McChesney and Nichols state that at the core of their book are two observations: (1) there is little-to-no public debate about governmental media policy, which makes possible the conglomeration that they criticize in their book, and (2) the current media system advances the interests of the wealthy few, not the many, and is therefore better suited to further the interests of the rich than the interests of the public in a democratic society (p. 47). The better part of chapter one is spent arguing these two points and explaining why they should lead us to believe that reform is necessary. What would Dewey and Lippmann think of these two claims? Would Lippmann object to government setting media policy without public alert or intervention? Would Dewey oppose allowing corporate interests to dominate the news media? Using specific references to their works and to Nichols’s and McChesney’s, explain what you think Dewey and/or Lippmann would say in this discussion.
Lippmann would probably contend that the issue is too difficult and in depth for citizens to understand the argument about conglomoration. I also believe that he would disagree with reporting the story without specific persons cited who are being hurt at the expense of the benefit to the wealthy.
Dewey on the other hand would agree with the reporting and agree with some sort of further government role in the watchdog to the media.
I believe that Lippmann would not object to (and in fact, would probably encourage) government setting media policy without public alert or intervention. This would be another area that Lippmann would say the public is incapable of affecting. This belief is especially clear from his quote on pg. 67 of The Phantom Public that, "It is merely those persons who are interested in an affair that can affect it only by supporting or opposing actors." Given Lippmann's little faith in the agency of citizens, I doubt that he would consider citizens as "persons who are interested" with the regulation of the media. Only media corporations and government would be considered the interested parties--thus, only media corporations and government can make a difference.
On the other hand, I certainly think that Dewey would oppose allowing corporate news interests to dominate the media. He is very skeptical of "those who have ability to manipulate to social relations for their own advantage." Also, unlike Lippmann, he has much more faith in the ability of citizens to affect public affairs, which falls directly into the spirit of McChesney and Nichols (for making the media a more democratically responsible institution that includes the voice of the people).
Due to Lippmann's background in the private sector and his arguments against biased media, I would disagree that he would support government setting media policy. His small faith in citizen agency and his assertion that the public just alligns itself with one side or another has a reliance on the balancing of perspectives. I believe he has a tone that government is not very competent necessarily and thus he would be hesitant to allow the media to be controled by what it may well need to criticize. I agree that Dewey would not support corporate control. I don't think citizen agency is a huge factor though. McChesney and Nichols seem to argue that the media is controled by the government and a few corporations and that this is a negative thing. I think lippmann and dewey would agree. The specifics are somewhat different. Though I think dewey would go further than McChesney and Nichols and say that there needs to be nothing near the haves controling media rather than have nots. Nichols seems to argue that the media should be broken up into individual privately owned news sources.
I agree with you on Dewey. He does have a lot of faith in the public and would feel that it is important for them to stay informed about the events so that if they wanted to get involved, they could.
However, I don't know if I totally agree with you about Lippmann. I think he would give some support to the regulation of the media. Although he does not have faith in the public, he does have a strict set of rules about when defective rules, conformity, and assent. All of which, in order to work properly, would need a strong, unbiased media source. I think that because he wants us to align with a representative, he especially wants us to support the one we believe in. I think he would also see it as something that directly involves us, all the more reason that people should be concerned.
I agree that Lippmann would not object to the government setting media policy without public alert or intervention. He said, "When power, however, absolute and unaccountable, reigns without provoking a crisis, public opinion does not challenge it" (60). Until the conglomerates cause a crisis (visible to the public) the public, Lippmann doesn't expect the public to respond. Thus, Lippmann would find it in the people's best interest to have the government experts take care of the matter.
Great quote Evan. I think that pretty much answers the question, that Lippmann would find it best to let the government deal with it. What Lippmann doesn't talk about though is how the government may not act in the public's best interest and they may be looking out for their own interests. I guess that leaves it to the public to provoke a crisis and then challenge the government.
I also think that Lippmann would be ok with the government setting up media policy without the public knowing. The public would not understand why they made some policys and would probaly medel and slow things down.
Good point and good quote. I do think that Lippman was kind of optimistic with the set up in the country that things always kind of balance and equal out. That's why he's okay with the public kind of keeping back until needed to form an opinion. I'm not sure if he would think that the system will work itself out here. I think that he might still subscribe that when the public is ready to they will speak out and fix things. On the other hand, if he could step into 2005, maybe he wouldn't think things could fix themselves naturally and the whole rules, conformity and assent thingies will go into effect.
I think Lippman would be concerned if the problem with media got in the way with the public's ability to align itself. He might think of the media problem as a crisis, but he will disagree as to the nature of the negative consequences. I think he differs with Dewey, McChesney, and Nichols on the issue in that he doesn't believe in a public. Dewey, McChesney, and Nichols believe in a public, and they believe this public can only be present and active with good media. They believe the negative consequence to be a dilution of democracy.Lippman doesn't believe democracy to work that way, but he would agree that it interfered in the limited capacity he allows citizens. When media is the problem he might have allowed that citizens were the direct party.
Another difference is that Dewey would promote a freer media in order to allow citizens to become aware at any point in time. Lippman's public just need to become aware of information on limited occasions.
I am most often inclined to throw in my opinion on behalf of Dewey's argument but, here, I do not think it is so easy to discount Lippmann's views. Lippmann argues that "there is no question for the public unless there is doubt as to the validity of the rule,--doubt (...) about its meaning, its soundness or the method of its application" (98). In the presence of doubt, we are to ask: "Is the rule defective?" and "How shall the agency be recognized which is most likely to mend it?" (98). Consider the Gore/Bush election fiasco: There was clear doubt as to the outcome of the election. McChesney and Nichols ask, "if the free press cannot guarantee the integrity of elections, what good is it?" (70). They then go on to argue that the problem was due to "sourcing" from a proactive Republican campaign and a "far less antagonistic" Democratic response. Why wouldn't Lippmann argue that a failed election, completely shrouded in doubt, constitutes the intervention of public opinion? That's a real question, by the way; I wonder if I am missing something. If it is a basic rule that majority vote wins, then there is absolute doubt as to the "method of its application." Of course Lippmann would not argue that it is the public's responsibility to critically determine the intricasies of the problem or to propose the methods by which it would be fixed. I do think, however, that Lippmann would find fault with the media's inability to report even the most general of summaries (who won? we don't know; apparently, no one does). When I try to take the argument further, I find myself stumped by one question: If Lippmann argues that citizen agency is limited in part because public opinion resides so far from distant centralized control of affairs, wouldn't Lippmann find fault with the further centralization of the media? If the media is not, as the state is not, an expression of the public will, should they then be the expression of state will? Should the state have a will? hmmm.... The introduction of McChesney and Nichols has only confused my initial understanding of Lippmann's argument.
I was definitely confused about Lippman when I left class Friday, and I do feel like I need to revisit or gain clarification on some of the finer points of his arguments. I get mixed up because he seemed so clear on a crisis involving protest or some kind of disruption to conformity, and that this limited the occasions when the public should become concerned anyway. Clearly there is more to it. I agree that he would want minimal direct action on the part of the public. He wouldn't want them to actually dictate the details or directly shape reform, but I am slowly understanding that the media situation is a crisis that he might endorse because the public is a direct party. You bring up an interesting point about McChesney and Nichols and the 2000 election. There was indeed a crisis at that point in Lippman's standards, and the media failed to assist public opinion in how to make an adjustment/align themselves. I think I tend to think in terms of Dewey because I do get tangled up in the whole "crisis" issue with Lippman. To Lippman the crisis issue would possibly be the election process breaking down and later the failure of the media. To Dewey the crisis occured long before the election, when Florida (and other states) was forming its election policy.
In my opinion, Lippmann would not show much opposition to the corporate monopoly over news sources as long as the end result does not cause a widespread crisis of sorts. As long as the media feeds peoples appetites of sex and violence (which according to Nichols and McChesney pg 57 are proven attention getters), we should have no complaints about the means through which they do so according to Lippmann. We cannot comprehend the significance of why a corporation chooses to censor or diminish the importance of a story, because it is not our job to know. As long as people keep watching the programs that the corporations broadcast, we should not kick up a fuss. I feel that Dewey, on the other, hand would have quite the opposite opinion of this matter. Dewey argues the importance of indirect consequences. On pages 64 and 65 of "Our Media Not Theirs", there is a discussion of the media attention of the War on Terrorism. By manipulating the coverage of an event such as this, corporations are dramatically impacting the free flow of information. "How can parents decide that they favor sending their sons and daughters off to fight when they lack adequate information about the causes, goals, and strategies of the proposed fight?" (pg 65). I am more inclined to agree with Dewey as usual as I feel it is extremely unfair, selfish, and greedy of corporations to place a veil over our eyes in order to make more money.
I also agree with Christien. I wonder, though, if the conglomerate media would qualify as a crisis in Lippmann's view.
Lippman would likely think the issue of media policy is too complex for meddling by the public. If you look at the situation his way public intervention would be disastrous, because effective direct participation in political affairs is impossible, a myth. Citizens are just not capable of understanding the details. If they show no interest in the issue of media reform then this indicates it is a natural state of being in the country, and it means the system is working for the most part. If there is no crisis, there is not a problem. Lippman might back media reform if the situation hit crisis level. If large numbers of people actively became agitated because of the commercialism and repeatedly crappy coverage and began to raise a constant stink about it—canceling their cable and turning off the radio, then Lippman would allow the public to make minor adjustments or affect the situation indirectly by throwing out those perceived as responsible for the mess. If capitalism is in effect then let the system play itself out. The citizens can align themselves with the corporations they feel help solve the problems and against the corporations or politicians they feel make them worse (Lippman 56-64).
Lippman is clearly not going to help the situation in this instance, because the more media provides crappy coverage and distractions, the less inclined the public is to become aware that there is a difficulty. How are they to become aware if the problem is with the organization that should rightfully be disseminating the information on the issue? Dewey’s idea of community discourse fits in perfectly. If local organizations start to discuss the issue, more critical analysis of the issue should reveal more and more of the nature of the policy that needs reform—as opposed to the mild adjustment prescribed by Lippman, and here the grassroots campaign alluded to in Our Median Not Theirs can start to form. Dewey would be particularly concerned about this issue, because without proper information to encourage social inquiry the public can never find itself. He would agree that “otherwise the citizenry has no way out of the status quo, no capacity to criticize or advance the political culture as a whole” (McChesney and Nichols 67). Dewey would oppose conglomerations because they inherently limit the quality of information. Certain issues will never receive coverage, and the issues that do receive coverage will never contain the “background information and full range of viewpoints” necessary for social inquiry (McChesney and Nichols 62). Dewey also stated how difficult it is to “break existing political forms“ noting “the forms are themselves the regular means of instituting change” (Dewey 31).
The articles we read on Brown and FEMA a few weeks ago would have been much easier to analyze after this week’s reading. I think we have more criteria with which to judge it. According to McChesney and Nichols plain reporting on just what was said, even with ample opportunity is clearly not “good” journalism (60 – 61).
Don't be lazy when it comes time to sign up for things. Take out your syllabus and planner. Do not inadverdently sign up to be discussion leader the day the paper is due!!!
Thanks for the lesson. It feels great to be called lazy by a classmate of all people and not the teacher.
I just want to clarify that this was not meant to call anybody else lazy, just myself.I was making fun of myself for not being more careful the day that we signed up to be discussion leaders, for unintentionally choosing the day the paper was due. Perhaps by considering this it might excuse the limits in my response, since I had to post a 500 word response right as I was in the middle of a Dewey/Lippman argument for my paper.
My bad. I was just joking. Now that I read over my post, it was definitely rude. Sorry it came out that way. My apologies.
I also posted it because I didn't want to look like a goody goody being the only post. No offense taken, so much as I was just horrified to think that maybe others thought I was chastising them. That would be uncool.
I don't think that Lippmann or Dewey would agree with corporate domination over the media. It is the media's job to inform the public when there is a crisis, according to Lippmann, and the corporate control on media might prevent that information from being printed. It is just obvious that Dewey would not agree with corporate or government domination over the media.