Propaganda shaping public opinion: very dangerous

The realizations of the American public that diseases like silicosis were serious and recurring prompted efforts to stop them. However, this took a large amount of time to happen. It wasn't until 1997 that a formal conference was set up called the National Conference to Eliminate Silicosis that the public was beginning to understand that what Rampton and Stauber tell us is inherently true: without propaganda, pollution would be impossible.

Knowing this, we are once again brought back to the matter of trust. The public's knowledge, to say the least, can only be based on what they here through various reports or statistics. When what they hear is skewed or, moreover, completely wrong and misleading, they nonetheless are accepting the consequences (however concealed) which happen to be their lives. It is scary to think that the propaganda "effort relied heavily on questionable statistics designed to create the impression that excessive regulation was stifling American creativity and prosperity" (87). Furthermore, these companies communicated that it would directly affect the public to implement such regulations on pollutants because it would take a blow to the economy. Talk about doublespeak; in other words, what they are saying is that it is better for people to die than for the public to shovel out money. I would hope that the public would much rather pay a few extra dollars than a few extra lives. Nevertheless, we have here exactly what Lippmann showed us--the public simply has no knowledge of the manipulation they are under and they cannot be the ones to blame.