Public opinion

This week's reading proves, I think, the old statement that there is nothing new under the sun. Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion, first published in 1922, describes crises of democracy that could easily describe the present day. I'm going to sketch here some broad themes of the book.

Lippmann challenges the idea that there is such a thing as Public Opinion. He argues that referring to a concept of public opinion assumes that disparate human beings are able to or actually do view and understand the world in the same way as one another. Furthermore, it requires the assumption that human beings are able to or actually view the world objectively -- or, at least with all the facts. Rather, Lippmann argues that we are separated from knowing a good deal of what is going on by limitations that impose upon comprehension -- limitations that stem from lack of time, from the filtering by stereotypes and interests, and from basic lack of information. (Stereotypes also are shortcuts for comprehension, for better or for worse). While everyone may be subject to these limitations in one way or another, they are not subject to similar enough interpretations of the world to form a comprehensive and specific enough viewpoint on public affairs to constitute public opinion. This is not to argue that we are not able to understand that is what is local to us, that which is interesting to us, and that which is brought to our attention. Public Opinion can also be formed around, as described by Lippmann, broad symbols.

Following his description of human nature, Lippmann turns to a discussion of democracy and of the role of the media. He provides an insightful and illuminating description of the disconnect between democratic theory and what he sees as the reality of democracy in the United States. Those who construct an ideal of democracy depend upon assumptions similar to assumptions behind an idea of Public Opinion -- namely, assumptions regarding ideal forms of democracy, of ideal democratic citizens, and of the relationship between ourselves and our government. Lippmann's most devastating critique, and most true, I think, is his description of the United States Constitution as established to separate the governed from the government. This is a second big question -- What is the role of the public in government? (With the first question being -- What is Public Opinion?) Contrary to the mythology of democracy in which the common person is conceived of as having the knowledge, the morality, and the will to participate in government, Lippmann first describes the common person as ill-equipped and uninterested in such a project and then describes government as not necessarily needing the input of the common person. In his description, the United States Constitution established a form of government that excluded the common person from all but one government (though this of course has changed most notably after the 17th Amendment).

As a corollary, Lippmann tackles the myth of the independent press, and its role in democracy. He chastises against viewing the press as having the ability to cut through limitations on perception and against viewing the press as presenting accurate descriptions of the world. Not only are members of the press subject to the same limitations as the rest of us, they are not motivated to perform their function out of commitment to democratic principles but rather for economic gain (Habermas writes on this subject -- more on this later). We should not assume, then, that the press are necessarily providing us with a certain democratic function.

Finally, Lippmann prescribes his solution to the challenges faced by society: expert, unfiltered information. He suggests increasing the capacity of government agencies to collect and share information, and argues for institutional independence to allow experts to do their work free from interference. Lippmann seems to be arguing that we must strive to really know the world.

In the next day or so, I'll revisit some of these points and offer some more thoughts on Lippmann's work. Here is an outline of some thoughts:

• Lippmann is arguing for a role for increased information in democracy
• There are obvious challenges to collecting information, including time and cost
• There are also challenges posed by collecting objective information
• Even if the information is objective fact, it still needs interpretation

• Lippmann seems to argue in part that information costs are low (despite the technological limitations imposed on the dissemination of information at the time he was writing) and that most of the problem stems not from high cost of information, but from lack of use of that information by consumers (I'll try to find the page number for this one)
• This suggests that a challenge to deliberative democracy is not lack of information
• One could argue, that is, that there have always been costs to gaining information and that access to information has ebbed and flowed over time
• Rather, it seems that a challenge to deliberative democracy is related to how information is used
• Are people accessing information? Under what conditions will they access information?
• Are people learning from what they access? Under what conditions will they learn or not learn? (What does learning mean?)

• Lippmann cites some statistics regarding the consumption of news and concludes that most people are probably reading the newspaper for 30 minutes a day
• During the height of mass media, when the 3 networks dominated, what was the average length of time for consumption of purely news items. It would be interesting to see how, during this time, how people's media habits were divided.