Thinking about Mass Publics

What are the theoretical, ethical, aesthetical and political challenges associated with mass publics?

Theoretically -- How exactly does one define a mass public, as opposed to a public? It appears that these authors refer to a mass public as a group that's easily swayed by mass media. Publics -- as conceptualized by previous authors -- are groups that engage in critical-rational debate. Of course, publics must get their information from some source, but if it's not the mass media, then it must be all right. The concept of "mass public" looks a lot like the hypdermic needle theory -- the mass public will believe whatever they're told by the mass media. Of course, this theory breaks down on many levels. Most dismiss it because of the rise of Lazarfeld's limited effects theory, but those theorists have come under fire as well. Perhaps, the real reason publics don't really act as mass publics (swayed at the whim of the mass media) is because publics have so many media choices and other opinion leaders. And, at the end of the day they take what propaganda was fed to them -- from various sources -- and make up their own minds.

Ethically -- Bernays insists that manipulating public opinion is actually teaching the public to "ask for what it really wants" and thereby teaching "the public how to safeguard itself against his own possible tyrannous aggressiveness" (p. 960). So, Bernays says we're not manipulating opinion, we're just helping people identify their true beliefs. The notion requires a rather large suspension of disbelief. Bernays argues that making people adopt a certain position is somehow helping them exercise their own free will -- an interesting ethical position. One wonders if Bernays truly believed what he was saying. Of course, Bernays would hope that we not discount this (manufactured?) view the public relations is fundamentally good. Perhaps, he's right. After all, public relations campaigns fail all the time, perhaps because you can't get people to believe something that fundamentally disagrees with their core beliefs. Bernays offers a laundry list of PR success and none of them seem overtly disturbing to core beliefs -- anti-lynching, hat buying, margarine. But, one wonders how Bernays would have responded to the successful propaganda tactics used by the Nazis. Was hatred for the Jews something that the public really wanted? Perhaps this is the difference between a mass and a public -- a mass can be led astray away from their core beliefs (just like a mob) but a public will remain true to their values.

On another ethical matter, Bernays makes a good point. Media leaders hold a great ability to shape public opinion. But, he points out that public opinion was once shaped by kings, tribal chiefs, and religious leaders. As Henry V said, "Dear Kate, you and I cannot be confined within the weak list of a country's fashion: we are the makers of manners, Kate" (Act V, Scene II.) When viewed through this lens, the art of manipulating public opinion can be viewed as democratic, since anyone (who can sway the press) can now work to change public sentiment. Is this ethically defensible?

Aethetically -- Dewey, Cooley and Park are all quite quite skeptical of new media and their effect on culture. None of them viewed film (the newest media at the time) as a cultural improvement. They may have simply been reflecting their times, many early films weren't adding much to their culture. Obviously, they have grown in stature as a truly independent form of art. All new media offer both a benefit and detriment to society. To embrace or dismiss them (radio, television, Internet, cell phones) wholly doesn't really make sense.

Politically -- Assuming that propaganda works to sway mass publics, we must ask how can governments work to make sure their people are swayed by the correct kind of propaganda. First, an acknowledgment that some propaganda is good. Many mass publics have been swayed by good PR -- e.g., civil rights, smoking, and seat belts. Also, an acknowledgment that public schools are the best forum for propaganda in the world. (Bernays says PR is overtly partisan while education "attempts to be disinterested" (p. 959).) But, how does an elected government determine what propaganda is the one which should sway the masses. For instance, some people blame the U.S. obesity epidemic in part on the USDA and their food pyramid that overstated the need for breads. Also, how can we tell what is fact-based propaganda vs. ideology-based propaganda. Who gets to decide? The IPA was criticized because their efforts at identifying propaganda seemed to contain political bias (p. 163). Only capitalists engage in propaganda, never communists or labor unions. Propaganda's easy to spot -- when the propagandist doesn't belong to your political party.


Interesting question: What do we make of Park and his almost theological bend toward sociology? Czitrom said the he treated it as a religion -- "defining unities and wholeness in the modern world" (p. 120) -- and could have easily gone into the seminary. Park's quote: "We have only to open our eyes to see organization; and if we cannot do that no definition will help us." Hmm.