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.

Documentary Update

We met on Friday to film our participants for our documentary. We interviewed five people and found, from the information we acquired, that we may need to alter our documentary ideas. We heard tons of great stories, fond memories, etc., but not much that we planned our topic on. It's a little daunting considering we need to complete a rough cut by next Monday.

We’ll be reviewing our footage on Tuesday, and will hopefully figure out the path our story will take. Fingers crossed.

Barriers and Reality

Watching three hours of television was difficult to do over Easter break. I usually do not watch television, and with all the running around and visiting family, it was even more difficult than usual.

However, I managed to catch a few shows, one of them being LOST. On this week’s episode, several survivors of the plane crash were gassed by the Others (people who mysteriously already live on this island) and left to fend for themselves in the jungle where freakish things happen. This week, there were two women (one a survivor and one an Other) who were handcuffed together and left amid the tall grasses and trees of the jungle. While they were fighting and trying to figure out a way to separate themselves, an incredible noise thundered around them. They set off running, trying to find a place to hide from the “thing” behind the noise. They came to an electric barrier that happened to be turned off. They crossed the barrier and the Other turned the barrier on, creating a wall of protection around them. From the victims’ point of view we see a black cloud of smoke (?) evaporate as it hits the barrier, and the women are safe.

Obviously, this riveting episode allowed me to experience a situation that I would not normally experience. There are other people in the world who consistently watch this show as well, and perhaps exposing myself to this episode allowed me a sort of “connection” with those other viewers; I mean, people of various ages, classes, genders, etc. take part in watching this show and while we were all tuned in, those “demographic boundaries” were crossed. However, I don’t think people would watch LOST and think they were seeing reality unfold before their eyes. They know this show is fictional and watch it for pure entertainment.

Joshua Meyrowitz believes that the “existence and development of various media can lead to radical changes in society” and that electronic media (television) “breaks down the physical barriers that separate people.” I agree with him in that watching television, listening to the radio, etc. can make it easier for ideas to spread among people of different demographics, such as class and age. I’ve never personally witnessed a radical change in society caused by media, but I suppose it could happen if the media pulled in enough devotees who had the power to further the change. Every now and then media can pull people together and make them feel connected. I’m thinking about September 11th, when millions of radios and televisions were tuned in to coverage around the clock. An event such as 9/11 can help people of various demographics connect and unite for a common good.

Baudrillard defines hyperreality as the “creation of a real through conceptual models presented by the media.” Separating the ‘real’ from the ‘unreal’ can become difficult when a person is faced with a simulation. A person’s perception of reality can become altered by the media. If a person develops there definition of reality by the television shows they watch, they will have a misconstrued perception of reality. There are a few people in the world who probably spend their time constantly watching television and they just might believe that what they see happening on television is reality.

I also caught an episode of Little People, Big World during my prime time fest. Little People, Big World is a reality television show about a family of six, three of whom (father, mother, one son) are dwarves. The viewer is allowed to enter a world which must be altered to accommodate the entire family’s needs. All of the countertops and tables are lower than in most houses and the cars contain special features to allow the mother and father to drive. This particular family is also wealthy; they live on a huge farm, which holds a play pirate ship and a cowboy town made up of rows of wooden houses, shops, and a saloon. They rent out parts of the farm for business events and hold annual festivals, offering reenactments and hayrides.

Little People, Big World exposes people to the difficulties dwarves must overcome in their daily lives, but the fact is, they do and they do so quite well. It might not be as easy for other families as it is for this family, but it might be; I don’t really know. So, it is a fraction of television that makes others aware of a world in which people live differently from the accepted social norms. This show could break down the barriers of society just by creating awareness, as Meyrowitz states. This could also be a person’s only exposure to the reality that some people have to alter their lifestyles to live according to the accepted norms of society. This television show could construct a person’s perception of reality about dwarves.

Pieces of both Meyrowitz’s and Baudrillard’s theories are true. I think television is a combination of the theories and whichever theory applies changes with the television show. Overall, I use television and other forms of media for entertainment purposes, not to form my reality or connect to others. It can allow a connection between people in certain instances (going to the movie theater) and can help a person form their reality, but I see it more as a form of entertainment.

LOST: Survival is all relative

Every Wednesday night at 10:00 pm I turn on ABC to watch LOST, a television show about a group of people who are living on an island after surviving a plane crash. Mysterious events occur on this island which lead the survivors on a multitude of adventures.

First, I looked up rating/share to understand more fully what it was:

As of September 2006, there are an estimated 110.2 million television households in the USA. A single national ratings point represents 1%, or 1,102,000 households for the 2006-07 season. Share is the percentage of television sets in use tuned to a specific program. These numbers are usually reported as (ratings points/share). For example, Nielsen may report a show as receiving a 9.2/15 during its broadcast, meaning 9.2%, or 10,138,400 households on average were tuned in at any given moment. Additionally, 15% of all televisions in use at the time were tuned into this program. (source)

For the week of March 19, 2007, LOST claimed about 12,220,000 viewers and a household audience of about 8,339,000. It had a rating of 7.5%, meaning that about 8,265,000 households were tuned in. LOST also had a share of 13, meaning that 13% of all televisions being used at the time that the show aired were tuned in to LOST.

On the other hand, CSI: NY competes with LOST, running on Wednesday nights at 10:00 pm on CBS. CSI: NY boasts 13,637,000 viewers and a household audience of 10,132,000. In both instances, CSI: NY pulled in over one million more viewers than lost. It has a rating/share of 9.1/15, meaning, at least for the week of March 19th, that it was watched by more viewers than LOST.

If LOST was moved to Thursday nights, it might fare better in ratings. I say this because it would air after the popular Grey’s Anatomy, which boasts a rating/share of 14.4/22, significantly higher than both LOST and CSI: NY. People may be more apt to tune in if they were already watching Grey’s Anatomy on television. If LOST was on Thursday nights, it would not compete with CSI: NY, but with October Road, which pulls in about the same number of viewers as LOST. On the other hand, if it was on another station at the same time as Grey’s Anatomy, I believe its ratings would drop. More people watch Grey’s Anatomy than LOST and switching it to the Grey’s Anatomy timeslot would drop its ratings.

Overall, I believe LOST has already secured its fans and those are the people who are tuning in. I don’t think its ratings would change drastically by changing it to another night, unless perhaps it aired after Grey’s Anatomy, affecting it positively, or if it aired at the same time as Grey’s Anatomy, affecting it negatively.

East of Eden

Elia Kazan directed East of Eden, based on the John Steinbeck novel. The film is set in Salinas Valley around the time of World War I. This film won Best Dramatic Film at the Cannes Film Festival in 1955 and Best Motion Picture – Drama – at the Golden Globes in 1956. Kazan also directed A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) and A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945).

Two teenage boys, Cal (James Dean) and Aron (Richard Davalos), live with their father, Adam Trask (Raymond Massey). Cal is labeled “bad,” while his brother is “good” and “righteous.” East of Eden is a story of blocked communication between father (Adam) and son (Cal). Cal vies with his brother for their father’s love, although Aron easily holds on to all of his adoration. The characters in the film offer a real and emotional performance; it’s easy to feel the character’s emotions – jealousy, spite, sympathy, hope – throughout the entire movie.

The brothers are raised by their father, believing their mother, who shot their mother and ran away, to be dead. Adam often rebukes Cal and offers all of his love to Aron. Cal and Adam have arguments about Cal’s behavior. One day they are arguing and Adam tells Cal that he is bad. Cal replies, “You’re right. I am bad. I knew that for a long time. It’s true. Aron’s the good one. I guess there’s just a certain amount of good and bad you get from your parents and I just got the bad.” Cal, who needs to find a reason for the “badness” that lives in him, searches for his mother whom he suspects of being alive. He finds her running a successful brothel. Cal now holds the truth, and the power to destroy his fragile brother, in his hands. He can tell destroy his brother by telling him about their mother, whom Aron believes to be an angel in heaven, or keep his secret, thereby preserving Aron’s good nature, innocence and his hold on their father.

Abra (Julie Harris), who is Aron’s girlfriend, helps Cal through his struggles. At the beginning of the movie Abra is frightened of Cal and she feels that he is always spying on her and Aron. Abra comes to realize that she and Cal share common struggles and the emotions that accompany them, and she eventually becomes the person Cal can look to for friendship, guidance and love.

East of Eden also portrays stereotypes about Germans, since the film in set around the time of World War I. A German shoemaker, Gustav Albrecht, is a friend of the Trask family. He is constantly trying to defend the Germans throughout the film, explaining that they are not all terrible, and instead finds his friends turning against him, although the Trasks consistently defend him. Albrecht is seen leaving a carnival saying, “Can’t I say my opinion?” after trying to defend German reputation to his acquaintances. His formed friends follow him from the fair and start a scuffle with him on his lawn. The fight is broken up, but you get a sense of stereotyping in this short scene.

This film is worthy of viewing. It uses the simplicity of emotion (jealousy, love and hope) to recreate real situations that are present in everyday life. It doesn’t need complex special effects and gut-wrenching stunts or gore to absorb the viewer in the storyline. Everyone can associate an experience in their life with an event in East of Eden.

“You think you know who you are? You have no idea.”

Paul Haggis, director of Million Dollar Baby, brings the world of stereotypes to the forefront in Crash (winner of the Academy Award for Best Motion Picture of the Year for 2004), a complex movie set in Los Angeles. Watching this movie encourages viewers to consciously think about the pictures they have formed in their minds about people of different race, gender, ethnicity and social status. Hopefully people will question the common misconceptions they may have about people of another race or ethnicity.

Crash is a worthwhile movie because it will make people aware of their beliefs and the film works to challenge them. It is a film that will make you question your beliefs, your morals, your outlook on life. As the characters are introduced to you in the film, you will automatically create your own conclusions about them: who they are, why they act and talk the way they do, what they will become. Stereotypes people form at the beginning of the film will be challenged throughout the story. Crash is filled with intertwined lives of characters, stereotypes, emotions, morals and plot twists.

In the film a Persian family’s store is broken into and vandalized. The vandals graffiti the walls with derogatory terms and refer to the storeowners as “Arabs.” Shereen, the storeowner's wife, asks, “They think we’re Arab. When did Persian become Arab?” This leads the family to believe they were attacked for simply being “Arab.” Unfortunately, this is a common misconception that many people share; many people are guilty of grouping people in categories, such as “Hispanic,” “Asian,” and “Arab,” even though people within those groups would not describe themselves as such. People must realize they cannot lump all people into one race or ethnicity.

There are a variety of characters in this film, including a TV director and his wife, two young black men who steal and sell cars, a prominent district attorney and his distraught wife, a Mexican-American locksmith, a Persian family, a Chinese man who sells people into slavery and his wife, two police detectives and a seemingly racist police officer and his seemingly non-racist partner. Throughout the film the characters collide with each other in a multitude of situations that cause them to reinforce or contradict the stereotypes they hold and the stereotypes that are held against them.

Lippmann writes, “Out of the opposition we make villains and conspiracies” (70). People that are considered “different” are labeled as opposition. No matter what they do or how they behave they are plotting against the person who is the same. A person can always find fault with the “opposition.” For example, the district attorney’s wife tells her husband that she wants to get the locks on their home changed a second time after a Mexican-American man changes them the first time. They argue back and forth for a time and when her husband finally says okay, she yells, “And you might mention that we’d appreciate it if next time they didn’t send a gang member […]. Yes, the guy with the shaved head, the pants around his ass, the prison tattoo.”


As the story progresses, the viewers get a glance into the characters’ lives, explaining possible reasons for their actions and beliefs. Each of the characters has a back story that causes their frustration, anxiety, cruelty, happiness, anger, sympathy or hope. It’s left to the viewer to decide whether the characters’ background is sufficient enough to explain their behavior. Most importantly, Crash forces viewers to think about the racism, discrimination, stereotypes and prejudice that still occur today.

Spotlight: Philo T. Farnsworth, Take a Bow

Documentary: "Big Dreams - Small Screen"
Philo T. Farnsworth, a man who found his calling in life in stacks of old science magazines he found in the attic of his childhood home in Idaho. Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell were his heroes. He got his idea for creating a picture on television from a potato field. He spent his life working endlessly to bring his idea of electronic television of life, yet few people recognize his name.

When Farnsworth was fourteen years old he developed the blue print for an electronic television system. He realized that he could create a picture using electrons. He moved to California with his wife, Pem, when he was nineteen. Farnsworth set up a makeshift lab in the dining room of his Hollywood home and began to create his idea. Nothing in his system was store bought; therefore, he had to be financed by investors. He was the first person to acquire a patent for the television system. He eventually demonstrated his invention in a museum, although attendance was not extremely high.

While Farnsworth was working on his invention, he attracted the wandering eye of Vladimir Zworykin, a Russian engineer who was also trying to develop electronic television. Zworykin had financial backing from RCA, which meant he had much more financial freedom than did Farnsworth. He visited Farnsworth to get ideas on how to build transmission devices because Farnsworth was ahead of him. He basically stole Farnsworth’s blueprints. After this event, RCA tried to offer Farnsworth money for the patent for the television system and Farnsworth refused. RCA eventually demonstrated the workings of a television in New York. This debut is titled as the first electronic television system. The event was even attended by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which empowered the history of RCA.

As the disputes for the patent ensued, Farnsworth’s fire for invention started to flicker; he began to burn out and eventually turned to alcohol for comfort. He was hospitalized several times while the disputes continued. Fortunately, Farnsworth finally won the patent dispute and for the first time in its history RCA had to admit defeat and pay royalties to Farnsworth. On the downside, RCA is often still credited for developing television.

Throughout this period, it is easy to see that Farnsworth, even though he was white and educated, was in the subordinate position and considered inferior, at least by RCA’s standards. Zworykin is clearly in the dominate position; he was backed by RCA and had the financial backing to work on developing television and to attract a crowd when he was ready to debut his system. The little guy is often trumped by the big guy when it comes to inventions and history. Big corporations (RCA) get recognition over individual inventors. Farnsworth lacked the financial resources and recognition that RCA had.

It’s important to realize that the big names we know, whether they are inventors, athletes, celebrities, etc., are not always the pioneers of their field. Popularity and money often go hand-in-hand and the people who receive recognition for their deeds are often famous and have money. This documentary is worth-watching because it places the true inventor of television, the lesser-known little guy, in the spotlight where he belongs. Now we need to realize that just because history recognizes one person or corporation as the “father” of something doesn’t mean that that person really deserves to hold that title. Seek out the little guy and give him (or her) some credit.