Around the time of World War One and Two, Communication research largely focused on the influence of propaganda. One question that researchers sought to answer was: how can communication be utilized to create behavioral changes?Governments felt that if they were to function efficiently, they could only do so with the coordinated cooperation of their citizens. Through the use of propaganda, governments could ensure that a nation functioned to meet its goals, but could also lead to crushing individuals' ability to shape their own lives and their own consciousness. Research into this area greatly expanded mass communication research in the twentieth century.

This chapter approaches the question of propaganda, from the perspective of someone that many have called one of the "fathers of communication," Walter Lippmann.

Early Experiences of Walter Lippmann (1889-1974)

Walter Lippmann was born in 1889 and spent much of his youth exploring arts such as painting and music, travelling to Europe, and acquiring a particular interest in reading, all due to his family’s secure economic status (Weingast, 1949). By the time he entered Harvard in the fall of 1906, Lippmann had been exposed to a wide array of ideas and had been well prepared for the challenging work that lay ahead of him at school. It was at Harvard that the first influences on Lippmann’s work and theoretical approach first appeared.

Lippmann was influenced by the social thinkers of the time such as George Santayana, William James, and Graham Wallas. It is impossible to understand Lippmann's own thought without some grounding in the perspectives popular at Harvard and elsewhere. He was influenced by the move toward an American pragmatic approach, as well as socialist thinkers of the time.

William James (1842-1910)

Many consider William James to be one of the most prominent influences on Lippmann while at Harvard (Weingast, 1949; Steel, 1999). The two scholars first met when Lippmann published an article in the Illustrated, a Harvard campus magazine. Lippmann's article, written as a response to a book of Barrett Wendell's, was a commentary on social justice and the plight of the common man. James was intrigued by Lippmann's article and surprised Lippmann by approaching him. The two became friends, and Lippmann's regular conversations with James profoundly influenced his future work.

William James is perhaps best known for his theoriesof pragmatism. James (1907) defines the pragmaticmethod as, "The attitude of looking away from firstthings, principles, 'categories,' supposednecessities; and of looking toward last things,fruits, consequences, fact" (p. 29). He showed howpragmatism is related to truth, and truth is thatwhich can be verified. "True ideas are those that wecan assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify"(James, 1907, p. 88). In this way, James (1907)suggested that the understanding of the worldis based on enduring, significant perceptions ofthe effects of the objects that surround individuals. AlthoughLippmann strayed from the practice of pragmatism inhis own work, there were ideas that he took fromJames' theories and applied to his own life. Steel(1999) claims that one of these ideas was that ofmeliorism, or the idea that "things could beimproved, but never perfected" (p. 18). Another is practicality, orthe idea that "men had to make decisions withoutworrying about whether they were perfect" (Steel, 1999, p. 18).

The themes of meliorism and practicality are indeedevident in Lippmann’s thought and writing. Throughout many years of writing, Lippmann'sopinions on the issues of the public and theirrelationship to government tended to waver. Forexample, according to Weingast (1949), Lippmanninitially supported the idea that governmentintervention in the economy was necessary,specifically through the provision of public projectsto support employment during times of economichardship. However, when Franklin D. Roosevelt presentedhis New Deal, which included more governmentintervention in the public arena, Lippmann did not support the program (Weingast, 1949). Lippmann (1936) wavered in his viewson socialism as well.

It is doubtful that his constant changes of opinionwere purposeful; rather they served asevidence of James' influence on Lippmann's work. Byaccepting the ideas of meliorism and practicality, itcould potentially mean that one is always striving tofind the next best solution; that when one theoryfails, another can be developed to take its place. By questioning himself and his beliefs,Lippmann was advancing his own theories andfinding new ways of understanding his surroundings.

George Santayana (1863-1952)

Santayana was a philosopher at Harvard who alsoinfluenced the work of Lippmann. Santayana’s theoriesrevolved around the idea of the essence of objects,which Munson (1962) defined as the "datum ofintuition" (p. 8). Santayana was interested in uncovering the various essences thatmade up human life: those values which could beuncovered and then tied to human experience (Steel,1999). This outlook is a sharp contrast to the theories ofJames, which Lippmann had already been exposed to. Steel (1999) explained that while James focused on theidea of moral relativism, or the ability to createtruth from observation, Santayana was focusing on the"search for absolute moral values that could bereconciled with human experience" (p. 21).

Santayana’s influence on Lippmann is evident in hislater work. Tied to Santayana’s ideas of the"essence" of humanity and life, were his ideas thatdemocracy could result in a tyranny of the majority(Steel, 1999, p. 21). This idea is easily related toLippmann's later writings in Phantom Public (1925). Phantom Public examines the American public within ademocratic system. Lippmann (1925) expresses hisideas that the majority of the American public isuneducated in public issues, easily manipulatedinto siding with the majority, and therefore, plays a very limited role in the democratic process. In relation to democracy, Lippmann states, "Thus thevoter identified himself with the officials. He triedto think that their thoughts were his thoughts, thattheir deeds were his deeds, and even in somemysterious way they were a part of him…. It preventeddemocracy from arriving at a clear idea of its ownlimits and attainable ends" (p. 148). Lippmann (1925)shows that within a democratic system themajority is actually suppressed by the minorityopinion. It is this overwhelming suppression of thepublic opinion within a democratic system that seemsto represent Santayana’s influence on Lippmann. IfSantanyana argued that democracy would result in atyranny of the majority,Lippmann (1925) supported this idea by showing thatpublic opinion caused little influence on a democraticsystem that was actually controlled by the educatedelite.

Graham Wallas (1858-1952)

Graham Wallas, a founder of the Fabian Society, wasanother predecessor to Lippmann’s work (Steel, 1999). Wallas is perhaps best known for his work Human Nature in Politics (1981). The political viewsexpressed in this book helped toshape Lippmann’s later thoughts about the relationshipbetween the public and its environment.

Wallas (1981) expresseshis thoughts on the public’s understanding of theirsurroundings. He states that the universepresents the public with, "an unending stream ofsensations and memories, every one of which isdifferent from every other, and before which, unlesswe can select and recognize and simplify, we muststand helpless and unable to either act or think. Manhas therefore to create entities that shall be thematerial of his reasoning" (p. 134). In this way,Wallas was showing that the public is incapable ofunderstanding their environment; the stimuli that theyare presented with are too numerous to gain awell-versed understanding. Steel (1999) claims thatthis idea was one of Wallas’ greatest influences onthe future work of Lippmann, particularly in PublicOpinion (1922). In this work, Lippmann (1922)expanded upon Wallas’ original ideas about therelationship between the public and their environment,and was able to show that the public was not able totake in all of the knowledge from their environmentthat would truly be needed to affect their governance.

Aside from inspiring Lippmann to examine therelationship between the public and the environment,Wallas can also be credited with influencing Lippmannto break his ties with the Socialist school of thought(Steel, 1999). Until his interactions with Wallas,Lippmann had held strong socialist beliefs, based notonly upon his experiences at school, but also upon thewritings of Karl Marx.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)

Karl Marx was particularly concerned with explainingthe class struggles that existed in society (Rogers,1994). His most well-known works were Das Kapital(Capital) and The Communist Manifesto. Through theseworks, Marx explained his theories about the struggleof the working class, their alienation from theirwork, and their need to rebel against the elite inorder to take ownership for their actions and gainpower (Rogers, 1994). Marxism explained the way thateconomic forces create changes in society, and theneed for the creation of a communist system to restoreequality to that system (Rogers, 1994).

While at Harvard, Lippmann read Marx’sideas on communism, and chose to support the ideologyof socialism (Steel, 1999). Lippmann also joined the Fabianswhile at school. They were a group which urged for theempowering of the middle-classes, rather than theover-throwing of the elite, in order to create socialequality (Steel, 1999). Unlike Marxists, however, theFabians still believed in the presence of anintellectual elite (Steel, 1970). This theme ispresent in Lippmann’s Phantom Public (1925). In thispiece of literature, Lippmann (1925) explains thatsociety is truly dominated by an intellectual elite,even when they might think that they are following asystem of majority rule. "…it is hard to say whethera man is acting executively on his opinions or merelyacting to influence the opinion of someone else, whois acting executively" ( Lippmann, 1925, p. 110).

Marx also claimed that mass media is used as a tool bythe elite social classes to control society (Rogers,1994). This theme is evident in Lippmann’s Public Opinion (1922), which explained that it was the massmedia who determined what information the public couldaccess, and how the limitation of such access could inturn, shape public opinion.

The remnants of Marxism are present inLippmann’s later works, such as Public Opinion andPhantom Public. By 1914, Lippmann was no longer asupporter of the implementation of socialism on alarge scale (Steel, 1999). With his publication ofDrift and Mastery (1914), Lippmann denounced the useof socialism (Steel, 1999). Furthermore, hispublication of Good Society (1936) was essentially acriticism of the very theories of socialism that hehad once supported. By this point, Lippmann (1936)recognized the error in the socialist theories; thefact that even by putting an end to private ownershipand developing collective property, people stillmay not know how to properly distribute resourceswithout exploitation. Lippman (1936) claims "This isthe crucial point in the socialist argument: the wholehope that exploitation, acquisitiveness, socialantagonism, will disappear rests upon confidence inthe miraculous effect of the transfer of titles" (p.72). Lippmann’s wavering views on socialism areimportant. They clearly affect how Lippmann seesthe relation between man, his environment, and hisgovernment. These themes will be prevalent inLippmann’s theories, as he explains how and why thepublic is subject to manipulation.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939)

Aside from his reading of Karl Marx, Lippmann was alsoinfluenced by the readings of other academics. Ofparticular importance to the work of thepropaganda/mass communication theorists in general wasthe work of Sigmund Freud. Freud’s influence can beseen not only in the work of Lippmann, but also in thework of Lippmann’s contemporaries.

Sigmund Freud was initially trained as a medicaldoctor and later founded psychoanalytic theory(Rogers, 1994). Of particular importance topsychoanalytic theory was the understanding of anindividual’s mind. According to Rogers (1994), Freudwas able to divide the human consciousness into threestates; the conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. The conscious consists of those things which we knowabout ourselves, the preconscious consists of thosethings which we could pay conscious attention to if weso desired, and the unconscious consists of thosethings which we do not understand or know aboutourselves (Rogers, 1994). From these three levels ofindividual analysis, Freud attempted to understandhuman behavior. Both Freud’s general theories ofpsychoanalysis, as well as one of Freud’s writings inparticular, The Interpretation of Dreams, came to beof particular importance to the propaganda theorists.

The Interpretation of Dreams dealt with the idea thatdreams are a form of wish fulfillment; they representa desire of the unconscious that can be achievedduring sleep through the creation of a dream tofulfill a need (Levin, 1929). Lippmann applied thisidea to his work in Public Opinion (1922). In Public Opinion, Lippmann (1922) stressed the idea of “TheWorld Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads” (p. 3). This concept involves the idea that a person’sperceptions of an event or situation may not matchwhat is actually happening in their environment(Lippman, 1922). This idea was influenced by The Interpretation of Dreams, in that Lippmann used thisbook to develop his idea of a “pseudo-environment”that existed in the minds of individuals (Rogers,1994, p. 234).

Bernays' (1928) understanding of human motives wasalso based on the study of Freud’s work. Bernays was Freud's nephew, and at various times in his life the American travelled to Vienna to visit with his uncle. Bernays had a special interest in adopting psychoanalytic theory into his public relations work, and this influenced his thinking in relation to public opinion. InPropaganda, Bernays (1928) claims it is theFreudian school of thought that recognized "man's thoughts and actions are compensatorysubstitutes for desires which he has been obliged tosuppress" (p. 52). Bernays (1928) goes on to showthat propagandists cannot merely accept the reasonsthat men give for their behavior. If they are trulyhiding their real motives, as Freud suggests, then"the successful propagandist must understand the truemotives and not be content to accept the reasons whichmen give for what they do" (Bernays, 1928, p. 52). Bygetting to the root of a man’s wants and needs,Bernays suggests that propaganda can become moreeffective and influential.

Overall, Freud’s theories were a strong guidingframework for understanding individuals. By helpingtheorists such as Lasswell, Lippmann, Bernays, andEllul to understand individuals, Freud was alsohelping them to understand the public that they aimedto manipulate.

The Theories of Walter Lippmann

While at Harvard, Lippmann had first-hand exposure to the theories of William James,George Santayana, and Graham Wallas. He had also read the works of Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx. While some applications of Lippmann’s predecessors’ideas to his research have already been discussed, itis important to examine the overall theories of WalterLippmann.

Following his time at Harvard, Lippmann decided topursue a career in journalism. He had focused on thestudy of philosophy at Harvard. By 1910 he haddropped out of their graduate program and was ready topursue a career (Steel, 1999). Lippmann started hiscareer by working for Lincoln Steffens, writingprimarily about socialism and issues on Wall Street(Rogers, 1994). Following his time with Steffens,Lippmann began work on an elite intellectual magazineknown as the New Republic (Rogers, 1994). Lippmannworked on New Republic for nine years, and as his timethere came to an end, he began to publish hismost prominent pieces of literature (Rogers, 1994).

Public Opinion

Public Opinion (1922) is perhaps Lippmann’s mostwell-known work. It was in this piecethat Lippmann first began to develop and explain histheories on the formation of public opinion. Lippmann(1922) begins this book by describing a situation in1914, where a number of Germans, Frenchmen, andEnglishmen were trapped on an island. They have noaccess to media of any kind, except for once everysixty days when the mail comes, alerting them tosituations in the real world. Lippmann explains thatthese people lived in peace on the island, treatingeach other as friends, when in actuality the war hadbroken out and they were enemies (Lippmann, 1922).

The purpose of the above anecdote is to develop theidea of "The World Outside and the Pictures in OurHeads" (Lippmann, 1922, p. 3). Throughout Public Opinion, Lippmann (1922) explains the way that ourindividual opinions can differ from those that areexpressed in the outside world. He develops the ideaof propaganda, claiming that "In order to conductpropaganda, there must be some barrier between thepublic and the event" (Lippmann, 1922, p. 28). Withthis separation, there is the ability of the media tomanipulate events or present limited information tothe public. This information may not match thepublic’s perception of the event. In this way,Lippmann was essentially presenting some of the firstviews on the mass communication concepts ofgatekeeping and agenda-setting, by showing the media’spower to limit public access to information.

Lippmann (1922) showed how individuals use tools suchas stereotypes to form their opinions. “In puttingtogether our public opinions, not only do we have topicture more space than we can see with our eyes, andmore time than we can feel, but we have to describeand judge more people, more actions, more things thanwe can ever count, or vividly imagine…We have to pickour samples, and treat them as typical” (Lippmann,1922, p. 95). Lippmann shows that the public is leftwith these stereotypical judgments until the mediapresents limited information to change theirperception of an event. Rogers (1994) claims thatin this way, Lippmann was showing us that "...thepseudo-environment that is conveyed to us by the mediais the result of a high degree of gatekeeping in thenews process" (p. 237). Lippmann recognized that themedia was altering the flow of information, bylimiting the media content that was presented to thepublic. Furthermore, Lippmann presents the idea ofagenda-setting, as he recognizes that the mass mediais the link between individual perceptions of a world,and the world that actually exists (Rogers, 1994).

Phantom Public

Phantom Public(1925) focused on describing the characteristics ofthe public itself. Lippmann (1925) usedthis book to show the public’s inability to have vastknowledge about their environment, and therefore, toshow their failure to truly support a position. Lippmann (1925) gives a harsh view of the generalpublic, stating, "The individual man does not haveopinions on public affairs... I cannot imagine how hecould know, and there is not the least reason forthinking, as mystical democrats have thought, that thecompounding of individual ignorances in masses ofpeople can produce a continuous directing force inpublic affairs" (p. 39). This book seemed to showthat democracy was not truly run by the public, butrather, was being controlled by an educated elite. The public could not be truly well informed, so theywere easily convinced to side with an educatedminority, while convincing themselves that they wereactually in a system of majority rule. Lippmann(1925) claims that the book aimed to "...bring thetheory of democracy into somewhat truer alignment withthe nature of public opinion... It has seemed to me thatthe public had a function and must have methods of itsown in controversies, qualitatively different fromthose of the executive men" (p. 197).

Other Writings

Lippmann also published a number of other books thatdealt primarily with his political thoughts regardingthe public. These included A Preface to Politics(1913) and Good Society (1936). While these works areimportant toward understanding Lippmann’s thoughts onthe relation of the public to their government, Public Opinion and Phantom Public held most of Lippmann’stheories that were relevant to mass communicationresearch.

Future Career Path

Aside from his major works of literature, Lippmann wasperhaps best known for his "Today and Tomorrow"column, which he began publishing in 1931 in the New York Herald Tribune (Weingast, 1949). This columngave Lippmann complete freedom of expression, and theability to write about such topics as history,government, economics, and philosophy (Weingast,1949). Although the column tended to appeal to alimited American audience, it dealt with a widevariety of important issues. Weingast (1949)estimates that only 40% of American adults couldunderstand Lippmann’s column, and only 24% could beconsidered regular readers of the column (p. 30). However, it is this column that still must berecognized for helping Lippmann’s ideas to gainpopularity.

Lippmann’s various works led him to a great manyopportunities to work with important figures inhistory. In 1918, he was given the ability to assistPresident Woodrow Wilson in writing the FourteenPoints, which helped to restore peace afterWorld War One (Rogers, 1994). Of more importance tocommunication studies, Lippmann was also given theopportunity to publish and present propaganda inEurope to support the acceptance of the FourteenPoints on an international scale (Steel, 1999). It isthrough this work that some of Lippmann’s ties toHarold Lasswell can be observed.

Harold Lasswell (1902-1978)

As Lippmann was writing propaganda, Harold Lasswellwas undertaking empirical analyses of propaganda. Infact, much of the propaganda that Lasswell wasexamining was actually being written by Lippmannhimself (Rogers, 1994).

Harold Lasswell (1902–1978) was a prominent scholar inthe area of propaganda research. He focused onconducting both quantitative and qualitative analysesof propaganda, understanding the content ofpropaganda, and discovering the effect of propagandaon the mass audience (Rogers, 1994). Lasswell iscredited with creating the mass communicationprocedure of content analysis (Rogers, 1994). Generally, content analysis can be defined as, "...theinvestigation of communication messages bycategorizing message content into classifications inorder to measure certain variables" (Rogers, 1994). In an essay entitled "Contents of Communication,"Lasswell (1946) explains that a content analysisshould take into account the frequency with whichcertain symbols appear in a message, the direction inwhich the symbols try to persuade the audience’sopinion, and the intensity of the symbols used. Byunderstanding the content of the message, Lasswell(1946) aims to achieve the goal of understanding the"stream of influence that runs from control tocontent and from content to audience" (p. 74).

This method of content analysis is tied strongly toLasswell's (1953) early definition of communicationwhich stated, "Who says what in which channel to whomand with what effects" (p. 84). Content analysis wasessentially the 'says what' part of this definition,and Lasswell went on to do a lot of work within thisarea during the remainder of his career.

Lasswell's most well-known content analyses were anexamination of the propaganda content during World WarOne and Two. In Propaganda Technique in the World War,Lasswell (1938) examined propaganda techniques througha content analysis, and came to some strikingconclusions. Lasswell (1938) was similar to Ellul, inthat he showed that the content of war propaganda hadto be pervasive in all aspects of the citizen’s lifein order to be effective. Furthermore, Lasswell(1938) showed that as more people were reached by thispropaganda, the war effort would become moreeffective. "...[T]he active propagandist is certain tohave willing help from everybody, with an axe to grindin transforming the War into a march toward whateversort of promised land happens to appeal to the groupconcerned. The more of these sub-groups he can firefor the War, the more powerful will be the uniteddevotion of the people to the cause of the country,and to the humiliation of the enemy" (Lasswell, 1938,p. 76).

Aside from understanding the content of propaganda,Lasswell was also interested in how propaganda couldshape public opinion. This dealt primarily withunderstanding the effects of the media. Lasswell wasparticularly interested in examining the effects ofthe media in creating public opinion within ademocratic system. In Democracy Through Public Opinion, Lasswell (1941) examines the effects ofpropaganda on public opinion, and the effects ofpublic opinion on democracy. Lasswell (1941) claims,“Democratic government acts upon public opinion andpublic opinion acts openly upon government” (p. 15). Affecting this relationship is the existence ofpropaganda. Due to this propaganda, “Generalsuspiciousness is directed against all sources ofinformation. Citizens may convince themselves that itis hopeless to get the truth about public affairs”(Lasswell, 1941, p. 40). In this way, Lasswell hascreated a cycle, whereby the public is limited in theinformation that is presented to them, and alsoapprehensive to accept it. However, it is still thatinformation that is affecting their decisions withinthe democratic system, and is being presented to themby the government. This is an interesting way ofviewing the power of the media that is somewhatsimilar to Lippmann’s theories.

Edward Bernays (1891-1995)

At approximately the same time that Lippmann andLasswell were examining public opinion and propaganda,Edward Bernays (1891–1995) was broabout or alterthe opinions of individuals, but this may actually bebeneficial to society’s functioning as a whole. Bernays states, “We are governed, our minds aremolded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested,largely by men we have never heard of... Vast numbers ofhuman beings must cooperate in this manner if they areto live together as a smoothly functioning society"(p. 9).

Based on these ideas that the public opinion can bemodified, and that such shaping is a necessary part ofsociety, Bernays pursued his work in the field ofpublic relations. "Public relations is the attempt,by information, persuasion, and adjustment, toengineer public support for an activity, cause,movement, or institution" (Bernays, 1955, p. 3). InThe Engineering of Consent, Bernays (1955) lays outthe framework for understanding the public anddeveloping a public relations campaign. Bernays (1955)claims that the key to a successful public relationscampaign is adjustment of the campaign to theattitudes of various groups in society, gatheringinformation to effectively express an idea, andfinally, utilizing persuasion to influence the publicopinion in the intended direction.

Bernays’ theories represent a step forward for masscommunication theory. They move away from moretypical presentations of “hit-or-miss propaganda,” andmove toward a deeper understanding of the public, andthe necessity of attention-generating propaganda ininfluencing public opinion (Bernays, 1955, p. 22). Bernays (1955) himself made a statement regarding hisphrase, “the engineering of consent.” He said,“Engineering implies planning. And it is carefulplanning more than anything else that distinguishesmodern public relations from old-time hit or misspublicity and propaganda” (Bernays, 1955, p. 22). Furthermore, Bernays’ theories also represent adifferent view of the formation of public opinion. Inopposition to Lippmann, who views the public as beingeasily manipulated, Bernays cautions against this. Heclaims, “The public is not an amorphous mass which canbe molded at will or dictated to” (Bernays, 1928, p.66). Instead, Bernays (1928) offers the idea that inattempting to influence the public, a business must“…study what terms the partnership can be madeamicable and mutually beneficial. It must explainitself, its aims, its objectives, to the public interms which the public can understand and is willingto accept” (p. 66).

Bernays elaborates on these ideas in Public Relations(1952). Rather than merely attempting to manipulatethe public through propaganda, Bernays presents publicrelations as a tool that can be used to combine theideas of the public and the persuader. “Theobjective-minded public relations man helps his clientadjust to the contemporary situation, or helps thepublic adjust to it” (Bernays, 1952, p. 9). Bernaysview of the public is softer than that of Lippmann, ashe recognizes the power of society, but still alsoclaims that manipulation of the public is possible. Bernays (1952) writes of the benefits of publicrelations, “To citizens in general, public relationsis important because it helps them to understand thesociety of which we are all a part, to know andevaluate the viewpoint of others, to exert leadershipin modifying conditions that affects us, to evaluateefforts being made by others, and to persuade orsuggest courses of action” (p. 10). Under thisframework, while manipulation of the public is stillpossible, it is not in such blatant ignorance of thepublic opinion. Theorists such as Lippmann and Ellultended to disagree with this point.

Jacques Ellul (1912 – 1994)

Jacques Ellul’s (1912–1994) theories on propagandatook a different view of the formation of publicopinion. Ellul (1965) shows that propaganda isactually a specific technique, which is both needed bythe public, and by those who create the propaganda inthe first place. In Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, Ellul (1965) defines propaganda as,"a set of methods employed by an organized group thatwants to bring about the active or passiveparticipation in its actions of a mass of individuals,psychologically unified through psychologicalmanipulations and incorporated into a system" (p. 61). In contrast to the other theorists examined in thischapter, Ellul tends to view propaganda as anecessary, but all-encompassing, activity. It is notsomething to be presented to the public in a singleinstance, but rather, must become a consistent part ofevery aspect of the public's life.

In The Technological Society, Ellul (1964) categorizespropaganda as a form of human technique. In general,he considers the term "technique," to be referring tothe methods that people use to obtain their desiredresults (Ellul, 1964). Specifically, he claims thathuman technique examines those techniques in which"man himself becomes the object of the technique"(Ellul, 1964, p. 22). In this scenario, man is the"object," as he is constantly being exposed to, andpressured by, various presentations of propaganda. Ellul (1964) goes on to say, "Techniques have taughtthe organizers how to force him into the game... Theintensive use of propaganda destroys the citizen'sfaculty of discernment" (p. 276).

While The Technological Society focuses on the methodsused to create a technique, such as propaganda,Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1965)focuses on the specific relationship betweenpropaganda and the manipulation of public opinion. Aswith Lippmann, Ellul understands the lack of knowledgethat the general public holds for use in formingpublic opinion. Ellul (1965) comments on the use ofstereotypes and symbols in propaganda, as did Lippmannin Public Opinion (1922). Ellul (1965) states, "Themore stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is toform public opinion, and the more an individualparticipates in that culture, the more susceptible hebecomes to the manipulation of these symbols" (p.111).

Both Ellul and Lippmann recognize the inability of thepublic to form educated opinions as a whole. However,while Lippmann chose to focus on the idea that weshould accept the fact that it is truly an educatedelite that is controlling our opinions, Ellul chose tofocus on the fact that the public actually has a needfor propaganda. Ellul contests the idea that thepublic is merely a victim of propaganda. Rather, hestates that, "The propagandee is by no means just aninnocent victim. He provokes the psychological actionof propaganda, and not merely lends himself to it, buteven derives satisfaction from it. Without thisprevious, implicit consent, without this need forpropaganda experienced by practically every citizen ofthe technological age, propaganda could not spread"(Ellul, 1965, p. 121).

Through his theories in The Technological Society andPropaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Ellultends to give the media and society’s elite (thecreators of propaganda) a lot of power in shapingpublic opinion. While Bernays recognized theimportance of making propaganda appeal to the needs ofthe public, Ellul claims that the public's need issimply for propaganda in the first place.

Recent Mass Communication Theorists

Based on the traditional theories of Lippmann,Lasswell, Bernays, and Ellul, more recent studies havebeen able to be conducted on the use of propaganda increating public opinion. Lippmann (1922) wasessentially the first theorist to develop the idea ofthe agenda-setting function of the media. By 1972,McCombs and Shaw had set out to studythis phenomenon in their work “The Agenda-SettingFunction of Mass Media.” This study examined the 1968presidential campaign, by asking undecided voters toidentify the key issues of the presidential campaign,and then comparing those ideas to the issues that werebeing presented by the mass media at the time (McCombs& Shaw, 1972). McCombs and Shaw (1972) found thatthere was a +0.967 correlation between voter judgmentof important issues, and media presentation of thoseissues. McCombs and Shaw used this information tofurther Lippmann’s ideas that the mass media didindeed set the agenda for what the public should thinkabout.

Iyengar and Kinder (1982) expanded on Lippmann’stheories as well, by putting the idea ofagenda-setting and priming to the test. They createdexperimental situations, in which subjects wereexposed to news broadcasts that emphasized particularevents. The results of this study both supported andexpanded upon Lippmann’s initial theories. "Ourexperiments decisively sustain Lippmann’s suspicionthat media provide compelling descriptions of a publicworld that people cannot directly experience" (Iyengar& Kinder, 1982, p. 855). Iyengar and Kinder (1982)found that those news items that received the mostattention, were the news items that people found to bethe most significant. Furthermore, Iyengar and Kinder(1982) also found evidence of a priming effect, inthat those events that received the most attention bya news broadcast, also weighed the most heavily onevaluations of the president at a later time.

Lippmann’s (1922) theories in Public Opinion alsotouched on the idea of a gatekeeper in the mediaprocess. By 1951, Kurt Lewin had expanded on thisidea, by showing that people can manipulate andcontrol the flow of information that reaches others(Rogers, 1994). Based on the ideas of both Lewin andLippmann, White (1950) undertook anexamination of the role of a gatekeeper in the realmof mass media. In The “Gatekeeper”: A Case Study Inthe Selection of News, White (1950) examined the roleof a wire editor in a newspaper. He foundstrong evidence that there was a gatekeeping role atwork within the mass media, as this editor rejectednine-tenths of the articles that he received, basedprimarily on whether he considered the event to be“newsworthy,” and whether he had another article onthe same topic that he liked better. Hisresults were important, as they showed the subjectivejudgments that an individual can exert in releasinglimited information to the public.

Conclusion: The Importance of These Theories

The theories developed by Lippmann, Lasswell, Ellul,and Bernays are important for a number of reasons. Based on the ideas of his predecessors, Lippmann wasable to bring attention to the fact that the public isable to be influenced by the media. The work ofLippmann and his colleagues has led to more recentresearch that is meant to help understand theinfluence of the media on the public. Through thework Iyengar and Kinder, White, Lewin, and McCombs andShaw, a more comprehensive understanding of the mediahas been developed. The public has now been madeaware various media functions such as agenda-setting,gatekeeping, and priming, and the potential effectsthat these techniques can have on their audiences.

The theories presented in this paper have tied heavilyto both the direct effects and limited effects mediamodels. Theorists such as Ellul tended to sideheavily with the direct effects model, wherebypropaganda could directly influence the thought of themasses. Meanwhile, theorists such as Lippmann alsonoted that the media might not be influencing onlythought, but may also be influencing what peoplethought about. It was this line of thinking thatresulted in a starting point for future research inthe area of the limited effects of the media. Suchlimited effects were shown through the work of Iyengarand Kinder, as well as McCombs and Shaw.

Overall, the research of the scholars discussed inthis paper has been very important to theunderstanding of the media, the manipulation of thepublic, and the formation of public opinion. Whilethe theories of Lippmann, Lasswell, Bernays, and Ellulwere formed years ago, they continue to help usunderstand the society that surrounds us today.

References

Bernays, E.L. (1928). Propaganda. New York: Horace Liveright, Inc.

Bernays, E.L. (1952). Public relations. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press.

Bernays, E.L. (1955). The engineering of consent. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma.

Ellul, J. (1964). The technological society. New York: Vintage Books.

Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda: the formation of men's attitudes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Iyengar, S., Peters, M.D., & Kinder, D.R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations of the "not-so-minimal"consequences of television news programs. The American Political Science Review, 76(4), 848-858.

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism. In G. Gunn (Ed.), Pragmatism and other writings (pp. 1 - 132). NewYork: Penguin Books.

Jowett, G.S., & O’Donnell, V. (1992). Propaganda and persuasion (2nd Edition). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Lasswell, H.D. (1938). Propaganda technique in the world war. New York: Peter Smith.

Lasswell, H.D. (1941). Democracy through public opinion. USA: George Banta Publishing Company.

Lasswell, H.D. (1946). Describing the contents of communication. In B.L. Smith, H.D. Lasswell, and R.D.Casey (Eds.), Propaganda, communication, and public opinion (pp. 74 – 94). Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1953). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas. New York: Harper & Co.

Levin, G. (1975). Sigmund Freud. Boston, Massachusetts: Twayne Publishers.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: The Free Press.

Lippmann, W. (1925). The phantom public. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc.

Lippmann, W. (1936). The good society. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.

Lippmann, W. (1914). A preface to politics. USA: The University of Michigan Press.

McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.

Munson, T. (1962). The essential wisdom of George Santayana. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rogers, E.M. (1994). A history of communication study: a biographical approach. New York: The FreePress.

Steel, R. (1999). Walter Lippmann and the American century. New Brunswick, New Jersey: TransactionPublishers.

Wallas, G. (1981). Human nature in politics (Transaction Edition). New Brunswick, New Jersey:Transaction Books.

Weingast, D.E. (1949). Walter Lippmann: a study in personal journalism. New Brunswick, New Jersey:Rutgers University Press.

White, D.M. (1950). The "gatekeeper": a case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383-390.