We have addressed how the mass media and American politics affect one another in many different ways during this quarter. Though we have highlighted many areas of concern we have also discussed many methods used to improve the way political information is communicated and the increasing number of ways that individual citizens improve their voice within our democracy. One theme we have constantly touched on is how much has changed over time. Consider the following:
2 months ago: you started this class
5 months ago: the Federal Courts threw out net neutrality protections opening the door to FCC action
2 years ago months ago: Obama reelected
2 years ago months ago: Facebook topped 1 billion users
3 years ago: Arab Spring spreads, Occupy movement
4 years ago: FCC Open Internet Ruling
5 years ago: Green Revolution in Iran, TEA Party movement begins, Google starts personalizing searches
6 years ago: Obama elected with most innovative web based campaign in history
8 years ago: most people had never heard of Barack Obama, Twitter begins
9 years ago: YouTube and flickr
11 years ago: Facebook starts (for college students only for a few years)
13 years ago: wikipedia
14 years ago: innovative uses of campaigning online
16 years ago: MoveOn.org started, also this thing called Google
20 years ago: Clinton launches first White House website
34 years ago: CNN starts ushering in 24 hour cable news
46 years ago: Three networks devote 30 minutes to news 5 days a week, Cronkite the most trusted man in America
54 years ago: first televised debate - JFK vs. Nixon
61 years ago: television becoming commonplace across America
81 years ago: fireside chats begin
89 years ago: radios enter homes in record numbers
95 year ago: Woodrow Wilson was the first president broadcast on the radio
100 years ago: all mass media was still in print
238 years ago Common Sense was published and sold over 100,000 copies - most in American history
564 years ago: The printing press was invented
The point: much has changed, and often in a short period of time. Looking forward what do you predict will be the most important ways that the media will impact politics (and vice versa) two, five, 10, or even 20 years from now? What can and should be done to help make these changes as positive as possible?
One request: please take just a couple of minutes to complete your course evaluation if you have not done so already. I would really appreciate it. Just follow this link to go to Campus Connect.
If trends continue towards the displacement of things like net neutrality in favor of more "economic" options on behalf of internet service providers, and the fragmentation of sources of information into different portions of the population along things like personal disposition or financial availability (I'm looking at you HBO's Vice News) I would say it will be safe to assume that our society will continue to polarize politically. This polarization, coupled with the inherant instability of the American financial system could possibly create a perfect storm of public tension in the next twenty years for the expansion of the two party system into a more multi-platformed one.In such a case the media will act in a fashion to serve those organizations which will be of the most financial benefit to them as a corporate entity and plug more of their image. In the possible case of a financial crash within this environment the ongoing dissolution of the middle class is almost assured, leading to a social bifurcation more noticeable than in any other period of American history. To safeguard both the political state as it has existed for since the creation of the second republic those of the financial elite, who by the power of being able to donate without restraint to political campaigns will use their leverage to up homeland security and expand the NSA surveillance programs. Beyond this I don't have any type of future speculation, I only feel that most will see this as something far-fetched, having been socialized in the most stable portion of American history to date without much reason to question how long that stability will last. A sense of seriousness must be adopted in the now on these issues to attempt to turn back the growth of these trends.
ReplyDeleteI think (or at least hope) the near future will have online voting. Hopefully it won't be like American Idol where you can call as many times as you want, but could you imagine how many less voters would be displaced? No more waiting, traveling, or meeting ID requirements (wouldn't a social security number suffice?).
ReplyDeleteIt's a joke that people still make an argument about "voter fraud." Wisconsin in 2004, for example, had a fraud rate of .0002 percent - 7 votes. India already has online voting. The main reason we don't is because our "leaders" want people to stay at home. While it may not necessarily make people more knowledgable citizens (my family just asks me who they should vote for) I think online voting would be a good start.
My opinion on this issue falls along lines similar to that of Robert T., especially in his discussion of net neutrality because it's one of those perfect examples of how politics are potentially going to affect the media, and not for the better.
ReplyDeleteFor example, this morning I was getting ready and my dad was watching Imus in the morning (God bless his soul) and even Imus was talking about net neutrality! This is a guy that has frequent guests on his show, like his wife, and segments called "Blonde on Blonde". This is one simple case where political actions are dictating media agendas, particularly because not a lot of people know what net neutrality is or choose to pay attention to it.
Increasingly, I would hope that this means that the media would provide coverage of key issues (particularly those that are unknown) instead of just regurgitating the same story each and every day (Malaysian Flight 370 comes to mind...). Of course, I think that this will be a new type of media that increasingly incorporates blogging into traditional news coverage as media sources become more numerous and integrated (Davis chapter from Media Power in Politics). And this is probably for the better when it comes to engaging younger voters and taking to social media like Obama did especially in the 2008 election.
In any case, I think that traditional media is changing to incorporate new social media movements and resources. This is particularly true as new issues that tend to not receive a lot of TV coverage (like net neutrality) come to the forefront and gain attention.
Ashley Surinak
I think that history has shown media will only move in a positive direction providing consumers with not only easier access to news content, (penny press comes to mind,) but also more mediums for news consumption to make it more attractive and more of a pleasant experience.
ReplyDeleteI think in terms of quality news, the oldest form of media is probably the best, the newspaper. This allows people to sit down without any distractions, and comprehend what's happening in the world. Of course online news is similar in terms of detail, but it is easy to lose interest online and move on to another story before finishing. Unfortunately, most people get their news from television, myself being one of them - but the positive to this is television, social media and all forms of new media provide the common citizen an opportunity to consume news in an easy way; a lot of the time, these people wouldn't consume any news if newspaper was still the only source available, so the vast amount of news mediums and content available in the world today allow more people to become informed.
The timeline included in this week's blog was especially fascinating. If anyone is interested, her is the link to the original white house website:
http://clinton1.nara.gov/ --------- Absolutely hilarious.
And here is Wilson's first appearence on the radio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By5nvzsidX0
Steven
I think that ultimately we will start seeing more of the internet creep into the political system, as it already has. There has been a steady and continued shift towards the internet becoming the new television, at least in the generation, and I could see as our generation gets older internet broadcasting will eventually overtake traditional television.
ReplyDeleteI also see the media and politics becoming significantly more personal, in both presentation and marketing. You will see more targeting of tiny individual groups instead of one size fits all.
I believe that the struggle between new and old media will settle. Some traditional and new forms of media will survive the revolution storm. The new struggle however, will be who controls and operates these media outlets. Before the Internet revolution, a small group of corporations owned the vast media outlets. As the class has studied, traditional media is struggling to remain relevant. If Net Neutrality is overthrown, major corporations will try to regain their lost throne. Their influence will have a tighter grip over the public.
ReplyDeleteHowever with technology evolving in front of our hands, it has the possibility to increase participation and better methods of informing citizens. These are the two main methods to enhance our democracy. I am hopeful that technology will enhance the media for the better. We have access to broad sources of media and opinions, all within the reach of our hands. We have witnessed the unlimited potential of knowledge from it. This is a testament that the media is changing for the better.
I think the trend is for everything to continue moving to the internet. I do not see much room for newspapers as they are today in this new age of media. Newspapers might still be used for their sports sections, but aside from that I think the only ones which will survive will be those with national circulation. Another thing I think will happen is the increasing use of consumer data to tailor content for us that fits with what we prefer and view most often. This is going to create an even bigger echo chamber where people go to the sources that agree with them and their political ideologies.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest change will be political actors who no longer need traditional media. Political movements and actors will try to use social media in a way that looks organic and try to make things go viral. By going viral, traditional media will have to cover it by default. However, the most important aspect is making it look grassroots or organic in some way and appear to be someone that is not politically active.
ReplyDeleteThey will try to make things look natural and make those aspects go viral to appear to be growing by it's own account. However, they will use social media automation to control 1,000,000's of profiles to generate hashtags to trend within Facebook and Twitter (PS: This is already done today). There is too much information on the web, so companies such as Facebook and other websites are going to reply on metrics to make post and information to be found more easily. Things like views, comments, and views will push content to the home page of news sites or social media.
This is the system they will need to game.
Looking ahead, it certainly looks like everything is heading towards the internet, except for Chile's universities apparently, but with that, it's going to become more and more niche media. I have no doubt that at some point there will be holograms of presidential candidates popping up in different events, but it will also be something that people will opt-in to. So much is about subscribing to things, and then the commercials are customized to the things we opt-in to or check mark as interests. It's going o become more and more personalized to the point where it will have to take almost life-altering events to challenge us to leave that self-made bubble. If you want to find queer radical liberals, who love to bake, and write Supernatural fanfiction... you can find it. However, just as easily and quickly one creates that bubble, it's easy to physically leave it and notice the differences. It just may not always happen.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what it's going to look like in 20 years because I'm not sure how the next generation will respond to how we have handled the internet and politics. Typically alternating generations respond in opposition to one another as a form of rebellion to the parents, but recently millennials are stereotyped to love their parents and want to spend time with them. It's no accident that it's tied to the internet, to the economy, and to higher education/loans, which is going to impact how they're going to vote.
This is nothing new but I just want to say the internet had made manys of our lives easier, we almost don't need anything, but the internet, talking to family and friends, grocery shopping and etc. I feel like the future will be worst in this case, now that we have public schools online for kids, where it will cut out physical contact with other human beings. Not that I have anything against the evolving of the internet, but I think balancing where we get our news from would be a good thing, such as the newspaper. I think that this will be a concern in privacy wise, if we rely too much or almost everything on the internet. I think that it would be good if the traditional media can stay the same or not change too much, that way there is more options on getting news.
ReplyDeleteMedia's first goal was to get information out to as many people as possible. They wanted the people to know what was going on and they didn't think to deeply into the situation, but as the years have progressed we have seen media go from being a consumer product to being a tool for a single persons or whole groups interest. As if politics wasn't already a game enough we added a new variable to the equation that has only complicated the situation. I do believe that media is a key component and will remain so in the future of politics, but we need some sort of governing body that will be able to hold the media accountable for their actions. Obviously we do not want them to completely control what the media says, but we do need someone there to send out fines and suspensions to these outlets that get caught crossing the line because from what I have seen there has been no such effort to take on these big networks when they make an error. We give these big corporations too much leniency by just allowing them to determine punishments in house, such as when a reporter puts out a story that impacts the safety of the American people we cannot just allow the station to fire that person once they get bad feedback on the event. There needs to be a governing body to step in and drop the hammer on them.
ReplyDeleteIn the next 5, 10 , and 20 years, I see the Internet becoming the most important form of media. Now, almost everyone knows how or has access to the Internet, especially younger generations. When these younger generations come of age and are able to participate in politics, political actors will be compelled to further promote themselves and their agenda through the Internet. Although I think that traditional media sources will always remain important, especially in politics, I think that its importance will steadily decrease while the Internet's rises.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that the use of the Internet can be extremely positive in terms of its effects on politics. The Internet, through Twitter and Facebook, allows for more people to have a voice and more opinions to be heard. Although there are some negative aspects to this, I think overall that the more voices out there brings more attention to an issue or politician, which causes more people to become involved, and more people becoming involved could have a really positive impact on politics.
When the printing press was invented 564 years ago, it changed Europe forever. With the ability to rapidly spread information and communicate across the continent, more people became literate, spread information and ideas, read the Bible, and became more educated than ever before. As lower class citizens gained literacy and communication skills, the class dynamics changed forever. The Catholic Church did not have as much power of manipulation over the masses because people could now read the Bible and interoperate it themselves. Monarchies lost power as well because if the people were unhappy with their ruler, they could easily spread their ideas across the country and mobilize support for protests and revolutions. After the printing press was introduced, European social norms shifted dramatically and permanently.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the introduction of the internet did not create such a drastic change in the social dynamics between the public and organizations of authority, it did create a similar effect. The internet gives people a tool for further communication and allows for the expansion of the marketplace of ideas. It has also been used to mobilize supporters for protests and revolutions like the Egyptian revolution and the Occupy Wall Street movement. The public has the ability to organize groups and movements that can potentially grow so large they change policy, through moveon.org and other similar sites. I believe that in 10 or 20 years, this ability for the public to communicate and influence events and policies will become stronger. The internet has been proven to be a successful interactive media outlet that not only allows the connection between the people, but the communication between the people and the policy makers.
I really hope that above anything, the media will strengthen its watchdog role. With the introduction of smart phones, citizen journalism has become increasingly popular and I think that provides a very important advantage for watchdog media. I think public participation is crucial in making sure the country is headed in the direction we need it to and through citizen and watchdog journalism, we now have the opportunity to voice our concerns and strengthen our role in politics.
ReplyDeleteOn the same note, however, this could also make it easier to manipulate public opinion. With this growing need for instant gratification, there is the opportunity to be subtly suggestive in article titles or breaking news "push notifications," since so many people are opting out of reading or listening to the entirety of each news story. Regrettably, I feel this may only become more prevalent as we seek shortcuts in our fast-paced society.
Talk about positive change, though its a bit idealistic cause older people tend to be set in their ways, but i think that is important to help teach and inform older gererations (like people who are 50 and up) to get involved in this thing called the internet. It is especially important because i feel like the way we are going, the internet is getting alittle crazy. If the digital age continues to pump its veins with steroids, it might disenfranchise older folks even further. I speak to the point of being overwhelmed with information that it becomes difficult to assess the truth value of it. This is one of the reasons that my grandma in particular, is so against the internet. She thinks that everything on the internet is a scam, and though shes not willing to give it a chance, she has a point.
ReplyDeleteA theme that I think we can draw from the intro is that the world is getting more and more digital, faster and faster. Picture an exponential curve in your head. My point here is that older folks should not be left in the dust, and seems like a likely possibility if politicians running for office focus too heavily on the social media and not enough on good old TV.
In the near future, media proves to benefit politics increasingly and in constantly growing ways. We are continually evolving the ways in which we communicate so the main way media and politics will feed off each other is the rising of sources attainable in order to consume content. In terms of the older people, I don't see any positive impacts coming out any time soon. The older you get, the more you lose sight of not just politics, but life itself. It's more of a natural occurrence to begin to falter in the way you see things, and if it directly impacts them to begin with.
ReplyDeleteIn the long haul, I believe major changes will impact media and politics largely due to the growing of people in society. There will be an incredible amount of people in our population 20 years down the line over the age of 65 as a result of the baby boomers era, so the aging of population in itself will have no choice but to shape vast societal changes to incorporate that percent of people. Elderly people believe more and more in factual information so I think everything we do in the future will cater more to the truth about issues and work towards eliminating fictional content.
I feel like I need to preface this prediction with the fact that I am not intone with technology. I'm generally the last person to hear about the new iPhone or trendy news website. I'm just not quite as in touch with some of the new media sources as other people would be. However I do have some hopes as to the direction I would like to see the media go.
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that the amount of media is not going to shrink. New blogs, websites, and social media sites are going to continued to be created. With all of these new voices, I think it's extremely important that journalists maintain their identity. Almost every news story or article we read is about how journalists struggle to balance between entertainment and news. What I would like more than anything is to see journalism focus on objectivity and reporting important information as it happens. This voice of reason is needed in the Internet age and I hope the media and journalists find that voice and help guide the public through complex times. I don't need them to join the shouting match, but instead explain what people are shouting about.
Today's the one year anniversary since The Guardian publicized Edward Snowden’s whistle-blowing on the NSA surveillance. ACLU supporters received an email today from Snowden, which essentially can be summed up by the following quote: “In the long, dark shadow cast by the security state, a free society cannot thrive.” In the article, which I will post a link to below in case anyone is interested, he underlines technology’s liberating impact on our lives today. He then points to the NSA’s reverse-engineering of this new liberalization into a tool of “mass-surveillance” and “oppression”. He says the reason he released the information was because he began to see this trend wind out of control. Whether you agree with Snowden’s particular actions on the releasing of the information or not, we cannot pretend that this controversial issue will not impact our lives in the near-future. As the digital era continues and new technology evolves, this issue regarding security and civil liberties will exacerbate. I believe that political reform either acknowledging, or ignoring this debate will determine how the future of living in this country will be like as an American citizen.
ReplyDeleteSnowden's email:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/message-edward-snowden-one-year-later
One obvious situation that is occurring is the advancement of technology. It has been increasing throughout the years, and it is safe to say that the future holds the same expectations. We can look at this in a positive aspect because this could be towards our advantage. We sometimes view technology as a creation that has separated people, but in fact, it has gathered people. The news is at the tip of your fingers, and all we can ask for in the future is a more objective outlook in media. The only positive way we can approach the future is merely the idea of involving everyone to participate i politics, or at least chip in to help our society become more knowledgeable, rather than provide ignorant intake on situations. It's a difficult to task, but it starts with all of us! Food for thought I guess.
ReplyDelete