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?