Here's another person's point of view for the time being.
The "free market of ideas" was first put forward by John Milton, a British political critic and writer. Milton believes that truth is obtained through free debate and competition of various opinions, not power. Like a free market, we must let all kinds of ideas, viewpoints and values spread freely in society and let people know the truth through comparison and recognition. The first person to theorize the "free market of ideas" was the British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806- 1873). In his book On Freedom, he pointed out: "We can never be sure that the idea we are trying to kill is a fallacy. Believe with us that killing it is still a fallacy. "
The theory of "free market of opinions" and the related theory of "self-correction of opinions" were later called the theoretical basis of liberal journalism and also the theoretical basis of western press freedom. Although it was revised by American social responsibility theory in 1950s, it still exerted a strong and lasting influence on the western press.
On mimetic environment
Analysis and Criticism of Lippmann's Theory of "Simulated Environment"
Author: Sek Yin-Tsi
Starting with Lipman's analysis of the core concept of public opinion-mimetic environment, this paper gives the author's critical understanding and thinking on Lipman's view of public opinion by analyzing the theoretical presupposition behind Lipman's profound insights and its limitations of the times, combined with our current situation and social conditions.
Mimic environment disseminator audience
Introduction-the setting of the problem
Walter lippmann is the most famous American journalist, social philosopher and columnist in the 20th century. He influenced several generations of American journalists with his profound insight, unique vision and sharp brushwork, and became an important pioneer of news communication theory in the United States and even the world. Lippmann's book Public Opinion (1922) is the earliest work in the history of journalism to systematically sort out, summarize and discuss the phenomenon of public opinion communication. With his extraordinary wisdom, Lippmann exposed the irrational fanaticism and blind faith of the public behind the prosperity of American social journalism and the "democratic feast", broke the false halo of representative truth and correctness hanging over public opinion with convincing theoretical arguments, and profoundly changed the views of later generations on news communication and public opinion. However, times have changed, and our present situation is no longer the era when Lippmann was imprisoned and journalism flourished. Today, with the increasingly developed information and profound changes in the way of human communication and scientific and technological communication, should we still maintain Lippmann-style pessimism and doubt about news communication and public opinion? In today's society, the concept of democracy and freedom as an institutional environment is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, and the mode of revolutionary communication is widely used. Should we revise and change our views on public opinion that everyone is concerned about? Perhaps, it is really necessary for us to reinterpret Lippmann, reinterpret Public Opinion, and at the same time understand its insights and rethink its significance and enlightenment to our present era.
This paper intends to start with lippmann's analysis of the core concept of public opinion-mimetic environment, and try to give the author a new understanding and thinking of lippmann's public opinion by analyzing the theoretical presupposition behind lippmann's profound insights and its limitations of the times, combined with our current situation and social conditions.
First, the theory and analysis of "mimetic environment"
Lippmann pointed out in his famous theory of "mimetic environment" that the real world we know contains our imagination to a great extent. In the pre-modern society where mass communication is underdeveloped, people's activities are very limited, and most of their knowledge and information come from their own direct experience, so our understanding of the outside world is direct. However, with the progress of human society, we receive more and more information every day, and most of them are not directly related to our lives, and it is based on this information that we form our view of the world. Compared with the past, our point of view comes not from direct experience, but from the mimicry (false) environment created by mass media, and then we can understand and imagine a "real" world according to the information obtained from this mimicry environment. The so-called "mimetic environment" is the environment that reminds people after the media selects, processes and reorganizes symbolic events or information. However, because this kind of processing, selection and structuring activities are carried out in places that ordinary people can't see (inside the media), people usually don't realize this, but often regard the "mimetic environment" as the objective environment itself [me]. In the whole process, the news media, as communicators, carefully weaved and drew a picture about the world in a way they understood, and most audiences readily accepted and recognized the picture of the world and (more importantly) the understanding, significance and imagination about the world attached to it, without realizing this process. Perhaps, we should not accuse or even condemn the dishonesty of the news media as communicators, because this process is not even realized by most communicators. Lippmann's greatness and profundity lies in his keen insight into this process and its essence, as well as his keen insight into the larger issues closely related to this process: once the news media as communicators are captured by certain classes or social groups, they become their spokesmen, and even (most commonly) directly attach themselves to the rulers and become their tools to create momentum, it is conceivable what kind of "world" the subsequent public opinion propaganda will weave for the general public. Obviously, unfortunately, moral preaching, beautification propaganda and foolish policies abound in history and reality. It is based on his profound insight into the "mimicry environment" that Lippmann deeply yearns for and longs for social democracy and freedom, but at the same time he is deeply worried and vigilant about the news dissemination under the banner of "democracy and freedom" and the public opinion arising therefrom.
It is true that Lippmann's theory of "mimetic environment" is profound and wise, but it is also obvious that his theory is based on some theoretical preconceptions given to him by his specific era, and these theoretical preconceptions are the reflection of the social reality of his era-institutional environment (such as news system), social concepts (such as democracy and freedom) and scientific and technological conditions (such as media technology). Once we can understand and grasp his theoretical preconceptions and the corresponding social reality, then, combined with the social reality conditions of our current era, we may have some brand-new understanding and views on Lipman's theory of "mimetic environment" and his view of social public opinion. Specifically, the author believes that Lippmann's discussion of the formation process of news communication and public opinion with the theory of "mimetic environment" at least includes these theoretical presuppositions:
First, the disseminator and the audience are completely separated. In Lippmann's view, communicators and audiences are not only simple analytical concepts, but also factual concepts with practical reference. As a disseminator, news media is a special social stratum with its own inherent professional logic, which is composed of a group of "journalists with professional honor, keen sense of smell and profound insight". In its time, this is a group of elites with great social influence. This kind of disseminator class alienated from ordinary audience is often combined with monopoly power, and even the formation of this kind of disseminator class itself is the product of the expansion of political power, which in fact intensifies the separation between disseminator and audience. In addition, Lippmann's clear distinction between communicators and audiences implies the difference between elites and ordinary people. As he further explained the concepts of insiders and outsiders, ordinary people are mostly ignorant outsiders, and those who have received special training and can receive accurate information are insiders. "Only insiders can make decisions ... his position enables him to understand and solve problems and take action." [2] It can be said that the sharp opposition between solidified and simplified communicators and audiences is the primary premise of Lippmann's "mimetic environment".
Secondly, closely related to the first point, Lippmann made an elite hypothesis for the communicator and an irrational hypothesis for the ordinary audience. He quoted Plato's "cave metaphor" to show that the contact between ordinary people and the outside world is detached, one-sided and incomplete. For most people, due to limited communication scope, time and attention, and limited rational ability, they can only trust experts between the public and the wider world, including statisticians, accountants, various industrial consultants and engineers, and of course the media that tell us what is happening in the outside world. The revelation of public limited rationality and the questioning of public opinion caused by it, thus reflecting on the authenticity and correctness of public democracy, undoubtedly make us feel Lippmann's keen and profound. However, limited rationality can not determine the blind and humble fate of human beings, and human beings are always trying to transcend this limitation in various ways, which lippman easily ignores.
Third, the technical assumptions of traditional modes of communication such as newspapers, radio and television. Why can communicators "weave" a picture of the outside world for the people, or in other words, why do people readily recognize and accept this picture revealed by the "elite"? Obviously, we should return to the social reality in the twenties and thirties of last century when Lippmann lived, just as Marx revealed that man can never surpass the material production conditions endowed by historical traditions and reality, as well as his culture and ideas. The accumulation of industrial revolution brought the prosperity of telegraph, telephone, radio communication and printing, and promoted the prosperity of news communication in Lipman era. However, these emerging modes of communication are still luxury goods monopolized by the elite, and the technical threshold of newspapers, radio and even television modes of communication determines that they can only be used by a few communicators. Obviously, this natural differentiation between communicators and audiences determined by technology greatly facilitates the communicators to weave a "world picture" for the people by using their monopoly advantages, and these emerging and attractive media communication methods also greatly enhance the possibility of people accepting this "world picture". The technicality of newspapers, radio and television in Lipman's era not only greatly strengthened the complete separation between the communicator and the audience, but also made the audience be included in the meaning and imagination about the world given by the communicator in a more unconscious and subtle way, which has already achieved Lipman's theory of "mimetic environment".
Secondly, it criticizes the theory of "mimetic environment"
Obviously, we can't use the current social realistic conditions and concepts to demand our predecessors, but we can use the current situation to examine and reflect on their insights and wisdom, thus opening up new thinking. Based on his theoretical presupposition, lippman draws a sad fate of public opinion-the meaning and imagination of the world that the audience can't get rid of. However, is this really the fate that ordinary people cannot get rid of? Is our public opinion really as suspicious and untrue as Lipman described it? The author thinks that after sketching out the theoretical premise and realistic basis of Lippmann's conclusion, we can compare and examine the current social reality, thus answering this question and giving a completely different understanding and understanding from Lippmann:
First and foremost, democracy and freedom in contemporary society, as an ideology, have been deeply rooted in people's hearts, and as an institutional setting, they have become quite mature and perfect. Freedom of speech and expression, as the fundamental premise of news dissemination, is not only written into the constitutions of various countries as a basic right, but also fully guaranteed and implemented in actual social life. Taking contemporary American society as an example, the principles of "obvious and imminent danger" and "actual malice" established by the Federal Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s have greatly expanded the free space of news dissemination at the institutional level. With the protection of constitutional rights, communicators can get rid of the dependence on power and the domination of coercion to a great extent and realize their true "freedom of speech." It can be said that the general and in-depth expansion and shaping of the atmosphere of democracy and freedom is of the greatest significance to modern society, which means real social diversification, personal self-reliance, interest differentiation and social structural balance. In a generally tolerant and free environment, the expression of individual and group interests, value judgments and emotional tendencies is no longer based on the strength of the leading forces behind them. On the contrary, the spirit of equal consultation prevails among subjects, and each subject's appeal is based on the strength of the leading force behind it. The realization of social pluralism just breaks the complete separation of communicators and audiences, followed by the diversification of communication subjects, the diversification of interest expression and the diversification of social concerns, which has contributed to the transformation of communicators from "elite orientation" to "mass orientation" and the transformation of communication content from "single culture" to "multi-culture" and even "civilian culture".
Secondly, the development of science and technology, the emergence and increasing popularity of internet technology and new modes of communication have brought revolutionary changes to news communication. With the emergence of Internet technology, personal communication modes such as personal websites, web pages, bbs platforms and personal blogs have mushroomed, which completely broke the boundaries and scope of traditional media communication modes with its extremely low technical threshold, extremely relaxed free environment and extremely broad communication scope. At the same time, there is no obvious difference between the communicator and the audience. Ordinary people can be both disseminators and audiences of Internet media, which can be said to be dual roles. In the era of online media, it is almost impossible for online media and many ordinary communicators to cover up the truth, weave lies and fool the public with the intention of any hegemonic power. If in the era of traditional media, communicators can weave a picture of the outside world for the audience without consciousness, then in the era of Internet media, everyone can become the broad audience of communicators. When they weave the meaning and imagination about the world for others as communicators, they have increasingly begun to realize this process of "mimicry environment" that they never realized. The author believes that the emergence of the low-threshold communication mode of online media has just opened the gap between the communicator and the audience in Lipman's "mimetic environment" theory. At least in theory, once this gap is opened, the applicability and conclusion of Lippmann's theory of "mimetic environment" in the current social situation will be very suspicious.
Finally, if the above two analyses and conclusions can be established, then the next question is that the applicability of Lippmann's assumption that the general public belongs to irrational people is very problematic. The realization of social diversification and the revolution of internet communication mode, two basic factual premises of our times, have greatly changed people's life, communication and communication methods, that is to say, individual diversified interests, ideas and emotional trends can be expressed freely and equally on various interactive and open media platforms. In the contemporary public communication platform represented by the Internet, the free and equal expression and listening process of the public, which is both the disseminator and the audience, is precisely a process of communication, negotiation, game and compromise. This mode of mass communication based on online media has created a free and equal space for the masses, which is called "public sphere" by Habermas, a contemporary German social philosopher. Persuasion rather than conquest not only improves the rationality of the interlocutor as a whole, but more importantly, this process itself is an effective way for people in modern society to overcome our inherent rational limitations with a collective force [iv]. The result of collective communication based on this "public sphere" obviously overcomes irrational fanaticism and blind obedience, truly reflects people's real thoughts, wishes and demands, and condenses rational and intelligent public opinion. On this basis, public opinion and democracy are obviously a kind of "entity public opinion and democracy" that is rational and truly reflects individual wishes.
Finally, it needs to be added that reinterpreting and criticizing Lippmann's theory of public opinion from the current perspective cannot hide his profound and insightful views as an outstanding journalist. The more fundamental problem is that it is impossible for any theorist to surpass the material life and conceptual and cultural conditions given by his social background. The key significance lies in the profound and keen insights opened by the theorists of each specific time and space for future generations, which is the necessary starting point for future generations to continue their exploration.
About the author: Sek Yin-Tsi (1982-), female, graduate student of journalism theory in 2004 in College of Literature, Jilin University.
Pay attention to and release:
-
[I] [America] Lipman: Public opinion, translated by Lin Shan, Huaxia Publishing House, 1989, p. 89.
[ii][ America] Ronald Steele: Biography of Lippmann, Xinhua Publishing House, 1982, p. 330.
[iii] The US Supreme Court's decision on The New York Times v. Sally Copywriting (1964) is a landmark case in the history of American journalism. The principle of "actual malice" established by the Supreme Court of the United States gives the American news media almost unlimited privileges in criticizing state public officials.
[iv][ Germany] Habermas: "Structural Transformation in Public Fields", translated by Cao Weidong, Lin Xue Publishing House, 1999, see page 2 18-255.
References:
[America] Lippmann: Public Opinion, translated by Lin Shan, Huaxia Publishing House, 1989.
Steele, Ronald. Biography of Lippmann. Xinhua Publishing House. 1982.
[Germany] Habermas: the structural transformation of the public sector. Trans. Cao Weidong, Lin Xue Publishing House, 1999.
Werner Seflin and James Tankard, Jr. Communication Theory, Huaxia Publishing House, 2000.