Walter Lippman speaks of a "pseudo-environment", that is, a world that people imagine based solely upon information received from second-hand sources. An example of this can be seen by simply asking anyone what they know about Baghdad, then asking if they have ever been there. The pseudo-environment is perhaps the most disturbing concept of political analysis because it is easily constructed, and can be formed so that the opinions of those experiencing it can be shaped in the form wished by those creating it.
This professional mediation, and the influence of new technologies on these traditional forms of information gathering is the topic that I will examine in the final research project for this class. Professional mediation is the way that most of us get our information about what is going on in the world. Many scholars have studied professional mediation, and its effects on the ideals of democracy. The first I will discuss is Benjamin Page. In "Who Deliberates" Page says:.
Public deliberation is essential to democracy, in order to ensure that the public's policy preferences-upon which democratic decisions are based-are informed, enlightened, and authentic. In modern societies, however, public deliberation is (and probably must be) largely mediated, with professional communicators rather than ordinary citizens talking to each other and to the public through mass media of communications. .
At first glance, this seems to make sense, after all, we live in a complex, time strained environment, and the logistics of getting every American together for a public debate are virtually impossible, and even if it were possible, with 300 million people, it may take a while for everyone to get their point across. Page goes on to talk about possible dangers of mediated information, such as constructed debates (debates that appear to cover all sides, but tend to reach a median point that is the view of the debate forum), malignant communicators, and lack of diversity among professional mediators.
