The Issue
In the two chapters we read, Lippmann focuses on where we get the information that forms our opinions and how that information is formed and interpreted to form our public opinion.
Major Strength
I think Lippmann does a superb job of pointing out the issues with how humans retrieve information that they deem the most important, the flaws in the reporting of this information and how humans don’t necessarily care or pay attention to the downfalls.
I also thought that Lippmann does a great job of supporting his opinions in the first chapter with extensive data. In the previous readings we haven’t really witnessed scientific justification, more or less just examples or stories.
Major Weakness
The short comings of this section of Lippmann is that he doesn’t offer much in the form of the foreseeable future. For instance he uses past data that does show a little bit of a trend from 1900 to 1916 to 1920 however doesn’t offer much of why that trend is taking place. In the second chapter we read a great downfall was not including much on personal agenda when talking about the editors of the information. We must keep in mind that these people have their own pseudo environments that could alter how they report the information they are given.
Underlying Assumption
A large part of human public opinion is formed through a very small amount of information (based on research about how much time people spend looking up “trusted” information) and that information comes from a long chain of communication and shouldn’t be viewed necessarily as the facts on a topic.
Provacative Questions
Obviously the research in the first chapter is obsolete so has the amount of time people spend digesting information that form their public opinion increased of decreased? It seems that the chain of communication between listener and reporter is much more streamlined today… is it safe to assume that public opinion is “more accurate” to reality then it used to be?