Propaganda Model and Native Advertising

While a number of theoretical perspectives in IC are relevant to my interests, I found the propaganda model particularly interesting because of my background in digital advertising. The theory, which was introduced by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent, argues that the structure of news organizations (corporate ownership and the dominant role of advertising) shapes editorial content to the extent that the news we consume is essentially propaganda for corporate interests. News organizations are disincentivized to report things that disrupt the status quo as a result of this structure. Rather than disseminating news for the public, the function of the news is to operate as a business and sell advertising space.

This is especially relevant when you look at native advertising, one of the biggest trends in digital advertising today. In this new kind of advertising, ads masquerade as editorial content – companies sponsor or create content that looks like a BuzzFeed article or New York Times feature, when in reality, companies have purchased that content to promote their products. Media outlets assert that this kind of advertising isn’t unethical because they clearly distinguish between what is paid and original content. However, most users cannot tell the difference. A tiny little label will tell the user that the content is sponsored, but otherwise the content looks just like real news.

Native advertising is a clever but repulsive extension of the propaganda model. The media isn’t merely filtering the news that we get, but they’re now trying to pass advertisements off as news.

The media plays an important role in society – the ritual view of communication tells us that newspapers are a cultural phenomenon that helps maintain society in time; news is a presentation of reality that gives life an overall tone. The sad truth is that today, the media is spreading and reinforcing the interests of corporate America in increasingly effective ways.


One thought on “Propaganda Model and Native Advertising

  1. Thanks for an interesting blog post! I hadn’t heard of the term “native advertising” before but I really like it and can absolutely relate to the comparison between native advertising and propaganda.
    As a generation we’re constantly bombarded with information and as a consequence we’ve learned to tune out what we don’t care about, such as commercials telling me to buy their products. Native advertising is definitely a response to that. I’ve also noticed a shift in TV commercial strategy, from a “BUY NOW” message to more of a storytelling/humor tactic where the “buy our product” message is implied rather than stated outright. Both of these tactics (native advertising and storytelling) definitely show an interesting shift in how companies are trying to reach their consumers.
    On the other hand, a lot of the advances we’ve made in the field of communication in the past several hundred years have stemmed from the business world and a desire to make more money. Paul Starr mentions in the first chapter of his book “The Creation of the Media: Political Origins of Modern Communication” that the rise of capitalism played a huge part in developing networks and facilitating communication between different countries.
    As people become more aware (and frustrated?) with the tactics mentioned above, it will be interesting to see what the response is both from the public but also from the media itself. Maybe we’ll get something bigger and better than BuzzFeed or the New York Times!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s