The issue
There are a few things Lippmann is trying to argue in these chapters. The first being a comment on demographics and the way one is raised and educated has much to do with how they obtain and interpret public affairs. In Chapter 5 he delves a bit deeper, explaining that an individual’s own bias and frame of reference has much to do with how we interpret matters of public opinion and public affairs. Basically he believes it is somewhat impossible for everyone to agree on one idea and one opinion as a whole. He says, “The power to dissociate superficial analogies, attend to differences and appreciate variety is lucidity of mind. It is a relative faculty.”
Major strength
I think Lippmann makes a valid point in recognizing that we all interpret news and matters of public affairs differently. We all come from different backgrounds and thus have different biases and opinions of messages that are formed. Therefore, we choose our media and matters of public opinion based on what we hold to be true. However, this could also be seen as one of the weaknesses since he argues that these biases seem to always a negative thing.
Major weakness
Lippmann doesn’t have a problem making assumptions and generalizations in his argument. First, he comments on the demographics of newspaper readers and public affairs seekers saying such things like “Moreover, business men, professional people, and college students are most of them liable to a curious little bias against appearing to spend too much time over the newspapers, and perhaps also to a faint suspicion of a desire to be known as rapid readers.” The reader must ask Lippmann then, “why?” Is it because he is assuming they are expected to be smarter?
Another point Lippmann makes is that newspapers are “not the only means, but they are certainly the principal ones.” He says other sources of information such as magazines, public forums and trade union meetings all supplement the press, but can not be the dominant voice like the newspapers can. While indeed newspapers were the main source of news and opinion at the time Lippmann wrote this book, I feel as though he is pigeon holing every other source of information as not being credible or trustworthy.
Lippmann also makes an argument for our personal frame of reference, demographics and clear (or unclear) understanding of public opinion skews the way we see it – “These limitations upon our access to that environment combine with the obscurity and complexity of the fact themselves to thwart clearness and justice of perception, to substitute misleading fictions for workable ideas, and to deprive us of adequate checks upon those who consciously strive to mislead.” But why does Lippmann make the assumption that our personal frame of reference is always a negative thing? Couldn’t our personal experience influence another way of thinking and make the matter of public opinion more diverse? Is this not how politics work?
Underlying assumption
It seems as though Lippmann is trying to prove that the media is not the end all, be all for framing public opinion. The way we are raised, educated, where we live and even language barriers can greatly affect how we interpret public matters, and our own frame of reference can skew what we believe to be true. Basically I think he is saying that we shouldn’t always rely on the media to tell us what to think; we need to be able to discern fact from fiction ourselves.
Provocative questions
Lippmann describes how we can interpret messages differently based on how we phonetically understand the words, whether that is with a language barrier, different education level or so forth. Even today, that is still a matter of concern, mostly in places lacking in education resources. So I think the begs the question, what can we do as a society to create a clear message to everyone while still allowing the publics to form their own opinions?
Lippmann also explains how eyewitnesses to an event give their account but their accuracy is “unknown.” “The meaning has to be telescoped in such a way as to permit the reader to judge how much weight to give to the news.” This reminds me exactly of what we are seeing today in terms of citizen journalism and blogging. We’ve seen multiple instances of citizen journalists reporting incorrect facts. If we rely on ill-prepared or un-informed people to make one public opinion, how can we know if the source is credible and valid?