Final Essay

Michaela Fujita-Conrads

Through the past 2016 election, social media feeds were being plastered with

articles links. These articles conveyed governmental conspiracy theories and rumors of

political leaders. The individuals who had shared these links comment on their

disapproval with the governmental structure. American citizens engaged in these false

articles. They agree with the ludicrous information and digitally communicate them to

their friends. Thus, these forms of false information spread rapidly.

In past governmental events, such as elections or new policy developments, these

forms of yellow journalism have been apparent. However, through the recent election,

and the increase of mass media news outlets, yellow journalism has become more

widespread.

American citizens have developed habits where they check their social media

platforms and engage with political articles from unreliable sources dismissing critical

thinking. They accept that these forms of news are the unbiased forms of the truth. As a

result, the public opinion becomes altered. A skewed public results in a skewed

democratic system. The public possesses the power to implement change into their

government by electing political leaders in office and voting on specific policy changes.

However, how can democracy survive if these individuals are making these decisions

based off invalid information?

Both political commentator Walter Lippmann and philosopher Thomas Dewey

analyzed this decline in the democratic system through their books, Public Opinion and
The Public and Its Problems. Both discuss how the democratic system is becoming

more complicated the more vast the country is becoming. The idea of collaborating,

discussing policies in a small town hall meeting was more effective in the past. However,

as both Lippmann and Dewey establish, this concept becomes more complex with the

massive nation that America has expanded to today. The entire American population

cannot all meet and communicate their concerns and praise for the current governmental

procedures. In these books, they provide two contrasting solutions to build a sustainable

and educational public in order to create a healthier American Democracy.

In Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann, he identifies the primary issue with our

democratic system is too many participants. He highlights two sections of a democracy -

the governmental representation and media representation. Through these two categories,

information is being trickled down from higher forms of communication, such as

governmental press releases and big news corporations, to the common American. These

forms of news outlets are easily skewed and manipulated to represent a certain instance

or event for the public viewing. Vague framing leads to a strong development of

stereotypical thinking. Lippmann recognizes that there is no complete way to understand

a culture or person without fully submersing the individual in that setting and with that

person. No matter how unbiased a news story is set to be, it is still framed a specific way.

This leads the reader with incomplete information.

Lippmann proposed a solution for this trickle down issue. He wanted to develop

an elite public that would be seen as experts. These experts would specialize in specific

areas where they would relay their knowledge to common non-expert people. This, in

Lippmanns perspective, would allow people to gain nonbiased information and be

educated on policies enacted. Political scientists, for example, will be able to relay

information on election polls and political party candidates without their individual

perspectives influencing their information. However, this would discard the voice of the

public. These experts would act as the elitist body of intelligence within a society.

Therefore his approach would become more of an oligarchical form of government

rather than a democratic one.

In the book, The Public and Its Problems by Walter Dewey, he criticizes the

ineffectiveness of Lippmanns expert approach. In Deweys perspective, experts eliminate

a community of common interests. Instead, experts will be allowing individuals to

possess private interests and fulfill their private knowledge. He questions how a

democracy can be strengthened if the community is reduced to individuals in their own

homes. By having experts, the minority of the elite will be muted. However, Dewey

states that these individuals deserve to be upliftedbecause who else experienced what

they have experienced. The world has suffered more from leaders and authorities than

from the masses, (Dewey, Ch.6).

Dewey identifies the downfall of the democratic system is due to an uneducated

public. He puts most of the fault to an uninformed public in the human nature of building

habits. Dewey states that habits are the routine aspect within any individuals day. He or

she reads the paper in the morning or watch the night news before bed, and believe he or

she is participating in their democracy. There is absorption of knowledge occurring,

however, there is also a lack of critical thinking or desire to further research these current

events. These are regarding the people who take the time to implement current events into

their routine. This does not account for the mass quantity of those who do not read or
watch the news at all. By doing these mundane day-to-day tasks, Dewey states that these

individuals begin losing their sense of self. They limit their knowledge by reading from

news outlets that support their beliefs and communicate with peers who also share the

same values and outlooks. They lack the motivation to broaden their perspective by

gathering information from contrasting sources.

Deweys main argument throughout this book is that it does not take an expert or

person of great power in order to relay information or influence an opinion. Rather,

through debate, discussion and persuasion, an educated public is formed. In order for a

democracy to grow and a public to be sustainable, Dewey proposes that communities can

be built and issues can be fully discussed in order for individual citizens to build

knowledge of facts and good judgment.

Comparing these two writers, each possessed a rational solution to strengthen the

democratic system. Through my perspective, Deweys proposal appeared to be the most

effective between the two. Just based off the results of this election alone, the

conservative minority admittedly voiced their concerns for being left behind in this

liberal progression from past political leaders decisions. Through the implementation of

the expert strategy, the masses Dewey identifies, will feel unvoiced and unimportant.

Therefore, the same form of activist frustration will grow, leading to more instability in

the democratic system.

Deweys proposal, while more practical, lacks a realistic plan to implement.

Increasing conversation and building an intellectual community is the most applicable to

our political health today. However, where would we start? With the vast accessibility of

the Internet, how would we limit what can or cannot be put on the web? How do we
determine the educational merit behind every news article? Furthermore, if these all of

these concerns are met how do we strike the passion and desire for citizens to want to

expand their knowledge in their political system.

Implementing both aspects of these ideologies would lead to an effective democracy. By

beginning in primary schooling, students can gain more critical thinking skills and

passion for knowledge. Majority of the uneducated public is due to the lack of basic

academics. By the time they are able to make decisions to impact our political future,

they believe they are uneducated and either do not participate or make assumptions. By

starting in primary education, individuals will be gain the skills to view news articles and

social media posts critically and subjectively. Both Dewey and Lippmann identify the

decline of democracy in the 1920s and the same concerns are still if not more applicable

today. We, as a community, can take these theories and use them for a more prosperous

governmental system.