In the narration of the history of communication, James Carey’s school conflict narrative about Lippmann and Dewey results in misunderstanding of Lippmann’s thoughts those are labeled as a “scientism”, “the opponent of democracy” and “he view of transmission of communication”. However, in recent years, Michael Schudson challenges and criticizes Carey’s narrative. Firstly, this paper makes a brief review about Carey’s school conflict narrative and then summarizes Schudson’s criticisms about this narrative and its impacts as well as limitations. Next, this paper tries to examine the similarities and differences between Lippmann and Dewey and analyzes threes labels about Lippmann’s thoughts given by Carey. It finds that the conflict narration constructed by Carey cannot be supported by evidences. Specifically, Dewey does not explicitly claim that Lippmann’ thoughts conflicts with himself. And their thoughts have both differences and similarities. In addition, Lippman's communication thoughts are based on his thoughts and methods about science, which is different from the view of transmission of communication labelled by Carey. Specifically, he constructs the theory of realistic democracy from pragmatism and empirically analyzes the influence of social structure and individual factors on the relationship between individuals and the outside world. The deconstruction of the narration of school conflict helps us reexplore the hidden and polarized thoughts of Lippman.