Responsibility

Bias in the media has always been something that interests and disturbs me at the same time. This is why I decided to write a feature article for my final project on the effects of such bias on voters in our recent election. I have been actively researching for a while now and my findings have led me to be more concerned with society's media consumption tendencies than the media itself.

There is no doubt that media bias is prevalent today, but is it not our responsibility as citizens to inform ourselves on both sides of an issue? One thing that has been a recurring theme in the studies I've been reading is that the media bias affects people as much as they allow it to. People who refuse to listen to/read opposing views are more likely to be affected by media bias (like-minded media that polarizes their ideology). Since so many people only follow like-minded media sources, this encourages more polarized media to please the consumers, and on goes the vicious cycle.

Studies like the one done by Eveland and Shah show how an individual's ideology and informedness affect their perception of media bias, as well as how much it tends to affect their opinions. While I do believe that the media has a responsibility to be as unbiased as possible, I also believe in society's responsibility to be well-informed and to hold the media accountable.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Where do you think most of the responsibility lies?

In Remembrance

With all the excitement, news coverage, and commentary on the recent election, I feel that Veteran's Day snuck up on many people. This has been a very special holiday for Americans because of all the freedoms our brave servicemen and women protect. Today I think it is important for all Americans to take a step back from all the recent distractions and honor the men and women that have made democracy safe for so long; without them, we would not have the liberty to have voted for our choice of candidates on Tuesday.

No matter where we go from here, we must always remember where we came from and those who have given their lives in defense of this nation. Although we must pay attention to the events within the country, we must not become so consumed with them that we forget to honor those who have made them possible (note: this is not an accusation of anyone reading this post, just a friendly reminder to all, including myself). Our differences in political opinion (and free debate on these ideas) come from the sacrifice of many Americans.

I would like to personally thank anyone reading this who has served or is currently serving; you have my respect and gratitude.

Celebrity Endorsements

Earlier today, I was looking at all the celebrity endorsements for each presidential candidate. My deep, philosophical conclusion about them are as follows: there are a lot.

But in all seriousness, it got me thinking about what type of influence these celebrities actually have on voters. Can a simple endorsement sway voters' opinions? One would think that it shouldn't affect someone who is set in his or her opinions already. However, given the idolization of celebrities in society, it is not unrealistic to think that their endorsements could encourage uninformed voters to vote more or less blindly. 

Because celebrities have such a large following in the public sphere, I think it is their responsibility to be informed before talking politics (not to say that they do not do this already), and, even more so, encourage their fans to be informed as well. While I don't think it is their intention to encourage voting blindly, I do think that they can cause it indirectly if they do not advocate informed voting. 

All the responsibility cannot be put on celebrities, though. It is our responsibility as citizens to be informed before voting. However, celebs can use their influence to encourage responsible voting and set a good example of it. 

Discourse Online

Social media being such a prominent part of the public sphere today, it was only a matter of time before it played a part in voting. While you cannot cast a vote through social media (although that might not be far off), there are new ways to discuss voting or encourage friends to vote. This article explains recent trends in political discourse through social media. You can find political groups and threads on Facebook, support videos on YouTube, and #whyimnotvotingforobama and #whyimnotvotingforromney hashtags on Twitter. 

It seems like young people are really enjoying political discourse via the internet. However, as the article explains, if you look closer, the discourse is not all that beneficial. It is almost exclusively confined to like-minded people discussing ideas, or yelling matches between people with different ideologies. Political ideas that trended on both sides revolved around debate buzzwords like "Big Bird", or "binders full of women", things mainly used to joke about. 

So is this new form of political discourse beneficial to the public sphere, especially concerning young people? Should we be happy that at least people are taking an interest? Or is the limited expression involved with social media essentially ineffective?

HURRICANE SANDY and..... Inequality?

Turn on the TV, go on the internet, open a newspaper, and one of the first things you will see right now is pictures and/or information on Hurricane Sandy; this is no surprise considering the size of the storm, its potential destructive power, and the nation's memories of Katrina. As I was searching for more information on the storm, I came across this article, and was immediately interested because I recently finished reading Timothy Noah's The Great Divergence. 

The article takes two things that seem completely separate (natural disasters and economic inequality) and explains how they are related. According to the author, inequality increases the amount of damage natural disasters like Sandy can do because so many people lack the resources to support themselves in a time of crisis. Normally, this is not a connection many people (myself included) would make; however, when you think about it, it makes sense.

If you just consider the families could be potentially "devastated" by a natural disaster, many of them would probably be low-income. This does not mean that the storm would skip over the houses of high-income families; it simply means that they would have the money and resources to live elsewhere, make repairs, etc, whereas low-income families could not. Although both types of family would be equally emotionally devastated, the low-income families would lose more comparatively.

On the other hand, one could read this article as kind of a stretch in order to raise awareness of the potential damages economic inequality causes. The title "How Economic Inequality Makes Hurricanes More Deadly" certainly caught my eye and made me want to read on. Perhaps it just seems like a stretch because it is not natural for me to connect natural disasters and inequality in my mind. Either way, the article presents a very interesting argument, especially after reading Noah's book.

The Pre-K Divergence

Reading The Great Divergence by Timothy Noah has certainly put American economic inequality in perspective for me. Something that I once thought little about is now more real to me. One part of Noah's solution to "the great divergence" that I find particularly interesting is the implementation of preschool for all children. Children who attend preschool have a higher chance of earning a bachelor's degree; this has been proven, and it makes Noah's argument fairly appealing. As I looked further into this idea, I found this article, one which shows how current preschool attendance is somewhat of a vicious cycle for low income families. 

The article shows a couple graphs, which depict the difference in preschool attendance between children from low and high income families. It is very clear that children from high income families are much more likely to attend preschool. As was previously stated, children who attend preschool are more likely to earn a bachelor's degree, and it is the children from high income families that receive the advantage of this early education. These children, who grow up to earn degrees, have a better chance of landing a good job and, in turn, making more money; they will then be able to send their children to preschool, thereby continuing the cycle. 

Considering this cycle of education and the way it privileges higher income families gives Noah's argument for universal preschool more merit.

When Entertainment and Politics Collide

I ran across this article this weekend; it talks about the political views of actors Matt Damon and Ben Affleck in light of Affleck's new movie, Argo, which depicts the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. While Damon dismissed the idea, Affleck says he would be open to someday running for office.

Both men have long been politically active, expressing their views and endorsing particular candidates. Reagan and Schwarzenegger were both actors before being politicians, so it can be done. This is not to say that actors are not qualified to work in politics, but it got me thinking, how do their prior roles in movies affect their relationship to the public as politicians? Are actors who play particular roles more suited for politics? Perhaps the preparation that goes into more political movie roles would be beneficial, as well as the way that the actor is portrayed on screen. It would be interesting to see what you think.

Learning Revolution

As I considered the conclusion of Bad Teacher and the implications of Kumashiro's idealistic model for the education system, I recalled a TED Talk that a friend once showed me. This talk is by Sir Ken Robinson, a British public intellectual who has been influential in the development of education worldwide. In his talk, he makes an argument somewhat parallel to what Kumashiro is suggesting: that schools must be personalized rather than standardized, that students should be given an environment which allows for the development of creativity rather than conformity.

If you have fifteen minutes to spare, I recommend watching the talk here.

Essentially, Robinson is advocating a decrease in the importance put on reforms - which rework the same linear model of schooling - in favor of a "transformation" to a more "personalized" and "organic" model. This sounds a lot like what Kumashiro is describing when he says we should have schools that "are also centered on rich, broad, interdisciplinary curriculums that are developed by the teachers and grounded in research, as well as complex assessments that support teachers in tailoring their instruction to their students' needs"

I agree that it is time for education to take a turn towards this type of school model. Like Kumashiro and Robinson, I believe that the current school system is too standardized; just look at our main form of assessment: high stakes standardized tests. Each child's future - as well as the school's for that matter - is dependent on if he or she can take a test well. I am not saying that testing isn't necessary because it is, but the current model for assessment in education is far too narrow.

Of course it's easy to say that it would be better to have schools like the ones described by Kumashiro nationwide; the tough question is how would we fund them? I am not going to pretend like I have a solution for that problem that would be both effective and productive for the economy. Perhaps, if the money the government and donors are currently putting into experimental school reforms was reallocated, we could work towards the "transformation" Robinson talks about; however, that probably would not be sufficient.

Anyone else have ideas on how such schools could be funded?

Homeland

The media's depiction of any group of people can have great influence over common public thought about the group. Reading Islamaphobia got me thinking about how Muslims - as well as other groups/entities - are portrayed in popular entertainment today. One show that came to mind is Homeland, which my roommates and I got into last year (the show is currently airing its second season on Showtime). I am not implying that the show is a great contributor to Islamaphobia, but I do think that it presents some interesting themes. Watch the trailer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4-KYAWPKzY

This trailer for the first season centers around Nicolas Brody, an American who was a prisoner of war in Iraq, and Carrie Mathison, the CIA agent who is investigating him. After an informant told Mathison that a POW had been "turned", she made it a priority to find out if it was in fact Brody, who is being hailed as a war hero in the states.

The show touches on some interesting themes. For example, a large amount of screen time is devoted to  the CIA investigation of Brody and how many agents are conflicted as to how it should be done, considering his status as a war hero. Islam plays a role in the show as well, seeing as the people who held Brody captive were Muslim members of Al-Qaeda. The first season, in its entirety, is really interesting, and it gets the viewer thinking about his or her own feelings towards Brody, since they do not know for sure if he has been "turned" or not. 

Has anyone seen the show? What do you think?

TV Personalities "Rumble"

I have seen - on some of your MLS 590 blogs - talk about the Stewart/O'Reilley debate that happened over the weekend. I personally did not watch the debate, but in a couple articles I read that underneath the humor involved, the two ideologically opposite personalities touched on some real issues. Apparently the two men have maintained fairly consistent communication for several years, appearing on each other's shows a number of times to discuss current events and politics. Did anyone watch the debate? What did you think? Is the type of relationship these two men have one that exemplifies how people with different ideas should interact? 

I'm genuinely curious to see what people thought about the "Rumble in the Air-Conditioned Auditorium". Do you think they were doing it to convey their ideas to the nation, or just for entertainment? Was it good or bad for viewers to see?

Dogs at the Keyboard

I'm on a roll with the cartoon theme so I thought I'd post another. This one is by Peter Steiner and was published in 1993, but gained great publicity with the rise of internet communications:

How true this is. Web anonymity (depending on how you look at it), can be freeing, or it can be deceiving.  The idea that you can create an identity for yourself online is no joke; one can actually forge a new "self". This can lead to a more bold and aggressive voice in matters of opinion, even to the point of harassment. Anonymity gives internet communicators courage that they might not have otherwise because they can - if they choose - hide behind a different name or identity. Do you think this benefits us because people will now share their true opinions more boldly? Or does it lead mostly to extremism and harassment?

Polarization

After reading "The Daily We", I was browsing articles on polarization and I came across this cartoon:

While this cartoon is obviously a joke, playing on the word "polarization", it touches on a serious topic, the very same topic that concerns Sunstein: the polarization of our public sphere. I agree with Sunstein; the fact that social groups' ideologies are becoming more extreme through the individualization of media is disturbing. One thing I wish he would have delved into more deeply is the responsibility that falls on our shoulders as the consumers of media. 

Does the current format of news media encourage group polarization? Yes. Does the internet allow for certain groups to become more extreme through deliberation? Absolutely. However, just because technology simplifies the process of polarization does not mean we have to use it for that purpose. The internet makes it extremely easy to communicate only with like minded people and view like minded content, to stay in one's own comfort zone. But we must think about the opportunity we have in that the internet also makes it easy to view opposing views and discuss with opposite minded people (a key component of democracy. Technology has made it increasingly easy for us to engage in democratic debate on a wide variety of topics; all it takes is people challenging themselves to widen their perspectives. 

I do believe that media which blatantly encourages polarization should be held accountable. This accountability, however, should not be the government's duty. Rather, the public should be the ones to make their voice on this topic heard. 

Each generation has had its own challenges in gathering and analyzing media; ours is the challenge of discernment and opposition to polarization. The same technology that encourages polarization also gives us a way to reverse it with easy access to different views. The public has a choice: to remain in its own polarized comfort zone, or to challenge itself, break out, and engage in valuable, democratic discussion. 

Poll Reliability

It's that time of the campaign season when we (as consumers of news media) are inundated with political polling results. What is interesting to me, is the variation in some polls shown on different news channels; what is even more interesting is that each source seemed to have its own purpose and agenda for showing such results. Given, the variations were not very large, but enough to be noticeable. It made me wonder if/how certain programs select which polls to show and the analysis they provide.

I know that there are some reliable polls out there, and I do not think that there is any active conspiracy going on with them; however, I do believe that news programs with particular biases can choose which polls to show and change how they show them in order to push one agenda or another. How much can we actually rely on the polls shown on commentary shows? Even if they are accurate, the hosts and guests analyze them in ways that will push their point. I think that the public should educate themselves about the polling process, or receive some type of objective help in poll analysis, so that we can look at them and make our own decisions about what they mean. We should not rely completely on television personalities to analyze polls for us without some level of personal discernment.

Novelists in the Public Sphere

When asked to consider modern public intellectuals that I find particularly interesting or influential, the ones that immediately come to mind are ones whose work I enjoy following. My area of interest is literature and writers, so I thought of authors whose novels served as perceptive, poignant, and sometimes satirical social commentaries. Fairly recent examples of such authors, in my opinion, are Kurt Vonnegut and David Foster Wallace. Although these men are no longer with us, their works conveyed thought-provoking commentary through intriguing plots, relatable characters, and satirical scenes. The reason I think these men - these types of authors - can be influential is that they are distributing their keen social and political observations in a form that is enjoyable to the average citizen; the individuals who read these novels are analyzing heavy topics and loving every minute of it. Not only this, but the scenes and characters portrayed in novels are easily understandable examples of social commentary to anyone who might be bored with (or have difficulty understanding) more academic articles and speeches.

Not only are novels effective in shaping the society that they are written in and for, but also in future societies. English classes throughout the country still study and analyze novels from decades and even centuries ago, encouraging students to apply their themes to modern society. Enduring novels have the potential to produce change within individuals and societies for years, which gives authors the ability to be fairly influential intellectuals.

One slightly lesser known intellectual I would like to point out is Chris Ware, a cartoonist turned graphic novelist whose graphic novel Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth became the first of its kind to win The Guardian's First Book Award. Ware, a talented artist, has a keen eye for family dynamics and shows it in the depiction of young Jimmy Corrigan and his father. Political cartoons have long been sources of social commentary, but Ware has taken the form to another level.

 Here is an example of his more recent work:

Graphic novels are growing in popularity, and I would place Ware on the same level as other socially observant intellectuals. I encourage everyone to take a look at his work.

Importance reconsidered

While considering the current state of the American public sphere, I could not help but affiliate it with with current media and technology, and I could not help but be concerned. We spoke in class about the effects that modern media and the development of the internet have had on the public sphere. However, a concern for the state of this sphere that I would like to address does not stem from its globalization or inclusiveness (or lack thereof); this concern comes primarily from the nature of what is being discussed within the sphere as well as the misplaced importance and credibility that comes as a result.

At no time in history has there ever been such an accumulation of accessible information as there is today; a vast library of knowledge is literally at our fingertips. The increasing accessibility of scholarly information is wonderful, especially for academics who value knowledge and learning; the problem is that the amount of truly valuable information on the internet is diluted by an even larger amount of useless information. Then again, when it comes to information, what is "valuable" is somewhat relative, and this is where I begin to get concerned. What is generally deemed "valuable" knowledge in society today is shallow and self-indulgent. Everyone needs to know celebrity gossip and what happened in any number of reality shows, but few feel any urgency to study politics, economics, literature, or other intellectual pursuits. This misplaced value degrades rational debate within the public sphere, as people have less intellectual and academic topics to debate about; instead, the things we debate have little importance in shaping the nation and influencing society. 

(At this point, I would like to say that I am not against using the media and internet for entertainment; it's important to have some fun. However, I do think that placing too much value on shallow gossip and drama information can contribute to some degradation of public discourse.)

In addition, public intellectuals and politicians are being held less accountable for what they say. Because we are spending minimal time researching politically important or controversial topics, we lack knowledge on them. Because of this, politicians and public intellectuals can say something that sounds good, and many people will take their word for it. Those who use the internet and the news to become knowledgeable in truly valuable areas can take what is said, consider it, apply it to what they know, and then make a decision about it; sadly, I don't think that this is not the majority. If it was, the words of intellectuals and politicians would be more deeply analyzed by the general public. 

News coverage is just one more area that is losing credibility due to our misplaced values on information. It's simple: the general public wants drama. We want to see sensationalized stories, and we want gossip over substance; we would rather see know embarrassing details about the lives of our politicians than what their platforms are. News companies cater to what their viewers/readers/listeners want, so if they give up unbiased coverage in favor of drama, gossip, and propaganda, maybe we should educate ourselves and demand a reversal. 

I don't want to pretend I am not part of the problem, because sometimes I can be. This is something I think everyone can work on at least a little bit.