Don't forget to go to COSA on Wednesday to support your classmates!
This week we move into the final section of our book, "Journalism and Society." The introduction begins, "The reason why people should study journalism—its development, its practices, its performances, its people, its institutions and its critics—is because journalism matters."
The two readings this week other two very different perspectives on American journalism. Compare and contrast de Tocqueville and Lippmann and discuss which argument resonates more strongly today. Then, explore the above statement.
de Tocgueville and Lippmann both wrote very important pieces journalism; de Tocqueville in 1830 and Lippman in the early 1900s.
ReplyDeletede Tocqueville was a conservative supporter of republicanism in France who toured the United States to study the prison system in a democratic society. However instead wrote about the primary institutions and cultured habits of American society. The piece turns out to be about the positive potential of newspapers. The author was impressed by the role of newspapers in civic life and the influence of the media on American society. He compares the research he has done in America to the political and civil life in Europe.
Walter Lippman is known as the first great contemporary commentator on the impact of press performance on society. In his piece, Lippman outlines the limitations of journalism and tries to reduce our expectations about the role the press can play in democracy. His review is much more negative than de Tocqueville's. Lippman presents the problems being part with the press and part with the public. He argues that the public cannot sustain its attention to the critical issues of the day and proposes that people must use general stereotypes in a complex reality to understand.
Both of these authors argue different sides, de Tocqueville is making an analysis of why democracy had succeeded for the United States where as Lippman is making an argument for what is wrong with journalism in democracy and society in general. I think that because Lippman's book is more current, the point is stronger and better. Our society has changed so much since the 1830s that de Tocqueville might have a different opinion today.
The quote from the introduction reads, "The reason why people should study journalism—its development, its practices, its performances, its people, its institutions and its critics—is because journalism matters." This is incredibly true. Journalism does matter. It is a record of what happened and a reflection on a society. I think that the line after that explains it well: "The ways news is reported and distributed has a profound effect on shaping society and the way people live together." What would society be without a news media source?
I agree that Lippmann's argument is stronger today. Journalism is no longer new, which I think makes it much easier to forgets its early positives. The longer something has been around, the more we are willing to criticize it. We make take De Tocqueville's point for advantage because we haven't lived without newspapers or news media. Just like anything else, we should appreciate it's presence while keeping a critical eye to its progress. Time will keep on passing, and change will keep on coming, which means nothing will be the same for long, whether it be good or bad.
DeleteI agree with both Caroline and Sabrina that Lippmann's argument resonates much more today. Although I found both of these selections to be dense and hard to follow in places, I think that I got a general idea of both perspectives. De Tocqueville suggests that newspapers served a democratic function in the early years of the United States by uniting people with similar interests and political perspectives together. As you both point out, American journalism was still in its infancy, and many of the negatives that Lippmann points out in his work had yet to be realized. Lippmann is much more pessimistic about the democratic potential of journalism. He argues that journalism is not a precise depiction of reality but an interpretation, and different opinions drive what news is covered. Despite these limitations, journalism does matter. I think that journalism is a reflection of what a society values. Journalism shapes the reality of a society by what is reported and how it is reported.
DeleteCaroline, this is a really nice post summarizing the contrasting views of de Tocqueville and Lippman. I agree with you that de Tocqueville more or less advocates for the democratic style of the United States when it comes to journalism, whereas Lippman takes this one step further by analyzing the current democratic state and explains his views on the pros and cons of journalism in a democratic society.
DeleteLippman does make strong points and interesting areas of contrast for argument, but I also feel that de Tocqueville essentially laid the ground work for Lippman's views and opinions to be considered "better" and more "beneficial." No matter how you look at it, journalism is a crucial part of society, in particular, our democratic society, and because of this, we are able to analyze different parts of it after learning about the different perspectives and arguments surrounding American journalism and what it means for information or news to be classified as such.
Caroline has a well thought out blog response. She describes De Tocqueville as having the more positive opinion of newspapers and journalism, while Lippmann discusses their failures and limitations. Caroline sides with Lippmann, citing his argument as “stronger,” partly because it is more recent. She suggests De Tocqueville might have views more similar to Lippmann in today’s world. Caroline suggests a quote that is arguable stronger than the one given – “The ways news is reported and distributed has a profound effect on shaping society and the way people live together." She is right in questioning what society would be like without a news media source. Certainly less informed, and therefore less advanced. No matter how much we can point out areas where journalism stands to improve, it still plays a vital role in our day to day lives, informing our decisions and setting the topic for important discussions.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDe Tocqueville illuminates the positive aspect of journalism: uniting a people with common interests. People all over the world who have common ways of thinking may not have known that there were others like them without newspapers to unite them: “The newspaper brought them together, and the newspaper is still necessary to keep them united” (332). De Tocqueville shows the important social aspect amongst a people that the newspaper presented; however, that aspect may not be obtained through newspapers today. That’s where Lippmann comes in. Lippmann points out that newspapers may not be uniting people on such big topics as politics and government, but on social self-serving parts of society. He continues to criticize papers for being a business and only cares about making a profit, not about uniting a people or providing necessary information. Along with this self-serving aspect of newspapers, Lippmann questions the decision-making process as to what goes into the paper and where: “Every newspaper when it reaches the reader is the result of a whole series of selections as to what items shall be printed, in what position they shall be printed, how much space each shall occupy, what emphasis each shall have. There are no objective standards here” (346). I see Lippmann’s point here, and it is often exemplified in late night “news” shows or morning “news,” but the major, legitimate newspapers have established that the front page is for the hard-hitting news.
ReplyDeleteLippmann’s concerns are often discussed today about the media- do the media give us what we want, should they give us what we want? Journalism is big business; does that mean that it only cares about its bottom line? Can there be a happy medium? Lippmann’s concerns are very much still relevant today and we aren’t anywhere near a sufficient answer. Does this mean we should write journalism off and disregard it? No. Like the introduction to this chapter says, “Journalism matters.” It matters because its purpose “to provide the information and intelligence the public needs to be self-governing” is still very relevant. How else is the public to receive information? Facebook? I don’t think so. Journalism may have fallen from its fundamental purpose or it may just have branched out a little, but at the end of the day, journalism most definitely matters.
Sabrina, I think you make a very interesting case, which I too attempted to express in my blog post as well. This point being that, journalism gives us what we want versus should they give us what they want. Regardless, this is an a problem that we, as readers have set up. it is of our own doing. Would you not say that we have become the "lap dog" to media in that sense? I particularly found it interesting that you mention the fact the fundamentals set up by the institutions have changed or "branched out" (i.e. Facebook) but it can be argued that in some respect Facebook does also act as a news source. Perhaps, not as credible as others, but Facebook is certainly expanding and getting newspaper partnerships. Furthermore, the quote you included, " It matters because its purpose “to provide the information and intelligence the public needs to be self-governing”", bothers me to some degree. Would you say that the American public is truly “self-governing”? And if so, are we to credit journalism for that? I happen to think otherwise.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDe Tocqueville suggests that the purpose of American journalism is to bring people together who otherwise would not be able to connect and has helped to further form our society. He believes that even though we serve our own interests as individuals we also understand that our society requires us to sacrifice in order to operate as a whole. Lippmann feels that American journalism forms a series of selections in order to identify with the readers and signalize an event. He also believes that we as citizens do not involve ourself in issues as much as we should, which does not allow for journalism to fulfill it's job of informing us of important news.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Lippmann's argument resonates more strongly today, because we do not read in order to feel closer to people that we do not know and to unite our selves. What we read is strictly based off of our own personal interests. We are more prone to read things that are identifiable to us, where we can place ourselves into the scenario. Also, we as citizens do not care about certain things as much as.
I believe that the above quote is true. Journalism as helped determine and structure our society. It has helped to instill our value and beliefs. Journalism does matter. Works such as de Tocqueville's allow for use to not only how our society used to operate, but it also allows us to see what has survived time.
I most certainly agree that Lippmann's argument resonates more strongly today with the manner in which people react to journalism. De Tocqueville's view seems to be what many journalists would like their pieces to mean to the public, but I'm not so sure that we give reaction that they are looking for. As much as I'd like to agree more with De Tocqueville's idealist view, I have to say that I've seen more proof to validate Lippmann's side.
DeletePeople are innately selfish. As a species, we are built to protect ourselves and survive and I think that this carries across in our actions and personalities now. We are the most concerned with our own well-being and comfort (not that this is necessarily a bad trait). We want to read and involve ourselves in things that personally affect us-whether physically or emotionally. Most often, the further the topic from our scope of relatability, the less interested we are in the story.
Sure, Journalism may be used to inform the public of the events going on, but the stories that are selected to be released are the one that the news organizations believe will be most relatable to the viewers and readers. Gathering together and working on these issues presented may happen, but those with the largest following are usually products of the stories that hit most close to home (anybody remember how many people freaked out when there wouldn't be any more twinkies?). I really would like to think that the media could spark some great movements, but every time I get my hopes up, they just get shot down by some trivial story that has become more popular in following than the news of actual issues that need attention.
De Tocqueville has an ideal belief of journalism while Lippmann has more negative – and still relevant – concerns. Whereas De Tocqueville believes journalism informs and unites the public on important matters, and praises the social aspect of news in bringing us together by setting an agenda and discussion topics, Lippmann questions the role of business in news, asking if audiences are given what they want versus what they need. I believe the truth falls between both of these opposing views. On one hand, journalism is a business at the end of the day and we may find entertainment mixed with news catering to audiences, but ultimately journalism is still the agenda-setter that draws us together due to our knowledge of the same situations affecting us all. Regardless of our differences and factions, we are united by the same successes, threats, etc, reported in the news.
ReplyDeleteThis goes towards addressing the statement, “journalism matters.” Despite the undeniable argument that journalism can and should improve, I cannot imagine a world without journalism, which has certainly played a role in human society reaching this point. If journalism is a record of events that transpired, and it is important for society to study its history to prevent repeating mistakes, then journalism is of vital importance. The development, practice, performance, people, institutions and critics of journalism deserve to be studied so that we may reach De Tocqueville’s ideal as opposed to Lippmann’s reality.
Alexis De Tocqueville and Walter Lippmann had different idea on the role of journalism in American society. Tocqueville, who looked at was looking at the American system as an example of success, saw that journalism played a positive role to unite the country. In his opinion, American journalism maintained democracy, equality, and freedom. It also served as a way to unite citizens across the country.
ReplyDeleteLippmann’s view of American democracy is more pessimistic, but has some similarities to De Tocqueville’s argument. Like De Tocqueville, Lippmann addresses the extent to which newspapers and journalism reach a large audience and play a powerful role in democracy and society. They both saw news as a way to create action. According to De Tocqueville, news was a way for the population to unite in their actions. Lippmann argues that truth creates a picture of reality on which men can act. He writes, “The function of news is to signalize an event, the function of truth is to light the hidden facts, to set them into realization with each other, and make a picture of reality on which men can act.” If news and journalism were successful in relaying the truth, then it is a way for the population to choose their actions.
However, Lippmann points out the many flaws made by reporters/newspapers in informing the public. He states that the majority of the time reporters only get one side of the story, or an abbreviated version of it. Also altering from De Tocqueville’s argument are Lippmann’s ideas on the origin of news. He states that news come from recorded data, and the certainty of news is correlation to the system of record. Information not recorded and reported as opinions or not considered news at all.
These two authors demonstrate what was stated in the quote from the beginning of the chapter, that journalism is important. As we can see by reading their work, journalism unites the population, ensures liberty, and has the power to change our opinions and actions.
I agree with Allison regarding both of the readings with how journalism today has the power to shift our opinions one way or another. One of the main points both authors addressed was how newspapers fit into our democracy today, arguing if they media does a good catering to the public. While I was reading the two passages, it made me think back to when we discussed how some European newspapers color code their papers in order to relate to a certain political party or belief system. I am very happy our country does not produce journalism this way, because this gives more freedom to the readers to have a reaction to what is being said.
DeleteI also liked how Allison pointed out the flaws that Lippmann mentioned about the reporters to the public. By only getting one side a story, and then reporting on it, this can lead to some skepticism in the news today. However, I feel with almost any story in the media, it is hard to capture all of the little details that you may never find out which should not restrict some newspapers from producing their stories. These newspapers are going to try their best to cater to their audience, and put stories in that will help sell their papers as well.
While it can be argued that De Tocqueville has a much more idyllic sense of journalisms role when compared to Lippmann, it is important that we keep in mind the time frame that surrounds both these authors. Although Lippmann may be more critical and perhaps sheds a negative light on the role of journalism in regard to having similar qualities to that of business. I happen to think that Lippman and De Tocqueville’s criticisms and opinions are very much relevant to today’s world of journalism, despite the time period around both writers. In regard to Lippmann’s criticism, journalism is very much business oriented because journalist and/or editors want readers however, similar to De Tocqueville’s point, journalist have found a way to encourage discussion, engage their audience through the text, and have, so to speak, “set an agenda.” News, regardless of one’s own definition of what it is or what its role is, effects every single person in some way or another. As far as agenda setting is concerned and the problems that may perhaps arise from it are indeed of our own doing, as the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin also touches upon, in which he is asked “Well, Doctor, what have we got-a monarchy or a republic?” which he responds, “A republic-if you can keep it.” This quote is from 1787, is very much relevant to Lippmann’s central idea. Despite the issues and/or problems with modern Journalism that we have discussed in class, Journalism’s true purpose, in my eyes, is record keeping. It is important to study journalism, simply, because it “matters” to see where we have started and where we are at now and how it is that we got here. Furthermore, to study journalism allows us to examine whether or not “its development, its practices, its performances, its people, its institutions and its critics” are indeed of our own doing.
ReplyDeleteFor this week's reading, we have encountered the final section of "Key Readings in Journalism". In this section, it is debated whether or not the press fulfill it's potential of contributing to American democracy, or whether it falls short. The two authors, Tocqueville and Lippman, offer contrasting arguments to support either side of the argument. Tocqueville says that "nothing but a newspaper can drop the same thought into a thousand minds at the same moment." Tocqueville argues that newspapers maintain civilization because they foster equality and common activity between the people of a society, ultimately uniting them as one. He says that the abundance of both national and local papers accomplishes the goal of uniting Americans together this way. The power of newspapers in America is that it offers everyone a chance to become educated and then formulate his or her own opinions and reflections on the matter afterwards. Lippmann, on the otherhand, offers a more negative opinion on the role newspapers play in America. He believes that "newspapers do not try to keep an eye on all mankind" because reporters simply cannot be everywhere at all times, reporting the news from their own experience. Instead, Lippmann writes how various sources, like Police Headquarters, the White House, the Senate, or "interested parties" often make a lot of 'news' happen and these powerful entities often give shape to facts. As a result of this, Lippmann believes that "news and truth are not the same thing, and must be clearly distinguished." After reading each section, I found that both arguments seemed to hold some validity to them. I also noticed that the times at which these men wrote their pieces was a long time ago when journalism was a much different entity than it is today. But the debate as to whether or not newspapers and journalism function in a democracy only has one prevailing side, in my opinion. Afterall, journalism was birthed as a way to inform the public--it is built directly for the average person to read and take something away from it. It cannot be denied that journalists like Woodward and Bernstein strove to fulfill this initial mission of journalism. But I think that Lippmann's arguments still hold validity in that the reader should always be skeptical and question the news they are fed because powerful groups of people with agendas can most certainly infiltrate news and transform it from fact to fiction.
ReplyDeleteDe Tocqueville, argues that the American form of journalism is one that has shaped and still continues to shape the American society. Through De Tocqueville’s research of American society and how it reacts to prison systems, he learned that American people are willing to take tradeoffs in return for the different rights and liberties that are afforded by the American people. De Tocqueville ended up changing the aim of his study, later focusing on American newspapers and how they play a role in American society, which he found to be positive institution, partly because it serves as the voice for the American people. Overall, De Tocqueville was pleased by the role newspapers played in American society and he found it worthwhile to compare politics and civics in Europe to that of America.
ReplyDeleteLippman, on the other hand, is more critical of the role the media plays in American society. For example, he argues that the media is actually more limited than De Tocqueville says it is, saying that media actually plays a smaller role in democracy than what is expected. Lippman argues that this problem is not created by a singular force, but rather by the American people and the media. Lippman says that the problem is created because people do not appreciate the news in such a fashion, because the public will not pay attention long enough to get the jist of the story.
I agree with De Tocqueville, I view journalism still as the one force that places a check on the government for the American people. Although Lippman does present a strong argument by speaking to what Americans actually want, I believe journalism matters because makes people feel that they are informed on what’s important.
I agree that American journalism is a necessary and unifying force, especially for a democracy, its my feeling that its duties have become less and less satisfied over the years. I am in full agreement with your last point; journalism is the only force that is able to align a nation's thinking en masse. I'm unsure if that is happening at the moment.
DeleteAfter some of the things we've looked at in class, "The State of the News" primarily, we see an industry under a tremendous amount of stress. Reporters are tasked with timeliness, intrigue and honesty all in a day's deadline -- but the truth takes much longer than that. Woodward and Bernstein spent months digging through sources to uproot Watergate, something that was inarguably important. When most industry leaders are wondering how to keep their head above the water, it may not be inaccurate to say we're witnessing the death of investigative journalism.
There's been progressively more "stuff" put between fact and paper in the last decade, too. When a reporter mounts up on capitol hill, ready to bag the next headline, does he talk to the president? An official? Nope, he'll probably speak to a PR guy or similar figure who was told what to say and what to omit. We all know how whisper down the lane works, and how it doesn't. I agree with you: Journalism does inform the public, and that's a good thing. But they should be informed with unfiltered, from-the-tap information, no buffers, no middle-men.
Fashion reporting and "thigh-gap" style stories have probably been around for... 60/70 years? (Total guess). I can't speak to their prominence through time in an informed way. But let's face it: entire divisions of news are dedicated to reporting on asinine storytelling. De Tocqueville is right in saying that our journalism shapes our values, and in some cases that can lead to lip-biting realizations that our nation's interests are clouded, if a bit left-of-center.
After reading the two articles by De Tocqueville and Lippmann, I think that it is obvious to tell them both views that were polar opposites from each other. Tocqueville wrote about a time where journalism was used to sort of unify people who share a common interest, logic, or perspective on certain events, or issues. I felt De Tocqueville painted an optimistic light on what journalism and the newspaper, as a whole could do for society. Lippmann on the other hand had more of pessimistic view about the newspaper and journalism and its influence on society and the media. Lippmann feels as though journalism has turned into a business. Newspaper organizations worried more about selling papers than to truly inform the public on important issues. In class a few weeks ago, we talked about newspapers customizing themselves to incorporate the interest of the majority to obtain bigger audiences. Lippmann is very much against that, blaming both the society for wanting that in their paper, and the papers for indulging society.
ReplyDeleteI think Lippmann’s argument is more relevant to today, and the type of journalism we are exposed to. In a time where Newspapers are struggling, they are thinking of whatever they can do to sell papers and become relevant again. The most common way to sell papers is to sell a paper that has commonality with the interest of bigger audiences and the majority, and I believe that is the very thing Lippmann is arguing against in his article.
I agree, Trey. It's pretty obvious that De Tocqueville and Lippmann offer two opposite view points, with De Tocqueville advocating for American journalism and Lippmann countering De Tocqueville by arguing that American journalism does not have as much power as we all originally expect.
DeleteAlso, I agree that Lippmann's beliefs are more relevant today, a time when the media will do anything to gain viewership. For example, Fox News and MSNBC are two of the best example, because they will pretty much do/say anything to satisfy their respective audiences. Albeit controversial, or biased, the way they tell the news seems to be an effective way of keeping a strong audience for the two organizations.
In this week’s readings, we discovered two very different opinions on what role the American press plays in our democracy, and how sources such as newspapers can be seen as a positive or negative thing. Both authors, Tocqueville and Lippmann offer strong points while defending their arguments; however I believe that Lippman’s argument resonates stronger today. When looking at the role of newspapers today in our society, Lipmann’s view on them is very negative compared to Tocqueville. The main idea behind Lipmann’s argument is that the newspapers do offer the entire truth to the audience because there is too much going on in some stories to know everything. Lippmann said, “The task of deflating these controversies, and reducing them to a point where they can be reported as news, is not a task which the reporter can perform.” (Lippmann, 348) This quote reminded me of the film we watched in class, All the President’s Men, because there was so many times that both Bernstein and Woodward thought they had a lead on something, but before you knew it, they found more information on the scandal, and had to continue to dig deeper and deeper. Just as in the film, people were constantly questioning the legitimacy of what Bernstein and Woodward were reporting on, which I also think happens today. The way in which Lippmann believes that papers will pretty much put any story in their paper that will help sell their product, this leads to a certain belief of doubt that readers can have about newspapers in our society.
ReplyDeleteEverybody seems to agree that De Tocqueville and Lippmann had contrasting views about the benefits of journalism on our countries society, but I think that in the end they are both partially correct on different levels.
ReplyDeleteDe Tocqueville states that jounralism unifies society by giving the American people a common voice with a strong opinion on matters both political and social. As well, journalism provides a common interest for everyone, as it doesn't appeal to only a single market or type of person.
Lippmann, who wrote his piece much later, seems to be making a contradictory point, but one that is not related to the same topics as De Tocqueville. much of Lippman's arguments seem to be about the content that people view within journalism. It appears as if Lippman does not like the journalistic tradition of focusing on the negative, and creating news out of dire situations. He states immediately in his writings that "newspapers do not try to keep an eye on all mankind," rather news happens in only certain crucial locations in society. It happens in places where important decisions are made, not where the common man goes about his business.
In the end both authors are partially correct in their statements, but I believe that both pieces aren't meant to reflect the same subject matter. I could be wrong in my perspective, but I am trying to find a different angle to view these writings from than everyone else is.
I agree that both authors aren't really reflecting the same subject matter. De Tocqueville really focused on what Journalism does for us as a society and pin pointing all the contributions it has made. I really feel that he more so was amazed that even though from the outside looking in Americans are often viewed as egotistical, but still individually we are willing sacrifice to preserve the order. Lippmann on the other hand speaks about the errors of society and journalism when it comes to news. He feels that we are not getting what we need, but instead what we want and that this fault falls on us and journalism.
DeleteIt appears that Alexis De Tocqueville main argument in this chapter is that newspapers bring us together, and create and maintain civilization. She also believes that without newspapers, there would be no "common activity." Therefore, we would not find "common ground" in order to connect and relate to others. Walter Lippmann appears to be saying that newspapers feed our individual interests in order to satisfy those individual pleasures. He also suggests that people aren't very interested or motivated in politics/debates and resolving societal problems. People seem to be more interested in solving their own problems rather than solving the larger, societal whole.
ReplyDeleteI do believe journalism is important. I do believe journalism has helped shape society and is able to bring people together. I have learned this from reading about the various events in history that newspapers have reported on. Newspapers have considerable impact, value, and hope in keeping our world stable. I often think about the contributions of Nelly Bly and Woodworth and Bernstein in keeping and maintaining the order in our world. I do understand journalism's important, valued, and hopeful role in our society.
However now, I feel like journalism is losing its valued promise and hope that it once had given us. I feel as though journalism is losing the vision it initially had. I think this is why I may have not had a great appreciation for journalism because I knew somewhere deep down within me that this isn't what journalism is supposed to be. Now after learning about journalism's historic past, contributions, and impacts in this class, I think I recently found that appreciation I was looking for. After reading about the initial vision, I said "yes, this is the reason, and this is what journalism is supposed to be about."
Journalism's initial vision may be clouded and I may have lost some appreciation of the practice. However, I still carry a hope that we can re-realize the vision once more and bring it in to light once again.
Now, the question to go on from here is "How can we bring back this light? What can we do? What must we do? How do we go about doing it?"