Blog Post #7

    It’s frustrating that strong antiwar voices are so hard to find in the mainstream media in society today. Recently, I came across two websites that completely shifted my thinking about U.S. military operations: ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative. Both of these sites feature writers who take a firm stance against the constant military interventions the United States seems to be involved in all over the world. What is strange is that these perspectives are hardly ever talked about on major news networks, and I can’t help but wonder why. One reason might be that the media has its own agenda. A lot of mainstream outlets are owned by huge corporations, and some of them have connections to industries that benefit from military spending, like defense contractors. If those corporations profit from war, why would they want to promote voices that are critical of it? It makes sense that they would filter out antiwar opinions, it just does not align with their financial interests.

    Another reason is that the media tends to side with whatever narrative the government pushes. Whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in power, both parties have supported military action at different times, and the media seems to follow suit. Challenging U.S. military involvement would mean going against the political establishment, and I believe most mainstream outlets are too afraid to do that. Let me be clear, I fully support and understand the value of strong military. I believe in national defense and protecting American interests. But there is a distinct difference between defending ourselves and constantly intervening in conflicts around the globe. These websites ask important questions that we’re not hearing enough in the media. Shouldn’t we be talking about how much we’re spending on these military operations and whether they’re actually making us safer?

    What really surprises me is how little exposure I’ve had to sites like ANTIWAR.COM or The American Conservative as a college student. These sites offer refreshing perspectives that challenge the mainstream narrative, but they are not exactly well-known. It’s almost like these antiwar views are intentionally sidelined. I was only made aware of these websites when they were provided to me for an assignment for class. It is difficult to locate any substantial criticism of U.S. foreign policy on the internet, which feels strange when you consider how important these issues are. In my opinion, part of the problem is that war brings in ratings. The media knows that stories about military conflict, threats, and strikes get people to tune in. More viewers mean more ad revenue. Stories about peace or pulling back from intervention never have the same dramatic effect. So instead of giving airtime to antiwar voices, we get coverage that often seems to support continued military involvement.

    At the end of the day, it’s clear that if we want to hear strong antiwar voices, we can’t rely on the mainstream media. We have to look for alternative outlets like ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative that are willing to challenge the status quo. The media might not want to focus on these perspectives, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t important. It’s up to us to seek them out and start asking the tough questions that aren’t being asked enough about U.S. military actions.

Blog Post #9

A false flag is when a political or military action is carried out to make it look like an opponent is responsible. The purpose is to manipulate trust, like when a country stages an attack on itself and blames the enemy to justify starting a war. While false flags have been used throughout history, currently we see more conspiracy theories falsely claiming that real events are false flags. Social media has played a huge role in spreading these claims, making it hard to know what’s true and what’s not.

The impact of false flags is serious, with the potential to lead to war, death, and widespread confusion. Governments or powerful groups using false flags to push their agenda are essentially lying to the public. This causes mistrust in the government and other institutions, which are supposed to be honest and transparent. It becomes even worse with how fast misinformation spreads on the internet. This can make it hard for people to trust what they hear or read. In today’s world, false flags are often sneakier than before, meaning people might not even realize they’ve been tricked. This makes it even harder to trust what’s happening around us. When people feel they’ve been lied to, they start to question everything, even when the information is true, which creates a bigger divide in society.

Different groups of people are affected by false flags in different ways. For example, people in lower-income groups might not have access to the same information or resources to help them stay informed. Because of this, they may be more easily misled. On the other hand, wealthier individuals usually have better access to information, making it easier for them to spot false flags and avoid falling for misinformation. However, just having money doesn’t guarantee that someone won’t be misled. False flags can trick anyone.

When it comes to age, older people might be more set in their ways and less likely to question what they hear, especially if it fits with what they already believe. Meanwhile, younger people, who are still forming their opinions, might be more open to believing whatever is popular or trending, especially on social media, where misinformation can spread quickly. Gender can also play a role in how people react to false flags. Men are often seen as being more logical and might approach these situations with skepticism, while women are thought to be more empathetic and may take a different approach. When these perspectives come together, it can help people make better decisions about what’s true and what’s false. Sexual orientation and minority status can also shape how people react, especially if a false flag directly affects their community or identity.

For me personally, false flags represent a real concern. Being part of the younger generation that’s constantly connected to social media, I’m exposed to countless opinions and ideas that could be false or manipulated. It’s easy for someone my age to fall for misinformation, especially if it’s shared by friends or trusted influencers. This makes it even more important for me to stay informed and learn to question the sources of information I encounter. False flags could easily manipulate my perspective on important issues without me realizing it.

As for my family and friends, they might also be affected by false flags, especially if they’re not careful about the sources they trust. My family members might lean on their life experiences to judge information, but false flags are designed to exploit trust and manipulate even well informed people. If my friends aren't careful, they could be swayed by trending stories on social media, believing in causes or events that aren't real, which could lead to divisive conversations or misunderstandings. My generation especially is vulnerable to the effects of false flags. We’re constantly plugged into online platforms, where misinformation spreads quickly, and it’s easy to get caught up in something without verifying if it’s true. If false flags aren’t properly identified and questioned, they could shape our opinions, political beliefs, and even our actions in dangerous ways. It’s important for people my age to become more critical thinkers to avoid falling into the traps set by false flags.

Blog Post #8

    Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory explains why some technologies take off while others do not. This theory breaks down the adoption process into five main groups. This includes pioneers, early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and laggards. Looking at the first television broadcast in 1928, we can see how TV followed this pattern of adoption.

    At the start, television was groundbreaking because it solved a big communication problem, it let people see live events from far away. Before that, the radio and newspapers were the main ways to get information, but they didn’t have the same impact as seeing something happen with your own eyes. This made TV appealing to the pioneers, meaning the inventors and innovators who created the first broadcasts. They laid the groundwork for the technology, and their vision attracted the early adopters, known as the people who were quick to see the potential of television. Early adopters were excited about how TV could change the way people learned, received news, and were entertained. They embraced TV as a symbol of progress and the future.

    However, not everyone was ready to dive into this new technology. In the beginning, TV was expensive, and there weren’t many programs to watch. Plus, the economic uncertainty of the Great Depression and the looming threat of World War II made people hesitant to spend money on something seen as a luxury. This meant that many waited until after the war, when the economy improved and TVs became more affordable. This marked the move from early adopters to the early majority. During the Post-War Boom, television became a key feature of middle class American life. By this point, TV had become mainstream, influencing culture, politics, and family life.

    Even with TV’s popularity growing, some people were still slower to adopt it. The late majority consisted of people who only bought a TV when it became even more affordable or socially expected. For some, there were cultural or personal reasons for not getting a TV earlier. For example, certain religious or conservative households might have viewed TV as unnecessary or even harmful. These laggards were the last group to adopt the technology, only doing so when it became almost unavoidable.

    This same adoption pattern can be seen today with new technologies like social media. Personally, I’ve chosen not to join particular platforms. In terms of Rogers' theory, I might be considered a laggard when it comes to social media in this way. While I see the benefits, like staying connected and being up to date, I’ve weighed the downsides and decided they’re more significant for me. Privacy concerns, time consumption, and the pressure of constant engagement have kept me from adopting these platforms.

    Just like with TV, adopting new technology involves weighing the positives and negatives. For some, the benefits far outweigh the risks, while others may take their time or choose not to adopt at all. Whether it's TV or social media, everyone makes their choice based on their values, needs, and the costs and benefits they see.

Blog Post #6

    In one of our recent classes, a classmate gave a really insightful presentation on the invention of the telephone and its major impact on society. Their analysis was both educational and eye opening, offering a clear look at how this important technology, created in 1849, changed communication in significant ways. They explained that before the telephone, people mainly used written letters, which were slow and often inconvenient. The introduction of the telephone allowed for instant voice communication, which transformed how people interacted. This change wasn’t just about making things easier; it also revolutionized business practices by enabling faster internal coordination and more effective communication with clients and partners across the country.

    The presentation also covered the broader effects of the telephone on society. It was interesting to learn how the shift from writing to speaking led to an increase in literacy and a greater focus on education. People had to adapt to this new way of communicating, which encouraged improvements in verbal skills and learning. This technological shift had a significant impact on how people engaged with each other and their surroundings. Another key point was the new challenges brought by the telephone, such as privacy issues with party lines, where several households shared a single line. This setup led to concerns about the confidentiality of conversations, showing how new technologies can create both advantages and problems. Overall, the presentation offered a well-rounded view of how the telephone not only enhanced communication but also changed social norms and personal interactions. It highlighted how a single invention can deeply influence both individual lives and the broader structure of society, making it clear how important technological advances are in shaping our daily experiences and social connections.

Blog Post #5

    As a college student, I see the immense power technology holds over our lives. It has the potential to improve our experiences but also the ability to harm us. Every time we open an app, send a message, or post online, we unknowingly leave behind data that forms our digital identity. This digital footprint, constantly being tracked and sold to third parties, often happens without our knowledge or consent. It is alarming how little awareness most people have about this. As digital users, we are part of an economic game, blindly allowing our data to be exploited.

    In his TED Talk, "Your Online Life, Permanent as a Tattoo," Juan Enriquez draws a comparison between our digital footprint and a tattoo. One that brands us permanently. These electronic tattoos reveal more than just our interests. They provide tech companies with a pathway to influence and control our lives. And unlike us, our digital footprint will outlive us, leaving behind an immortal trace. When we download apps or use platforms, we often agree to terms and conditions without fully understanding the risks involved. This not only exposes us to potential privacy violations but also leaves our personal data vulnerable. It is a pressing issue, especially for people like me and my peers, who often don't have control over how our personal information is used or misused.

    Finn Myrstad, another speaker on this topic, highlighted how tech companies manipulate users into giving up their data without realizing it. He raises an important question, what is the point of locking your house if anyone can access your private life through your devices? This leads to a bigger issue, why hasn’t the government made this a priority? In my view, the government should be held accountable for not regulating the use of surveillance tools and personal data collection by both tech companies and law enforcement. Following international guidelines like the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance would take action to protect users' rights. 

    Ultimately, change will only come when people fully understand the extent of this invasion and demand action. Until then, we need to protect ourselves by being aware of what we agree to online. This includes limiting the information we share on search engines, social media, and even through emails. It is safest to assume that we are always being watched, so we must advocate for ourselves and stay mindful of our digital presence.

Key Post #2

    The first television broadcast in 1928 was a groundbreaking moment that completely transformed how people communicated, marking the start of a new era in sharing information and entertainment. It introduced the world to the idea of real-time visual communication, bridging distances in a way that had never been possible before, and setting the stage for the mass media culture that would soon dominate global society.

History

    This major event in communication history is thanks to Charles Jenkins, an inventor. Jenkins' interest in television technology started in the early 1920s when he became fascinated by the idea of transmitting moving images over long distances. At that time, there were rapid advancements in radio, and Jenkins was eager to see how far technology could go in broadcasting.

    Jenkins was trying to solve a problem that many inventors before him had also struggled with, how to send visual images in real time. Before television, communication technology was mostly about sound, with radio being the primary way to reach large audiences. Jenkins wanted to take it a step further by creating a system that could send not just sound, but also pictures. He first demonstrated his television system on January 26, 1926. By 1928, he succeeded in broadcasting a television signal between London and New York. Even though the image quality was far from what we’re used to today, it was a huge step forward. The main problem Jenkins strived to solve was the limitation of radio, which could only convey sound. His invention opened up a whole new way of communicating by allowing people to see images from distant places as they happened.

Impact

    Television had a massive impact on the world and completely changed how people communicated and consumed information. It addressed the problem of distance in communication by making it possible for people to see events as they were happening, no matter where they were. This breakthrough led to the rise of live broadcasting, which transformed not just news, but also entertainment and education. Suddenly, more people had access to information and ideas than ever before.

    Television also brought significant changes to society. It influenced culture, politics, and social norms in ways that were unimaginable before. With the ability to broadcast images, television helped connect people globally, making the world feel smaller and more connected. However, the invention wasn’t without its downsides. The widespread use of television raised concerns about its impact on health, especially with the increase in screen time. It also led to the spread of misinformation, as not everything shown on TV was accurate. Additionally, television content became increasingly commercialized, which some people argue has contributed to a decline in critical thinking, as more viewers became passive consumers rather than active participants in the media they were watching.

    In conclusion, the first television broadcast in 1928 was a game-changer in the world of technology and communication. It opened up new possibilities for sharing information and entertainment, and its influence is still felt today. Despite some negative effects, television has undeniably shaped the modern world in significant ways. It laid the foundation for the digital age, influencing everything from the way we consume media to how we connect with one another globally. As we continue to evolve with new technologies, the impact of that first broadcast remains a testament to human innovation and the enduring power of visual communication.

Key Post #1

Marketplace of Ideas

    During my time in Media, Law, and Literacy, I have learned a great deal surrounding the significance and importance of freedom of speech and press, especially found within the Eight Values of Free Expression. A concept that deeply resonates with me is sharing ideas and opinions openly in public discourse, known as the marketplace of ideas. This is essential in a free society because with freedom of expression in mind, this value prevents government interference. As a fundamental element to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, it guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Utilizing the marketplace of ideas leads to the discovery of truth, as false ideas are challenged and possibly discredited. John Milton, who created this concept, also thought that the exchange of all ideas, including false ones, was key in unlocking truth. As a young adult and college student, I sincerely appreciate having the freedom to share ideas with my peers because it helps all of us to continually learn and grow from one another. By exposing individuals to different viewpoints, it encourages informed decision making. Individuals then evaluate, critique, and choose which ideas to accept, reject, or refine. This process of judgment also helps shape societal values and policies. In addition, I support the marketplace of ideas protecting all speech, including controversial or unpopular opinions. This protection is vital in preventing censorship and allowing society to evolve by reviewing and generating new ideas. In a country where ideas can freely be expressed, there is limitless potential for innovation and progress. With the marketplace of ideas as a foundation, I firmly believe ideas can lead to new ways of thinking, contributing to society as a whole.

Promote Innovation

    Another value of free expression that I am grateful for is the promotion of innovation. In my opinion, sharing ideas in the United States is crucial for several reasons. First, contributing to democracy. A thriving democracy counts on its citizens to be informed and take part in meaningful discussions, therefore leading to educated decisions. Feeling safe to share ideas in a comfortable environment guarantees that individuals have access to a range of fresh ideas and perspectives. Second, promoting innovation is essential for economic growth. With the continuous introduction of ideas brings new technologies, products, and services. All of which ensures that the United States is competitive globally and maintains a course of continuous economic growth. Overall, the competitiveness and innovation capacity of the United States can be determined by a multitude of factors, all in favor of driving America toward success. Lastly, by promoting innovation, we are contributing to the ongoing conversation about what it means to be an American. While entertaining different ideas, citizens shape and redefine the nation's values and identity. Our great nation was founded on the freedom to share ideas and cultivate our own beliefs, which is our civic duty. Overall, I firmly believe the promotion of ideas is necessary to protect our right to free speech and leads the United States to adapting to new challenges and opportunities.