Public Opinion Through New Media

Issue: Lippmann writes that our perception of reality and events will influences our acceptance and understanding of new ideas. The author also addresses the barriers needed to make new ideas and facts work as propaganda.

Strengths: The author is able to provide examples of historical events that reflect the subject matter he is discussing. Lippmann establishes himself quickly as a trusted scholar by combining those real events with ideas found in Plato’s cave and Shakespearean literature. The wide range of examples covered in the introduction establishes a firm theoretical background that he uses to build his developing arguments on censorship and privacy.

Weakness:
The author suggests that individuals do not recognize the flaws in our own memories and the fictional stories we construct around other events. Being self-aware great influences how much one can be influenced. This also applies to education. Though an individual may not have experienced an event or have any knowledge, their educational background could dramatically affect their opinion and ability to recognize propaganda.

When describing certain events, the author himself is giving a ‘fictionalized’ version of how individuals involved were feeling. The author’s argument is weakened by not recognizing his own influence on my perception.

Though he may comment on it later, Lippmann addresses the need for an outside gathering of information but does not comment on accountability for that research party.

Underlying Assumptions: The author assumes individuals do not reflect on their perception is reality and that their minds cannot be easily changed.

Provocative questions:
How would Lippmann address our cultural representation of modern celebrities in regards to hero worship? What is the role new media plays as opposed to word of mouth?

Lippmann writes that “The only feeling that anyone can have about an event that he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event. “ So as one experiences more parts of an event they were not there for (sounds, smells, images, etc.), do their feelings/fictional beliefs become more authentic?

With live reports and more access to news, the barrier between the public, privacy and events are being lowered. How, if at all, does this change the influence and success rate of propaganda?

The Issue: Rusell Neuman’s “The future of the mass audience” presents two very differing communications theories: the mass society theory and the democratic theory.

Major Strength: Neuman does a good job presenting the two theories by introducing two strongly positioned examples; that of George Orwell and his acclaimed novel 1984, which follows the ideal of a government in full control with an ability to essentially brainwash society into following its every move; and that of Vannevar Bush, who believed the near opposite, which envisions a world where individuals control the output of information through the evolution of technology. Neuman clearly paints a clear picture, through the eyes of Orwell, of a society that is unknowingly following the government’s ideal of all that is bad about the world. Bush’s view, on the other hand offers up the idea that individuals control the output of information and therefore impact the government’s view going forward. Both views are supported quite well through examples.

Major Weakness: Neuman presents two very different sides of the spectrum in regards to the relationship of technology, how the media uses it and how individuals receive it. Sadly, he ignores anything in between. The black and white view alienates the mass majority of society and fails to acknowledge society’s ability to incite views from both angles. This leads me to the underlying assumption.

Underlying Assumption: As delivered in the reading, in “Orwell’s future, every aspect of the communications process is monitored and controlled to protect the interests of the state and to reinforce its ideology. Bush’s future says that control of communications and information will reside increasingly with the individual, a natural outgrowth of technological evolution.” There is the assumption that it is an either/or situation. What is missed in this regard is that the two combine to create the middle ground.

The dichotomy of the freedom and boom of mass media grants society freedoms to explore topics and ideals it would have never been able to without the increase in technology. However, the formation and increased number of these personalized and narrowed aspects of media has society calling for more government control. The very technologies that have opened freedoms to discover new worlds has the same people asking for regulation. The contradiction certainly can’t be ignored. Single issue politics gain ground and therefore provide more power in the political process — allowing political incumbents the ability to cater their views to that of the majority. The two forms intertwine themselves with one another. Neuman’s assumption does not provide room for this school of thought.

Provocative Questions: How would these theories be adjusted today to accommodate the belief that both theories exist to a degree? Would Neuman be able to find examples to support the claims of of Bush and Orwell that fit into today’s society? Would today’s technology lend itself to Bush’s idea, or would the rise of such specialty driven programs as Fox News (conservative) and MSNBC News (liberal) support the claim that government ideals can be interjected into successfully into society – following these ideas blindly?

The Issue:  What Lippmann describes can be summarized as mass generalization and stereotyping due to a lack of information, creating inaccurate presentations within the mind. These ideas deal with things that take place out of constant sight, so people often have to stretch perception to complete an idea or thought.

Major Strength:  Lippmann attributes this ignorance to a larger process of individuals learning from those around them, who most of the time also lack the information necessary to be completely aware of others’ cultures and lifestyles, etc. He makes the strong example of General Joffre’s popularity. Though merited by his victorious efforts, it struck me as odd that this “hero-worship” grew so rapidly, though only a small portion of its practitioners shared any kind of direct, personal association with their idol. This, of course, forced me to compare and call into question the way we scrutinize/defend/admire/etc. public and popular figures today, though one could argue that celebrity and civilian and currently closer than ever, given the impact of social media. Other than time revealing the truth, how are we supposed to know whether our broad associations are correct? As Lippmann writes, “By the same mechanism through which heroes are incarnated, devils are made.”

Major Weakness:  As is the case with many similarly critical works, Lippmann doesn’t seem to have a specific proposition for correcting the lazy, associative cognition he points out. Though, in his defense, perhaps a simple awareness was as close to a solution as one could get in 1922. The problem seems to be worsening with the growing access to information and constant connection across the world.

Underlying Assumption:  Lippmann believes individuals need to be more skeptical of what they are told by their environments concerning ideas with which they have no direct source of information. This, of course, can be interpreted through the scope of modern media as a warning that not all of what we see and hear on television, the Internet, etc. should be given the benefit of the doubt as being truth.

Provocative Questions:  How is Lippmann’s ideal society created? Information is accessible, but not all are willing to search for it. Can these incorrect, preconceived notions of culture be eliminated from the thought process? How? Like with General Joffre, we often discover our perceptions of environment are incorrect. How difficult is it to shake one “truth” after we realize that it is quite the opposite? Did Lippmann have broader issues with trust, human nature, government, and authority? I wonder what he would think of Neuman’s competing theories from the other reading.

The issue: Neuman’s ‘Future of the Mass Audience’ discusses two communications theories that emerged post WWII: the mass society theory and the democratic theory.

Major strength:  Neuman backs up his arguments with ample amounts of evidence and supportive historical information. The evidence he includes is pertinent, therefore giving his claims more validity. Neuman does something else that is a very smart writing tactic — he attaches his theories to other established, more well-known bodies of work. He ties the mass society to George Orwell’s 1984, and the democratic theory to Vannevar Bush’s idea of Memex. By latching these two theories to established works, the debate transforms into Orwell vs. Bush. In addition, Neuman’s writing style is relatively digestible and intuitive. He introduces both the mass society theory and the democratic theory on the first page of the chapter, essentially priming the reader for what to expect.

Major weakness: The weakness I recognize in this chapter is the same weakness that can be found in the two party American political system: there are two sides to any debate and not much room for compromise in between. Theory 1: Technology is scary and will be used to exploit you. Theory 2: Technology is wonderful and a great tool for you and your peers. As such, the mass society theory and the democratic theory come across very much like a black and white issue.  The inclusion of a more moderate viewpoint could strengthen this chapter significantly. However, it can be assumed that this was intentional, which leads to the underlying assumption…

Underlying assumption:   Neuman presents two ideas from opposite ends of the spectrum without advocating one in favor of the other. By doing so he leaves it to the reader to decide which elements of each theory are worth keeping. The purpose of this chapter is to understand what the public believes. Most people’s personal views probably lie somewhere in the middle of these two theories, and that the appropriate view of technology in society is in fact a mix of these two extremes.

Provocative questions:  1) The mass society theory suggests that we need to be wary of the government using it for political control and oppression, but Neuman never could have predicted that other members of the democratic population would use technology to plant computer viruses or to steal credit card information. Was this ever something he considered — that supporters of the mass society theory should fear not only the government, but also their peers? 2) Social media such as Facebook and Twitter did not exist in 1993, but almost all social media platforms have privacy settings. How would Neuman feel about consumers using these apps while having full knowledge that there are others who use technology for bad intentions — to the point that users need to take steps to protect themselves?  

The Issue: The first two chapters of Walter Lippmann’s “Public Opinion” concentrate on defining the theory of public opinion. In addition, they also provide examples to help illustrate the external limitations that separate public opinion from the reality of the event that has occurred.

Major Strength: Lippmann supports his claims about the motivation behind public opinion with analysis of historical examples that are still relevant today. Throughout the chapters Lippman encourages the reader to become more informed and aware of the external limitations that contribute to the construction of pseudo-environments.

Weakness: Although Lippmann successfully develops and supports his theory, he fails to consider that in some instances what a person does can be based on direct knowledge. Moreover, what a person does could be based on any number of external factors (ie: chance, mood, rational thought). Lippmann’s shortcoming is that he does not address or consider examples that challenge his theory.

Underlying Assumption: Essentially, Lippman concludes that we live partially in reality and partially in a fabricated one. He discusses how the pictures inside people’s heads have a powerful effect on the way they understand and analyze the messages they receive.

Provocative Questions: How will new media (Twitter/Facebook) and more access to direct knowledge effect Lippmann’s theory about public opinion? Lippmann discusses the role of public opinion in relation to politics…would his theory still be relevant if it was to consider popular opinion (what kind of phone to buy or what kind of music to listen to)? What are some ways the public can actively combat the skewing of public opinion particularly as it relates to politics?  

The issue: The future of Mass Audience describes two theories of the communications revolution. Orwell’s theory of totalitarianism and Bushe’s Memex theory.

Major Strengths:  Neuman explains both theories in details.  He first describes Orwell’s theory of totalitarianism in great detail and explains the description used in Orwell’s book 1984.  He then proceeds to explain Bush’s theory of Memex.  Orwell believes that the government controls what people should see and manipulate them to behave a certain way in order to create their desired utopia.  Bush’s theory gives the individual control.  The author goes into great detail about the background of each theory and the differences between the two.  I have never read 1984, so I appreciated the author’s details of the book so I could really picture what he was referring to.

Major weakness: Neuman gives good examples of both theories but it seems a little too extreme. Neuman explains that Orwell believed that any advances in technology would further the government’s intervention in an individuals life and can further manipulate and control individuals. He then ties this into Mass society theory and how mass media can manipulate an individual as well.  Those two theories seem very different to me since influence derives from completely different groups and have different motives. Mass society theory argues that the individual is influenced by what they view as the majority.  Orwell’s theory is that the government is intentionally manipulating the individuals.

Underlying assumption:  Mass media is not just one of those theories, but actually a mixture of the two theories.  Individuals have their choice of their participation in media and the degree of influence.

Provocative questions:  Now as the years have progressed and media has changed, is the audience better off as they were back then? Is the current media coverage benefiting the audience more or is it more harmful? Is there really a way to have society not be vulnerable to media?

The issue: Russell Neuman presents two theories in the “communications revolution”: the mass society theory (government will control everything) and the democratic theory (individuals will control everything).

Major strength: Neuman provides solid examples for both mass society and democratic theories. For mass society, he cites the famous novel 1984 by George Orwell as the worse case scenario for what happens when a government is given full control and the general public blindly follows. Here, even when someone does question the government or those in charge, as the novel’s protagonist does, the government is able to remove the problem with relative ease.  For the democratic theory, he cites Vannevar Bush, who believed that, in the future, the “control of communications and information will reside increasingly with the individual, a natural growth of technological evolution.”

Major weakness: Neuman never talks about a middle ground between the mass society and democratic theories, only working in absolutes.  He also, in my opinion, focuses more on the mass society theory than the democratic theory.

Underlying assumption: Neuman seems to assume that there will be no middle ground on control of communications. Either the government will control it all or the individual will. Could there not be a situation where the government and the individual each have control?

Provocative questions:  Considering this was written some time ago, how do these theories apply today? How would Neuman change his theories today? Would he? Finally, what would his thoughts on social media be?

The Issue: Chapters one and two of Walter Lippmann’s Public Opinion discuss his idea of pseudo-environments and the concept of how the media/government can control the public’s view and understanding of certain situations due to barriers between the public and the events occurring.

Major Strength: Lippmann does a great job at thoroughly explaining how people perceive situations differently. Through examples he describes how pseudo-environments are each individuals understanding of what is real. He explains how people see the world through pictures they create in their minds. Lippmann discusses how two people in an argument can perceive that argument completely differently and how that affects the outcome of the dispute. He also gives really insightful examples about how propaganda happens.

Major Weakness: He explains how publics views are skewed based on what the controllers of the situation want people to think, however, he does not really explain how the public can overcome the barrier to understand what is really occurring. So it makes sense that propaganda occurs and what the media wants the public to think is what is perpetuated into the news, but he does not explain how the public is supposed to know what is real or not.

Underlying Assumption: Lippmann assumes that people believe everything that the government/media says. He also assumes that pseudo-environments are all the public knows.

Provocative Questions:

Since this book was published in 1922 the examples are all from the early 1900’s. What are some modern examples of government/media control that are in effect? Are the examples he gives regarding pseudo-environments still relevant?

In regards to propaganda and media control, how have social media and modern technologies changed human’s knowledge of real situations? How much can the media really control when people have access to blogs, Twitter, Facebook, community posts, etc. Are all of these social media platforms just building different ways for propaganda to be disseminated to the public or are they breaking down the barriers between real and pseudo or possibly both?