Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Lippman vs. Dewey

According to Lippmann, Americans don't have the capacity to understand the sophisticated, nuanced elements of their environments. They don't have enough time to study public affairs, they must contend with censorship, they have limited social contacts, they have preexisting bias to deal with, etc, etc. As such, they resort to simplistic "pictures in their heads," or stereotypes, to manage their worlds. Lippmann posits that the press often provides people with these pictures, and as such helps people navigate the relationships with their "unseen environment" (320).

Unfortunately, the press is not designed to provide Americans with accurate mental images. Like any other business, news agencies need revenues to stay afloat. To survive, they must cater to advertisers. They must attract and maintain readers to provide audiences for their audiences. And this is accomplished by standardizing issues or signaling events without explanation, not by offering truthful depictions of the world. As a result, publics are left largely uninformed. They can't seek out their own truthful information, and the press isn't giving it to them. Lippmann wonders if a public even exists, so woefully inadequate is the American ability to make sensible, unified decisions. He advocates for "intelligence agencies" instead, groups of scientific experts that advise the government. Democracy requires informed publics, and to save democracy the government must first rely on accurate information.

Dewey argues that a public does exist, it just happens to be a bit "bewildered." While he agrees with Lippmann that the American world is becoming increasingly complex, and that business interests do have the potential to manipulate the news, Dewey argued against the inability of American people to thoughtfully participate in their government. If they are not well-informed, it is because the media has yet to be reformed. Democracy by nature should be participatory, and a group of intellectuals that advise decision-makers smacks of elitism. What is the government made up of, if not its people? Dewey held hope that the media could be reformed to support the formation of well-reasoned public opinion.

Neither Lippman nor Dewey lived long enough to see how communication technologies have refined what the news is and how its effects are mediated. If they had, Lippman may have restored his faith in humanity and Dewey may have felt a bit smug. " To start, Lippmann's described constraints of time, social connections, and censorship have since been mitigated by the internet. While it previously took up a lot of time to research the intricacies of policy, computer users can now Google summaries of particular plans in a matter of seconds. While Lippmann's contemporaries may have lacked the social connections that kept them informed, current sites like Facebook and Linkedin.com ensure that people can reach out to those with particular knowledge and skill.

Finally, journalism is no longer limited to professionals working for big businesses. Any individual can format a blog in a matter of minutes, or post a comment to a corporate news story for all to see. Audiences are no longer the victim of standardized media messages, but are privy to a wide variety of sources and perspectives. Lippman feared the news would never be able to provide the "truths" necessary for democratic debate; now the public is inundated with a number of different truths. Those participating in public affairs have a myriad of sources of information, as well as thoughtful interpretation, at their disposal.

Both Dewey and Lippmann held that the purpose of the news was to inform the public. As it relates to democracy, they recognized that the news wasn't informing the public very well. Dewey held hope for reform; Lippmann didn't. But neither could anticipate the way news would change fundamentally. It is longer a unidirectional flow of information, but comprises all the different ways people send information to each other. If such a change can be considered "reform," then Dewey seems to have won the debate.


No comments:

Post a Comment