Published date: Aug 04 2019

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: The 10th IGSSCI (International Graduate Students and Scholars’ Conference in Indonesia)

Pages: 419–437

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v3i20.4952

Triyono Lukmantorotriyonolukmantoro@gmail.comCultural Studies and Media Program, Graduate Faculty, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Heru NugrohoCultural Studies and Media Program, Graduate Faculty, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Budiawan .Cultural Studies and Media Program, Graduate Faculty, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

In 1988, appeared Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media written by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. The propaganda model put forward in the book is so influential then gets many responses. The propaganda model is based on years of study that describes how the mass media in the US organize backing for particular interests that dictate state and private actions. In support of these interests, the propaganda model shows it in five filters, namely: (1) scope, converged ownership, owner prosperity, and revenue direction of leading corporation of the mass media; (2) advertising as the foremost foundation of profit of the mass media; (3) media reliance on data delivered by administration, companies and ”experts” supported and favored by main informants and representatives of power; (4) ”flak” as a method to punish the media; and (5) ”anticommunism” as a domestic belief and regulator instrument. At the present time, the propaganda model, which puts mainstream mass media as the main institution of information dissemination, is questionable to its ability. Technologically the internet presence allows for rapid development of social media that provides excellent opportunities for netizens to engage in interactivity and participatory culture. It can be seen in the phenomenon of sending and exchanging messages with a variety of content that can not be controlled by the state or mainstream media companies.

Keywords: Propaganda model, social media, interactivity, participatory culture.

[1] Anderson, J. and A.D. Kincaid (2013). “Media Subservience and Satirical Subversiveness: The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, the Propaganda Model and the Paradox of Parody.” Critical Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 171-188. DOI: 10.1080/15295036.2013.771276.


[2] Babe, R.E. (2009). Cultural Studies and Political Economy: Toward A New Integration. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.


[3] Bamberg, M. and A. Georgakopoulou (2008). “Small Stories as a New Perspective in Narrative and Identity Analysis.” Text & Talk, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 377-396. DOI: 10.1515/TEXT.2008.018.


[4] Batorski, D. and I. Grzywinska (2018). “Three Dimensions of the Public Sphere on Facebook.” Information, Communication & Society, Vol 21, No. 3, pp. 356-374. https: //doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1281329.


[5] Boyd-Barrett, O. (2004). “Judith Miller, the New York Times, and the Propaganda Model.” Journalism Studies, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 435-449. DOI:
10.1080/14616700412331296383.


[6] Carey, J. (1979). “Book Reviews: Mass Communication and Society.” Media, Culture. and Society, Vol. 1, pp. 313-321.


[7] Cronin, P., F. Ryan, and M. Coughlan (2008). “Undertaking a Literature Review: A Step-by-step Approach.” British Journal of Nursing, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 38-43.


[8] Croteau, D. and W. Hoynes (2006). The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest. Thousand Oaks, California. Pine Forge Press.


[9] Croteau, D., W. Hoynes, and S. Milan (2011). Media/Society: Industries, Images, and
Audiences 4