Public Opinion Through New Media

The Issue: Lippmann is setting the stage for attacking the complex issue of public opinion and how we as humans process each strand of this. She starts with how we as humans process reality and pseudo realities which leads into the idea of public opinion and privacy.

Major Strength: I feel that trying to articulate the idea of pseudo realities, what people to believe is true to what is actually the true reality, is almost an impossible task. Lippmann sets up this book with insightful paragraphs on the nature of man and how we react to experiences and pseudo-environments, to what we believe to be true but may not be to other people. After going into this in great detail, she very poignantly notes that there is no use in ‘the uselessness of pontificating about what man is’, that we should stop trying to analyse the behaviour of people who are reacting to society around us, because we all view that society in a different way, yet will never truly know what other people see.

Major Weakness: The text is peppered with very insightful paragraphs, although the historical references are needed for examples, I feel that sometimes they over complicate the message of the book and take away from what Lippmann is trying to discuss. I feel that if the key points from the historical references were taken out and referenced on a consistent basis in regard to how it pertains to the theme, the theory of the book would of been clearer much earlier on.

Provocative Questions:

-This book was written in 1921, but I would be curious to know whether this type of theory was being made aware of at the time of the historical references Lippmann uses? Were people aware that true effect of propaganda?

-Although I think that it is an astute observation that we should stop trying to figure out what man is, isn’t that what a lot of society feel to be the meaning of life? to figure out why we are here and our purpose? Although any rational human can sit down and say, he reacted badly to a certain situation because of his previous experiences, how tolerant are we of that as a society? how much do we hold each other accountable for our actions regardless of what trauma we might of faced in our personal lives?

The issue
Neuman offers several theories to describe how communication has changed American society through how people interact with others, obtain information, view politics and organize & participate in groups. He also contrasts two pieces of literature to offer perspective on how society once thought media would change in the future and how it compares with what actually happened.

Major strength
I felt Neuman did a good job at giving relevant background information. He was able to delve into historical references in order to explain how media technology erupted post- WWII and from it, what societal shifts were introduced.  In addition, I think his contrast of Orwell and Bush’s pieces of literature gave his argument more density. While they don’t relate directly to the explanation of media-induced pluralism, these writings give the reader background to the original thought process behind both the consequences and benefits of a technology-driven society. Neuman goes further to describe the themes in other works of literature including information abundance, pluralism & an open marketplace of ideas, and a growth of participatory activity – all things says were direct effects of the rise of media technology.

Major weakness
Neuman makes the assumption that the propaganda Orwell describes as “peril.” While propaganda can most often be associated with negativity, it seems as though this idea as perilous propaganda is a bit generalized. His argument for the television becoming the central entity to the communications explosion could have been enhanced with some more historical background on how the television ended up affecting the masses in a social way. He describes the chronological events of the TV’s creation and introduction but does not go deep enough into how it affected the masses on either a major or individual level.

Finally, it seems that Neuman contradicts himself with his argument for the decline in political parties. He mentions that the existence of political parties is dwindling but a paragraph later ensures us parties are not dead and most Americans still feel a connection to a particular political party. Also, is that argument not contradictory to his statement about a rise in “diverse pluralism?”

Underlying assumption
The rise of new media technology has brought people together while still allowing them to participate in their individual interests. This technology also has bigger implications that possibly originally thought and can set precedents for forming democracies and organized opinions.

Provocative questions
Neuman briefly mentioned Riseman’s Phase, but what else could this theory tell us about the idea behind a decline in interpersonal and group life? How does this contradict Neuman’s argument for increased pluralism? How does increased communication technology form democracies in other countries besides the U.S.?  What are some specific examples of how technology has given groups an identity, besides politically?

The issue: This reading asks the thought provoking question of what is the nature of propaganda? And what are the powers of mass media? It touches upon the theory of mass society and communication and political development theory.

Major Strength: A major strength of this reading is that the author recognizes and describes every angle, both positive and negative, about technology and mass society. He explains very early on (pg. 22) that there are two differing vantage points about upcoming technology: 1) it is a powerful tool that can be used negatively for political control and oppression and 2) it is a cheap tool that can be used positively by mass society for open information and to strengthen Democratic institutions. The author describes what/who mass society is and the basis for their being, thus helpful for the rest of the reading and understanding issues concerning modern technology.

Major Weakness: Although the author comments on both Orwell’s negative beliefs of technology and the positive, his argument is unbalanced and fails to include the possibility of revolutions or rebellions by mass society and those using newer mass technology itself. What role does free will play in a society that is always controlled or monitored? What if there are people who wish to exercise their right of free will and rebel? I believe he takes these negative ideas and stretches them – for example, on page 31 he states, “the ultimate form of propaganda is brainwashing.” It can be argued that all entertainment and commercial media is propaganda because it is produced with the intention of getting the consumer and viewer to act a certain way or do something as per instructed.

Underlying Assumption: I think a major underlying assumption is that there is no middle ground with technology, people either use it for good or will use it for bad. With the diversity of media content in our society the author sees this as the rebirth of social diversity and increased electronic connectivity between individuals. Although this influx makes it easier to provide information where it is needed, this also opens up the ability for people to manipulate content and gain followers for negative behaviors just like George Orwell did.

Provocative Questions:
1) From the perspective of the Third World Critique, why would the onrush of Western/commercial media be considered negative and an influx of unbalanced ideas? If we are forerunners in creating and using technology wouldn’t this be considered a positive thing to share our knowledge and information with others?
2) The second point of the communications and political development theory states that through technology there is a “psychological openness to diversity” (pg. 35) – can’t this be debated to ask if technology is creating a more secular environment and society? For example, although there are many benefits to the Internet it has allowed a place for groups to form and gain followers for negative, close-minded activity. There are forums where people can openly reject the idea of gay marriage and equal rights and because of the Internet’s ability to reach larger audiences than ever before this can back more followers and therefore limit the psychological openness to diversity. This parallels that idea of central voices becoming to strong and stifling debate.

The Issue:  The first two chapters of Walter Lippmann’s book, “Public Opinion,” which give a definition and description of Public Opinion, as well as numerous examples of public opinion in society.

Major Strength:  The major strength of these chapters lies in the explanation of what Public Opinion is.  Originally frustrated with the length of stories and ideas given before the explanation of public opinion, I soon realized that those examples were necessary for me to gain an understanding of public opinion and the role it plays in society.

Major Weakness:  While I enjoyed the examples given, I found the major weakness of this topic to be the historical context in which it is presented.  The examples, while pertinent, are so far in the past that it may be difficult for some readers to connect the practice of Public Opinion, as presented in the book, with the definition.

Underlying assumption:  The public’s opinion is shaped by the pictures and thoughts inside their heads.  These opinions, when shared in a group, form Public Opinion. Public Opinion can be misleading by a number of various factors, and is often controlled or managed by giving bits of information, rather than all details.

Provocative Questions:  When did the study of Pubic Opinion begin and how was it initially received, particularly because it the ideas behind it might not sit well for some people.    How has Public Opinion and its relation to politics changed throughout the years?    Have the factors that limit access to facts changed?

Click on this link for e-query instructions:

onlinequeryinstructions

Welcome to the COM 564 blogsite, which will be used to post class e-queries. E-queries are due on this site by 8:00 the day before the assigned class. Be sure to read the queries of your classmates to prepare for class.