After Friday’s discussion of the ways technology is fundamentally altering every facet of our lives even if we attempt to resist or critic it, I found several of this weekend’s readings incredibly powerful and optimistic. First, I was relatively young when the Arab Spring took place, and although I understood the event generally, I was appreciated reading Arafa and Armstrong’s article, which both summarized the event and discussed how social media was a vital component of the uprisings and demonstrations. In particular, I liked how they blurred the line between the typical binary distinction between the ‘virtual’ world and the ‘real’ one. So often in our conversations today, I find people speak about the technological world we occupy as somehow entirely separate from the ‘real’ world. However, Arafa and Armstrong helped illuminate how the two worlds influence each other and inevitably blend together. Specifically for the Arab Spring, they write about how virtual technology allowed demonstrators to organize quickly and efficiently in the ‘real’ world within a time frame that would arguably have been impossible without social media and the internet. Moreover, Arafa and Armstrong’s argument for the benefits of social media in facilitating democratic uprising parallels Bennett’s proposition that “large-scale individualized collective action” (20) is now more possible than ever with digital technologies and Carty’s thesis that ‘information communication technologies’ can help enhance participatory democracy.
In addition to Arafa and Armstrong’s blurring of the ‘virtual’ and ‘real’ world, I also appreciated their discussion of “Arab’s hunger for decentralized news and information” and their push against monopolized traditional media (73). First, I definitely take for granted how many different news outlets we have in the United States and how—with a few exceptions—the media is not beholden to the government. Second, however, after reading Arafa and Armstrong, I read the Pew Research Center article, which reminded me of the dangers of “undifferentiated” (1) news. While citizen journalism like we saw in the Arab Spring and a democratized media landscape has many advantages, I was again forced to return to the conversation we had with Laura during week one about the role journalists still play in our ever-changing world. Like other articles we read last week, Pew argues journalists can no longer simply be gatekeepers but must be ‘referees’ and help construct a world of “integrity and reliability” to make self-government possible (1). Reading these two articles back to back helped me recognize that these two worlds are not mutually exclusive; citizen journalists can work alongside professional journalists in creating the world we all hope to occupy. However, since social media—exemplified by our previous discussion of Facebook—exploded without much forethought, we are now forced to tackle these questions and find solutions as we go.
In continuing this predicament of advancing too quickly without forethought and consideration, Putnam’s chapters illustrate how the technological expansion we’ve seen in the last two decades truly began almost a century ago; social media is simply the most recent episode in this long history. In “Technology and Mass Media,” Putnam explores how the implications of mass media, summating: “Americans at the end of the twentieth century were watching more TV, watching it more habitually, more pervasively, and more often alone, and watching more programs that were associated specifically with civic disengagement” (246). While Putnam posits a clear link between TV watching and civic disengagement, he also offers several additional factors in his conclusion for the “erosion of America’s social connectedness and community involvement,” such as the breakdown in traditional family units and suburbanization (277).
...Thus, Putnam reminded me that while social media and technology have almost unquestionably contributed to our decreased civic and social engagement, there are many other factors that also need to be taken into consideration. Rather than focusing on how social media has ‘ruined the world’ and ignoring all the aforementioned positive benefits it has brought about, we must critically question all the other possible contributing factors to our social unraveling and do our best to attack this broad-scale issue in a holistic way.
The Arafa and Armstrong piece in conjunction with the Pew Research Center PRC) piece was fascinating. “The world of cyberspace is filled with many views of reality,” according to the PRC, which seems to hold truth in todays world of fake news and alternative facts. Yet the social media that takes up a large chunk of cyberspace was at least in part responsible for the Arab Spring. While social media can tell discordant truths, it also allowed countries to join together to tell their story to the rest of the world. Arab countries shared slogans with each other via Facebook and the New Media allowed women to play a role in the uprisings without breaking any societal norms (Arafa and Armstrong). Perhaps within a movement a truth can become unified for the purpose of strengthening the movement, but when people look in on a movement from the outside, the truth becomes subjective according to their beliefs.
The Arab Spring also used social media to humanize a movement that was occurring so far from the rest of the world; “Khaled put a human face on the urgency of standing up to corruption, while providing important news, tools, and resources for anyone looking to stay at the forefront of advocacy for change” (Arafa and Armstrong 90). Similar to when PETA commercials flash images of sick and starving puppies across television screens to tug at viewers heartstrings and empathize them into action, showing Khaled’s face made a widespread movement about a single person’s struggle. Regardless of whether someone is a cyber-enthusiast or a cyber-skeptic, it is undeniable that social media played an important role in bringing the attention of the rest of the world to the Arab Spring and in uniting Arab countries.
With all of the information already available, journalists have a new responsibility of playing the referee rather than the gatekeeper, according to the PRC. They must verify information out there and in there articles, state what information is true and untrue. Does this diminish a journalist’s role to fact checker? I find it interesting that we have yet to discuss how the best journalists remain integral to society because they tell their story in seamless, beautiful way that makes the reader want to keep reading. Good writing is part of the trade and always has been. Citizens often lack the skills to eloquently present their information, which is where journalists come in. Claims exist that people no longer need journalists because the information is present but many lack the wherewithal and judgement to sift through everything to understand it for themselves.
The readings tonight highlighted how social media can give the individual a voice in politics and how this promotes social change and democracy. Carty describes how social media allows for increased communication, organizing, and collective identity, which paves the way for grassroots organizing. Bennet digs deeper and describes a phenomenon, “personalized politics,” where individuals no longer feel part of specific groups, but “individual expression displaces collective action frames in the embrace of political causes” (37). This permits individuals with specific interests and lifestyles, such as environmental consumerism, to unite via social media around these principles. This public unification to make change was seen in the Arab Spring, where social media gave “Arab subjects” a platform to be turned “into engaged citizens” (Arafa and Armstrong). “Too often the public’s interest has been ignored in favor of personal bias or corporate profit” (Pew Research Center 2) Social media provides a platform to bypass this greed and give the individual voice, allowing for a more inclusive and participatory democracy.
Though the articles discussed how social media can give a political and journalistic voice to the individual, helping them participate in democracy, they also discuss downsides. Bennet highlights how this process is incredibly slow at creating policy change. Another downside is that, with the new mass media and the ability to follow news sources that confirm our tastes, people become entrenched in their views, increasing polarization (Ch 13). Additionally, in my group’s digital media campaign, it is hard to get the public to use their voice. We are getting a lot of responses that are simple, blanket statements and less about substantive stories. Additionally, some describe trained journalist’s roles as “referees”, but, with bypassing the traditional system, there are just peers mediating conversation. Is there a way for more people to have a voice in democracy, while also having a formal “referee” to limit the spread of fake information?
I think these readings were very interesting because they easily identified the progression of personalized politics pervading into a wider society/network as a means of blurring the lines between Habermas' pubic and private spheres. Recent (post 1970s) advances in technology have offered advanced modes of communication that decentralize controlled information. Social media networks, SMOs, NSMs, blogs, online forums, and even television, "enables us as citizens to have our voices heard in the chambers of power and allows us to monitor and moderate the sources of power that shape our lives" (Pew Research Center, 2005). Adversely, this surge of technologically-driven activism, especially with television, has caused civic engagement to decline.While social movements using technology CAN and HAVE launched initiatives that decolonize public opinion and have revitalized democracy, there is also potential for civic disengagement due to factors of breakdowns of familial values, racism, government growth, electric entertainment, etc. (Ch. 15 "What Killed Civic Engagement? Summing Up"). I really liked how W. Lance Bennett verbalized the era of personalization in the context of the modern technological world stating, "While individuals may be at the center of their own universes, those universes can be very large thanks to the social networking potential of ubiquitous communication technologies" (p. 23).
ALSO: In Victoria Carty's article, they mention that oftentimes candlelight vigils are very effective. i had no idea they were so impactful but, what if we were to incorporate some sort of candlelight vigil for victims of gun violence in schools? This could either be at the school board meeting OR following up with our work with RMPBS in April as a commemorative candle lighting for Columbine victims OR something we just plan on campus.
This was a great set of readings! I liked the overall feeling and tone that the authors gave off, and it made for an overall entertaining time. In our past few days of discussion, we’ve been talking a ton about the impacts of social media on journalism, politics, and overall society, so it was great to have our readings directly tie into each other.
I was most struck by the readings “A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age,” and “Facebook to Mobilize…” Each set the table personally in dictating that we need a stronger institution of journalism if we are to continue having free and legitimate democracy. The “Facebook” piece was direct in stating there is a “urgent need for a new set of analytical tools and procedures for study, comparison, and explanation of the complex roles the New Media plays with various national and transnational forms of political participation and debate.”
Especially relating to the terrible impacts that Facebook has had, I’ve found it to be more true than ever that we need some kind of check for the Internet. While Facebook and other New Medias have made mass communication very accessible, it’s also been made very easy for the bad guys to interfere in national issues across the globe, from the US 2016 election, to independence for Catalan, to the genocide in Myanmar, to Brexit. There’s just too much power within social media platforms that have been engineered to tap into a deep part of our brain, and journalistic institutions just aren’t cutting it in getting people to understand the deep consequences of New Media.
The Pew article is very direct in stating that we need to improve and re-evaluate our journalistic standards. To paraphrase - journalism has experienced failure because it’s relying on old tenets of journalistic practice in the midst of massive social changes. The new role of journalism must move away from that of a gatekeeper, as information is getting out no matter what these days, into the role of a referee, deciding which information is fair and free and which is foul and should be understood as such. Because of New Media, people just can’t tell what the truth is anymore. Our brains have been conditioned by Facebook and the like so that we are presented with information, and tend to believe it, so a better form of journalism must arise.
It could be Engaged Journalism that fulfills that role. National media just can’t cover the truth well enough, and although it’s a tall order, engaged journalists in communities nationwide have to be able to tap into their markets and inform citizens of the real truths of their everyday lives, as well as those that are intertwined with the higher workings of federal government. Journalism needs to wake up before it’s too late.
We are bringing our exploration of the change in the propagation of ideas throughout history full circle to our current, incredibly-small digital world. No longer a philosophical issue such as 'are replicas art?' or the cliche 'is technology is rotting people's brains?', the aspect of social media in journalism that stands out to me is its use as a battlefield. When a president sends troops or bombs somewhere, that is fairly visible and the president is held somewhat accountable, and the international community might take action. When a president sends mass-distributed propaganda trolls, proving, much less explaining, this to the public is much more difficult, thus making this a much more subtle and insidious weapon. The knowledge gap between, for example, being illiterate during the Vietnam War era (and getting your information from tv news anchors, grainy footage, or word of mouth) and someone currently computer-illiliterate having to identify mass-misinformation on social media and the methodology behind hacking the electronic vote is a deep gulf indeed. The frightening whiff of neo-imperialism in media surrounding the 'Arab Spring', the 'Big Brother' approach to dealing with dissidents, or the unthinkable power wielded by a few immoral, multi-national companies over governments and their citizens alike are only a few examples of this new battlefield. With the education system in most countries not having caught up with the prevalence of the impact of the digital world on the every day, communications technology is well on its way to becoming a secret playground for the elite on which they can meddle with millions in a single key stoke. Not just the lack of general understanding, but also the overwhelming amount of data it is necessary to process to have even a hint of an overview is creating a culture of increasingly frightened citizens who are ever more determined to stick with what is comfortable in their own narrow worldview rather than try to make sense of the conflict raging around them. Empathy fatigue and polarisation are becoming life-threatening political issues across the globe as the digital world skews our perception of the real one.
However, there is also another side of this coin: with a revised statement of intent, good journalism could work much more quickly and effectively on the problems of today. Rather than adding to the commodification of consumption of media, by not focusing on simply delivering an unending torrent of stuck-up, faux neutral 'facts' or ego-soothing, sensationalised 'truths', journalism has the power to humanise groups of people to other groups of people with whom they might never have come into contact, and to contextualise and help people sort through reams of data, and to help people decide what their own best interests are, and overall to help foster a sense of community within community. The positive implications are as endless as the negative ones. Transparency, humanity, contextualisation, and practical, problem solving approaches could do a lot of good very quickly in this new climate, ultimately helping the generations still in power who did not grow up in a digital age to negotiate this brave new world until Millenials and Gen Z can step in. Toeing the line between the cacaphony of citizen journalism and delivering verdicts from on high is no easy task, but it is a necessary one if we wish to escape the current climate of confused reactions to confused lashings-out over confused reactions to confused reporting of minute by minute crises.
Of course, gaining the readers and changing the industry is a monumental task, but it does seem that people generally want to be knowledgeable with incurring a ridiculous amount of anxiety, and that this type of news could be made entertaining without compromising its integrity, and that therefore there IS a market for news like this, if only people knew about it. I feel that while there is a deeper sense of urgency, there is also definitely no reason to give up hope.
Putnam writes about television in Bowling Alone as being detrimental to civic engagement and participation outside the home. From the perspective of the early 2000s, he appears to fear that a new generation, if unchecked, may grow up distanced from the wider world because of their dependence on television for entertainment and even companionship. Because of his time, Putnam was unaware of the eminent emergence of social media as the platform of choice for young people. While I don’t have the data to back up this assumption, my guess is the number of people reporting television as their primary form of entertainment is likely to have decreased. In its place, people have probably replaced television with internet media. Further, Putnam’s passive consumer who turns on the TV just to browse or to leave on in the background is far less likely to exist in a world where people can cue up the shows of their desires at the click of a button. So, are his assessments even relevant in a modern society, or should new assessments be made for new media?
The main thing making social media distinct from television is that incites active participation rather than passive viewing. While television may inspire people to silently watch alone, social media encourages people to interact with the ideas of others and start conversations. In this way, social media becomes a great equalizer. All people with access to the internet and a device to use it can now connect with others from around the world to share ideas and work towards making change. As such, the trends that Putnam predicts to potentially occur with the growing influence of television have likely been reversed by the movement towards using social media. As Arafa and Armstrong show, social media can be used to inspire mass movements and connect people towards common aims. Carty’s analysis of MoveOn.org further supports the claim that people are actually more engaged as a result of being connected online.
Nearly 20 years on from the publication of Bowling Alone, it is clear that we shouldn’t fear for today’s youth and their potential to involve themselves with society. They have moved beyond passive viewing of television into action on social media. In doing so, they leverage a more connected world to lead to change.
Technology has changed in myriad ways over the past century. Subsequently, journalism has changed with it. First there were just newspapers, then radio, then TV, and now social media. All of these different platforms have each had their own uniquely powerful and instrumental effect in manipulating journalism. However, in my opinion, the platform that has changed things the most is social media.
We have talked a lot about social media and its relationship to the news throughout this course. Specifically, we have discussed the implications of fake news on facebook. For example, during the 2016 election a lot of fake news circulated and it took quite a bit of time before it was corrected. However, after tonight’s readings I feel there are actually many benefits to public social media platforms like facebook. During the Arab Spring movement, a lot of positive change was made because of social media. As Armstrong and Arafa quote, the young people of the Arab Spring “appropriated, redefined, and transformed them into effective tools for organizing” (Akin, Encina, Restivo, Schwartz, & Tyagi, 2012, p. 1). There was this new platform to express ideas and work towards decentralizing the news. Additionally, a broader net was casted because this type of citizen news was more accessible than that of conventional news. Thus, it was able to spark change in a place that deeply needed it.
Thus, the concept of social media as a journalism ‘hub’ is a complicated, multifaceted issue. It can do both good and bad. To me, there is no simple way to say whether it’s good or bad, because it can truly be both. I think this question — whether social media is good or bad — is something I will be grappling with long after this course ends. However, one thing that helps me think about this is the fact that we really will never be getting rid of social media. It is here, and it’s here to stay. As Mark Zuckerberg put it, if facebook goes away, there will be 5 other ‘facebooks’ that pop up in its place. So, the issue is not so much figuring out if it’s good or bad, because it’s here to stay. Thus, the question is ultimately, how can we make it better?
The Pew Research Center wrote an extremely thoughtful piece that explores the responsibilities of journalists and how the responsibilities of journalists have changed given the way technology has changes. The opening line of the piece is “Journalism does more than keep us informed-journalism enables us as citizens to have our voices heard in the chambers of power and allows us to monitor and moderate the sources of power that shape our lives” (Pew). Even though technology has progressed, the ethical and moral responsibility that the journalist holds to the consumer has remained. The way they tell the news has changed (ranging from civic journalism to engaged journalism to activist journalism), but the responsibility to the consumer has remained.
The Pew article continues to quote John D. Wolfensohn when he says “What differentiates poor people from rich people, is lack of voice. The inability to be represented. The inability to convey to the people in authority what it is they think. The inability to have a searchlight put on the conditions of inequality.” This further expresses the need for social media to me because of the accessibility it offers. More people have facebook than practice Christianity. While it still isn’t the entire global population, it still is a lot and thus social media can be an extremely accessible news source for people.
What do the NRA and Instagram have in common? A particular ability to mobilize.
Wide-spread Mobilization (or demobilization) appeared as a common theme in tonight’s readings. In the article by Mohamed Arafa on the Arab Spring, he mentioned the ways social media provided the “technical infrastructure” for democratic uprisings in the Middle East. The internet allowed a safe space for people to talk openly, including woman. According to Arafa, social media “turned political events into personal experiences,” ultimately leading to social change. Furthermore, in an article written by the Pew Research Center, called ‘A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age’, James D. Wolfensohn says, “What differentiates poor people from rich people, is lack of voice. The inability to convey to the people in authority what it is they think.” Well I think, James D, Wolfensohn would think positively of the great ability to both equalize and vocalize that social media possesses the tools for. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (etc.) can connect people, inspire them and promote change.
However, in a world where we are so connected it is sad how disconnected people feel. In the ‘Technology and Mass Media’ chapter, by describing the negative implications of television, the author hinted at what would be to come in the era of disappearing photos and emojis. The “pseudo connectivity” and “false companionship” onset by the television described in the chapter seemed to use very similar language to studies coming out today about teenager’s health in a digital world. Never before are people so on the same page in different books.
Social media both has the power to connect and isolate, empower and restrain.
After reading the articles for Monday, I found myself reflecting on how much influence technology has had on journalism and the media. Media and technology have become deeply intertwined.
One particular thought I had was the demand technology has influenced media. More individuals are utilizing technology faster than ever before, as seen in the bowling alone.pdf in Table 2. It’s taking significantly shorter time for 75% of American households to own new technologies as they are invented. Technology is growing rapidly, and there is a consumer demand for more upgrades, new models, and faster service. Because our news is often experienced through these new technologies (iphones, tvs, computers, etc.), and because we are spending more time on these technologies than ever before, there is a demand for new information all the time.
To me, this demand for new information is what can cause such a fine line between entertainment and journalism in certain sources today. There is information about celebrities and other influential individuals that overpowers a lot of news today because of the demand for information. This is a very complex, deep topic that I find trouble developing all of my ideas on the subject in one short blog post response. I’m excited to unpack these ideas in class tomorrow in a space that allows for these developments.
I think that all of these readings make me think about the American response to ‘conservative’ news. I have discussed in lengths with my Dad that while I find Fox News coverage to be dishonest, inaccurate, racist, and generally bigoted, that doesn’t make MSNBC or other news 100 % better. It may only be 100 % better to some, only because of their biases.
One thing that stuck out from the Pew article was a comment they made on transparency:
“And be sure that transparency lets the public see we have kept an open mind–open not only about what we hear but about our ability to understand. Some call this humility. We call it open-mindedness. Don’t assume. Avoid an arrogance about your knowledge and be sure you submit your own assumptions to your process of verification.”(4)
While I wouldn’t charge a lot of mainstream and liberal news outlets to inaccurate, I do think they tend towards laziness, and sensationalism. However, I don’t think they land on the side of humility, as Pew puts it. I share the same distrust and hatred for Donald Trump, but assumption gets in the way of the most truthful and ‘objective’ reporting. The 6 month period where Rachel Maddow ranted about Trump’s tax returns, hoping to find a line stating: bribes from Russia, most definitely was not the best that journalism has to offer.
So, in the midst of this ‘change’ that journalism going through, there has to be an emphasis of being the most transparent and humble organization. We must focus on what we know, not what we hope to know.
We’ve discussed how changing means of technology inevitably impacts how citizens consume their news, and this is especially true when the news relates to social change or advocacy. The accessibility social media allows for citizen journalism allows people all over the world to both be aware of, and join, trends that might not have been previously accessible to them. This means that people nationally can hear news stories from remote parts of the world and people living in underdeveloped countries have access to the major trends from the American press. The New York Times Podcast, The Daily, from Friday February 1st touched on this point. The Daily included conversations from the Editor of The New York Times with President Trump about the role of the free press in America. A.G. Sulzberger, The Times’s publisher, explains to President Trump the tangible impacts of aggressive rhetoric such as the use of the phrases “fake news” and “enemy of the people” referring to journalists. He expands on this point, explaining that there has been a rise in attacks on journalists nationally and an overall increased disregard for and disbelief of journalism worldwide. President Trump, in typical fashion, expressed his disbelief to Sulzberger not willing to admit that his actions have consequences. In some sense, we are doing what Trump is doing every day with a refusal to be held accountable for our actions on social media. Although we might not be the single most powerful person in the free world, with every tweet and post on social media, we are adding ourselves to the interconnected web of the international world. Citizen journalism is tricky in this way because has enough room for deniability in regards to consequences of one single post or hashtag. “A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age” touches on this point as well, and expands on the role of journalists in this social media age. This article cites that the aspects that journalists today need to focus on are the impact on the producer end of the information stream and the impact on the consumer. Some suggestions Pew Research Center has for journalists are to back to ask every claim “How do you know that” as well as ensure transparency about what they know and don’t know. Similar to what we’ve been talking about in class, it recommends journalists should being able to “provide information so that people see how it was developed and can make up their own minds what to think” (3) . This methodology seems to be repeated in most of our conversations, the desire for journalism to inform the people on the relevant information so they can come to their own conclusions. The question moving forward after recognizing this desire is how to do it when news of varying scale is all presented as if it exists on an even playing field.
Robert Putnam’s piece Bowling Alone really struck me with its discussion of generational changes in respect to technology. Putnam emphasized the decline in newspaper readership, as we have previously studied and discussed in class, but tied it to the increase in TV news viewership, tracing it all the way back to the 1970’s. I feel that when we discuss changing technology and its impact, we tend to focus only on the internet age and the ways in which millennials differ from preceding generations. This work provided an interesting context to the typical dialogue on the ideological isolation and civic passiveness that the internet age has caused or, at a minimum, contributed to. This reading contextualized the present age by noting that TV ownership jumped 80% in only nine years in the 1950’s, marking a historical precedent for the fastest spread of a technological development. With this rise came a nationwide trend of familial and individual isolation and an increase of American consumption of entertainment media over informative news media over 40 years before the internet became widely accessible to the American public.
While this spread in and of itself is disheartening, many of the other articles took a positive spin on how the rise of the internet can reverse this trend. As we discussed in class on Friday, the radio and TV newscasts are both monological forms of news and media consumption. The rise of the internet as the predominant medium for news consumption could and has begun to turn this monological format into more of an open dialogue, or even a town hall-format. Arafa and Armstrong emphasized the internet’s ability to do just this in their study on new media and the Arab Spring. The internet clearly functioned as an space for Arab youth to express their discontentment and, further, to organize action to change the world around them. Even if, as Bennett argued, Americans are using the internet to narrow the view of the media they consume and personalize their view of contemporary politics, this still could lead to an increase in civic action and participation in politics. As we saw in last night’s readings, the internet has the potential to reverse the last few decades’ trends of isolation and create an increase in civic action and involvement. We could point to both the Arab Spring and the activism practiced by the survivors of Parkland to demonstrate that it already has.
These readings were a great expansion on our discussion Friday. I haven't had the chance to take an in depth look at this kind of research or analysis before. In the past, I've learned more about the negatives of social media and networks than the positives, and recently how these things can divide us has been more on my mind than how they can bring us together. Although networks can and do divide us in some ways, I believe new ICTs could revilitize the public sphere if they focus on the tenants referenced - divertsity, inclusion, flexibility... The same tenants should be applied to en engaged journalistic approach and could help with the development of social media campagining/outreach for journalists. Young peoples' engagement with social media can be a huge positive for society. Carty emphasizes how online networks allow for collaboration across many lines (country, racial, religious). It is easier than ever for youth to connect and get excited about these issues. The reponse from high schoolers to the Parkland shooting is one example. I think teaching media literacy and teaching students the power they have using these networks is vital. Personalization of issues (annals of political science) can be used as a tactic of engaged journalism as well as one of political campaigning. The guns in schools project is an easy subject to practice this tactic on, since it by nature can feel so personal. Reading the article about the personalization of politics, I thought about how the methodology and ethics of engaged jouranlism we've discussed and agreed on as valid fall right in line with the Liberal style of discourse described in the reading. "The left may err in the continued pursuit of reason, deliberation and civility with opponents." This is described as leading to profound political disconnect. I wonder if using these methods of journalism will feed these disconnect and how this could be remedied.
As a sociology major, I have read many excerpts from the “Bowling Alone” piece. In a class called “Communities and Networks”, Kathy Giuffre discussed with us in great detail how to understand social connection and our societal implications regarding the modern era we now find ourselves in. Although we talked about and analyzed social interaction and integration within the context of social media, it became difficult to say whether or no it was helping our progress or regress as a society on a larger scale. I found it interesting that, instead of simply talking about group participation as a whole, this portion of the book only discussed how television in the United States has changed how we spend our time in a pretty significant way. The reading notes that “those who said they were spending more time watching TV than in the past were significantly less likely to attend public meetings, to serve in local organizations, to sign petitions, and the like than demographically matched people” (pp. 238). Although this is most likely a reality, the conversation ignores the possibility for the internet to create a catalyst for IRL and URL activist and social engagement. Perhaps in terms of journalism on TV, they should try to employ the strategies of successful online campaigns. In Carty’s piece, she notes that MoveOn had “Meetup; a tool that allows people who are interested in a particular issue to organize meetings or protest events by voting on a time and place to meet in their local area” (pp. 164). Perhaps journalists based on TV can attempt to use these types of techniques to engage action from their viewers in the future!
Our generation has been the one to grow up with the strong influence of social media. Throughout our class and our various readings, it has been evident how strongly we rely on the media for information and more. In our reading from a couple of nights ago, we learned how Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook has stored private information on the users and how that has been manipulated over the years since its creation. However, the reading for class Monday shows a more optimistic side to social media and its ability to connect us. In the readings about Arab Springs, Arafa and Armstrong show not only how social media helped grow the Arab uprising but also change it from what a traditional protest is like. Protest leaders were now those who had lots of experience on social media, “prominent nodes in the digital networks,” (Arafa, Armstrong). This allowed younger citizens to get involved and take a more active role. In addition, another example of how social media made the Arab springs more inclusive is how women were allowed to take part via the internet, “New Media opened the online public sphere to Arab women and made it easier, and in some cases, possible for them to participate in the uprisings without being seen as breaking any of their societies’ social codes,” (Arafa, Armstrong). Social media allowed also for protestors to bypass the news sources controlled by the government. Arafa and Armstrong illustrate how revolutionary social media can be. Another part of the reading that spoke to the righteous aspects of journalism was the PEW article. The author outlined the most important rules journalists need to follow in order to produce good and reliable news. Journalists need to “accept responsibility for credibility,” (PEW). In addition, they need to put what is good for the public interest over any private bias's or profit. Journalists need to understand just how important their role has become in the age of digital media. In Bennett’s article he explains how connected social media makes us, “people are alone, but linked to many more through social media,” (Bennett). Social media is a huge part of our lives, and in light of that, we have a responsibility to uphold journalistic ideals.
I found these readings quite interesting, and they have my thoughts a little all over the place. I think it's interesting to note the shift from identity politics to the so-called personalized politics - which I'm not sure I fully understand yet. But I do find it striking that people seems to be prone to political activation based upon more than jus appeals to their demographic. Instead, consumer behavior and lived experiences may play an equally important role. I thought it was especially interesting to read about how the political right has effectively used personalized politics to activate its base.
In the second article, I was inspired by the strategy of MoveOn. MoveOn inspires political action through organization by traditional and digital means. I found their digital march particularly interesting, and think that it could be an interesting approach to guns in schools activism. The Bowling Alone article critiques our increased passive, individualized consumption of media, of watching rather than doing. This is important to consider as we praise digital media. How can we engage people via digital media while ensuring that it is not just passive "watching", rather useful information that inspires "doing"?
After Friday’s discussion of the ways technology is fundamentally altering every facet of our lives even if we attempt to resist or critic it, I found several of this weekend’s readings incredibly powerful and optimistic. First, I was relatively young when the Arab Spring took place, and although I understood the event generally, I was appreciated reading Arafa and Armstrong’s article, which both summarized the event and discussed how social media was a vital component of the uprisings and demonstrations. In particular, I liked how they blurred the line between the typical binary distinction between the ‘virtual’ world and the ‘real’ one. So often in our conversations today, I find people speak about the technological world we occupy as somehow entirely separate from the ‘real’ world. However, Arafa and Armstrong helped illuminate how the two worlds influence each other and inevitably blend together. Specifically for the Arab Spring, they write about how virtual technology allowed demonstrators to organize quickly and efficiently in the ‘real’ world within a time frame that would arguably have been impossible without social media and the internet. Moreover, Arafa and Armstrong’s argument for the benefits of social media in facilitating democratic uprising parallels Bennett’s proposition that “large-scale individualized collective action” (20) is now more possible than ever with digital technologies and Carty’s thesis that ‘information communication technologies’ can help enhance participatory democracy.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to Arafa and Armstrong’s blurring of the ‘virtual’ and ‘real’ world, I also appreciated their discussion of “Arab’s hunger for decentralized news and information” and their push against monopolized traditional media (73). First, I definitely take for granted how many different news outlets we have in the United States and how—with a few exceptions—the media is not beholden to the government. Second, however, after reading Arafa and Armstrong, I read the Pew Research Center article, which reminded me of the dangers of “undifferentiated” (1) news. While citizen journalism like we saw in the Arab Spring and a democratized media landscape has many advantages, I was again forced to return to the conversation we had with Laura during week one about the role journalists still play in our ever-changing world. Like other articles we read last week, Pew argues journalists can no longer simply be gatekeepers but must be ‘referees’ and help construct a world of “integrity and reliability” to make self-government possible (1). Reading these two articles back to back helped me recognize that these two worlds are not mutually exclusive; citizen journalists can work alongside professional journalists in creating the world we all hope to occupy. However, since social media—exemplified by our previous discussion of Facebook—exploded without much forethought, we are now forced to tackle these questions and find solutions as we go.
In continuing this predicament of advancing too quickly without forethought and consideration, Putnam’s chapters illustrate how the technological expansion we’ve seen in the last two decades truly began almost a century ago; social media is simply the most recent episode in this long history. In “Technology and Mass Media,” Putnam explores how the implications of mass media, summating: “Americans at the end of the twentieth century were watching more TV, watching it more habitually, more pervasively, and more often alone, and watching more programs that were associated specifically with civic disengagement” (246). While Putnam posits a clear link between TV watching and civic disengagement, he also offers several additional factors in his conclusion for the “erosion of America’s social connectedness and community involvement,” such as the breakdown in traditional family units and suburbanization (277).
...Thus, Putnam reminded me that while social media and technology have almost unquestionably contributed to our decreased civic and social engagement, there are many other factors that also need to be taken into consideration. Rather than focusing on how social media has ‘ruined the world’ and ignoring all the aforementioned positive benefits it has brought about, we must critically question all the other possible contributing factors to our social unraveling and do our best to attack this broad-scale issue in a holistic way.
ReplyDeleteThe Arafa and Armstrong piece in conjunction with the Pew Research Center PRC) piece was fascinating. “The world of cyberspace is filled with many views of reality,” according to the PRC, which seems to hold truth in todays world of fake news and alternative facts. Yet the social media that takes up a large chunk of cyberspace was at least in part responsible for the Arab Spring. While social media can tell discordant truths, it also allowed countries to join together to tell their story to the rest of the world. Arab countries shared slogans with each other via Facebook and the New Media allowed women to play a role in the uprisings without breaking any societal norms (Arafa and Armstrong). Perhaps within a movement a truth can become unified for the purpose of strengthening the movement, but when people look in on a movement from the outside, the truth becomes subjective according to their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThe Arab Spring also used social media to humanize a movement that was occurring so far from the rest of the world; “Khaled put a human face on the urgency of standing up to corruption, while providing important news, tools, and resources for anyone looking to stay at the forefront of advocacy for change” (Arafa and Armstrong 90). Similar to when PETA commercials flash images of sick and starving puppies across television screens to tug at viewers heartstrings and empathize them into action, showing Khaled’s face made a widespread movement about a single person’s struggle. Regardless of whether someone is a cyber-enthusiast or a cyber-skeptic, it is undeniable that social media played an important role in bringing the attention of the rest of the world to the Arab Spring and in uniting Arab countries.
With all of the information already available, journalists have a new responsibility of playing the referee rather than the gatekeeper, according to the PRC. They must verify information out there and in there articles, state what information is true and untrue. Does this diminish a journalist’s role to fact checker? I find it interesting that we have yet to discuss how the best journalists remain integral to society because they tell their story in seamless, beautiful way that makes the reader want to keep reading. Good writing is part of the trade and always has been. Citizens often lack the skills to eloquently present their information, which is where journalists come in. Claims exist that people no longer need journalists because the information is present but many lack the wherewithal and judgement to sift through everything to understand it for themselves.
The readings tonight highlighted how social media can give the individual a voice in politics and how this promotes social change and democracy. Carty describes how social media allows for increased communication, organizing, and collective identity, which paves the way for grassroots organizing. Bennet digs deeper and describes a phenomenon, “personalized politics,” where individuals no longer feel part of specific groups, but “individual expression displaces collective action frames in the embrace of political causes” (37). This permits individuals with specific interests and lifestyles, such as environmental consumerism, to unite via social media around these principles. This public unification to make change was seen in the Arab Spring, where social media gave “Arab subjects” a platform to be turned “into engaged citizens” (Arafa and Armstrong). “Too often the public’s interest has been ignored in favor of personal bias or corporate profit” (Pew Research Center 2) Social media provides a platform to bypass this greed and give the individual voice, allowing for a more inclusive and participatory democracy.
ReplyDeleteThough the articles discussed how social media can give a political and journalistic voice to the individual, helping them participate in democracy, they also discuss downsides. Bennet highlights how this process is incredibly slow at creating policy change. Another downside is that, with the new mass media and the ability to follow news sources that confirm our tastes, people become entrenched in their views, increasing polarization (Ch 13). Additionally, in my group’s digital media campaign, it is hard to get the public to use their voice. We are getting a lot of responses that are simple, blanket statements and less about substantive stories. Additionally, some describe trained journalist’s roles as “referees”, but, with bypassing the traditional system, there are just peers mediating conversation. Is there a way for more people to have a voice in democracy, while also having a formal “referee” to limit the spread of fake information?
I think these readings were very interesting because they easily identified the progression of personalized politics pervading into a wider society/network as a means of blurring the lines between Habermas' pubic and private spheres. Recent (post 1970s) advances in technology have offered advanced modes of communication that decentralize controlled information. Social media networks, SMOs, NSMs, blogs, online forums, and even television, "enables us as citizens to have our voices heard in the chambers of power and allows us to monitor and moderate the sources of power that shape our lives" (Pew Research Center, 2005). Adversely, this surge of technologically-driven activism, especially with television, has caused civic engagement to decline.While social movements using technology CAN and HAVE launched initiatives that decolonize public opinion and have revitalized democracy, there is also potential for civic disengagement due to factors of breakdowns of familial values, racism, government growth, electric entertainment, etc. (Ch. 15 "What Killed Civic Engagement? Summing Up"). I really liked how W. Lance Bennett verbalized the era of personalization in the context of the modern technological world stating, "While individuals may be at the center of their own universes, those universes can be very large thanks to the social networking potential of ubiquitous communication technologies" (p. 23).
ReplyDeleteALSO: In Victoria Carty's article, they mention that oftentimes candlelight vigils are very effective. i had no idea they were so impactful but, what if we were to incorporate some sort of candlelight vigil for victims of gun violence in schools? This could either be at the school board meeting OR following up with our work with RMPBS in April as a commemorative candle lighting for Columbine victims OR something we just plan on campus.
This was a great set of readings! I liked the overall feeling and tone that the authors gave off, and it made for an overall entertaining time. In our past few days of discussion, we’ve been talking a ton about the impacts of social media on journalism, politics, and overall society, so it was great to have our readings directly tie into each other.
ReplyDeleteI was most struck by the readings “A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age,” and “Facebook to Mobilize…” Each set the table personally in dictating that we need a stronger institution of journalism if we are to continue having free and legitimate democracy. The “Facebook” piece was direct in stating there is a “urgent need for a new set of analytical tools and procedures for study, comparison, and explanation of the complex roles the New Media plays with various national and transnational forms of political participation and debate.”
Especially relating to the terrible impacts that Facebook has had, I’ve found it to be more true than ever that we need some kind of check for the Internet. While Facebook and other New Medias have made mass communication very accessible, it’s also been made very easy for the bad guys to interfere in national issues across the globe, from the US 2016 election, to independence for Catalan, to the genocide in Myanmar, to Brexit. There’s just too much power within social media platforms that have been engineered to tap into a deep part of our brain, and journalistic institutions just aren’t cutting it in getting people to understand the deep consequences of New Media.
The Pew article is very direct in stating that we need to improve and re-evaluate our journalistic standards. To paraphrase - journalism has experienced failure because it’s relying on old tenets of journalistic practice in the midst of massive social changes. The new role of journalism must move away from that of a gatekeeper, as information is getting out no matter what these days, into the role of a referee, deciding which information is fair and free and which is foul and should be understood as such. Because of New Media, people just can’t tell what the truth is anymore. Our brains have been conditioned by Facebook and the like so that we are presented with information, and tend to believe it, so a better form of journalism must arise.
It could be Engaged Journalism that fulfills that role. National media just can’t cover the truth well enough, and although it’s a tall order, engaged journalists in communities nationwide have to be able to tap into their markets and inform citizens of the real truths of their everyday lives, as well as those that are intertwined with the higher workings of federal government. Journalism needs to wake up before it’s too late.
We are bringing our exploration of the change in the propagation of ideas throughout history full circle to our current, incredibly-small digital world. No longer a philosophical issue such as 'are replicas art?' or the cliche 'is technology is rotting people's brains?', the aspect of social media in journalism that stands out to me is its use as a battlefield. When a president sends troops or bombs somewhere, that is fairly visible and the president is held somewhat accountable, and the international community might take action. When a president sends mass-distributed propaganda trolls, proving, much less explaining, this to the public is much more difficult, thus making this a much more subtle and insidious weapon. The knowledge gap between, for example, being illiterate during the Vietnam War era (and getting your information from tv news anchors, grainy footage, or word of mouth) and someone currently computer-illiliterate having to identify mass-misinformation on social media and the methodology behind hacking the electronic vote is a deep gulf indeed. The frightening whiff of neo-imperialism in media surrounding the 'Arab Spring', the 'Big Brother' approach to dealing with dissidents, or the unthinkable power wielded by a few immoral, multi-national companies over governments and their citizens alike are only a few examples of this new battlefield. With the education system in most countries not having caught up with the prevalence of the impact of the digital world on the every day, communications technology is well on its way to becoming a secret playground for the elite on which they can meddle with millions in a single key stoke. Not just the lack of general understanding, but also the overwhelming amount of data it is necessary to process to have even a hint of an overview is creating a culture of increasingly frightened citizens who are ever more determined to stick with what is comfortable in their own narrow worldview rather than try to make sense of the conflict raging around them. Empathy fatigue and polarisation are becoming life-threatening political issues across the globe as the digital world skews our perception of the real one.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is also another side of this coin: with a revised statement of intent, good journalism could work much more quickly and effectively on the problems of today. Rather than adding to the commodification of consumption of media, by not focusing on simply delivering an unending torrent of stuck-up, faux neutral 'facts' or ego-soothing, sensationalised 'truths', journalism has the power to humanise groups of people to other groups of people with whom they might never have come into contact, and to contextualise and help people sort through reams of data, and to help people decide what their own best interests are, and overall to help foster a sense of community within community. The positive implications are as endless as the negative ones. Transparency, humanity, contextualisation, and practical, problem solving approaches could do a lot of good very quickly in this new climate, ultimately helping the generations still in power who did not grow up in a digital age to negotiate this brave new world until Millenials and Gen Z can step in. Toeing the line between the cacaphony of citizen journalism and delivering verdicts from on high is no easy task, but it is a necessary one if we wish to escape the current climate of confused reactions to confused lashings-out over confused reactions to confused reporting of minute by minute crises.
Of course, gaining the readers and changing the industry is a monumental task, but it does seem that people generally want to be knowledgeable with incurring a ridiculous amount of anxiety, and that this type of news could be made entertaining without compromising its integrity, and that therefore there IS a market for news like this, if only people knew about it. I feel that while there is a deeper sense of urgency, there is also definitely no reason to give up hope.
Putnam writes about television in Bowling Alone as being detrimental to civic engagement and participation outside the home. From the perspective of the early 2000s, he appears to fear that a new generation, if unchecked, may grow up distanced from the wider world because of their dependence on television for entertainment and even companionship. Because of his time, Putnam was unaware of the eminent emergence of social media as the platform of choice for young people. While I don’t have the data to back up this assumption, my guess is the number of people reporting television as their primary form of entertainment is likely to have decreased. In its place, people have probably replaced television with internet media. Further, Putnam’s passive consumer who turns on the TV just to browse or to leave on in the background is far less likely to exist in a world where people can cue up the shows of their desires at the click of a button. So, are his assessments even relevant in a modern society, or should new assessments be made for new media?
ReplyDeleteThe main thing making social media distinct from television is that incites active participation rather than passive viewing. While television may inspire people to silently watch alone, social media encourages people to interact with the ideas of others and start conversations. In this way, social media becomes a great equalizer. All people with access to the internet and a device to use it can now connect with others from around the world to share ideas and work towards making change. As such, the trends that Putnam predicts to potentially occur with the growing influence of television have likely been reversed by the movement towards using social media. As Arafa and Armstrong show, social media can be used to inspire mass movements and connect people towards common aims. Carty’s analysis of MoveOn.org further supports the claim that people are actually more engaged as a result of being connected online.
Nearly 20 years on from the publication of Bowling Alone, it is clear that we shouldn’t fear for today’s youth and their potential to involve themselves with society. They have moved beyond passive viewing of television into action on social media. In doing so, they leverage a more connected world to lead to change.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTechnology has changed in myriad ways over the past century. Subsequently, journalism has changed with it. First there were just newspapers, then radio, then TV, and now social media. All of these different platforms have each had their own uniquely powerful and instrumental effect in manipulating journalism. However, in my opinion, the platform that has changed things the most is social media.
ReplyDeleteWe have talked a lot about social media and its relationship to the news throughout this course. Specifically, we have discussed the implications of fake news on facebook. For example, during the 2016 election a lot of fake news circulated and it took quite a bit of time before it was corrected. However, after tonight’s readings I feel there are actually many benefits to public social media platforms like facebook. During the Arab Spring movement, a lot of positive change was made because of social media. As Armstrong and Arafa quote, the young people of the Arab Spring “appropriated, redefined, and transformed them into effective tools for organizing” (Akin, Encina, Restivo, Schwartz, & Tyagi, 2012, p. 1). There was this new platform to express ideas and work towards decentralizing the news. Additionally, a broader net was casted because this type of citizen news was more accessible than that of conventional news. Thus, it was able to spark change in a place that deeply needed it.
Thus, the concept of social media as a journalism ‘hub’ is a complicated, multifaceted issue. It can do both good and bad. To me, there is no simple way to say whether it’s good or bad, because it can truly be both. I think this question — whether social media is good or bad — is something I will be grappling with long after this course ends. However, one thing that helps me think about this is the fact that we really will never be getting rid of social media. It is here, and it’s here to stay. As Mark Zuckerberg put it, if facebook goes away, there will be 5 other ‘facebooks’ that pop up in its place. So, the issue is not so much figuring out if it’s good or bad, because it’s here to stay. Thus, the question is ultimately, how can we make it better?
The Pew Research Center wrote an extremely thoughtful piece that explores the responsibilities of journalists and how the responsibilities of journalists have changed given the way technology has changes. The opening line of the piece is “Journalism does more than keep us informed-journalism enables us as citizens to have our voices heard in the chambers of power and allows us to monitor and moderate the sources of power that shape our lives” (Pew). Even though technology has progressed, the ethical and moral responsibility that the journalist holds to the consumer has remained. The way they tell the news has changed (ranging from civic journalism to engaged journalism to activist journalism), but the responsibility to the consumer has remained.
The Pew article continues to quote John D. Wolfensohn when he says “What differentiates poor people from rich
people, is lack of voice. The inability to be represented. The inability to convey to the people in authority what it is they think. The inability to have a searchlight put on the conditions of inequality.” This further expresses the need for social media to me because of the accessibility it offers. More people have facebook than practice Christianity. While it still isn’t the entire global population, it still is a lot and thus social media can be an extremely accessible news source for people.
What do the NRA and Instagram have in common? A particular ability to mobilize.
ReplyDeleteWide-spread Mobilization (or demobilization) appeared as a common theme in tonight’s readings. In the article by Mohamed Arafa on the Arab Spring, he mentioned the ways social media provided the “technical infrastructure” for democratic uprisings in the Middle East. The internet allowed a safe space for people to talk openly, including woman. According to Arafa, social media “turned political events into personal experiences,” ultimately leading to social change. Furthermore, in an article written by the Pew Research Center, called ‘A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age’, James D. Wolfensohn says, “What differentiates poor people from rich people, is lack of voice. The inability to convey to the people in authority what it is they think.” Well I think, James D, Wolfensohn would think positively of the great ability to both equalize and vocalize that social media possesses the tools for. Facebook, Instagram and Twitter (etc.) can connect people, inspire them and promote change.
However, in a world where we are so connected it is sad how disconnected people feel. In the ‘Technology and Mass Media’ chapter, by describing the negative implications of television, the author hinted at what would be to come in the era of disappearing photos and emojis. The “pseudo connectivity” and “false companionship” onset by the television described in the chapter seemed to use very similar language to studies coming out today about teenager’s health in a digital world. Never before are people so on the same page in different books.
Social media both has the power to connect and isolate, empower and restrain.
After reading the articles for Monday, I found myself reflecting on how much influence technology has had on journalism and the media. Media and technology have become deeply intertwined.
ReplyDeleteOne particular thought I had was the demand technology has influenced media. More individuals are utilizing technology faster than ever before, as seen in the bowling alone.pdf in Table 2. It’s taking significantly shorter time for 75% of American households to own new technologies as they are invented. Technology is growing rapidly, and there is a consumer demand for more upgrades, new models, and faster service. Because our news is often experienced through these new technologies (iphones, tvs, computers, etc.), and because we are spending more time on these technologies than ever before, there is a demand for new information all the time.
To me, this demand for new information is what can cause such a fine line between entertainment and journalism in certain sources today. There is information about celebrities and other influential individuals that overpowers a lot of news today because of the demand for information. This is a very complex, deep topic that I find trouble developing all of my ideas on the subject in one short blog post response. I’m excited to unpack these ideas in class tomorrow in a space that allows for these developments.
I think that all of these readings make me think about the American response to ‘conservative’ news. I have discussed in lengths with my Dad that while I find Fox News coverage to be dishonest, inaccurate, racist, and generally bigoted, that doesn’t make MSNBC or other news 100 % better. It may only be 100 % better to some, only because of their biases.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that stuck out from the Pew article was a comment they made on transparency:
“And be sure that transparency lets the public see we have kept an open mind–open not only about what we hear but about our ability to understand. Some call this humility. We call it open-mindedness. Don’t assume. Avoid an arrogance about your knowledge and be sure you submit your own assumptions to your process of verification.”(4)
While I wouldn’t charge a lot of mainstream and liberal news outlets to inaccurate, I do think they tend towards laziness, and sensationalism. However, I don’t think they land on the side of humility, as Pew puts it. I share the same distrust and hatred for Donald Trump, but assumption gets in the way of the most truthful and ‘objective’ reporting. The 6 month period where Rachel Maddow ranted about Trump’s tax returns, hoping to find a line stating: bribes from Russia, most definitely was not the best that journalism has to offer.
So, in the midst of this ‘change’ that journalism going through, there has to be an emphasis of being the most transparent and humble organization. We must focus on what we know, not what we hope to know.
-Sam Pfeifer
DeleteWe’ve discussed how changing means of technology inevitably impacts how citizens consume their news, and this is especially true when the news relates to social change or advocacy. The accessibility social media allows for citizen journalism allows people all over the world to both be aware of, and join, trends that might not have been previously accessible to them. This means that people nationally can hear news stories from remote parts of the world and people living in underdeveloped countries have access to the major trends from the American press. The New York Times Podcast, The Daily, from Friday February 1st touched on this point. The Daily included conversations from the Editor of The New York Times with President Trump about the role of the free press in America. A.G. Sulzberger, The Times’s publisher, explains to President Trump the tangible impacts of aggressive rhetoric such as the use of the phrases “fake news” and “enemy of the people” referring to journalists. He expands on this point, explaining that there has been a rise in attacks on journalists nationally and an overall increased disregard for and disbelief of journalism worldwide. President Trump, in typical fashion, expressed his disbelief to Sulzberger not willing to admit that his actions have consequences. In some sense, we are doing what Trump is doing every day with a refusal to be held accountable for our actions on social media. Although we might not be the single most powerful person in the free world, with every tweet and post on social media, we are adding ourselves to the interconnected web of the international world. Citizen journalism is tricky in this way because has enough room for deniability in regards to consequences of one single post or hashtag. “A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age” touches on this point as well, and expands on the role of journalists in this social media age. This article cites that the aspects that journalists today need to focus on are the impact on the producer end of the information stream and the impact on the consumer. Some suggestions Pew Research Center has for journalists are to back to ask every claim “How do you know that” as well as ensure transparency about what they know and don’t know. Similar to what we’ve been talking about in class, it recommends journalists should being able to “provide information so that people see how it was developed and can make up their own minds what to think” (3) . This methodology seems to be repeated in most of our conversations, the desire for journalism to inform the people on the relevant information so they can come to their own conclusions. The question moving forward after recognizing this desire is how to do it when news of varying scale is all presented as if it exists on an even playing field.
ReplyDeleteRobert Putnam’s piece Bowling Alone really struck me with its discussion of generational changes in respect to technology. Putnam emphasized the decline in newspaper readership, as we have previously studied and discussed in class, but tied it to the increase in TV news viewership, tracing it all the way back to the 1970’s. I feel that when we discuss changing technology and its impact, we tend to focus only on the internet age and the ways in which millennials differ from preceding generations. This work provided an interesting context to the typical dialogue on the ideological isolation and civic passiveness that the internet age has caused or, at a minimum, contributed to. This reading contextualized the present age by noting that TV ownership jumped 80% in only nine years in the 1950’s, marking a historical precedent for the fastest spread of a technological development. With this rise came a nationwide trend of familial and individual isolation and an increase of American consumption of entertainment media over informative news media over 40 years before the internet became widely accessible to the American public.
ReplyDeleteWhile this spread in and of itself is disheartening, many of the other articles took a positive spin on how the rise of the internet can reverse this trend. As we discussed in class on Friday, the radio and TV newscasts are both monological forms of news and media consumption. The rise of the internet as the predominant medium for news consumption could and has begun to turn this monological format into more of an open dialogue, or even a town hall-format. Arafa and Armstrong emphasized the internet’s ability to do just this in their study on new media and the Arab Spring. The internet clearly functioned as an space for Arab youth to express their discontentment and, further, to organize action to change the world around them. Even if, as Bennett argued, Americans are using the internet to narrow the view of the media they consume and personalize their view of contemporary politics, this still could lead to an increase in civic action and participation in politics. As we saw in last night’s readings, the internet has the potential to reverse the last few decades’ trends of isolation and create an increase in civic action and involvement. We could point to both the Arab Spring and the activism practiced by the survivors of Parkland to demonstrate that it already has.
These readings were a great expansion on our discussion Friday. I haven't had the chance to take an in depth look at this kind of research or analysis before. In the past, I've learned more about the negatives of social media and networks than the positives, and recently how these things can divide us has been more on my mind than how they can bring us together. Although networks can and do divide us in some ways, I believe new ICTs could revilitize the public sphere if they focus on the tenants referenced - divertsity, inclusion, flexibility... The same tenants should be applied to en engaged journalistic approach and could help with the development of social media campagining/outreach for journalists.
ReplyDeleteYoung peoples' engagement with social media can be a huge positive for society. Carty emphasizes how online networks allow for collaboration across many lines (country, racial, religious). It is easier than ever for youth to connect and get excited about these issues. The reponse from high schoolers to the Parkland shooting is one example. I think teaching media literacy and teaching students the power they have using these networks is vital.
Personalization of issues (annals of political science) can be used as a tactic of engaged journalism as well as one of political campaigning. The guns in schools project is an easy subject to practice this tactic on, since it by nature can feel so personal.
Reading the article about the personalization of politics, I thought about how the methodology and ethics of engaged jouranlism we've discussed and agreed on as valid fall right in line with the Liberal style of discourse described in the reading. "The left may err in the continued pursuit of reason, deliberation and civility with opponents." This is described as leading to profound political disconnect. I wonder if using these methods of journalism will feed these disconnect and how this could be remedied.
W3D1 - Journalism & Social Change & Democracy - Isabella McShea
ReplyDeleteAs a sociology major, I have read many excerpts from the “Bowling Alone” piece. In a class called “Communities and Networks”, Kathy Giuffre discussed with us in great detail how to understand social connection and our societal implications regarding the modern era we now find ourselves in. Although we talked about and analyzed social interaction and integration within the context of social media, it became difficult to say whether or no it was helping our progress or regress as a society on a larger scale.
I found it interesting that, instead of simply talking about group participation as a whole, this portion of the book only discussed how television in the United States has changed how we spend our time in a pretty significant way. The reading notes that “those who said they were spending more time watching TV than in the past were significantly less likely to attend public meetings, to serve in local organizations, to sign petitions, and the like than demographically matched people” (pp. 238). Although this is most likely a reality, the conversation ignores the possibility for the internet to create a catalyst for IRL and URL activist and social engagement.
Perhaps in terms of journalism on TV, they should try to employ the strategies of successful online campaigns. In Carty’s piece, she notes that MoveOn had “Meetup; a tool that allows people who are interested in a particular issue to organize meetings or protest events by voting on a time and place to meet in their local area” (pp. 164). Perhaps journalists based on TV can attempt to use these types of techniques to engage action from their viewers in the future!
Our generation has been the one to grow up with the strong influence of social media. Throughout our class and our various readings, it has been evident how strongly we rely on the media for information and more. In our reading from a couple of nights ago, we learned how Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook has stored private information on the users and how that has been manipulated over the years since its creation. However, the reading for class Monday shows a more optimistic side to social media and its ability to connect us.
ReplyDeleteIn the readings about Arab Springs, Arafa and Armstrong show not only how social media helped grow the Arab uprising but also change it from what a traditional protest is like. Protest leaders were now those who had lots of experience on social media, “prominent nodes in the digital networks,” (Arafa, Armstrong). This allowed younger citizens to get involved and take a more active role. In addition, another example of how social media made the Arab springs more inclusive is how women were allowed to take part via the internet, “New Media opened the online public sphere to Arab women and made it easier, and in some cases, possible for them to participate in the uprisings without being seen as breaking any of their societies’ social codes,” (Arafa, Armstrong). Social media allowed also for protestors to bypass the news sources controlled by the government. Arafa and Armstrong illustrate how revolutionary social media can be.
Another part of the reading that spoke to the righteous aspects of journalism was the PEW article. The author outlined the most important rules journalists need to follow in order to produce good and reliable news. Journalists need to “accept responsibility for credibility,” (PEW). In addition, they need to put what is good for the public interest over any private bias's or profit. Journalists need to understand just how important their role has become in the age of digital media. In Bennett’s article he explains how connected social media makes us, “people are alone, but linked to many more through social media,” (Bennett). Social media is a huge part of our lives, and in light of that, we have a responsibility to uphold journalistic ideals.
I found these readings quite interesting, and they have my thoughts a little all over the place. I think it's interesting to note the shift from identity politics to the so-called personalized politics - which I'm not sure I fully understand yet. But I do find it striking that people seems to be prone to political activation based upon more than jus appeals to their demographic. Instead, consumer behavior and lived experiences may play an equally important role. I thought it was especially interesting to read about how the political right has effectively used personalized politics to activate its base.
ReplyDeleteIn the second article, I was inspired by the strategy of MoveOn. MoveOn inspires political action through organization by traditional and digital means. I found their digital march particularly interesting, and think that it could be an interesting approach to guns in schools activism. The Bowling Alone article critiques our increased passive, individualized consumption of media, of watching rather than doing. This is important to consider as we praise digital media. How can we engage people via digital media while ensuring that it is not just passive "watching", rather useful information that inspires "doing"?