Though most people who follow politics these days don't use actual television broadcasts to stay up on current events, the biggest news companies still control most of the other outlets. When you access news stories and videos through the internet or a smartphone app, it's probably through NBC, CNN, or Fox News. Most people use only one of these three big ones, get attached to certain reporters whose writing style they like, and consider this news provider to be more reliable than the others. But if that's the case, are voting citizens actually choosing who they want to vote for, or are they choosing the candidate their news broadcaster has chosen for them?
Often times, when people read news articles, they pick the ones that further support the beliefs they already hold. They don't usually read something that challenges their current views and makes them reconsider whether they're actually correct in what they think about a topic. It's much more comforting to be told by a professional media specialist that what they've always thought was true is actually true. This is one of the main reasons why people who lean towards the liberal end of the scale prefer to take their news from media outlets like ABC, NBC, CNN or the New York Times, which also usually lean towards the liberal. Those who lean in the conservative direction will prefer Fox News for its more conservatively-inclined news. Many mass media outlets in the United States are also owned by conservative companies like Disney, TimeWarner, and the CBS Corporation. In the face of all of this media bias, it's pretty difficult to figure out which of the many available candidates actually appeals to you.
It's especially difficult when many of the big media outlets ignore all candidates but the big two, the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate. A CNN news special might show a documentary on the history of Obama as our President and all the wonderful things he's done, while drawing attention to Romney's stint as Governor and all of the things he did to ruin Massachusetts. On the other hand, Fox News may broadcast its own news special documenting how fantastic Romney was as Governor of Massachusetts and how much Obama failed to accomplish while in office. Someone who favors Obama will tune in to CNN's special while someone who favors Romney will watch Fox's. Rarely, if ever, will there be a publicized news special about one of the candidates running as an Independent. You can find a lot of people having political discussions on the internet, through blogs and news stories, who say "I like Romney's stance in this, but he's too extreme for me..." or "I like what Obama says about that, but I don't like the way he views something else.." It's very possible that people with these views will find a candidate more compatible with their government expectations if they look past the big two who get all the publicity. But the media makes it very difficult to find anyone else to vote for when they only grant their coverage to the Democratic and Republican parties.
It's also difficult to find a candidate's stance on a topic if that topic isn't already part of the candidate's agenda. If you, for instance care a lot about animal rights, and neither of the two main candidates addresses animal rights, you won't know what to expect from either if you vote for them. And even if you're invested in one of the two main candidates and want to pick between the two of them, it's difficult to get both sides of an issue. Recently, the Democratic party has been talking a lot about gay rights and abortion and social issues like that. But the Republican party has been talking most about the economy. It's not easy to figure out what sort of action the Democratic candidate will take concerning the economy, should he be elected, and it's not easy to figure out what the Republican candidate will do about gay rights and abortion. You don't get both sides of either issue. Really, the only way to hear two opposing parties argue the same issue is to watch a debate where both candidates answer the same questions. But even then, if the question doesn't touch on the candidate's agenda, he'll usually evade the question and the opposing candidate focus on that instead of answering the question himself. So even in public debates, it's difficult to get enough information to really understand what action each candidate will take in reference to an issue that isn't covered by both their agendas already.
Between competing agendas, selective news coverage, and broadcaster favoritism, it seems unlikely that the average voting citizen fully understands what they're getting when they vote for a candidate. They're not really choosing a candidate based on his stance on issues that are important to them, they're choosing the candidate that their favorite media outlet has chosen for them. In order to get a more complete picture of the possibilities available to them, people should get their news from multiple outlets of different stances. It would also behoove them to get news from less-mainstream sources that mention other candidates. It definitely takes additional digging, but doing so is an invaluable way to get a better idea of what the next four years will be like when you cast your vote.
Additional Sources:
Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
WikiJournalism
Since the middle of June, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been trying to avoid extradition to Sweden by holing up in London's Equadorian Embassy. He's afraid that if he gets sent to Sweden, he'll get handed over to the United States and possibly face the death penalty. This, to me, seems like a reasonable fear to have, because I, having grown up in the United States, could definitely see enough powerful people being angry enough to want him dead. But as far as the masses go, Assange has quite a few supporters among the common folk. Many average paper-reading, news-watching people admire him for what he started. Take a look at some of the first few pictures in the slideshow at the end of this Huffington Post article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/julian-assange-talks-britain-ecuador_n_1893147.html#slide=1387072 It seems that the only people who want to arrest him are the police, following the government's orders.
Of course, these are British citizens who admire WikiLeaks for making a hefty stack of private government information suddenly public. I can certainly see how that's an attractive concept, but I can also see how many Americans feel completely violated that someone from Australia made American information available on the global internet. Obviously, it can prove seriously dangerous to have national information available internationally. However, there's no denying how attractive a concept it is to have access to information about everything the government is working on. After all, they do use our money and resources to do it, right? But nobody has the time to do their own digging, even if all possible information was available. So, isn't that what our professional reporters are for?
It's their job to spend their work week finding information and piecing it together into coherent representations of events while everyone else is absorbed with their own work week. They're supposed to provide us with the information we need to make the necessary choices that come with living in a democracy. They talk to the officials and politicians when we obviously can't, and they snoop around behind the scenes to find the context in which to place these conversations. Then they relate all of this to us, the general public. But recently, there's been a noticeable decline in the snooping aspect, and reporting has taken a turn towards stenography. And based on their response to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, it seems that the general public isn't quite satisfied with this.
Newspaper companies walk a very fine line as they try to stay in business. They need to publish articles that are popular enough to sell, while also maintaining enough of an air of impartiality to keep their credibility as a reliable source of news. The reporters need to pique the interest of their readers, but also stay in the good graces of those they write about, for fear of losing favor and subsequently their jobs. When a reporter has an appointment to speak with a government official who's been in the recent news, he has to ask questions the public wants answers to. But when he reports on it, it's in his best interest to portray this official in a positive light or chances are good he probably won't be invited back for a second chat. Chances are also good that this official's colleagues, and even opponents, will note that this reporter is one to watch out for, again jeopardizing his opportunities to find something juicy to report on. In order for the news to keep coming, it has to be softened. It's understandable that a good number of people viewed WikiLeaks in a positive light, as a new way of reporting. But should a massive data dump really be considered actual reporting?
Some critics argue that it's not responsible reporting to just dump a large quantity of private information on the internet for all to see because there's no story behind it. Or rather, there's no story that has been stitched together to make sense of all the information suddenly made available. Others argue that this form of "news sharing" is more responsible than the traditional method, also because there's no story. Because it's just the raw information that's been made available, it's up to the user to put it into context himself, cutting out the ulterior motives and story slants that may go along with the stories that are usually provided with modern news pieces. And if enough people feel that way about modern journalism, organizations like WikiLeaks may become more of the norm for news communication.
Indeed, it seems that governments are largely trying to suppress and discourage Wikileaks and prevent it from becoming a trend. The site as a whole has been overtly banned in The People's Republic of China since 2007, and was also banned in Thailand in 2010 because of "political instabilities." The United States, too, is doing its utmost to discourage people from following in Assange's footsteps, but it seems that their efforts may be having the opposite effect. Julian Assange is garnering a great deal of sympathy from people who previously thought the governments of the world had overstepped their boundaries, and are now convinced that something should be done. I wonder how much more support he would have from U.S. citizens if he had only picked a different country to lay bare. I'm also interested to see if others try similar things in the near future. WikiLeaks may be expanded upon, or become a rallying point for those in favor of free information and government transparency. It'll be very interesting to see.
Additional Sources:
Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.
Of course, these are British citizens who admire WikiLeaks for making a hefty stack of private government information suddenly public. I can certainly see how that's an attractive concept, but I can also see how many Americans feel completely violated that someone from Australia made American information available on the global internet. Obviously, it can prove seriously dangerous to have national information available internationally. However, there's no denying how attractive a concept it is to have access to information about everything the government is working on. After all, they do use our money and resources to do it, right? But nobody has the time to do their own digging, even if all possible information was available. So, isn't that what our professional reporters are for?
It's their job to spend their work week finding information and piecing it together into coherent representations of events while everyone else is absorbed with their own work week. They're supposed to provide us with the information we need to make the necessary choices that come with living in a democracy. They talk to the officials and politicians when we obviously can't, and they snoop around behind the scenes to find the context in which to place these conversations. Then they relate all of this to us, the general public. But recently, there's been a noticeable decline in the snooping aspect, and reporting has taken a turn towards stenography. And based on their response to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, it seems that the general public isn't quite satisfied with this.
Newspaper companies walk a very fine line as they try to stay in business. They need to publish articles that are popular enough to sell, while also maintaining enough of an air of impartiality to keep their credibility as a reliable source of news. The reporters need to pique the interest of their readers, but also stay in the good graces of those they write about, for fear of losing favor and subsequently their jobs. When a reporter has an appointment to speak with a government official who's been in the recent news, he has to ask questions the public wants answers to. But when he reports on it, it's in his best interest to portray this official in a positive light or chances are good he probably won't be invited back for a second chat. Chances are also good that this official's colleagues, and even opponents, will note that this reporter is one to watch out for, again jeopardizing his opportunities to find something juicy to report on. In order for the news to keep coming, it has to be softened. It's understandable that a good number of people viewed WikiLeaks in a positive light, as a new way of reporting. But should a massive data dump really be considered actual reporting?
Some critics argue that it's not responsible reporting to just dump a large quantity of private information on the internet for all to see because there's no story behind it. Or rather, there's no story that has been stitched together to make sense of all the information suddenly made available. Others argue that this form of "news sharing" is more responsible than the traditional method, also because there's no story. Because it's just the raw information that's been made available, it's up to the user to put it into context himself, cutting out the ulterior motives and story slants that may go along with the stories that are usually provided with modern news pieces. And if enough people feel that way about modern journalism, organizations like WikiLeaks may become more of the norm for news communication.
Indeed, it seems that governments are largely trying to suppress and discourage Wikileaks and prevent it from becoming a trend. The site as a whole has been overtly banned in The People's Republic of China since 2007, and was also banned in Thailand in 2010 because of "political instabilities." The United States, too, is doing its utmost to discourage people from following in Assange's footsteps, but it seems that their efforts may be having the opposite effect. Julian Assange is garnering a great deal of sympathy from people who previously thought the governments of the world had overstepped their boundaries, and are now convinced that something should be done. I wonder how much more support he would have from U.S. citizens if he had only picked a different country to lay bare. I'm also interested to see if others try similar things in the near future. WikiLeaks may be expanded upon, or become a rallying point for those in favor of free information and government transparency. It'll be very interesting to see.
Additional Sources:
Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Evolution of Communication
It's no secret that methods of communication have been evolving at a rapid clip in recent times, especially when compared to how long it took humanity to get the printing press figured out. With the advent of the electronic and digital ages, it's gotten much easier to send, receive, share, and find information. Many people are accustomed to schlepping through a quagmire of undesired details and facts and figures and opinions to get to the information they actually want, but quite a few others hate it. Those of us who weren't born at roughly the same time as the internet, or born into the current state of affairs, would probably greatly prefer to go back to the old days of print newspaper, radio talk shows, and televised informational specials.
My dad always complains about the sheer amount of information on the internet. He watches the nightly news on cable tv, but he also gets bored at work and reads a lot of news articles online. He's used to watching the news, getting a few stories, and going to work and talking to people about them. But with the influx of news articles being shifted from television to web, he says that the personal-face-to-face communication is being lost. Instead, people talk to absolute strangers about their life views and beliefs in the comment threads on the same page as the articles. So I tell him to ignore those people, read his articles, and then go talk to people at work about them, but he replies that there are so many articles out there that it's virtually impossible to have read the same one as someone else in his workplace. He's right about that, but my response is usually something along the lines of "so what?" He just values face-to-face discussion with familiar people more than I do, and that's a result of what we're used to.
Almost every aspect of humanity has been evolving steadily, even if genetic evolution has (debatably) ground to a halt, and culture is possibly the fastest-changing aspect out there. There are certain things that stick around for the long haul, like Shakespeare and Mozart, because they're respected and appreciated as "classics," and recognized as things what will actually stick around for the long haul. But culture that's currently developing is vastly different. This is sometimes represented in the "skyscraper model" where "higher" levels of culture are those long haul elements, and "lower" levels are the more current things that haven't had a chance to stand the test of time yet. I prefer to view culture in terms of old and new, because the only real advantage that Shakespeare has over Harry Potter is the fact that his plays have earned respect through simply being around for practically forever. The Harry Potter franchise simply hasn't had a chance to yet. But even though Shakespeare has the general respect of most of the rest of current culture, much more time is spent per day or week or month experiencing current culture than is spent experiencing Shakespeare. It's classic, it's valued, but it's not how the average person spends most of their time. And it's the same basic principle with communication.
More people get their news from television than get it from a newspaper delivered to the front door, and still more people get their news from the internet than from television. It's just the current trend. One consistent thing about humans that will probably never change, though, is the need to communicate and seek feedback. When people would once read a book or newspaper and talk face-to-face about it, they now read something electronically and talk about it on the internet. But they're still seeking input and then discussing it. As much of a big deal as this dynamic change is to some people, I just don't see it. I set out to write this post and take a stance on one side, for or against change, but it sure seems that there's very little actual change going on. It's really just a matter of what you're used to.
I basically grew up with the internet in my life. I'm completely used to having discussions with absolute strangers with unknown backgrounds. I prefer it that way, because when there's a disagreement, it stays focused on the issue at hand; there's no cheating by calling up things you know about someone from previous discussions and writing their opinions off as a result of something you don't think is important. My dad acknowledges this as true, but argues that you also lose the level of understanding you gain from knowing things like that about the other person. It's more difficult to come to an understanding if you DON'T have knowledge of the background belief or experience that contributes to that person's view on the topic you're debating. It's really just a matter of what you're used to and what you think is more important.
That's why it annoys me to no end when people complain about the way information is shared nowadays, or when my peers complain about the "old complainers" for not understanding. It's annoying that neither side has tried to figure out where the other is coming from, and it's not as if they have any hope of doing so if they both reject the other side's preferred platform of communication. My dad and I have come to terms with the whole thing, so I'm pretty unsympathetic with those who can't or won't.
Additional Sources:
Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.
My dad always complains about the sheer amount of information on the internet. He watches the nightly news on cable tv, but he also gets bored at work and reads a lot of news articles online. He's used to watching the news, getting a few stories, and going to work and talking to people about them. But with the influx of news articles being shifted from television to web, he says that the personal-face-to-face communication is being lost. Instead, people talk to absolute strangers about their life views and beliefs in the comment threads on the same page as the articles. So I tell him to ignore those people, read his articles, and then go talk to people at work about them, but he replies that there are so many articles out there that it's virtually impossible to have read the same one as someone else in his workplace. He's right about that, but my response is usually something along the lines of "so what?" He just values face-to-face discussion with familiar people more than I do, and that's a result of what we're used to.
Almost every aspect of humanity has been evolving steadily, even if genetic evolution has (debatably) ground to a halt, and culture is possibly the fastest-changing aspect out there. There are certain things that stick around for the long haul, like Shakespeare and Mozart, because they're respected and appreciated as "classics," and recognized as things what will actually stick around for the long haul. But culture that's currently developing is vastly different. This is sometimes represented in the "skyscraper model" where "higher" levels of culture are those long haul elements, and "lower" levels are the more current things that haven't had a chance to stand the test of time yet. I prefer to view culture in terms of old and new, because the only real advantage that Shakespeare has over Harry Potter is the fact that his plays have earned respect through simply being around for practically forever. The Harry Potter franchise simply hasn't had a chance to yet. But even though Shakespeare has the general respect of most of the rest of current culture, much more time is spent per day or week or month experiencing current culture than is spent experiencing Shakespeare. It's classic, it's valued, but it's not how the average person spends most of their time. And it's the same basic principle with communication.
More people get their news from television than get it from a newspaper delivered to the front door, and still more people get their news from the internet than from television. It's just the current trend. One consistent thing about humans that will probably never change, though, is the need to communicate and seek feedback. When people would once read a book or newspaper and talk face-to-face about it, they now read something electronically and talk about it on the internet. But they're still seeking input and then discussing it. As much of a big deal as this dynamic change is to some people, I just don't see it. I set out to write this post and take a stance on one side, for or against change, but it sure seems that there's very little actual change going on. It's really just a matter of what you're used to.
I basically grew up with the internet in my life. I'm completely used to having discussions with absolute strangers with unknown backgrounds. I prefer it that way, because when there's a disagreement, it stays focused on the issue at hand; there's no cheating by calling up things you know about someone from previous discussions and writing their opinions off as a result of something you don't think is important. My dad acknowledges this as true, but argues that you also lose the level of understanding you gain from knowing things like that about the other person. It's more difficult to come to an understanding if you DON'T have knowledge of the background belief or experience that contributes to that person's view on the topic you're debating. It's really just a matter of what you're used to and what you think is more important.
That's why it annoys me to no end when people complain about the way information is shared nowadays, or when my peers complain about the "old complainers" for not understanding. It's annoying that neither side has tried to figure out where the other is coming from, and it's not as if they have any hope of doing so if they both reject the other side's preferred platform of communication. My dad and I have come to terms with the whole thing, so I'm pretty unsympathetic with those who can't or won't.
Additional Sources:
Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Targeting the New Generation
I turned 18 and registered to vote about two years ago. This will be my first opportunity to vote in the Presidential Election. And I'm noticing now, more than ever, the efforts that some political campaigns are making to win me over onto their side.
Not me personally, but my generation, the group of new voters that's just beginning to become politically aware. Both Democrats and Republicans keep emphasizing their humble beginnings, and how they started from almost nothing and worked their way up to the status of potential president. This catches the attention of people in the lower financial classes, but rings particularly powerfully with younger people. Many of us between the ages of 18 and 25 have either just finished high school, are invested in college, or just graduated and are looking for some way to build ourselves up to financial stability and independence. For our Presidential candidates to tell us that they've done essentially the same thing we're trying to achieve.. That hits home.
Targeting this demographic is also pretty strategic of them, in my opinion. This is a group mostly consisting of people who've just recently left home and begun getting accustomed to legal independence. It's the perfect time for a political group or party to prove to them that they should support their plans and agendas. Plenty of young people go out into the world representing and supporting the views they grew up learning from their parents, but plenty more inherently think their parents are wrong and want to form their own stance. It makes a great deal of sense for politicians to aim their efforts at an investment like that.
More recently, it's been noticeable that the Democratic party has been trying various tactics to win over the younger voting generation as a whole. Politics has traditionally been a platform for older citizens, those with experience with political happenings and long memories. Speeches often refer to past events, invite old Presidents back to speak on new candidates' behalves, and make the whole political environment seem abstract to young adults by alienating them. Both Democrats and Republicans have always tried to win over the "younger" generation, meaning people between 30 and 40, but little attention was ever really paid to brand new voters. But just last week, President Obama did an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on popular news forum site Reddit. If that didn't immerse my generation in current politics, nothing will. People who previously viewed all of politics with a removed and distant eye were instantly fascinated by the fact that our incumbent was on Reddit with them. It was like the king emerging from his castle of news reporters and old advisers and joining you and your friends at Starbucks for a muffin and some coffee to talk about life. Even if people didn't agree with the answers he gave, the fact that he gave them left a pretty big impact, and it was a very strategic move of him to make.
Additionally, at the Democratic National Convention, Julian Castro was given the honor of delivering the keynote speech. As the mayor of San Antonio, Texas, his presence not only reached out to the Hispanic community by being the first Hispanic politician to deliver a keynote speech, but also to the largely Republican population of the southern states. And at the age of 37, as the youngest mayor of any of the US's top 50 cities, he also appealed to the younger generation of voters who had previously had little ability to directly relate to any of the speakers at events like this. This was a very efficient way for the Democratic party to appeal to the younger generation by appearing to "freshen up" their act.
So it's become pretty obvious that new voters under the age of 25 are now being much more specifically targeted than they had been in the past. President Obama was even speaking recently about passing some social programs to try to help college graduates pay off their federal loans. Student loans are possibly the second-scariest thing for newly graduated students to think about, only coming in second to the struggling job market and how difficult it is to find employment as a young person with relatively low experience. To have the highest-ranking governmental individual in the country tell you he'll help you pay off your student loans is an extremely attractive prospect.
I actually find this campaigning tactic to be admirably strategic. They're now beginning to pursue a fairly large group of relatively green-horned people who are, for the most part, absolutely itching to have their own opinions and act upon them. And once these opinions are developed, they'll probably stick. Someone who begins their political involvement with one party is very likely to stay with that party for most of the remainder of their voting life. Whichever party can win over the new voters will be gaining an extraordinary asset to their cause, and it sure seems like the Democrats are getting a leg-up on it.
Not me personally, but my generation, the group of new voters that's just beginning to become politically aware. Both Democrats and Republicans keep emphasizing their humble beginnings, and how they started from almost nothing and worked their way up to the status of potential president. This catches the attention of people in the lower financial classes, but rings particularly powerfully with younger people. Many of us between the ages of 18 and 25 have either just finished high school, are invested in college, or just graduated and are looking for some way to build ourselves up to financial stability and independence. For our Presidential candidates to tell us that they've done essentially the same thing we're trying to achieve.. That hits home.
Targeting this demographic is also pretty strategic of them, in my opinion. This is a group mostly consisting of people who've just recently left home and begun getting accustomed to legal independence. It's the perfect time for a political group or party to prove to them that they should support their plans and agendas. Plenty of young people go out into the world representing and supporting the views they grew up learning from their parents, but plenty more inherently think their parents are wrong and want to form their own stance. It makes a great deal of sense for politicians to aim their efforts at an investment like that.
More recently, it's been noticeable that the Democratic party has been trying various tactics to win over the younger voting generation as a whole. Politics has traditionally been a platform for older citizens, those with experience with political happenings and long memories. Speeches often refer to past events, invite old Presidents back to speak on new candidates' behalves, and make the whole political environment seem abstract to young adults by alienating them. Both Democrats and Republicans have always tried to win over the "younger" generation, meaning people between 30 and 40, but little attention was ever really paid to brand new voters. But just last week, President Obama did an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on popular news forum site Reddit. If that didn't immerse my generation in current politics, nothing will. People who previously viewed all of politics with a removed and distant eye were instantly fascinated by the fact that our incumbent was on Reddit with them. It was like the king emerging from his castle of news reporters and old advisers and joining you and your friends at Starbucks for a muffin and some coffee to talk about life. Even if people didn't agree with the answers he gave, the fact that he gave them left a pretty big impact, and it was a very strategic move of him to make.
Additionally, at the Democratic National Convention, Julian Castro was given the honor of delivering the keynote speech. As the mayor of San Antonio, Texas, his presence not only reached out to the Hispanic community by being the first Hispanic politician to deliver a keynote speech, but also to the largely Republican population of the southern states. And at the age of 37, as the youngest mayor of any of the US's top 50 cities, he also appealed to the younger generation of voters who had previously had little ability to directly relate to any of the speakers at events like this. This was a very efficient way for the Democratic party to appeal to the younger generation by appearing to "freshen up" their act.
So it's become pretty obvious that new voters under the age of 25 are now being much more specifically targeted than they had been in the past. President Obama was even speaking recently about passing some social programs to try to help college graduates pay off their federal loans. Student loans are possibly the second-scariest thing for newly graduated students to think about, only coming in second to the struggling job market and how difficult it is to find employment as a young person with relatively low experience. To have the highest-ranking governmental individual in the country tell you he'll help you pay off your student loans is an extremely attractive prospect.
I actually find this campaigning tactic to be admirably strategic. They're now beginning to pursue a fairly large group of relatively green-horned people who are, for the most part, absolutely itching to have their own opinions and act upon them. And once these opinions are developed, they'll probably stick. Someone who begins their political involvement with one party is very likely to stay with that party for most of the remainder of their voting life. Whichever party can win over the new voters will be gaining an extraordinary asset to their cause, and it sure seems like the Democrats are getting a leg-up on it.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Media Bias
In our modern society, it's nearly impossible to avoid the influence of media bias, primarily because media is everywhere. Even if you don't have a television, subscribe to a newspaper, switch on the radio talk show, or have internet access, political advertisements and product placements are everywhere. On your morning commute, you see billboards on the highway or panel ads at the bus stop. When you go grocery shopping, there are people waiting for you just outside the door, asking for your signature, or a small donation to their cause. And even if you never leave your house, if you have a cell phone number or land line, organizations can call you. And the organizations that are most often heard from are almost invariably linked to someone's political campaign.
Information publicized directly from a political campaign office is always publicized with a spin. It's always self-promotion, and any sort of self-promotion is based in fact and wrapped in embellishments or slanted impressions to make the publisher look favorable. Often, this information alludes to facts and figures related to political opponents, in an effort to make said opponent seem somehow less desirable. The intent of any shard-like media contributions made in this manner is to make the receiver sympathize and agree with the deliverer. As such, it's always presented with a spin in that direction, and should be taken with a grain of salt. When a campaign ad is televised, it's important to understand that it's purpose is not to inform, but rather to gain support.
Even when the factual core of these media shards is presented by organizations whose purpose is to present hard, cold facts, there's some sort of bias attached. When you switch on the nightly news and watch the press coverage of so-and-so's public speech that happened earlier that day, you're getting the bias written into the speech by the political candidate and the bias that's carried over through the news company. They don't have enough cameras or time to present you with every little thing that happened, and often times they elect to show certain things and omit others in order to make the story more interesting. Though it's the obligation and purpose of these media companies to present the public with the facts they don't have time to find for themselves, it's their priority to keep their companies at the forefront of the industry, and they do that through public popularity and show ratings. Therefore, they do whatever they can to keep people tuning in to watch every night, and often that results in a much more dramatic portrayal of events than is necessary or strictly true. So while they present coverage of so-and-so's speech, they'll include the handful of people in the crowd that get whipped up into a frenzy, for example, and pay little attention to the hundreds who stay calm, and therefore make the speech seem more poorly-received than it may actually have been.
Nowadays, though, there are many other sources to get coverage of political events, sources that don't necessarily care about how they're received or how popular they become because they don't make their living that way. There are hundreds, even thousands of people on the internet, posting their own take on things in blogs like this one, or starting their own sites, or filming series of youtube videos. Many of them do this with the same intent as the campaign directors, to get support and find someone to agree with them. Some others try very hard to be impartial deliverers of fact in an effort to offset the bias attached to media that comes from other angles and sources. But even though they try to present everything as impartially as possible, they still have their own opinions on everything they present, and this always comes across somehow, very subtly, in tone of voice or choice of words. So by virtue of humanity's nature to ascribe meaning to experiences, it's virtually impossible to present an account of an event without some sort of small personal bias attached.
Because it's unrealistic to try to avoid any sort of public media related to the political environment, it's more advisable to develop a strategy for weeding legitimate information out of the mess of opinionated sources available. This can be done in a multitude of ways. Probably the best way is to consult multiple sources, and as many with differing views as possible. That way, it can become clearer what the common factor is among them. When one site's article presents a certain spin to an event, and another article presents the opposite view, it's much easier to tell what is fact and what is embellishment. It's also valuable to be able to filter media based directly on the source. If you find out what a party is trying to achieve, whether they're a political candidate or a media company or a blogger, you can come closer to guessing the type of spin they may try to implement and compensate for it when you get information from them. It is possible to filter media outlets and form your own opinions on political happenings, it just takes some level of awareness and effort to think independently.
Information publicized directly from a political campaign office is always publicized with a spin. It's always self-promotion, and any sort of self-promotion is based in fact and wrapped in embellishments or slanted impressions to make the publisher look favorable. Often, this information alludes to facts and figures related to political opponents, in an effort to make said opponent seem somehow less desirable. The intent of any shard-like media contributions made in this manner is to make the receiver sympathize and agree with the deliverer. As such, it's always presented with a spin in that direction, and should be taken with a grain of salt. When a campaign ad is televised, it's important to understand that it's purpose is not to inform, but rather to gain support.
Even when the factual core of these media shards is presented by organizations whose purpose is to present hard, cold facts, there's some sort of bias attached. When you switch on the nightly news and watch the press coverage of so-and-so's public speech that happened earlier that day, you're getting the bias written into the speech by the political candidate and the bias that's carried over through the news company. They don't have enough cameras or time to present you with every little thing that happened, and often times they elect to show certain things and omit others in order to make the story more interesting. Though it's the obligation and purpose of these media companies to present the public with the facts they don't have time to find for themselves, it's their priority to keep their companies at the forefront of the industry, and they do that through public popularity and show ratings. Therefore, they do whatever they can to keep people tuning in to watch every night, and often that results in a much more dramatic portrayal of events than is necessary or strictly true. So while they present coverage of so-and-so's speech, they'll include the handful of people in the crowd that get whipped up into a frenzy, for example, and pay little attention to the hundreds who stay calm, and therefore make the speech seem more poorly-received than it may actually have been.
Nowadays, though, there are many other sources to get coverage of political events, sources that don't necessarily care about how they're received or how popular they become because they don't make their living that way. There are hundreds, even thousands of people on the internet, posting their own take on things in blogs like this one, or starting their own sites, or filming series of youtube videos. Many of them do this with the same intent as the campaign directors, to get support and find someone to agree with them. Some others try very hard to be impartial deliverers of fact in an effort to offset the bias attached to media that comes from other angles and sources. But even though they try to present everything as impartially as possible, they still have their own opinions on everything they present, and this always comes across somehow, very subtly, in tone of voice or choice of words. So by virtue of humanity's nature to ascribe meaning to experiences, it's virtually impossible to present an account of an event without some sort of small personal bias attached.
Because it's unrealistic to try to avoid any sort of public media related to the political environment, it's more advisable to develop a strategy for weeding legitimate information out of the mess of opinionated sources available. This can be done in a multitude of ways. Probably the best way is to consult multiple sources, and as many with differing views as possible. That way, it can become clearer what the common factor is among them. When one site's article presents a certain spin to an event, and another article presents the opposite view, it's much easier to tell what is fact and what is embellishment. It's also valuable to be able to filter media based directly on the source. If you find out what a party is trying to achieve, whether they're a political candidate or a media company or a blogger, you can come closer to guessing the type of spin they may try to implement and compensate for it when you get information from them. It is possible to filter media outlets and form your own opinions on political happenings, it just takes some level of awareness and effort to think independently.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)