User:Gabriella Louise Lambert/sandbox

Is the Lippmann model of manufacturing consent still viable in an era where deference has dramatically declined?
Walter Lippmann, John Dewey and James Carey are experts in the field of the democratic impact of media influence. Walter Lippmann has a more elitist view while John Dewey and James Carey believe in the possibility of intermediated communication and participatory journalism. The evolution from print to electronic media creates space for the incorporation of a wider set of voices, but is also susceptible to anti-democratic controls.

or

The Lippmann Model of Manufacturing Consent
The Lippmann model of manufacturing consent stemmed from Walter Lippmann’s analysis of objective journalism during the early 20th century. Lippmann found print medium coverage of political events post-WW1, such as the Bolshevik revolution, to be plagued with multiple inaccuracies, generalizations and biased statements. He concluded that governments and press corps prioritized their news around nationalist interests, which created a false image of reality. Thus ordinary people had no sense of objective reality. He suggested the world was too complex for individuals, including journalists, to understand. Which in turn, affected the capacity of the general public to direct public affairs. Lippmann supported the idea of instituting a “governing class” to resurrect order in the public sphere. He concluded that for the majority of people, their lives should be summarized by well-informed elites. This group of “elites” would consist of experts, specialists and bureaucrats, whose “interests reach beyond the locality". These elites were outsiders to each discussed problem, thus incapable of “effective action”. This group of elites would process relevant societal data and information. This information would then be passed on to societal decision makers, who through the “art of persuasion” notify the public about socially relevant information..

Walter Lippmann’s view on Deliberative Democracy
According to Walter Lippmann, any form of democracy that allowed excessive faith and power in the hands of the public was not ideal. According to Daniel Schugurensky, Lippmann defined participatory democracy as an unworkable idea and that a functioning democratic public was a utopian ideology that would not prosper. In the words of Schugurensky, Lippmann considered the idea of deliberative democracy was an unworkable dogma or impossible dream” and the only plausible option for a prosperous society, was to be ruled by a technocratic government.

Lippmann supported the idea of elite policy-makers determining relevant newsworthy information. Newspapers would then convey the pre-selected information to the public and voters. This hierarchal process would later be known as press manufactured consent. Lippmann supported a technocratic model, as he believed the expert advisors (who counseled the political representatives) interests were “beyond the narrow views and the parochial self-interest of the average citizens organized in local communities”. As society was too complex for the populace to understand and formulate their own opinions, he viewed any form of democracy that “idealized the role of the ignorant masses to address public affairs” was an “unrealistic romantic and nostalgic model”.