# data[].attributes.headline
CLAIM 1: Five Filters Create Systematic Bias

# data[].attributes.subject
CLAIM 1: Five Filters Create Systematic Bias

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence:

"The raw material of news must pass through successive filters, leaving only the cleansed residue fit to print."

Implication:

News selection appears objective but is systematically constrained by structural factors.

Connection:

Framework for understanding how propaganda operates without conscious conspiracy.

# data[].attributes.body
Mass media in democratic societies operate as propaganda systems through economic filters, not direct censorship

"In a world of concentrated wealth and major conflicts of class interest, to fulfil this role requires systematic propaganda."

# data[].attributes.headline
CLAIM 2: Large Capital Investment Limits Ownership

# data[].attributes.subject
CLAIM 2: Large Capital Investment Limits Ownership

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence:

"the first filter—the limitation on ownership of media with any substantial outreach by the requisite large size of investment—was applicable a century or more ago, and it has become increasingly effective over time."

Additional Evidence:

Median assets of top 24 firms: $2.6 billion; median profits: $183 million (1986 data)

Implication:

Only wealthy individuals/corporations can own major media outlets, ensuring class interests align with ownership.

Connection:

Explains WHO controls media and why alternative voices are structurally excluded.

# data[].attributes.headline
CLAIM 3: Market Succeeded Where Censorship Failed

# data[].attributes.subject
CLAIM 3: Market Succeeded Where Censorship Failed

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence:

"Curran and Seaton show that the market did successfully accomplish what state intervention failed to do."

Historical Context:

After tax repeal (1853-1869), "not one new local working-class daily was established through the rest of the nineteenth century."

Implication:

Economic barriers are more effective than legal censorship in controlling discourse.

Counterargument Addressed:

Liberals believed "the market would enforce responsibility" - authors show market enforces elite control instead.

Connection:

Historical proof that Filter #1 operates as claimed.

# data[].attributes.headline
CLAIM 4: Advertising Functions as Licensing Authority

# data[].attributes.subject
CLAIM 4: Advertising Functions as Licensing Authority

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence:

"advertisers thus acquired a de facto licensing authority since, without their support, newspapers ceased to be economically viable."

Implication:

Advertiser preferences, not reader demand, determine which media survive.

Connection:

Second economic barrier working with Filter #1 to exclude non-elite perspectives.

# data[].attributes.headline
CLAIM 5: High Readership Cannot Overcome Advertiser Discrimination

# data[].attributes.subject
CLAIM 5: High Readership Cannot Overcome Advertiser Discrimination

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence:

"the Daily Herald actually had almost double the readership of The Times, the Financial Times and the Guardian combined"

But:

"The Herald, with 8.1 percent of national daily circulation, got 3.5 percent of net advertising revenue"

Implication:

Working-class audiences are "worthless" to advertisers; market doesn't respond to all consumers equally.

Connection:

Concrete proof of Filter #2's operation - demonstrates advertisers choose content, not audiences.

# data[].attributes.headline
CLAIM 6: Media Depend on Government/Corporate Sources

# data[].attributes.subject
CLAIM 6: Media Depend on Government/Corporate Sources

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence:

"Mark Fishman calls this 'the principle of bureaucratic affinity: only other bureaucracies can satisfy the input needs of a news bureaucracy.'"

Additional Evidence:

"Newsworkers are predisposed to treat bureaucratic accounts as factual because news personnel participate in upholding a normative order of authorized knowers in the society."

Implication:

Media structurally dependent on official sources; independent journalism economically prohibitive.

Connection:

Shows HOW content is filtered even after economic barriers are overcome.

# data[].attributes.headline
CLAIM 7: Resource Disparity Makes Alternative Sources Invisible

# data[].attributes.subject
CLAIM 7: Resource Disparity Makes Alternative Sources Invisible

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence:

"The ratio of air force news releases and press conferences to those of the AFSC and NCC taken together are 150 to 1 (or 2,200 to 1 if we count hometown news releases of the air force), and 94 to 1 respectively."

Implication:

Alternative viewpoints cannot compete with government/corporate information subsidies; "objectivity" means relying on well-funded sources.

Connection:

Quantifies the imbalance described in Filter #3; provides concrete data proving structural advantage.

# data[].attributes.headline
CLAIM 8: Filters Operate Naturally, Not Conspiratorially

# data[].attributes.subject
CLAIM 8: Filters Operate Naturally, Not Conspiratorially

# data[].attributes.body
Evidence:

"These elements interact with and reinforce one another" and operate "so naturally that media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news 'objectively.'"

Implication:

System creates constraints so powerful that "alternative bases of news choices are hardly imaginable."

Counterargument Addressed:

Journalists aren't consciously biased - the structure itself determines what seems "newsworthy."

Connection:

Explains why propaganda model is invisible to those within the system; addresses objection that journalists believe they're objective. Ties all filters together.