Lippmann v. Dewey

Walter Lippmann, the Father of Stereotypes, believes we need an intelligencia to manage public opinion. An intelligencia is a group of experts who truly understand media, culture, and politics. According to Lippmann, they have the education and reasoning to make sound decisions for the public. They can tell us what to think, what to believe, and how to vote. This group can be found in the mass media corporation and in government. They set the agenda for what people see, hear, and should think (agenda-setting). The media seems to be the ultimate gatekeeper that perpetuates stereotypes and influences common thinking.

The public, Lippmann argues, is too unpredictable, easily manipulated, and ill-informed to make decisions for itself. Common people do not have enough time or education to critically analyze media and form their own opinions. In Public Opinion, Lippmann states, “in human conduct the smallest initial variation often works out into the most elaborate differences” (222). I think he’s saying that the public is unstable because each individual form a different representation of the same thing based on what he/she has experienced and the pictures in his/her head.

John Dewey, the Father of Modern Education, believes that the public should be a major participant in media and communication. Communication and interaction through it is crucial in forming opinion. People should discuss ideas and derive their own meanings rather than simply accepting ideas given to them by the intelligencia. Dewey believes that people should engage in the media and critically analyze it to make decisions for themselves. If people actively participate in the world of communication, they can contribute to the democracy in which they live.

I don’t know if it’s possible for a kind of “happy medium” between these two beliefs. An “intelligencia” could be helpful in providing information to a public that is not knowledgeable in many areas, such as culture or politics. Unfortunately, many times when a group is providing the public with information, it has its own agenda and the information comes off as biased. But if a group could provide useful, significant information to the public, then the public could discuss the information and use it to communicate, form opinions, and make informed decisions. On the other hand, the public can critically analyze a multitude of media and choose which media to really pay attention to. Then again, I could argue that this theory would lead to selective exposure. People could choose to read, watch, or listen to only the types of media that agree with their set beliefs, which could result in omitting important information.

What points both Lippmann and Dewey make! Overall, I think it’s important for the public to have a say in decision-making. The public needs to act responsibly in educating itself through media, culture, and politics to make informed choices. Thinking critically, analyzing media critically, and communicating effectively are crucial to keeping some power in the public.