Also see: IV. Moral Agency in a Propaganda System

My remaining question is relatively straightforward: given that a propaganda system does operate in the mass media, does our society enable, or disable, the practice of full moral agency, as defined in the preceding section? Answering this question requires us to consider the effects of the propaganda system on individuals.

As discussed above, people make all of their decisions from within some context, a framework which establishes the relevance, and the relative value, of different concerns in the decision process. When people leave one context for another (moving from the home to the workplace, for example), they are forced to some extent to change the framework through which they make decisions. In judging the ‘goodness’ of these decisions, they apply normative standards, allowing them to pick out the right framework for the right situation. It was this skill that I identified above as one essential component of full moral agency, the evaluative ability to justify the framework through which a decision is made. These normative standards, as with the lower level frameworks used constantly, are created through a social process. People follow the example of others that they respect and they learn from their mistakes, as revealed through the impact of prior decisions on others within their social framework, and through critical discussion with others. One source of a normative framework is the mass media, which possesses almost unrivaled power in establishing standards for society, due to its ability to provide information and language which can be shared by all.

But what is the character of this normative standard created by the media? If the propaganda model is correct, it reflects the interests of media ownership and the profit system, is not offensive to advertisers, is underwritten by information provided by ‘expert’ credible sources (the government, industry, and some members of academia), is not offensive to large groups in society, and reflects a common anti-anticapitalism (or other anti-ideology). This normative standard, then, is one that is antithetical to the practice of evaluating the values and framework of judgement of society. Further, a propaganda system will not fully satisfy the informational requirements of the moral agent. Let’s examine each of the five filters in turn to see how:

(1) The ownership filter. The normative standard created by the media would reflect assumptions that are in the interest of the ownership of that media, including the preeminence of the profit system and the corporate structure which enables the wealthy to maintain their societal positions. Those at the top of the social ladder have the greatest stake in maintaining the status quo, and the media they control is likely to reflect this preference. Societal standards which promote the status quo are obviously antagonistic to the critical attitude required by moral agency, as criticism of the status quo is one of the fundamental ways in which evaluation is achieved. This filter will also tend to remove information which is damaging to ownership interests, making informed choice difficult if not impossible in situations where that information is difficult for the individual to acquire.

(2) The advertising filter. The societal norms will reflect the interests of advertisers, who require people to act primarily as consumers. Media sources will then tend not to provoke controversy, will tend to encourage the "buying mood", and will not seek to provide "extra" information that might lead individuals to question the structure of society.

(3) The sourcing filter. The societal norms will reflect the interests of the cultural elite, the government, industry, and academics who stand as the standard sources of information for the media. Further, this filter results in the entrenchment of "expert" opinion as the only source of valid information, which encourages the perception that the non-elite should be passive in their acceptance of domination—that they should not seek to acquire information themselves, or question the opinions provided by those in power. Both of these results tend to undermine the ability of individuals to act as moral agents, as they lack the information and confidence necessary to engage in critical review of their decisions.

(4) The flak filter. The tendency of controversial media material to produce flak is the most obvious threat to the critical attitude required by moral agency. Those who do present controversial material are taught quickly that it is much easier to avoid difficult subjects, and the media gradually becomes free of examples of critical voices. While this in itself does not completely prevent informed moral agency, it certainly makes cultivation of the critical attitude much more difficult, due to the absence of respected and critical examples in the public sphere, and due to the absence of information which might be damaging to powerful interests in society.

(5) The anti-anticapitalism, anti-ideology filter. The anti-ideology filter results in a narrowing of the range of acceptable debate in public discourse. Since moral agency requires the cultivation of the ability to criticize societal norms and decisions, any limitation to the range of acceptable debate places a limit on the degree to which moral agency can be practiced.

Also see:

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.