Pros
In this new “Age of Empowerment” as the optimistic Joe Trippi states in a segment from The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, the Internet is the new TV, which was the new Newspaper, which was the new letter carrier, which was the new… you get the idea. So now we have the Internet, a wide and fast moving, never-ending book of knowledge and awareness. Anyone can lean just about any thing on the World Wide Web these days and according to Joe Trippi, together in this mesh of wires and optic links, this new technology is the way that we, as a societal whole, can have the power to change the government, as we know it.
There are many pros with this public bulletin board that we call the Internet, one of which is speed. Without the almost instantaneous like speed that it takes for one document on one side of the world to reach someone on the other side of the world, we would just be living in an era of delayed news, and thank the lord and the ever expanding technological advances given to us by geeks in silicon valley, this is possible. The war on Iraq is closer to home than we have ever been with any war, ever. We have had access to coverage on the front lines from day one, well arguably, but at least the technology is there, once again, thanks to the Internet.
This tool, this thing that exists in our laptops and cell phones, has the ability to play an enormous role in providing force for political and social change in not just America and the World as a whole. It is a network that is a source of communication between the average Joe and the people that are in the powerful positions that govern them. Like Joe Trippi says, “It’s ours… it’s up to us.” With the uniting capabilities that the Internet allows us, we have the opportunity as a whole to work together to do something as little as buying and selling Pez dispensers or something as big as elect an official to be our head of state. As Thomas Jefferson says, “What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
Other Pros:
-The Net builds communities, brings together people from all over the world and unites cities together building common interests and helping causes that are important to communities.
-Promotes old-fashioned skills that the TV has taken from society, reading and writing.
-Quickly organizes mass amounts of people in an inexpensive and many times free, way.
-Makes us smarter through the large amount of information that is available at our fingertips.
-It catches and has the ability to report more news and events than the era of print media ever could have.
-The Internet has no fear of losing its advertisers or sponsors to ill-fated reporting, therefore allows for a wider and more diverse range of reporting at times of war and politics.
Cons
A huge con to this surplus of information that is coming from all sorts of outlets of the digital and viral type is that there is just no censorship. At least, this is a problem for the Donald Rumsfelds of the world and I agree, somewhat. In the long run, the people deserve to know, to read and to see the news for, as it is, brutally honest. Yet, some news regarding defense and security, public and private, should be monitored and kept under wraps.
More cons to this new age of technology is that it opens doors for communication whether that information is of the good, the bad, or the ugly, it is free to roam the web. This means solicitors, fraudulent websites, and viruses. People will attempt, and more than not, succeed to invade the privacy of millions of Internet users. Copyrights will be violated; the World Wide Web will become a different kind of war zone.
Other Cons:
-Misinformation.
What are some more cons to this “Age of Empowerment” led by the Internet?
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Fact Checker
Monday, September 29, 2008
Introduction - Weekly Paper #3
As a former BBC journalist and film documenter, Steve Connors, once said, “History is the lie agreed upon.” In the following selections of text, we will see how the media aids in the telling of history, be it lies or the truth. From the very beginning of life, there was always some sort of media form that would take place to reinterpret what happened. Whether it was cave drawings of men fighting animals with sticks, or photographs of dead men on the fields of early America in the Civil War. These images depicted messages from the “front lines” of action back to the people who couldn’t be there. Today, we also rely on the mediators, or the media, to tell us what is going on in the far reaches of the world so that we too can be somewhat involved or informed. We are dependent on them to tell us the truth and to rely non-subjugated messages back to us so that we can process what is to become our very own history.
In the old days very romanticized images were produced through the eyes of artists who weren’t even present at the time or place that the event occurred. Often times, these paintings or other works were commissioned by the protagonists in the war or event to honor or pay some sort of tribute to it. This propaganda played a huge part in the creation of and stabilizing of patriotism. Although, today we are influenced more by the moving images that we see on news programs on channels such as NBC, CNN, and ABC. These images are censored on our behalf so as not to loose us as viewers and to shield us from the harsh realities of war. This suppression of images and context is increasingly leading us to believe that the war, like the current war in Iraq, is not as intense and severe as it truly is. Our history is being formed by the misrepresentation of censorship.
The news media have a frightening control over the way we perceive our world to be. By reporting instances such as the violent crime “spree” in the mid 1980’s and early 1990’s, the increased amount of reporting on such issues led the community to believe that by being young and ethnic you somehow posed a violent threat to society. Is this true? By relating news stories to the public, the media has an overwhelming authority over the average viewer. It isn’t very often that someone would question John Doe the reporter on the six o’clock news when he reports night after night of gang involvement or robberies committed by 18year old Hispanics. The more we are exposed to stories like this that take precedence on the nightly news, the more likely it is that we associate the image of the 18year old Hispanic with the image of crime and violence.
Should we as a united people be concerned with the government’s censorship of images in war, hiding the horrors of combat and showing the softer side of fighting? The military has control over where the press can and can not go. Is this a safety issue, or is this a way to shield the press from potentially damaging photos of the harsh realities of war on the battlefront? The Gulf War was the war that ultimately changed the way that wars would be and have been reported. This was the first “real time war” that was reported by hundreds of journalists on the field of battle live with wires and cameras reporting back to the US and the World. Although all of this reporting was done with a lot of misinformation from officials and sometimes disinformation intended to mislead the enemy and not to inform the public.
The news media is something that benefits us, the people, in all sorts of ways. It allows us to see events and happenings all over the globe from our living room, a café, and today, even our cars. This advance in technology is beneficiary because it protects our right to question. Our jobs as a democratic people are to watch, listen, and question. If we never question the news media we will never know for certain what is truly going on. Is the media deceiving us by censoring the coverage of the war or is it protecting us?
In the old days very romanticized images were produced through the eyes of artists who weren’t even present at the time or place that the event occurred. Often times, these paintings or other works were commissioned by the protagonists in the war or event to honor or pay some sort of tribute to it. This propaganda played a huge part in the creation of and stabilizing of patriotism. Although, today we are influenced more by the moving images that we see on news programs on channels such as NBC, CNN, and ABC. These images are censored on our behalf so as not to loose us as viewers and to shield us from the harsh realities of war. This suppression of images and context is increasingly leading us to believe that the war, like the current war in Iraq, is not as intense and severe as it truly is. Our history is being formed by the misrepresentation of censorship.
The news media have a frightening control over the way we perceive our world to be. By reporting instances such as the violent crime “spree” in the mid 1980’s and early 1990’s, the increased amount of reporting on such issues led the community to believe that by being young and ethnic you somehow posed a violent threat to society. Is this true? By relating news stories to the public, the media has an overwhelming authority over the average viewer. It isn’t very often that someone would question John Doe the reporter on the six o’clock news when he reports night after night of gang involvement or robberies committed by 18year old Hispanics. The more we are exposed to stories like this that take precedence on the nightly news, the more likely it is that we associate the image of the 18year old Hispanic with the image of crime and violence.
Should we as a united people be concerned with the government’s censorship of images in war, hiding the horrors of combat and showing the softer side of fighting? The military has control over where the press can and can not go. Is this a safety issue, or is this a way to shield the press from potentially damaging photos of the harsh realities of war on the battlefront? The Gulf War was the war that ultimately changed the way that wars would be and have been reported. This was the first “real time war” that was reported by hundreds of journalists on the field of battle live with wires and cameras reporting back to the US and the World. Although all of this reporting was done with a lot of misinformation from officials and sometimes disinformation intended to mislead the enemy and not to inform the public.
The news media is something that benefits us, the people, in all sorts of ways. It allows us to see events and happenings all over the globe from our living room, a café, and today, even our cars. This advance in technology is beneficiary because it protects our right to question. Our jobs as a democratic people are to watch, listen, and question. If we never question the news media we will never know for certain what is truly going on. Is the media deceiving us by censoring the coverage of the war or is it protecting us?
Agenda Setting, Framing and Priming
Agenda setting is the theory that the mass media has a powerful influence over the people by the news’ choices in which stories they cover and how they cover them. This theory is mainly concerned that the media sets our own agendas for us by telling us not only what to think but how we should think about it.
It is difficult to give an exact example of agenda setting for the current 2008 election campaign. Considering that all of our information about the upcoming elections comes from the media itself, we are completely unaware of what we should and shouldn’t believe from the information that the media is reporting to us.
In general the media’s coverage on the presidential elections has been changing for the worse. Because of propaganda and tactics such as satire, the media is spreading tall tales and misinformation about politicians rather than spreading the truth. Like in the article by Don Hazen, The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon, and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right’s Dirty Work?, he states that the use of satirical vices such as a condemning caricature of Barak Obama and his wife, could have the opposite effect,
Editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt’s attempt at satire seems so arrogant and indulgent in its insensitivity, and so out of touch with political and media dynamics of tabloid TV and blogs, that it just might make a lot of people angry (...)(p.1).
Indeed the cartoon that depicted Obama in a Muslim turban seems a little out of the genre of humor. Considering Obama has been called a Muslim in the past, this representation will, instead of be humorous, reinforce that belief of Obama’s religion. Satirical propaganda such as this advertises Obama as an individual person other than Obama as the leader of the Democratic Party. Instead of advertising his campaign and what his agenda is for running the country, the news media, in this case The New Yorker runs a cover of him as a caricature.
It is because of this kind of news coverage during this election in particular, that is leading to an increasing number of cynics about the election and our current government. News Frames, Political Cynicism, and Media Cynicism by Joseph N. Cappella and Kathleen Hall Jamieson states just that. To them, cynicism has become an epidemic growing amongst the most educated people in our country. “Herbert Asher and Michael Barr’s analysis of the 1978-92 American National Election Studies (ANES) data suggests that Congress is rated more poorly among ‘the more politically active and attentive citizenry.’” It also states that “those who were more knowledgeable about control of the House were much more critical of Congress than were less informed respondents”.
It is because of such tactics as framing, when the media chooses particular events and places those events in the public’s eye often creating an air of importance around those events over others that they tend to overshadow. A good example of framing would be in the 2004 election when the media framed the war on terrorism as the number one issue in choosing the next president of the United States. During this election one issue that I believe the media is framing is experience. There is a overwhelming amount of media coverage on whether or not Obama is “experienced” enough to be the next President. This topic of experience is one topic that is being framed as a number one issue in this election when in fact, experience is just one of the many important issues in this election.
Within all of the different outlets of media and news coverage available to us, we, as an audience, know or have a particular idea about what a proper and trustworthy news station looks and acts like. It is more likely that we will trust a report coming from a well known name like BBC or CNN more than we would trust a piece of news from a small or independent name like Salon.com or freepress.org. This association is called priming. Between priming, framing and agenda setting it is very difficult to know what to believe. In fact, no one can know the truth unless they are truly present at the time and place in which something happens. Why should we trust the media? What media should we trust? Who decides what news is the news that is fit to print? Why can’t we decide?
It is difficult to give an exact example of agenda setting for the current 2008 election campaign. Considering that all of our information about the upcoming elections comes from the media itself, we are completely unaware of what we should and shouldn’t believe from the information that the media is reporting to us.
In general the media’s coverage on the presidential elections has been changing for the worse. Because of propaganda and tactics such as satire, the media is spreading tall tales and misinformation about politicians rather than spreading the truth. Like in the article by Don Hazen, The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon, and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right’s Dirty Work?, he states that the use of satirical vices such as a condemning caricature of Barak Obama and his wife, could have the opposite effect,
Editor David Remnick and artist Barry Blitt’s attempt at satire seems so arrogant and indulgent in its insensitivity, and so out of touch with political and media dynamics of tabloid TV and blogs, that it just might make a lot of people angry (...)(p.1).
Indeed the cartoon that depicted Obama in a Muslim turban seems a little out of the genre of humor. Considering Obama has been called a Muslim in the past, this representation will, instead of be humorous, reinforce that belief of Obama’s religion. Satirical propaganda such as this advertises Obama as an individual person other than Obama as the leader of the Democratic Party. Instead of advertising his campaign and what his agenda is for running the country, the news media, in this case The New Yorker runs a cover of him as a caricature.
It is because of this kind of news coverage during this election in particular, that is leading to an increasing number of cynics about the election and our current government. News Frames, Political Cynicism, and Media Cynicism by Joseph N. Cappella and Kathleen Hall Jamieson states just that. To them, cynicism has become an epidemic growing amongst the most educated people in our country. “Herbert Asher and Michael Barr’s analysis of the 1978-92 American National Election Studies (ANES) data suggests that Congress is rated more poorly among ‘the more politically active and attentive citizenry.’” It also states that “those who were more knowledgeable about control of the House were much more critical of Congress than were less informed respondents”.
It is because of such tactics as framing, when the media chooses particular events and places those events in the public’s eye often creating an air of importance around those events over others that they tend to overshadow. A good example of framing would be in the 2004 election when the media framed the war on terrorism as the number one issue in choosing the next president of the United States. During this election one issue that I believe the media is framing is experience. There is a overwhelming amount of media coverage on whether or not Obama is “experienced” enough to be the next President. This topic of experience is one topic that is being framed as a number one issue in this election when in fact, experience is just one of the many important issues in this election.
Within all of the different outlets of media and news coverage available to us, we, as an audience, know or have a particular idea about what a proper and trustworthy news station looks and acts like. It is more likely that we will trust a report coming from a well known name like BBC or CNN more than we would trust a piece of news from a small or independent name like Salon.com or freepress.org. This association is called priming. Between priming, framing and agenda setting it is very difficult to know what to believe. In fact, no one can know the truth unless they are truly present at the time and place in which something happens. Why should we trust the media? What media should we trust? Who decides what news is the news that is fit to print? Why can’t we decide?
The Press and the Democratic Process
While reading The Press And The Democratic Process by Iyengar and McGrady, my perspective on the relaxed regulation of the press changed. Originally I thought that the FCC’s (the Federal Communications Commission) lenient regulations on the media had allowed the media more freedom to report on politics and other issues so that we, the citizens, could be overall, more informed. Although now, I think that the lack of stricter regulation of the different media channels’ coverage of politics in the U.S. hurts us more than it benefits.
In order to have a completely democratic society, all members of said society must have equal access to power, in governing politics and in the information outlet of the media. One limiting aspect of the media in the U.S. is the all around private ownership between the separate media companies such as NBC, CNN, ABC, etc.. This private ownership effects the information given to the people because of the constant competition for capital. News media companies are just like the other media companies in the sense that they must turn a profit and generate revenue to succeed. This competition leads the news channels to report on more mainstream and entertainment based topics.
On the positive side to privately owned media systems here in the U.S., they are not going to be as regulated by the government or as censored as a government owned media channel would. Although according to Iyengar and McGrady, this leads to a “mediatization” or “Americanization” of political campaigns that tend to focus more on the person running in the campaign than that of the overall goals and policies of the particular party who that person has been chosen to lead. A current example of this media would be the overuse of a quote from the current candidate running for the seat of Vice President for the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, and her media attention grabbing line, “they say the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick”. This quote caused a widespread stir among the public and therefore too much coverage on Sarah Palin herself and not enough coverage on Sarah Palin and her policies that she will be standing behind and fighting for by being a representative of the Republican Party.
Another large key role that the news media portrays in our society is that of our “watchdog”. The news media serves on behalf of its citizens, us, to make sure that the government officials stay well within their bounds of political propriety. Or to make sure that they don’t do us wrong and that they do as they promised us they would do. Unfortunately, this democratic ideal of informed and active citizenship is fading faster than we can say “democracy”. Since 1968 when primary elections were adopted forcing candidates to appeal directly to the public, the media has been juggling the fate of the people in their hands. On one hand we have an age of television that has contributed to the overall voice of democracy allowing these candidates to get their messages out to the people through the black, white and technicolor screens of the TV, and on the other hand we have the ever competing, privately owned media channels as I have mentioned above.
As Iyengar and McGrady point out, “Compared to most other democracies, the United States is characterized by weak political parties… Many Americans lack strong ties to a party” therefore causing such a phenomenon as “floating voters”, or voters that are wild cards in the voting spectrum. These citizens in our democratic society are voters that are heavily influenced by the constant competing media channels and what they tell them about the individuals that are chosen to represent the particular parties. For example say one of these “floating voters” hears a news report that Sarah Palin is a terrible person because she told a lie, and that Democratic Vice President running mate Joe Biden has been a charitable volunteer for forty years, that said citizen is more likely to choose the Vice President Joe Biden who was propagandized in a positive light than Sarah Palin who was not. These two bits of information told through a form of mass media are pretty irrelevant to how the two candidates might work from their position if elected. Yet because they are spread to a mass audience over news media networks associated with spreading “positive” information to the people, apathetic citizens are more likely to take these pieces of information to heart rather than become involved and research the particular candidates themselves.
Apathy, unfortunately, has become more and more apparent among citizens in our democratic world today. The influence of mass media in our culture has only grown with the advances in technology. Now that we have the internet at our disposal as well as the TV and radio, it is easier for us to look at all of the different media channels and decide for ourselves which one we want to believe in or which ones we don’t. Our democracy is still a democracy, although, if we want it to keep growing stronger, we must become more active and take up these new outlets of the media to express ourselves and become active citizens.
In order to have a completely democratic society, all members of said society must have equal access to power, in governing politics and in the information outlet of the media. One limiting aspect of the media in the U.S. is the all around private ownership between the separate media companies such as NBC, CNN, ABC, etc.. This private ownership effects the information given to the people because of the constant competition for capital. News media companies are just like the other media companies in the sense that they must turn a profit and generate revenue to succeed. This competition leads the news channels to report on more mainstream and entertainment based topics.
On the positive side to privately owned media systems here in the U.S., they are not going to be as regulated by the government or as censored as a government owned media channel would. Although according to Iyengar and McGrady, this leads to a “mediatization” or “Americanization” of political campaigns that tend to focus more on the person running in the campaign than that of the overall goals and policies of the particular party who that person has been chosen to lead. A current example of this media would be the overuse of a quote from the current candidate running for the seat of Vice President for the Republican Party, Sarah Palin, and her media attention grabbing line, “they say the only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is lipstick”. This quote caused a widespread stir among the public and therefore too much coverage on Sarah Palin herself and not enough coverage on Sarah Palin and her policies that she will be standing behind and fighting for by being a representative of the Republican Party.
Another large key role that the news media portrays in our society is that of our “watchdog”. The news media serves on behalf of its citizens, us, to make sure that the government officials stay well within their bounds of political propriety. Or to make sure that they don’t do us wrong and that they do as they promised us they would do. Unfortunately, this democratic ideal of informed and active citizenship is fading faster than we can say “democracy”. Since 1968 when primary elections were adopted forcing candidates to appeal directly to the public, the media has been juggling the fate of the people in their hands. On one hand we have an age of television that has contributed to the overall voice of democracy allowing these candidates to get their messages out to the people through the black, white and technicolor screens of the TV, and on the other hand we have the ever competing, privately owned media channels as I have mentioned above.
As Iyengar and McGrady point out, “Compared to most other democracies, the United States is characterized by weak political parties… Many Americans lack strong ties to a party” therefore causing such a phenomenon as “floating voters”, or voters that are wild cards in the voting spectrum. These citizens in our democratic society are voters that are heavily influenced by the constant competing media channels and what they tell them about the individuals that are chosen to represent the particular parties. For example say one of these “floating voters” hears a news report that Sarah Palin is a terrible person because she told a lie, and that Democratic Vice President running mate Joe Biden has been a charitable volunteer for forty years, that said citizen is more likely to choose the Vice President Joe Biden who was propagandized in a positive light than Sarah Palin who was not. These two bits of information told through a form of mass media are pretty irrelevant to how the two candidates might work from their position if elected. Yet because they are spread to a mass audience over news media networks associated with spreading “positive” information to the people, apathetic citizens are more likely to take these pieces of information to heart rather than become involved and research the particular candidates themselves.
Apathy, unfortunately, has become more and more apparent among citizens in our democratic world today. The influence of mass media in our culture has only grown with the advances in technology. Now that we have the internet at our disposal as well as the TV and radio, it is easier for us to look at all of the different media channels and decide for ourselves which one we want to believe in or which ones we don’t. Our democracy is still a democracy, although, if we want it to keep growing stronger, we must become more active and take up these new outlets of the media to express ourselves and become active citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
