“A Propaganda Model” article reinforced what I learned in Introduction to Mass Communication. It is known that a plethora of information is feed to the press at every instant. However, there are stake holders or people in high places who decide what information does and does not seep through to the mass public. They can even sit on information until they feel the public is ready for it. And of course, the rhetoric used in some articles can be bent and changed to fit what the authority feels acceptable to the public. These practices are woven into the news room so heavily that journalists may think that they are being as unbiased as possible, when in fact they are not. There can be definite stains on some information without the journalist even knowing. For instance, some sources could lie to journalists and either know they are lying or actually think they are telling the truth. There are sketchy techniques all over the place.
The fact that there are 29 media corporations that own over half of all the rhetoric that is thrown at us repeatedly scares me. How can we as a mass population get all the information that we need and deserve, if half of the media already has its’ mind made up on certain subject matters. Therefore, our views on some subject are slanted. I mean look at Septemeber 11, 2001; most Americans, I am willing to bet, didn’t even know we were fighting with the Middle East. This just frightens me for the future. Things are only going to get worse. More and more information will be hid from us to keep us ignorant. Because ignorance is bliss, right?
This was the most difficult piece for me to get through this entire semester. I just could not seem to grasp the majority of the ideas the writer was trying to get across. I did however, pick up on a few important opinions or statements that Chomsky. After discussing the media in my mass communication class, I liked the idea of the “news filter” when explaining how the propoganda model works. I thought it connected me to my other class in the fact that the news filters are mainly affected by the size of the concentrated ownership or the owner’s wealth. With that being the first issue regarding the propoganda model, advertising plays the next important role. This was the one idea that stood out to me the most and brought me back to the Persuaders video and how advertising helps to emotionally get the consumer involved in the products/services that a producer is selling. Although I didn’t quite understand some of the reading, I did pick up on the advertising aspect and how the propoganda relates to the way a service or product is sold. I also found this relatable to the way Bernays tried to establish his opinion that the Propoganda model was a positive aspect toward making a product wanted, and making the language apparent and pleasing to the eyes and ears of the average citizen.
After reading this piece, I found myself extremely confused with what exactly the writer was trying to get accomplished concerning the personality types of an intellectualist. I did however, find it eye-opening that in his opinion every man is considered an intellectual and that every man is a “philospher” in his own state of mind. Every human has a taste and a philosophical point of view regardless of whether one thinks that they do or not. I loved the line, “There is no such thing as a non-intelluctual person. I also found it interesting that Gramsci says that many times people that think they are creating a new group of intellect involving individual beliefs, they are really just centering themselves in an existing group of intellects. Many times intellectual people are involved in a lot of the same groups and have a lot in common regarding their own beliefs, moreover I disagree slightly on his opinion because i think that every individual has different types of intellect and can apply that to their own lives in a variety of different ways. It’s interesting that Gramsci was in jail when writing this, however I think some of his opinions and theories are a little skewed from the actual theories in society involving intellects.
Upon reading “The Intellectuals” by Antonio Gramsci, I found it to be very intriguing. In addition, the fact that he was in jail when he wrote this, also added to my intrigue. Like I have said for previous articles, the idea of class distinctions and groups was brought up. I like the idea of “essential” intellectuals, in that specific groups are experts on subject matters first, and then it is passed down throughout history. We are not born with knowledge in our brains, it is handed to us; moreover, it will only work if we want to absorb it. We need those “essential” intellectuals to show us the way. On page 9, Gramsci states, “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals.” In my opinion, he means that everyone can have knowledge on a subject matter, but that doesn’t make them know everything on the subject matter. If the society or the model does not incorporate that specific knowledge into the system, this intellectual can advance the knowledge of the whole. There is never wasted knowledge. I like how Grasci brings up the idea that although we may do something as a hobby that does not mean that we are an expert. The expansion of the mind is essential to making the world keep going.
Well, i must admit that I’m a bit relieved to see that I was not the only person to struggle with this reading. Gramsci has a very schizophrenic style of writing, and often ,makes paragraphs out of entire sentences. This goes without mentioning the sophisticated nature of the content itself.
SO, the content. After reading through many parts, several times, I took from it what I could. I think Gramsci is laying out the “what is and isn’t” an Intellectual model, as well as providing examples as to how they are formed, forged, expanded, made functional, etc. One of the most standout points he makes is explaining how Intellectuals are usually determined, or assumed to be, based on a higher position or political party, when in fact they may not be this at all. Along with this point is the ignorance of the intellectual ability of others due to lower class, whether peasantry or a member of the labor-force.
He makes this clear when he writes, on page 9, that each man “carries on some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a “philosopher”, an artist, a man of taste…” This is entirely true when we break down an industry according to its specific function, rather than by wage or job declaration. Many of these functions are essential, and would disrupt the flow of many lives if discontinued. Shouldn’t these people just as well be recognized for their production and contribution to society? Do they not fit the “criterion” for an Intellectual?
