not necessarily dismiss the idea that there can be an objective reality;
rather, they argue that our access to it is always mediated by subjective human
experiences and contexts. They aim to refine the concept of objectivity, not abandon it.

As for whether the media can achieve objectivity, Andrew Edgar’s insights may be
valuable. Edgar would likely emphasize the importance of the social role of journalism
and the ethical responsibilities that come with it. He might suggest that objectivity is a
goal that is worth striving for as an ideal, understanding that while perfect objectivity is
unachievable, the pursuit of it encourages practices that are crucial for a democratic
society, such as impartiality, accuracy, and accountability. I believe that with this, the
media can reach objectivity, as we can aim for what Edgar might refer to as
"intersubjective verifiability," where information is open to scrutiny by others, hence
encouraging transparency and trustworthiness. By these means, the media can hope to
achieve a form of practical/realistic objectivity that, while not free from all subjectivity
and bias, provides a reliable and trustworthy account of events.