Politics

Public Opinion

Public Opinion

  • Downloads：6211
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-05-13 11:53:20
  • Update Date：2025-09-07
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Walter Lippmann
  • ISBN：0684833271
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

In what is widely considered the most influential book ever written by Walter Lippmann， the late journalist and social critic provides a fundamental treatise on the nature of human information and communication。 As Michael Curtis indicates in his introduction to this edition。 Public Opinion qualifies as a classic by virtue of its systematic brilliance and literary grace。 The work is divided into eight parts， covering such varied issues as stereotypes， image making， and organized intelligence。 The study begins with an analysis of "the world outside and the pictures in our heads， " a leitmotif that starts with issues of censorship and privacy， speed， words， and clarity， and ends with a careful survey of the modern newspaper。 The work is a showcase for Lippmann's vast erudition。 He easily integrated the historical， psychological， and philosophical literature of his day， and in every instance showed how relevant intellectual formations were to the ordinary operations of everyday life。 Public Opinion is of enduring significance for communications scholars， historians， sociologists， and political scientists。

Download

Reviews

Eugene ，

Provided a complete framework on analyzing public opinion that hasn't gone out of style。 For this I'll forgive the sloppy writing。 Provided a complete framework on analyzing public opinion that hasn't gone out of style。 For this I'll forgive the sloppy writing。 。。。more

Lucio Mellace ，

Public opinion was published in 1997 and written by Walter Lappmann。 It discusses the nature of human information and communication， the last section is about the news， earlier he talks about censorship and privacy along with a section Titled The Enlisting of Interest which I found to be very interesting and the best part of the book。 There is also a discussion of symbolism and what it means of which I also found interesting。 If there is one criticism of the book is that the last section is a bi Public opinion was published in 1997 and written by Walter Lappmann。 It discusses the nature of human information and communication， the last section is about the news， earlier he talks about censorship and privacy along with a section Titled The Enlisting of Interest which I found to be very interesting and the best part of the book。 There is also a discussion of symbolism and what it means of which I also found interesting。 If there is one criticism of the book is that the last section is a bit uninteresting and dry compared to the entirety of the book which was ultimately hard to put down。If you are interesting in journalism and art this is a must read。 。。。more

Ginny ，

Too many examples， anecdotes and questions， and not enough answers and explanation。 While reading the book， I was often clueless on what the main point of the chapter/paragraph was。

Pedro Tardio Ascarrunz ，

This book was published in 1922， and 99 years after is still oh so relevant， Public Opinion talks a bit about how the media， the mass are constructed through communications。 This is a great book for people in search of communication history and methods that are still in use to this day。

Michelle ，

While Lippmann’s final solution is questionable （even his greatest fans agree） this book is still of the most incisive critiques of democracy to date。 With an insight into human psychology reminiscent of James， Lippmann spends the majority of the text laying out various hurdles that democracies face， both in relation to the media but also as a result of the human condition。 Lippmann’s solution （only covered in the final chapter of the book） leaves much to be desired， but his diagnosis is on poin While Lippmann’s final solution is questionable （even his greatest fans agree） this book is still of the most incisive critiques of democracy to date。 With an insight into human psychology reminiscent of James， Lippmann spends the majority of the text laying out various hurdles that democracies face， both in relation to the media but also as a result of the human condition。 Lippmann’s solution （only covered in the final chapter of the book） leaves much to be desired， but his diagnosis is on point。 Neither Lippmann nor Dewey， who famously grappled with these problems and came to differing conclusions， has satisfactorily addressed the issues raised in Public Opinion。 But they are issues we still struggle with today。 Any thinker that is committed to the project of making democracy work must address these fundamental issues。 To that end， I think that anyone interested in democracy， sociology， American politics， and how we interact with the media should read this book。 。。。more

John ，

plausible insights。。。but。。。 just。。。painful。。。skimmed the last 60 pages

Colin Wick ，

I audiobooked this on a long drive and that was definitely the best medium for something like this。 Written in the 1920s before robust mass media had found its legs there is some analysis that doesn't hold up。 A lot of good principles and analytic cuts that cleared up my concept of The Public and social choice formation。 I audiobooked this on a long drive and that was definitely the best medium for something like this。 Written in the 1920s before robust mass media had found its legs there is some analysis that doesn't hold up。 A lot of good principles and analytic cuts that cleared up my concept of The Public and social choice formation。 。。。more

Harrison Freuck ，

But if our philosophy tells us that each man is only a small part of the world， that his intelligence catches at best only phases and aspects in a coarse net of ideas， then， when we use our stereotypes， we tend to know that they are only stereotypes， to hold them lightly， to modify them gladly （Lippmann 60）。4。5/5

Emma Gran ，

One of the most thought-provoking reads of my entire life。 Deeply insightful and full of stunning truths。 Brilliant explanation of the struggles defined by democratic nations and very relevant to current political affairs。

David ，

One of the best books I have read touching on so many issues that are still relevant in 2020。 What am amazing intellect！ The breadth of knowledge and precision of analysis is simply incredible。 I wholeheartedly agree。 One of the main problems if not the main problem is that the vast majority of us are operating with an incomplete picture of the world outside our own little sphere。 And because we operate largely with incomplete information， we make assumptions based on our own stereotypes and bia One of the best books I have read touching on so many issues that are still relevant in 2020。 What am amazing intellect！ The breadth of knowledge and precision of analysis is simply incredible。 I wholeheartedly agree。 One of the main problems if not the main problem is that the vast majority of us are operating with an incomplete picture of the world outside our own little sphere。 And because we operate largely with incomplete information， we make assumptions based on our own stereotypes and bias which are very often wrong or at least， incomplete。 。。。more

Wade Self ，

The History of Humanity is a CircleThis book is as relevant today in 2020 as it was on the original publication date。 Especially for those like me who are interested in political science with no formal education， this essay provides a useful framework to understand how we as humans do a poor job of overcoming automatic biases and stereotypes in forming our own opinions on matters that we do not tangibly experience。4 stars instead of 5 because of my own lack of knowledge of many of the historical The History of Humanity is a CircleThis book is as relevant today in 2020 as it was on the original publication date。 Especially for those like me who are interested in political science with no formal education， this essay provides a useful framework to understand how we as humans do a poor job of overcoming automatic biases and stereotypes in forming our own opinions on matters that we do not tangibly experience。4 stars instead of 5 because of my own lack of knowledge of many of the historical references Lippmann cites and discusses in detail。 。。。more

Seth Baker ，

Incredibly lucid book， filled with very thoughtful and eloquent explanations as to why the fundamental assumption of democracy - namely the existence of an 'omnicompetent citizen'， who possesses an inherent impulsion towards truth and reason - is illusory。 Despite being written in 1922， the fundamental issue explored still remains。 The world is far too multifarious and complex for any one individual to comprehend and put into logical order。 Thus， our opinions and view of the world outside our im Incredibly lucid book， filled with very thoughtful and eloquent explanations as to why the fundamental assumption of democracy - namely the existence of an 'omnicompetent citizen'， who possesses an inherent impulsion towards truth and reason - is illusory。 Despite being written in 1922， the fundamental issue explored still remains。 The world is far too multifarious and complex for any one individual to comprehend and put into logical order。 Thus， our opinions and view of the world outside our immediate experience （and even to an extent， that within it） are， by necessity， based upon an amorphous mass of subjective external opinions， stereotypes， as well as internalised and often sublimated self-interest。 These coalesce to form what we believe to be endogenous perspectives and prescriptions for action， arrived at through largely 'disinterested' reason - despite the fact that in most cases， we have not directly seen， assessed， nor experienced that on which we have such clear opinions。 Lippmann challenges the reader to truly interrogate the ultimate sources of such perspectives。 I feel this quote sums up the overall thrust of the book: 'It is often very illuminating， therefore， to ask yourself how you got at the facts on which you base your opinion。 Who actually saw， heard， felt， counted， named the thing， about which you have an opinion？ Was it the man who told you， or the man who told him， or someone still further removed？ And how much was he permitted to see？ When he informs you that France thinks this and that， what part of France did he watch？ How was he able to watch it？ Where was he when he watched it？ What Frenchmen was he permitted to talk to， what newspapers did he read， and where did they learn what they say？ You can ask yourself these questions， but you can rarely answer them。'The one area in which the book falls down， in my opinion， is in Lippmann's solutions for these problems。 He believes in essentially an anti-democratic rule of technocrats。 Truly dedicated public servants， removed from the influences that corrupt politicians and indeed the currently-existent public service， would in his view bring a new 'technic' to public opinion and discourse， allowing decisions to be made on purely rational grounds。 This， of course， sounds all very well in theory， but in practice， even the most highly-educated and credentialed amongst us are susceptible to bias， coercion and influence - especially if they are deemed as the 'philosopher-kings' of society。 I think a far more reasonable approach is to increase the ability of the public to participate knowingly in governance - limiting the capacity of the ultra-wealthy to control public opinion through monopolistic control of media and 'institutes' that launder their often-nefarious views would be far more effective in achieving beneficial societal outcomes than handing over control of society to unelected technocrats。 This can largely be seen in modern society， where countries with most media diversity， well-funded public education systems and restraints on oligarchic influence invariably top indexes of happiness， social mobility and civic engagement。 。。。more

Asli ，

A hundred years later， Lippmann's Public Opinion is still relevant in understanding how it is formed and steered in the modern political landscape。He dissects the vulnerabilities of democracy， between theory and practicality， which comes to the surface even more harshly in the 21st century。 At the time Lippmann wrote his thorough analysis， forms of information distribution were just opening up to medium other than paper journalism。 Thus， that is the medium that he particularly focuses on， the wa A hundred years later， Lippmann's Public Opinion is still relevant in understanding how it is formed and steered in the modern political landscape。He dissects the vulnerabilities of democracy， between theory and practicality， which comes to the surface even more harshly in the 21st century。 At the time Lippmann wrote his thorough analysis， forms of information distribution were just opening up to medium other than paper journalism。 Thus， that is the medium that he particularly focuses on， the way journalism is implemented， the economics behind it， the ethics， the role of the editor， and the role of the reader。 I wonder what he would make of the current landscape in which the circulation of information is almost immediate， where the roles of the reporter， the witness， and the reader have blended。 What is most striking to me is that Lippmann touches upon the fact that democracy is put to practice， but it is behind in adopting the tools of the modern world in its implementation。 This even more true today， when in 2020 elections we are debating safe voting by mail in the United States， while in stark contrast to our modern life where technology allows us to complete secure transactions every day。 Somehow democracy is only taking advantage of the advanced communication tools for election rhetoric， propaganda， rather than taking advantage of them at the policymaking level。 Perhaps， that leads us back to the impossible "doctrine of the omnicompetent citizen。" Perhaps not。 Representative democracy argues that the general public cannot handle processing decisions that will affect their lives directly。 This is why self-governing is impossible。 But with the tools that communication technology is able to provide us， I think it's time to reassess if the individual capacity to process information is truly a bottleneck in democracy。I will revisit "Public Opinion" to discuss certain arguments that Lippmann puts forth that I depart from。 Those have to do mostly with the functions of perception， subjectivity， knowledge accumulation vs intuition。 He argues that individuals are organisms， and masses are not。 That public opinion does not spontaneously form but is steered by those with the idea， and power to spread， implant the thoughts and images with the help of established mechanisms of prejudice and stereotypes into individuals' minds through a Brave New World-esquian fashion。 My counterargument to this will stem from Jungian psychology， the notion of the collective unconscious， particularly in the context of unorganized civil movements。 Is there a level of communication at work， that is deeply intertwined with the physical reality of the planet we are a part of， which may have the opportunity to steer public opinion beyond what man-made thought patterns can dictate？ 。。。more

Marco Matos ，

So， I agree with Chomsky that most of this book is neoliberal propaganda。 However， one should read it in a neutral light， and there is much one can attain about how the political mechanism works and how public opinion is so immutable in nature that very uneducated citizens about their surroundings， being it close or far from their individual center， can be easily manipulated by a multitude of phenomena。 I have to think about it first， in order to really write a review， because it is a huge teatr So， I agree with Chomsky that most of this book is neoliberal propaganda。 However， one should read it in a neutral light， and there is much one can attain about how the political mechanism works and how public opinion is so immutable in nature that very uneducated citizens about their surroundings， being it close or far from their individual center， can be easily manipulated by a multitude of phenomena。 I have to think about it first， in order to really write a review， because it is a huge teatrise about propaganda in our neoliberal world。 However， altogether is accounts a 4 stars rating， as I leave the book with major insights on areas I had not thought about earlier in life！ 。。。more

Jerome Oaf ，

Boring as fuck literary style but you will learn a lot of things here about propaganda， public perception， and psychology。

Amjad Al Taleb ，

Lippmann wrote describing how media mogul and social media companies work on forming public opinion， the ways in which politicians work to take advantage of the peoples to serve their parties and their political carriers， the interplay between ads and news。。。 basically the hotly debated issues that modern commentators are discussing nowadays。The eerie thing about this book is that it was written a 100 years ago。 It seems that instead of being a warning to people about the fragility of democratic Lippmann wrote describing how media mogul and social media companies work on forming public opinion， the ways in which politicians work to take advantage of the peoples to serve their parties and their political carriers， the interplay between ads and news。。。 basically the hotly debated issues that modern commentators are discussing nowadays。The eerie thing about this book is that it was written a 100 years ago。 It seems that instead of being a warning to people about the fragility of democratic systems， this book became the manual of corrupt politicians and tycoons in occidental states， just like 1984 became the manual of tyrants in the dictatorial states。But unlike 1984， Lippmann offers a way out， a hard way out， by education， open-mindedness and civic responsibility。 A way， the covid-19 pandemic showed， is a mere fantasy and a severe underestimation of the human stupidity and public hopelessness。 。。。more

Tyler ，

A pessimistic but convincing critique of the ability of a democracy to function in a high-information environment。 Lippman lays out the issues inherent and observed in a democratic government as laid out by Jefferson， Hamilton and the other founding fathers in a damning indictment of those who consume and gatekeep information。 As a marketing professional， I found his classifications of stereotypes and decision-making accurate， prophetic and， consequently， convicting。 What’s not convincing is his A pessimistic but convincing critique of the ability of a democracy to function in a high-information environment。 Lippman lays out the issues inherent and observed in a democratic government as laid out by Jefferson， Hamilton and the other founding fathers in a damning indictment of those who consume and gatekeep information。 As a marketing professional， I found his classifications of stereotypes and decision-making accurate， prophetic and， consequently， convicting。 What’s not convincing is his proposal to “fix” democracy by， essentially， turning it into a technocracy of expert bureaucrats。 Perhaps it would be an effective way to run a government—speaking purely in hypotheticals who can say for sure—the state it would produce doesn’t look like your or my idea of an ideal democracy。 It doesn’t look too far from the modern state structure of cabinets and committees and advisory panels， in my opinion。 And yet， the issue of incomplete or withheld information persists。I would recommend this book to anyone looking around at the present， information-saturated media environment， and are wondering why， in this， the “age of information，” it seems like our democracy is in as bad a shape as it has ever been。 。。。more

Albert ，

This was just a bad match--between me and the book。 Usually I find I can stretch reasonably well beyond the subjects with which I am very interested。 I even thought I might be very curious about this particular topic。 Although somewhat dated since it was written in 1922 and much of the 20th century is not even included in the examples and discussion， I found the book was well-organized， logically presented and included many relevant examples。 But I just could not get interested。 The lack of attr This was just a bad match--between me and the book。 Usually I find I can stretch reasonably well beyond the subjects with which I am very interested。 I even thought I might be very curious about this particular topic。 Although somewhat dated since it was written in 1922 and much of the 20th century is not even included in the examples and discussion， I found the book was well-organized， logically presented and included many relevant examples。 But I just could not get interested。 The lack of attraction between the book and me， between the content and me， became painful。 I saw it through， wished I hadn't and have concluded that I deserve much of the blame。 。。。more

Cgallozzi ，

Review: “Public Opinion” Walter Lippman， 1922。 Via Audible。I became aware of this book while listening to Jill Lepore’s “These Truths” – an excellent book。 This book， published in 1922 was mentioned as a keystone in the study of how Journalists and others “form” Public Opinion。 The context here is a major foreign policy issue – such as American’s entrance in World War 1。 There existed at the time the original “America First” organization – advocating neutrality。 Within 18 Months popular culture Review: “Public Opinion” Walter Lippman， 1922。 Via Audible。I became aware of this book while listening to Jill Lepore’s “These Truths” – an excellent book。 This book， published in 1922 was mentioned as a keystone in the study of how Journalists and others “form” Public Opinion。 The context here is a major foreign policy issue – such as American’s entrance in World War 1。 There existed at the time the original “America First” organization – advocating neutrality。 Within 18 Months popular culture was changed so as to support America’s entrance into the War。 A popular 1916 song was “I didn’t raise my boy to be Soldier” – a popular song in 1917 was “Over There”。 A variant of this idea was taken up later in the book “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” by Edward S。 Herman and Noam Chomsky， 1988 – the “Consent” here references the consent of the governed。This is an excellent book – as relevant （perhaps more relevant） today than when it was written。There are numerous take aways from this book – which resonated – a few:•tLippmann observes that an individual cannot conceive of （or has great difficulty conceiving of） things they have not experienced。•tLippmann gives the example of Americans living in America attempting to understand the carnage of WW 1。•tLippmann gives one example with reference to WW1 – that the French High Command generated press releases released to the French public during and after the battle of Verdun where the phrase “machine guns mowed the enemy down”; and “artillery fire mowed the enemy down”。 Not only were these phrases not entirely true – the French took more casualties ~400，000 than the Germans ~350000 – but also （these French press releases） diverted the French Public’s attention from the fact that this battle was fought on French soil with the French Army on the defensive。•tThis technique – use of the phrase “machine guns mowed the enemy down” was successful with the French public – because in Lippmann’s opinion – the Public has a ‘picture in its head’ about what “machine guns mowed the enemy down” means/looks like – this picture is the first thing that comes to mind when the phrase is invoked。 Indeed， Lippmann observes that words – that evoke a picture – that evokes emotion（s） is a model that has been shown to work。•tLippmann goes on to opine that when the United States was founded – it was predicated upon small （New England） towns – where the inhabitants only verified their own experiences…”as far as they can see” – which is why Jefferson and others thought a free press was necessary in the United States to inform and assist the inhabitants about things that were outside of their individual experiences。otIt would be interesting to discuss what Lippmann would make of today’s internet and its impact on society and public opinion。•tLippmann has a model that there is no one public opinion – but a series of public opinion – where politicians attempt to have a broad political platform （or unifying slogan or symbol） to be attractive to enough segments so as to win an election。•tLippmann warns the reader to be way of politicians who:otCreate an argument with very selected and incomplete facts;otInterpret these facts （above） in a manner to inflame the readers emotions （“…you’re being ripped off…”）， and;otClosing with a series of powerful but ambiguous words – justice， liberty， true Americanism…。which public policies about a particular subject provide the public with liberty and etc。 and how do they do this？•tI heard Lippman opine how about an individual might think about whether the Government is working for me – I heard something akin to President Roosevelt’s 01/06/1941 speech about the Four Freedoms:ot Freedom of Speech and Assembly。ot Freedom to worship God in his own way。ot Freedom from want。ot Freedom from fear。•tFinally， I heard Lippmann question as to whether Reason was used （then） in Politics。A keystone book – very illuminating – should be of interest to those who think about the current state of ‘Politics’ – and Mass Communication。 After having read this and other similar books – I’ve “sworn off” – Cable TV News – which have become an outlet to Manufacture Outrage。Carl Gallozzicgallozzi@comcast。net 。。。more

Travis ，

This book provides a series of interesting arguments about the limitations to the formation of accurate/useful public opinion。 Some of the problems the author identifies are out of date， as the book was written so long before the dawn of the internet， but the thrust of his argument about how the relationship between the world as it and the world as the public conceives of it gets skewed hold up pretty well。 As others have noted， the author’s conclusions are elitist。 I am fairly young and not ver This book provides a series of interesting arguments about the limitations to the formation of accurate/useful public opinion。 Some of the problems the author identifies are out of date， as the book was written so long before the dawn of the internet， but the thrust of his argument about how the relationship between the world as it and the world as the public conceives of it gets skewed hold up pretty well。 As others have noted， the author’s conclusions are elitist。 I am fairly young and not very knowledgeable about the post-WWI cultural and political climate， so a lot of the author’s references and examples did not resonate with me particularly well， making parts of the book drag。 I think I would have prefer reading chapters/excerpts of this book as part of a course than just reading it straight through on my own time， but it was worthwhile overall。 。。。more

Lucas ，

O primeiro capítulo desse livro （"The image in our heads"） é simplesmente fantástico。 Quando li pensei "Cara， esse vai ser um dos melhores livros que li na vida"， mas a qualidade e os insights caíram muito para mim depois disso e por fim desisti de terminar。 Certamente vale a leitura， Lippman foi um grande intelectual e quando leio ele tenho a sensação de estar lendo Richard Hofstadter， com um pouco menos brilho。 No entanto， para além do capítulo 1， o livro não trouxe discussões que estou intere O primeiro capítulo desse livro （"The image in our heads"） é simplesmente fantástico。 Quando li pensei "Cara， esse vai ser um dos melhores livros que li na vida"， mas a qualidade e os insights caíram muito para mim depois disso e por fim desisti de terminar。 Certamente vale a leitura， Lippman foi um grande intelectual e quando leio ele tenho a sensação de estar lendo Richard Hofstadter， com um pouco menos brilho。 No entanto， para além do capítulo 1， o livro não trouxe discussões que estou interessado nesse momento。 。。。more

Blake ，

100 years later it still rings true

Diogenes ，

Why it’s taken me so long to discover this work is possibly a matter of pure serendipity。 Lippmann was mentioned in an Aeon vid-article not long ago （https://aeon。co/videos/before-chomsky。。。）， and that piqued my interest。 It’s not about the screaming dude （sometimes， rarely， a chick—e。g。， Emma Goldman， Kathleen Cleaver， Greta Thunberg） on the soapbox; it’s about the sheeple that spread the gospel of said screaming dude， and most importantly how prime media outlets parrot the screaming dude and s Why it’s taken me so long to discover this work is possibly a matter of pure serendipity。 Lippmann was mentioned in an Aeon vid-article not long ago （https://aeon。co/videos/before-chomsky。。。）， and that piqued my interest。 It’s not about the screaming dude （sometimes， rarely， a chick—e。g。， Emma Goldman， Kathleen Cleaver， Greta Thunberg） on the soapbox; it’s about the sheeple that spread the gospel of said screaming dude， and most importantly how prime media outlets parrot the screaming dude and shape the—you guessed it—public opinion that infests the unfolding of History。 This is the oceanic force of Public Opinion that wages wars and causes schisms and demonizes others and poisons the wells of Truth with disinformation， propaganda， and abject lies。 From religious leaders to politicians to CEOs， from popes to presidents to parliaments， we now exist in a world of metamorphic information。 Your tailored news feeds preach the gospel of whatever multi-spectrum flavors you choose to subscribe to， as we wrap ourselves up in cherry-picked identities， even to the point of gender。 What a wonderful world 。 。 。 Lippmann saw this happening during WWI。 It’s only gotten exponentially worse as the goblin drums of ignorance pound for WWIII。Think of 9/11 and all the flamboyant， empty rhetoric the W。 Bush White House was shoving down our throats as the twin towers fell in 24-hour cycles for months on end， how the prime media outlets jumped aboard the bandwagon without question or criticism， and how so many dumb Americans slapped those made-in-China yellow ribbon and “support your troops” magnets on their cars and trucks。 I was one of YOUR troops， and I’m thoroughly disgusted and ashamed to have been apart of that horrendous farce that destabilized the Middle East and north Africa and brought death and misery to so many millions of Iraqis and others in those regions of the Earth。 If you’re not aware of the Afghanistan Papers， don’t be surprised; most media outlets chose not to cover it （https://www。washingtonpost。com/graphi。。。） Bottom line: those in power lied to us， and most media outlets failed to ask the hard questions。 We were duped by leaders of both parties， and have been， for the last two decades—not unlike Vietnam in some terribly harsh ways。 When will the madness cease？ Most likely when warmongering is no longer profitable。 （I started writing this before Trump issued the drone-strike against Suleimani; may the tit-for-tat “War on Terror” go forth for another hundred years， or may a giant comet cleave this planet in twain， ridding us of so much mindless myopia。） I feel it’s a losing battle in a very protracted war， this War on Truth。 The canary in the coal mine is long since dead。 The unregulated media， the unregulated internet， politicians without morals， and military leaders drinking the cool-aid of some abstract victory parade， have allowed the deplorables and troll farms and militant foreign cyber-units a solid foothold on the dissemination of disinformation and the fomentation of conspiracies and lies， which “the Right” seems to embrace far easier than “the Left”。 The predators of deception know their target audiences—they are undereducated， lack even basic critical thinking skills， and are suckered by modern-day televangelists of every stripe， and these deplorable forces prey upon these demographics fully， sowing dissent， division， and open hostility。 Disinformation is now weaponized， and we are all pawns in the great chess game for the Future。 Lippmann published this in 1922。 Sadly， it is still extremely relevant。 Adam Gopnik， in a book review of how dictatorships conform to a style， summarized the difference between Left and Right methodologies well: “Where the Marxist heritage， being theory-minded and principle-bound， involves the primacy of the text， right-wing despotism， being romantic and charismatic， is buoyed by the shared spell cast between an orator and his mob” （https://www。newyorker。com/magazine/20。。。）。 Isn’t it interesting how one side favors the written word， while the other side favors the screaming dude on the soapbox， across cultures and creeds？ The books reviewed basically looked at dictators before the Internet。 Does Twitter now count as a forum for screeds with our 8-second attention spans？ I hardly think so。 Any moron can hammer vitriol through his keyboard these days。 Every village idiot has a pocket computer， and Sinclair Broadcasting， Fox News， Breitbart， Alex Jones， Russian cyber units， and the basement-dwelling demagogues on 4Chan/8Chan know this intimately。 It is a War on Truth， and Facts， and elemental Morality。 “At the core of every moral code there is a picture of human nature， a map of the universe， and a version of history。 To human nature （of the sort conceived）， in a universe （of the kind imagined）， after a history （so understood）， the rules of the code apply。 So far as the facts of personality， of the environment and of memory are different， by so far the rules of the code are difficult to apply with success。 Now every moral code has to conceive human psychology， the material world， and tradition some way or other。 But in the codes that are under the influence of science， the conception is known to be a hypothesis， whereas in the codes that come unexamined from the past or bubble up from the caverns of the mind， the conception is not taken as an hypothesis demanding proof or contradiction， but as a fiction accepted without question。 In the one case， amnestying is humble about his beliefs， because he knows they are tentative and incomplete; in the other he is dogmatic， because his belief is a completed myth。 The moralist who submits to the scientific discipline knows that though he does not know everything， he is in the way of knowing something; the dogmatist， using a myth， believes himself to share part of the insight of omniscience， though he lacks the criteria by which to tell truth from error。 For the distinguishing mark of a myth is that truth and error， fact and fable， report and fantasy， are all on the same plane of credibility。The math is， then not necessarily false。 It might happen to be wholly true。 It may happen to be partly true。 If it has affected human conduct a long time， it is almost certain to contain much that is profoundly and importantly true。 What a myth never contains is the critical power to separate truths from its errors。 For that power comes only by realizing that no human opinion， whatever its supposed origin， is too exalted for the test of evidence， that every opinion is only somebody’s opinion。 And if you ask why the test of evidence is preferable to any other， there is no answer unless you are willing to use the test in order to test it” （pp。 115-6）。 Pretty clever。 Basically what I think he’s trying to say is exactly what Fantasyland summarized profoundly: magical thinking， then in the ashes of the First World War， and so much more powerfully today in the moral lawlessness of the World-wide Web， has bewitched untold millions。 But after going deep into the issue of stereotypes and moral codes， Lippmann summarizes: “That is one reason why it is so dangerous to generalize about human nature。 A loving father can be a sour boss， an earnest municipal reformer， and rapacious jingo abroad。 His family life， his business career， his politics， and his foreign policy rest on totally different versions of what others are like and of how he should act。 These versions differ by [moral] codes in the same person， the codes differ somewhat among persons in the same social set， differ widely as between social sets， and between two nations， or two colors， may differ to the point where there is no common assumption whatever。 That is why people professing the same stock of religious beliefs can go to war。 The element of their belief which determines conduct is that view of the facts which they assume。That is where [moral] codes enter so subtly and so pervasively into the making of public opinion。 The orthodoxy theory holds that a public opinion constitutes a moral judgment on a group of facts。 The theory I am suggesting is that， in the present state of education [in 1922 USA]， a public opinion is primarily a moralized and codified version of the facts。 I am arguing that the pattern of stereotypes at the center of our codes largely determines what group of facts we shall see， and in what light we shall see them。 That is why， with the best will in the world， the news policy of a journal tends to support its editorial policy; why a capitalist sees one set of facts， and certain aspects of human nature， literally sees them; his socialist opponent another set and other aspects， and why each regards the other as unreasonable or perverse， when the real difference between them is a difference of perception。 That difference is imposed by the difference between the capitalist and the socialist pattern of stereotypes。 ‘There are no classes in America，’ writes an American editor。 ‘The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles，’ says the Communist Manifesto。 If you have the editor’s pattern in your mind， you will see vividly the facts that confirm it， vaguely and ineffectively those that contradict。 If you have the communist pattern， you will not only look for different things， but you will see with a totally different emphasis what you and the editor happen to see in common” （pp。 117-8）。 This is a scholarly work that spans a spectrum， and even though it’s dated， it is easy enough to see the parallelisms between then and now。 He examines the failings of mass media （newspapers） and what it takes to tell the Truth （“The study of error is not only in the highest degree prophylactic， but it serves as a stimulating introduction to the study of truth。 As our minds become deeply aware of their own subjectivism， we find a zest in objective method that is not otherwise there。 We see vividly， as normally we should not， the enormous mischief and casual cruelty of our prejudices。 And the destruction of a prejudice， through painful at first， because of its connection with our self-respect， gives an immense relief and a fine pride when it is successfully done” [p。 368]）; he advocates for social science to be taken seriously and professionally; he goes back to Plato and Aristotle to philosophize about what makes good， honest， authentic， and self-less politicians （“So many of the grimaces men make at each other go with a flutter of their pulse， that they are not all of them important。 And where so much is uncertain， where so many actions have to be carried out on guesses， the demand upon the reserves of mere decency is enormous， and it is necessary to live as if good will would work。 We cannot prove in every instance that it will， nor why hatred， intolerance， suspicion， bigotry， secrecy， fears， and lying are the seven deadly sins against public opinion。 We can only insist that they have no place in the appeal to reason， that in the longer run they are a poison; and taking our stand upon a view of the world which outlasts our own predicaments， and our own lives， we can cherish a hearty prejudice against them” [pp。 374-5]）; and， he attempts to disentangle the various forms of collaborative community （“The present fundamentally invisible system of government is so intricate that most people have given up trying to follow it， and because they do not try， they are tempted to think it comparatively simple。 It is， on the contrary， elusive， concealed， opaque” [p。 353]）。This might be the most portentous of Lippmann’s reflections however， after explaining the creation of national public opinion leading the US into WWI， and what transpired with President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” speech in 1918， a perfect utilization of mass media at that time to manufacture consent through propaganda: “Within the life of the generation now in control of affairs， persuasion has become a self-conscious art and a regular organ of popular government。 None of us begins to understand the consequences， but it is no daring prophecy to say that the knowledge of how to create consent will alter every political calculation and modify every political premise。 Under the impact of propaganda， not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone， the old constants of our thinking have become variables。 It is no longer possible， for example， to believe in the original dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart。 Where we act on that theory we expose ourselves to self-deception， and to forms of persuasion that we cannot verify。 It has been demonstrated that we cannot reply upon intuition， conscience， or the accidents of casual opinion if we are to deal with the world beyond our reach” （p。 228）。 I believe， with sad humility， that the United States of America is going through its death throes。 There is no way to bridge the chasm we’ve created。 The Soviet Union experiment burned out in under eighty years before it devolved into a strong-armed plutocracy， but that was a bloody disaster from the very beginning。 The US is doing likewise， albeit more slowly， but the pace is accelerating， and I wonder if the endgame will be strangely similar。 I don’t think the capitulation of the entire GOP to a demented moron， a pathological liar （https://apnews。com/8e0783c70703d7b041。。。）， and a crotch-grabbing racist is a desperate grasp at what’s left of their power-hold。 I think a poorly educated populace， the disenfranchisement of millions within the non-caucasian lower classes， the disease of rabid disinformation （thanks in large part to the elimination of the FCC’s Fairness Doctrine in 1987， and now the complete and utter lack of accountability upon the Social Media moguls）， as well as the astounding amount of money pissed away on the election process itself， are all symptoms of what could be the end of this tumultuous Republic。 In 2008， Fareed Zakaria published The Post-American World。 In December of 2019， Yoni Appelbaum wrote a depressing article on “How America Ends” （https://www。theatlantic。com/magazine/。。。）。 We are living in the deathgasms of Zakaria’s idea， as the wrecking ball of Trump and his cronies and sycophant followers pull us all into the abyss of History， exactly as bin Laden and Putin and Xi Jinping dreamt/dream about。 Like the melting of the ice caps， this is a slow-motion process， and most people have incredibly short attention spans， are easily distracted by banal pap， and have neither an accurate sense of history nor an honest vision of the future。 They want what they want exactly when they want it。 This is our undoing， and the forces against us know that precisely。 。。。more

Mz ，

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 **Warning: this text may contain spoilers** Με την είσοδο της Αμερικής στον Α Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο， το 1917， έγιναν αμετρητες προσπάθειες για τη διαμόρφωση μιας ενιαίας κοινής γνώμης μέσα σε ένα ελάχιστο χρονικό διάστημα。 Αυτό έφερε στο φως τις τεράστιες σύγχρονες δυνατότητες για προπαγάνδα αλλά και τις δυσκολίες για μια έγκυρη ενημέρωση。 Το βιβλίο γράφτηκε το 1921-1922 κι όμως είναι φοβερά επίκαιρο。 Στην εποχή μας του "post truth"， που fake news συχνά διαδίδονται ταχύτατα και γίνονται viral， φαίνετ **Warning: this text may contain spoilers** Με την είσοδο της Αμερικής στον Α Παγκόσμιο Πόλεμο， το 1917， έγιναν αμετρητες προσπάθειες για τη διαμόρφωση μιας ενιαίας κοινής γνώμης μέσα σε ένα ελάχιστο χρονικό διάστημα。 Αυτό έφερε στο φως τις τεράστιες σύγχρονες δυνατότητες για προπαγάνδα αλλά και τις δυσκολίες για μια έγκυρη ενημέρωση。 Το βιβλίο γράφτηκε το 1921-1922 κι όμως είναι φοβερά επίκαιρο。 Στην εποχή μας του "post truth"， που fake news συχνά διαδίδονται ταχύτατα και γίνονται viral， φαίνεται ξεκάθαρα πως η υπερπληροφόρηση φέρνει μαζί της και την παραπληροφόρηση。 Σήμερα， με τη χρήση του Διαδικτύου， η διάδοση εσφαλμένων πληροφοριών είναι όχι μόνο ένας μηχανισμός προπαγάνδας， αλλά και ένα είδος "πολέμου όλων απέναντι σε όλους"， εξαιτίας της ευκολίας κατασκευής και διάδοσής τους από τον καθένα για τον καθένα。 Παρά τους εύλογους ισχυρισμούς για τη "συρρίκνωση του κόσμου" λόγω της τεχνοεπιστημονικής ανάπτυξης και βελτιωμένης πληροφόρησης， ο κόσμος για έναν σύγχρονο άνθρωπο φαντάζει μεγαλύτερος και πιο χαώδης από οποιαδήποτε άλλη εποχή της ανθρωπότητας。 Οι ειδήσεις και η πολιτική προβάλλονται στο κοινό με βάση τους κανόνες του cinema: σύγκρουση καλού με κακό， ταύτιση， τελική νίκη。 Για οποιοδήποτε θέμα δεν είναι απόλυτα σαφές， έγραφε ο John Stuart Mill το 1858， 99% είναι ανίκανοι να κρίνουν αποτελεσματικά。 Ο Lippmann， ο άνθρωπος με τις κλασικές σπουδές που μιλούσε Γαλλικά και Γερμανικά， κέρδισε δύο βραβεία Pulitzer， πήρε συνέντευξη από τον Nikita Khrushchev και διέδωσε τους όρους "στερεότυπο" "Ψυχρός Πόλεμος" και "κατασκευή της συναίνεσης"， μας προειδοποιεί ότι οι συνθήκες σήμερα είναι πολύ διαφορετικές από αυτές που είχαν στο μυαλό τους οι οραματιστές της δημοκρατίας Rousseau και Jefferson。 Η λύση， που ως "πικρό φάρμακο" που προτείνεται στο παρόν βιβλίο， είναι η δημιουργία ειδικών οργανισμών που να ελέγχουν τις πληροφορίες και να ενημερώνουν τους πολίτες αξιόπιστα。 。。。more

Joseph Stieb ，

I don't really remember why I decided to read this; I think Jill Lepore mentioned it in her new book and drew me in。 It definitely shows its age， and it can be maddening with asides， massive block quotes， and super in-depth examples of very obvious points。 Still， the central points of this book are interesting and worth grappling with， especially as today we are thinking about how to conceptualize and manage new forms of media。The main point of this book， written in 1922， is that throughout most I don't really remember why I decided to read this; I think Jill Lepore mentioned it in her new book and drew me in。 It definitely shows its age， and it can be maddening with asides， massive block quotes， and super in-depth examples of very obvious points。 Still， the central points of this book are interesting and worth grappling with， especially as today we are thinking about how to conceptualize and manage new forms of media。The main point of this book， written in 1922， is that throughout most of preceding US history politicians and public figures didn't think much about how public opinion was created。 There was an assumption that it just kind of emerged spontaneously。 Lippman's book is an attempt to explain how reality is packaged by the media and public figures， delivered to the vast majority of people who have little experience outside of their daily lives and social circles， interpreted and filtered by those people， and assembled into groups capable of action。 His accounts of the biases that shape the way people interpret information is strikingly prescient of later cognitive science。 His conclusion is that because modern life has become so much more complicated and globalized， the government needs a department of information experts who can research and explain various facets of the world。 In spite of the general dullness of this book， I found this to be a compelling example of what so many countries were wrestling with in the early 20th century: the anxiety that a complex， technological， industrial society required increasing centralization and expertise to comprehend and control， and that this expertise might not be fully compatible with democracy。 Lippman's panel of experts is sort of the ultimate in technocracy， but he argues that it can have democratic checks as long as the experts are scrupulously neutral in politics。 I was reminded by this of the increasing politicization of academia to the point where a large part of the country looks at anything produced by an academic as so obviously serving liberal/left politics as to be suspect。 I need to take a closer look at this book later， but overall I wouldn't recommend it unless you are researching something very specific in this area。 。。。more

Kristopher Driver ，

"From omnipotence to impotence， the pendulum swings。。。" - my favourite quote of the year from chapter 10 "From omnipotence to impotence， the pendulum swings。。。" - my favourite quote of the year from chapter 10 。。。more

Evan ，

Though impolitic to agree with his central conclusion， the denouement of his argument and diagnosis of what ails mass democracy is a work of great （literary） genius。

Jared ，

WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT？- [Published in 1922]。。。is a critical assessment of functional democratic government， especially of the irrational and often self-serving social perceptions that influence individual behavior and prevent optimal societal cohesion。WHO IS THE AUTHOR？- Walter Lippmann was an American writer， reporter， and political commentator famous for being among the first to introduce the term ‘’stereotype’ in the modern psychological meaning。 PLATO’S ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE （THIS IS A KEY WHAT IS THIS BOOK ABOUT？- [Published in 1922]。。。is a critical assessment of functional democratic government， especially of the irrational and often self-serving social perceptions that influence individual behavior and prevent optimal societal cohesion。WHO IS THE AUTHOR？- Walter Lippmann was an American writer， reporter， and political commentator famous for being among the first to introduce the term ‘’stereotype’ in the modern psychological meaning。 PLATO’S ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE （THIS IS A KEY CONCEPT IN THE BOOK）- Short， animated explanation: https://youtu。be/1RWOpQXTltA- whatever we believe to be a true picture， we treat as if it were the environment itself。IMAGES OF THINGS BEYOND OUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE- The 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。PICTURES， RESPONSES， AND ACTION- 。。。the triangular relationship between the scene of action， the human picture of that scene， and the human response to that picture working itself out upon the scene of action。ARE WE SEEING THE SAME THING？！- More accurately， they live in the same world， but they think and feel in different ones。SINCE WE HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES， WE ACT DIFFERENTLY- To expect that all men for all time will go on thinking different things， and yet doing the same things， is a doubtful speculation。WHAT IS PROPAGANDA？- But what is propaganda， if not the effort to alter the picture to which men respond， to substitute one social pattern for another？TRENCH WARFARE DID NOT FIT INTO THE MENTAL PICTURE OF CITIZENS， SO THE IMAGE OF WHAT WAS CONSIDERED SUCCESSFUL WAS CHANGED- By putting the dead Germans in the focus of the picture， and by omitting to mention the French dead， a very special view of the battle was built up。 It was a view designed to neutralize the effects of German territorial advances and the impression of power which the persistence of the offensive was making。- For the public， accustomed to the idea that war consists of great strategic movements， flank attacks， encirclements， and dramatic surrenders， had gradually to forget that picture in favor of the terrible idea that by matching lives the war would be won。。。the General Staff substituted a view of the facts that comported with this strategy。PROPAGANDA WORKS WHEN YOU CONTROL THE NARRATIVE- Without some form of censorship， propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible。 In order to conduct a propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event。 Access to the real environment must be limited， before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks wise or desirable。“MO MONEY， MO PERSPECTIVE”- The size of a man's income has considerable effect on his access to the world beyond his neighborhood。STEREOTYPES - For the most part we do not first see， and then define， we define first and then see。 In the great blooming， buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us， and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture。- Thus out of forty trained observers writing a responsible account of a scene that had just happened before their eyes， more than a majority saw a scene that had not taken place。。。They saw their stereotype of such a brawl。STEREOTYPES COME FROM THE IMAGES WE HAVE IN OUR HEADS- In untrained observation we pick recognizable signs out of the environment。 The signs stand for ideas， and these ideas we fill out with our stock of images。- Instead we notice a trait which marks a well known type， and fill in the rest of the picture by means of the stereotypes we carry about in our heads。STEREOTYPES ARE POWERFUL- The stereotypes are， therefore， highly charged with the feelings that are attached to them。REINFORCING WHAT WE ALREADY THOUGHT WE SAW- If what we are looking at corresponds successfully with what we anticipated， the stereotype is reinforced for the future，- For when a system of stereotypes is well fixed， our attention is called to those facts which support it， and diverted from those which contradict。STEREOTYPES SAVE TIME AND MAKE THE WORLD LESS BEWILDERING- the stereotype not only saves time in a busy life and is a defense of our position in society， but tends to preserve us from all the bewildering effect of trying to see the world steadily and see it whole。WHAT IS PUBLIC OPINION- 。。。a public opinion is primarily a moralized and codified version of the facts。STEREOTYPES AND STRATEGISTS- One generation of strategists， and perhaps two， had lived with that visual image as the starting point of all their calculations。 For nearly four years every battle-map they saw had deepened the impression that this was the war。 When affairs took a new turn， it was not easy to see them as they were then。TIME IS A RELATIVE CONCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO PERCEPTIONS- To the average Englishman， for example， the behavior of Cromwell， the corruption of the Act of Union， the Famine of 1847 are wrongs suffered by people long dead and done by actors long dead with whom no living person， Irish or English， has any real connection。 But in the mind of a patriotic Irishman these same events are almost contemporary。WE TEND TO HAVE AN ALL OR NOTHING VIEW- In hating one thing violently， we readily associate with it as cause or effect most of the other things we hate or fear violently。- Generally it all culminates in the fabrication of a system of all evil， and of another which is the system of all good。- It is not enough to say that our side is more right than the enemy's， that our victory will help democracy more than his。 One must insist that our victory will end war forever。。。Between omnipotence and impotence the pendulum swings。STEREOTYPES OF GROUPS OF THINGS- The deepest of all the stereotypes is the human stereotype which imputes human nature to inanimate or collective things。REGAINING CONTROL OF YOUR SELF AFTER WAR- It takes a long time to subdue so powerful an impulse once it goes loose。 And therefore， when the war is over in fact， it takes time and struggle to regain self-control， and to deal with the problems of peace in civilian character。REASON FOR FACTIONS AMONG PEOPLE MOST GENERALLY DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN DISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY- But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property。" Madison's theory， therefore， is that the propensity to faction may be kindled by religious or political opinions， by leaders， but most commonly by the distribution of property。- He does not say that their property and their opinions are cause and effect， but that differences of property are the causes of differences of opinion。- That remedy assumes that if all property could be held in common， class differences would disappear。 The assumption is false。MASTER SYMBOLS （PICTURES PEOPLE HAVE IN THEIR HEADS） TO MASTER THE SITUATION- If， for example， one man dislikes the League， another hates Mr。 Wilson， and a third fears labor， you may be able to unite them if you can find some symbol which is the antithesis of what they all hate。- A leader or an interest that can make itself master of current symbols is master of the current situation。DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A WIDE APPEAL OR AN EMOTIONAL CONNECTION TO A GROUP （HARD TO GET BOTH）？- As you ascend the hierarchy in order to include more and more factions you may for a time preserve the emotional connection though you lose the intellectual。。。you see far and wide， but you see very little。- As the public appeal becomes more and more all things to all men， as the emotion is stirred while the meaning is dispersed， their very private meanings are given a universal application。MESSAGE HAS TO BE SHARED BY THE RIGHT PERSON- The words themselves do not crystallize random feeling。 The words must be spoken by people who are strategically placed， and they must be spoken at the opportune moment。 Otherwise they are mere wind。- symbols are made congenial and important because they are introduced to us by congenial and important people。INNER CIRCLE- There is an inner circle， surrounded by concentric circles which fade out gradually into the disinterested or uninterested rank and file。- But the essential fact remains that a small number of heads present a choice to a large group。UPHEAVAL FOLLOWS THE FALL OF A SYMBOL- The disintegration of a symbol， like Holy Russia， or the Iron Diaz， is always the beginning of a long upheaval。- For the spectacle of a row on Olympus is diverting and destructive。HMMM。。。THIS SEEMS FAMILIAR- They do not like direct taxation。 They do not like to pay as they go。 They like long term debts。 They like to have the voters believe that the foreigner will pay。- Labor leaders have always preferred an increase of money wages to a decrease in prices。 There has always been more popular interest in the profits of millionaires， which are visible but comparatively unimportant，- But that belief will not make the roads prosperous， if the impact of those rates on farmers and shippers is such as to produce a commodity price beyond what the consumer can pay。- Trusted men in a familiar role subscribing to the accepted symbols can go a very long way on their own initiative without explaining the substance of their programs。LIVING IN AN ECHO CHAMBER- These chosen people in their self-contained environment had all the facts before them。 The environment was so familiar that one could take it for granted that men were talking about substantially the same things。 The only real disagreements， therefore， would be in judgments about the same facts。 There was no need to guarantee the sources of information。 They were obvious， and equally accessible to all men。- In the self-contained community one could assume， or at least did assume， a homogeneous code of morals。 The only place， therefore， for differences of opinion was in the logical application of accepted standards to accepted facts。SYSTEM OF CHECKS AND BALANCES A CHECK ON PUBLIC OPINION- "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men，" wrote Madison， "the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed， and in the next place， oblige it to control itself。" - In one very important sense， then， the doctrine of checks and balances was the remedy of the federalist leaders for the problem of public opinion。CONGRESS FAILS TO ATTRACT TALENT- Congress ceased to attract the eminent as it lost direct influence on the shaping of national policy。DO WE REALLY NEED MR。 SMITH TO GO TO WASHINGTON？- There is no systematic， adequate， and authorized way for Congress to know what is going on in the world。 The theory is that the best man of each district brings the best wisdom of his constituents to a central place， and that all these wisdoms combined are all the wisdom that Congress needs。- the sum or a combination of local impressions is not a wide enough base for national policy， and no base at all for the control of foreign policy。BRING IN SOME PROFESSIONALS- the common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely， and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality。- The democratic fallacy has been its preoccupation with the origin of government [i。e voting] rather than with the processes and results。- What determines the quality of civilization is the use made of power。*** *** ***FACTOIDS - bunkum /ˈbəNGkəm / buncombe I。 noun ‹informal› ‹dated› nonsense • they talk a lot of bunkum about their products。– origin mid 19th cent。 （originally buncombe）: named after Buncombe County in North Carolina， mentioned in an inconsequential speech made by its congressman solely to please his constituents （c。 1820）。- Kriegspiel= German word for ‘war game’BONUS- Video on Walter Lippmann， public opinion， and WWI propaganda （long-ish but is a good overview of the book’s contents）: https://youtu。be/e-t77-Zr8poHAHA- [Damn， this book is old。。。] “。。。we maintain embassies in Tokio and Peking” 。。。more

Isaac ，

A few weeks back a podcast I was listening to mentioned that Lippmann coined the modern usage of the word "stereotype" in this book and also briefly discussed how good it was， so I figured I would check it out and I am SO glad I did。I almost started the book over again immediatly after finishing it because it moves so fast and is so dense with ideas。 Lippmann dances across the psychology of how opinions are formed at the individual level based on imperfect information filtered through stereotype A few weeks back a podcast I was listening to mentioned that Lippmann coined the modern usage of the word "stereotype" in this book and also briefly discussed how good it was， so I figured I would check it out and I am SO glad I did。I almost started the book over again immediatly after finishing it because it moves so fast and is so dense with ideas。 Lippmann dances across the psychology of how opinions are formed at the individual level based on imperfect information filtered through stereotypes and our subjective "pseudo-environments"， and on to how it coalesces into public opinion。 He uses Plato and Aristotle to argue that the Hamiltonian basis of the constitution was oligarchical and that it was Jefferson's rhetoric and Jackson's forceful populism that reimagined the founding in terms of this democratic ideal which works for governing rural farm communities but is deeply flawed in terms of the flow of information regarding federal and international policy。He dives into contemporary politics of post-WWI and how politicians Wilson and Harding used carefully worded and cleverly vague/subjective statements to build consensus and support at a level almost divorced from actual substance or policy position。As if that is not enough he also examines the media landscape include the evolution and tactics employed by the "press agent"， the challenges facing the newspaper editor with limited resources in a world of near infinite information to satisfy advertisers and cater to readers whose interests in events are very superficial and generally limited to things of personal interest。He concludes with a reason-based， almost technocratic vision of the future where experts are free to research and develop metrics and data that are available to， but completely divorced from the decisions of policy makers。This book was so good， but also such a damning， cynical look at the idea of democracy that it's almost disorienting。 。。。more

Robert ，

I agreed with many of his main points on stereotyping， democracy， propaganda， and the inability for a potential voter to actually understand beyond their personal realm。 But， man-o-man， this is not what I would call a "fun" read。 Lots of 1920s news references and lots of rambling prose。 I know I'm not the target audience here， but geez liven it up Walter。 I agreed with many of his main points on stereotyping， democracy， propaganda， and the inability for a potential voter to actually understand beyond their personal realm。 But， man-o-man， this is not what I would call a "fun" read。 Lots of 1920s news references and lots of rambling prose。 I know I'm not the target audience here， but geez liven it up Walter。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Public Opinion

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Public Opinion&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Public Opinion&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0