Comparative Summary: Lippmann, Chomsky, Lewis

Mass media is a means of public communication for reaching a large audience. Walter Lippmann and Herman and Chomsky state their views on the role of the mass media and how this role fits into the principles of a democratic government. However, LippmannЎЇs view in ÐŽoPublic Opinion,ÐŽ± and Herman and ChomskyЎЇs view in ÐŽoA Propaganda ModelÐŽ± have sharply distinct ideas. While, Lippmann supports a more ideal use and role of the mass media to balance with the publicЎЇs life conditions through control of the media, on the contrary Herman and Chomsky condemn the misuse of the media from control.

First, one must ask who provides information through the media. Lippmann indirectly argues in favor for control of the media. One of the major reasons for this is the news language spoken in the media. A language in which correct interpretation was difficult for common citizens to formulate. The average human being is unlikely to sit down and analyze the raw information provided by the media after a long day of work. Under this assumption, Lippmann argues that there should be a group of professional intellectuals interpreting what the media provides as news and public opinion. LippmannЎЇs argument can thus be interpreted as a support for the control of the media to ensure sound opinions for the sake of national interest..

On the other hand, Herman and Chomsky feel that control of the media creates bias in the type and manner of information provided. ÐŽoA Propaganda ModelÐŽ± gives a short explanation of how mass media came into the ownership of major corporations (businesses), banks, and the government. In the past, newspaper companies charged high prices in order to pay for production costs. But as businesses began to pay newspaper companies to print their ads, production costs began to be covered by this money and newspapersЎЇ market price became noticingly affordable to just about anyone. Through this financial bond, business corporations gained control in the choices of what news the media would provide the public with. For example, businesses preferring to have their ads or commercials aired on television after a program with high audience rating or businesses manipulating schedules in order to not have their ads go along with programs containing contents of high controversy, which might affect how viewers think and feel during such programs. Major corporations and banks tend to ÐŽobuyÐŽ± the media to interfere with news choices that would benefit them. The government forms part of this triangle through the policies and licenses it sets for media access, which such corporations must abide by. The manipulation of news choices and program schedules became a tool of manipulating public opinion. This power or control can be interpreted as a monopoly of the media; the ÐŽoownersÐŽ± can then choose which stories to highlight and which to hide, and decide how such group of experts, the group Lippmann argues in support of, interprets public opinion. Unlike Lippmann, Herman and Chomsky argue that how this group of experts can be used as a tool of manipulation. If businesses have a monopoly in media access, then nothing impedes them from having power over how and what the group of experts interprets as news and public opinion.

The second issue to consider is who the public is. According to Lippmann, the majority of the public is an average working citizen exhausted from a day of work. Such a public would be reluctant to sit down in front of the television to analyze complicated news language. People are likely to interpret the information provided by the media the way they best understood it. ÐŽoThe only feeling that anyone can have about an event he does not experience is the feeling aroused by his mental image of that event. That is why until we know what others think they know; we cannot truly understand their acts.ÐŽ± Thus people formulate their opinions, creating pseudo environments, on what they have understood. Under this fact, Lippmann views that having a group of experts interpreting news and public opinion is necessary in order for such news to be correctly interpreted. But, Herman and Chomsky, assuming that these average working citizens are the public, and are likely to form opinions under the influence of the interpretations made by such experts. The danger that Herman and Chomsky see in such a scenario, is the how these interpretations are vulnerable to fall under bias and the manipulation of the previously stated controllers.

Third, how do the authorsЎЇ arguments connect with democracy? ЎoI argue that representative government,