Thursday, February 25, 2021

Blog #8: EOTO 2: Agenda Setting

There are many theories when it comes to communication and the media. One major theory is called agenda setting. This theory was proposed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in 1972 in Public Opinion Quarterly. They originally suggested that the media doesn't necessarily tell the public what to think but they will tell the public what to think about. Agenda setting occurs when the publics' minds are affected by the organization and presentation of newsworthy stories. The media will spend more time on a certain story to make the public assume that it is more important than stories that don't get as much coverage even when this may not be the case. This perception by the public is automatic and doesn't require too much effort by the larger media groups. The media decides which stories people should care about. This theory happens through something called accessibility; it's a cognitive process. 


Within agenda setting, there are different levels. The first level deals with research. Before the media can start influencing anyone, they have to do some digging on how stories actually influence people. They are trying to find out what types of thoughts people will have when exposed to certain kinds of information and stories given to them by the media. The second level deals with how people are supposed to think about the general idea of the information. Media outlets will sensationalize stories in order to both draw their audiences' attention in and also hold onto them. This allows the media to embed certain ideas into the minds of their audience to ensure the issues they want to stay viral actually stay viral. 



Agenda setting is used everywhere ranging from public relations, campaigns, political ads, general news, and much more. Another theory that is closely associated with agenda setting is called gatekeeping. This theory describes the process in which media stories are selected and filtered for an audience. Gatekeepers are in sole control of what content the public gets to see. They select their stories based on their personal biases, what will bring in the most attention, and what the public should be interested in. In the media, the main gatekeepers are the editors because they choose what is going to appear in their publication.



There are things that affect agenda setting as a whole. For example, people and organizations like editors and government officials act as gatekeepers to control the content before it even gets to the agenda setting stage. There are some criticisms when it comes to agenda setting. For example, media users don't always pay attention to the details so they might not be as influenced. Also, agenda setting has virtually no effect on an audience that already knows what they think about a certain situation because they will most likely stand by their original decision. Another criticism is that the media can't really do much besides make things seem important or less important. Other than that, they are powerless regarding the content they discuss because they're not the ones creating the stories, they're just reporting on them.


Let's think about this theory in terms of our own lives and how we are affected by it. Everyone has their own values and beliefs. Everyone has things that they're interested in and things they couldn't care less about. The media has to navigate these waters to try and find something most people might care about. They can also do this in reverse by pushing down and hiding stories by promoting other ones. Now to apply it to our own lives. For the purpose of this example, let's assume we all live in a nice neighborhood out in the country. We don't have a ton of money but everyone is living just fine. One night, after you get home from a long day at work, you decide to turn on the tv to your local news channel while you start to cook dinner. You tune out most of what they're saying until you hear them say "breaking news." Your ears perk up and you stop what you're doing to see what's so important. The news anchor begins to talk about something happening with the President. You think it might be very important, but it turns out to be the same thing they've been airing for the past week. There is no actual new information; the media just wants to ensure you don't forget what's going on with the President so that the issue begins to seem very important. When they finally get back to the normally scheduled news, they briefly mention a new sewer system being put up in your county, but they don't list any specifics. What the media didn't tell you was that the county would be ripping up your backyard to put in a sewer system that your neighborhood doesn't want or need and on top of that, your neighborhood has to pay for it! 

This shows that the media can decide what stories they want their audience to care about, because they care about it. They can decide to shove down stories they don't particularly care about or won't get too many viewers tuned in even if that story is more important in the long run. The media decides what stories are important and what stories get left in the dust.

Saturday, February 20, 2021

Blog #7: Diffusion Theory

Rogers' Diffusion Theory describes the process and timeline by which an idea or invention develops and gains more popularity. It has five main stages. The first stage is the pioneer stage. It's all about the very first people to try or use an innovation. The second stage is called the early adopters. This deals with leaders who discover new ideas and want to try them for themselves; they use the product as it was intended to be used. The third stage is called the early majority. The people in this stage are beginning to use the product in a different way than it was originally intended to like journalists or businesses. The fourth stage is called the late adopters. People in this category will only use a product once it has been proven to be successful. A few examples of those in this category are government agencies, activists, and nonprofits. The final stage is called the laggards. The people in this stage are the last to join in on an idea and are sometimes pressured into doing so.



This theory can be applied to any idea or innovation in our world no matter when this innovation took place. It is especially evident when it comes to social media, but let's be a little more specific. Let's look at Tik Tok. Tik Tok didn't even originate as Tik Tok. It started as an app called Musical.ly. Originally it was supposed to be used for educational purposes, but when it wasn't doing too well, the creators changed their goal. It became very popular with 13-15 year olds at the time and was used to post lip syncing videos. Eventually, it became known as Tik Tok. The former Musical.ly users decided to go to Tik Tok with the intention of it being just a better version of Musical.ly, but it became much more than that. 

Tik Tok was beginning to take off when big stars like Charli D'Amelio began posting dancing videos. More and more people began to join and post their own videos hoping to have their second of fame. People of all ages are now on Tik Tok and it has become something that its creators could have never even dreamed of. Content creators are even able to make hundreds of thousands of dollars off of one post. Tik Tok has become a business in itself. Tik Tok is probably one of the most used apps of this day and age and I don't see it's popularity stopping or slowing down anytime soon. 


Social media, Tik Tok in particular, caught on because of its fun and light hearted feel. It allowed for creators on the app to post their original content, socialize with other users, and even make money. It has content for everyone. For example, it has dance challenge videos, puppies, and makeup tutorials. Although there is definitely something that everyone would enjoy, some people just aren't interested or feel that it is too complicated to figure out or don't care to try. There are both positives and negatives for being on social media. For example, social media provides a great platform for users to meet people and see content from all over the world, but it also opens up a way for creators to be harassed and bullied. The great thing about social media and innovations in general is that each individual can decide for themselves whether or not they would like to part take after weighing the pros and cons. 



Tuesday, February 16, 2021

EOTO 1: What Did I Learn?

Technology is always changing and improving. It does this in ways we never even would have imagined. Innovations start off with one goal in mind and next thing you know, it's being used for a million other things. This is extremely evident with Netflix. Netflix was originally supposed to be something completely different than what we know today. 

Netflix was created by entrepreneurs, Marc Randolph and Reed Hastings in 1997. It originated in Scotts Valley, California. The intended use for Netflix was a DVD rental service. You could go online to their website, browse through their selection, and choose whichever one you desired. After making your choice, you would be shipped the DVD. You could keep it for as long as you liked, but wouldn't be able to order another one until you returned the one already in your possession. This was how Netflix operated for a long time and it worked ok for them, but the creators knew they could make it even better for their consumers. 

Since then, Netflix has expanded its reach significantly. It no longer accommodates DVD rentals. The service now requires an account with a purchased membership to watch the tv shows, movies, and documentaries they offer. Netflix has completely changed the game regarding online streaming. The online streaming aspect of their business was released in 2007. Two years later, Netflix partnered with multiple consumer electronics to make their product even more accessible to the public so that they could watch Netflix on more than just their computer. You could now watch it on things like your Xbox.

I remember first seeing Netflix DVD rental commercials a long time ago. I thought they were a waste of time and money. It was so much more difficult to order and wait for one when you could just order a movie on demand on the tv or go to your local Redbox outside a drugstore. I didn't think much of it until they released it as a streaming platform. It took my family a little bit longer to download Netflix, but, honestly, we can't imagine life without it. It's how we primarily watch tv now. It's crazy to see how something I viewed as insignificant and superfluous has now become such an influential and essential part of my everyday life and the lives of millions of people around the world.

Tuesday, February 9, 2021

Blog #6 EOTO 1: Compact Discs

For as long as I can remember, music has been a part of my life. It gets me through the good times and the bad. In this day and age, music is completely accessible almost anywhere on almost every platform available. There was a time, when this wasn't the case. Music used to be something that if you wanted to hear, you either had to play it yourself or use a record player with vinyl or using cassette tapes


American physicist, James Russell wanted to change this. Russell was born in 1931 in Bremerton, Washington. He was a very smart man and even from a young age he was working on extremely innovative projects. He graduated in Portland with a bachelor's degree in physics from Reed College. Russell absolutely loved listening to music, but, overtime, he began to become annoyed at how easily the vinyl could break. He wished there was something out there that could play music and not break so easily. Russell decided that he was going to be the one to change this. At first, he tried to fix the record player itself. In his mind, maybe the reason the record player broke so easily was because of the player itself. He discovered that the record player was harsh on the vinyl and he decided that it would be better to have some sort of player that wouldn't have to physically touch the record.



He figured out that if he could get a light to read the music, the record would not get damaged so fast or so easily. Russell then took it a step farther. Vinyl records were so big and bulky; he wanted to see if he could create something a bit smaller; that's when the compact disc, otherwise known as the CD, was born. The CD was created in 1979 but was only released to the public in 1982. The CD he created was a thin disc that could hold up to 80 minutes of music. These discs could be played in special CD players and you could skip around to different songs in different orders. The first commercialized CD player was put out into the world by Sony in 1982. Even portable CD players were created shortly after. It was the first time in history where people could actually take their music with them. It was unprecedented.


CDS, like all new inventions, had both positive and negative impacts and influences on the world. One positive is that it made listening to music more accessible and easier for consumers. People could skip around and listen to different songs on the CD which was not possible with a cassette tape or vinyl. Another positive is that it allowed for musicians to actually get their music out there and promote it more than they had ever been able to do. They began to build strong fan bases and could release special edition CDs to more connect with consumers. Fun fact, the first CD was a 1982 album by Abba called The Visitors. 


There are also some negative impacts. For example, CDs can't be recycled. CDs themselves are made up of too many materials that make it extremely difficult to separate to recycle. Also, CDs come in cases made from polycarbonate which isn't recyclable either. People also began to discover that CDs were not as indestructible as they once thought. CDs could break or mess up due to lots of things like direct exposure to sunlight and heat, scratches, drastic change in temperature, gravity, and fingerprints and smudges. Because of this, many CDs ended up sitting in landfills helping to further pollute the Earth. 

Despite the pros and cons, CDs were extremely influential in creating the music streaming services we have today. Because of these even newer platforms like Spotify and Apple Music, CDs are becoming less and less popular. Now people don't have to buy a full album. They can pick and choose songs to listen to each album. These platforms don't require you to carry a player around; all you need is your cell phone. In fact, because of this, CD sales drop every year by about 10 million. 


Now, CDs are out and online streaming platforms are in. It's going to be very interesting to see what music innovation comes out next. I can't imagine what else people could come up with, but I am very excited to find out.

Friday, February 5, 2021

Blog #5: Cancel Culture

According to The New York Post, cancel culture is "the phenomenon of promoting the "cancelling" of people, brands, and even shows and movies due to what some consider to be offensive or problematic remarks or ideologies." Cancel culture has always existed but has become a pretty big problem in today's society especially with the rise and influence of social media. It seems like people are getting cancelled left and right. People aren't just cancelled because they said something recently; it doesn't matter when it happened. It could have happened ten years ago, and if someone doesn't like what you have to say, you could be cancelled. 


This cancelling happens a lot to influencers and those in the public eye. Shane Dawson is a great example of this. Shane Dawson was known for many years as the King of YouTube.  He has been on YouTube for a very long time and has gained popularity for his documentaries, skits, and just overall goofy personality. He was beloved by many. It seemed to come out of nowhere when some of his old, offensive content was brought to light. Honestly, no one expected someone like Dawson to have such a dark past on YouTube. Content of him being racist, saying inappropriate things about people who were underage resurfaced. It was shocking to so many of his followers. Dawson made numerous apology videos as it has become a trend to do when a YouTuber has messed up publicly and many forgave him, but he still lost a significant part of his fanbase. 



Dawson has since then continued to stay in drama as he has been brought up by numerous other popular creators like Trisha Paytas and Tati Westbrook. He has tried to take some of his old videos down and discredit those bringing to light his faults, but to no avail. Our cancel culture has finally caught up to the King of YouTube. Shane Dawson has been cancelled by out society like so many other influencers today.


Unfortunately, this cancelling can happen to anyone. It happens to both celebrities and normal people alike. Take Felix Ngole for example. He was a student studying social work at Sheffield University in the United Kingdom. He made a comment online voicing his opinion on a news story that "the Bible and God identify homosexuality as a sin." Soon after, a fellow student found his comment and decided to report it to the University. Without hesitation, Felix Ngole was expelled and deemed unfit "to practice within the rules of the Health and Care Professionals Council." This ruling has since been overturned, but Ngole did not have an easy time doing so.


Cancel culture has become such a big problem in our society today. Nameless, faceless people have the ability to cancel someone and change the course of their life forever whether they deserve it or not. The issue here isn't that horrible things are resurfacing from people's past, like rape accusations for example. The problem is that there isn't a clear line determining when it is ok for a whole society to cancel someone. No one should have their entire voice cancelled because of a different opinion. That's why it is so important to protect dissent. Even if you don't agree with what someone is saying or doing, obviously assuming that it's legal, you need to think twice before completely disregarding a person. 


Our society needs to find the line between holding people accountable for their actions and completely cancel a person. There comes a time and a place to officially cancel someone, but it should never be a first resort and it should always be backed up with factual reasoning. For example, I find it completely understandable to cancel a celebrity who admits to sexually assaulting underage girls. I think that they need to both be help accountable for their actions but, in this case, it's ok to go a little bit farther than that. However, it's not ok to cancel a celebrity who posted an insensitive tweet ten years ago. You don't know if they still believe what the tweet said or if they've changed since then. Also, the tweet might not be offensive to everyone. You need to look at it objectively and come to a conclusion after that. It's not necessary to cancel everyone who messes up in their life. If this were ok, we would all be cancelled. With this being said, I think it's about time to cancel cancel culture.

Wednesday, February 3, 2021

Blog #4: The Underground Anti-War Media

Our opinions are extremely influenced by the media. Our opinions are malleable and the networks we tune in to have a huge impact on what we think. For example, if you typically listen to Fox News, most likely you are going to be hearing Republican viewpoints and if you typically listen to CNN, you are going to be hearing more Democratic viewpoints. The mainstream media promotes majority opinions in the US; it is rare to hear them promoting a pretty unpopular opinion. This, in turn, makes it pretty difficult to find credible sources that not only have those unpopular opinions but actively promote them; it will definitely take some digging. 

One unpopular opinion is anti-war. Even though most people aren't pro war necessarily or not pro war because they like fighting other countries, war can be beneficial for some people. These wealthy people like war because they end up making a lot of money from it. Members of the mainstream media have more views when war or violence is occurring because it's something people will tune in to watch.

 




Anti-war stories aren't readily promoted because they don't make money and it makes people uncomfortable. Nobody wants to see the bad side of war. Nobody wants to see fallen cities or human casualties. We are lucky because most of us don't have to experience it first hand. Wars are not fought in the US anymore so most people don't even give it a second thought.

There are people who think about it everyday: people in the military as well as those who know people in the military. I think that many service members don't like war. They want to serve and protect their country but they also hate being so far away from everything and anything that they love. 


I know my own views on war and violence have changed. I never really gave it a second thought before but for the past year, I feel like it's constantly on my mind. My boyfriend is in the army. To be more specific, he is in the 82nd Airborne Division making him a paratrooper. War, violence, and being overseas was never something I thought about, but, when he left for the Middle East, I couldn't stop thinking about it. I was constantly worried about his safety and it sucked to never know what was really going on. We were only able to communicate for two hours a day because of the eight hour time difference as well as his rigorous training schedule and even when we could communicate, the connection was almost nonexistent. There was an instance where we were talking on the phone and ear piercing sirens went off followed by bombs. All I remember was the horrified look on his face, him hanging up, and me not hearing from him until the next day. This lasted for eight months. It was absolutely horrible and very draining.




This is a picture of my boyfriend and some of his friends during their deployment. He's the one kneeling.







The experience I went through made me really think about war and how it's portrayed in the mainstream media. They don't talk about the downside of it. They don't mention the horrors or how lonely it is. They focus on what will get them headlines and more views. Wealthy people benefit from what service members go through. They make money off of it. The reason you have to seek out anti war voices is because those opinions don't make money and money seems to be all that matters. 

Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Blog #3: Freedom Lense

 In this country, we are all given certain rights through the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. The first amendment contains six freedoms. The six freedoms are petition, press, assembly, speech, religion, and abstaining from religion. These freedoms allow us to express ourselves without fear of punishment if we stay within reason. There are events and movements happening everyday in our society that deal with the first amendment. An example of a movement that has ties to the first amendment is the Black Lives Matter movement. The Black Lives Matter movement uses their first amendment rights to speak out and hold protests mainly against policy brutality. They have held marches, used social media, and even had speakers go on main stream news networks to talk about their cause. 


Protests can be peaceful but they can also get pretty violent. The first amendment protects our right to protest peacefully, but it does not protect violent protests. Many scholars are analyzing the comparison of the Black Lives Matter movement and what occurred at the capitol during the beginning of January. Throughout the article, they argue that these events were not comparable at all because the Black Lives Matter protests were for a cause and to help people see the hold white supremacy has on them and the country so they can break free, but the capitol events were all about destroying democracy and upholding white supremacy.



I have a lot of conflicting opinions regarding these two protests. On the one hand, I think everyone has the right to express their opinions regardless of if I agree with them or not, but on the other hand I don't believe someone has the right to take those opinions and use violence to get them across. I think that these two events are definitely comparable. Even though they did not have the same motives or cause, I find it hard to believe that two protests can't be compared. 

Let's start with the Black Lives Matter protests. I feel that this movement has every right to post things on social media, go on news shows, hold protests, and so much more. The problem becomes when these protests stop becoming peaceful. I do think it's important to take into consideration that every violent protestor might not be there 100% for the movement and to maintain peace. They may be there to make the movement look bad, they may be paid to incite violence, or they may be defending themselves and are just portrayed in the wrong light. I completely support their right to march for what they believe in, but I vehemently oppose burning down buildings, smashing car windows, and looting stores. That stops becoming protected speech and starts becoming unprotected action. 




Here are Black Lives Matter marchers lying peacefully in the streets to protest the unjust death of George Floyd.












This is a black owned business that was burned down by Black Lives Matter protestors.








This can also be said about what happened at the capitol. This protest began as completely peaceful and protected by the first amendment. Eventually, it turned and became violent with people even breaching the capitol building.



I feel that this is definitely comparable to the Black Lives Matter protests. They both started out very peaceful, but eventually turned into violence and rioting whether or not it was meant to as well as whether or not the people doing the rioting were actually there as supporters of the movement.
I don't think it is fair to say that one of these turning to violence is wrong, but the other is justified. Violence is violence. It doesn't matter what your political opinion is on the matter; what does matter is that the people inciting violence be held accountable for their actions.

My Online Presence

I've had an online presence for as long as I can remember. I grew up with social media and, thus, it has always been a large part of my ...