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.