Dewey and the Internet

In the Lippmann verses Dewey ideology war, I agree with some of Lippmann’s sentiments, but have to side with Dewey. Like me, Dewey agreed with Lippmann’s assessment of some of the flaws of journalism and the public’s easy manipulation. However, Dewey recognized that trusting democracy to a few select people is a recipe for disaster and abuse. It also goes against the primary points that differentiate the United States from other nations.

While I agree with Dewey, I think that Alterman summarized the best argument for Lippmann when he wrote:

“Lippmann’s preferred solution was, in essence, to junk democracy entirely. He justified this by arguing that the results were what mattered. Even “if there were a prospect” that people could become sufficiently well-informed to govern themselves wisely, he wrote, “it is extremely doubtful whether many of us would wish to be bothered.”

Especially today, it is clear to me that not everyone wants to be bothered enough to be well informed. People are quick to gloss over important, substantive issues and instead focus on distractions from the issues. Furthermore, with so many news options, I think becoming well informed is becoming more of a challenge. It takes a lot of time to evaluate many news organizations. To be well informed you can’t get all of your information from one place.

So, what could newspapers, television or other traditional media do to create more opportunities for public participation and deliberation?

I think the Huffington Post is on to something. In leveraging the knowledge of its readers to challenge the media, they change the discourse. I think more news agencies could benefit from that type of public participation. With that concept in mind, I believe new media – the Internet specifically, is the most efficient way for the public to participate in democracy and in the news. The Internet allows for the fastest and most collaborative form of information sharing. I am interested to see how that will impact this election.