Despite the availability of knowledge, unparalleled by any other point in human history, we still know so little about our candidate's political stance before they are elected. This point is well expressed with the fact that "popular culture matters politically-- because it doesn't seem to be about politics at all" (Jenkins 250). Young voters who are well educated choose to watch parody news and begin to believe that source is adequate and substantial. The reference to the Howard Dean campaign is utterly relevant, because his reputation was destroyed by an exaggerated and overplayed positive emotional reaction. I could have gotten behind this slander if he seemed enraged, but I am disgusted that his excitement was conveyed as anything other than reasonable and genuine.
I am, however, delighted that there is a media outside of television and radio. The internet makes information accessible and cheap, which in my opinion outweighs the disadvantage of corrupted news. Monopolistic news reporting just seems wrong, because "TV was a medium that rendered us dumb, disengaged, and disconnected, the Internet makes us smarter, more involved, and better informed" (Jenkins 221). As a rhetoric major I have been diligent in accessing the original source of my citations, and have had better luck finding it when using internet based media. Our television news and newspapers are primarily composed of prechewed and distorted Associated Press articles. No matter what your preference for news source, you are reading the same thing, only skewed to manipulate your opinion. I like the freedom of the internet, and the potential for a "knowledge culture" (Jenkins 249).
Agreed, however, one must be exceptionally careful where you find information. If anything, it's better to pull from numerous sources and simply compare them to ensure that you're able to identify the constant truths in each one despite the bias inherent in each posted story.
ReplyDeleteSay what you will, but I'd rather read the same story from the Associated Press, MSNBC, Fox News, the BBC, and CNN and come up with my own conclusions given the different perspectives than say, simply take everything the Huffington Post says at face value.
I must agree with Nemo on this one. While the internet provides near limitless access to information almost every news source con contain some element of bias. I feel that if you are looking for the truth in a news story it is better to find multiple sources with varying view points to confirm the facts of a story. We also my want to consider the idea that news sources (such as MSNBC, Fox, CNN, and BBC) that you say "prechew" or are "skewed to manipulate your opinion" could be held more accountable for their content because they are so public. It would be much more difficult for one of these media outlets to stray too far from the facts and get away with it versus a less publicized website or newspaper.
ReplyDeleteI never advocated blindly following random websites for news, and made a point to state that the original source should always be considered.
ReplyDeleteAlso, not everything public is valid: Encyclopedia Britannica published a picture of "black Confederate soldiers" that was actually a group of railroad workers in similar uniforms.
I don't think Encyclopedia Britannica published that photo on purpose, rather someone probably didn't do their research before sending it off. No matter how you slice it, everything, even original sources, can have a slant or bias to them. I think this a good example to use one of Jenkins points; that convergence culture is not, the black box fallacy. Instead, Jenkins comparing and contrasting articles, websites, and any other type of information to make a rational views and stances on issues instead of getting all the information from one nice and neat package, is what Jenkins wants us to get from his book. (?)
ReplyDeleteLike we discussed in class, the moment someone uses words to describe something, they make an interpretation and color the facts with some degree of bias (even if it's very slight). It seems like to find truth today, as several people touched on, we resort to finding a high level of consensus between several sources. Like looking at photographs of the same scene taken from a variety of angles, we have no choice but to examine the facts next to each other and hope things line up across the board (or at least across part of it). Jenkins points to collective intelligence as a means for extracting truth using a pool of resources, but when it comes to the subjective realm of politics knowledge I'm not sure if knowledge communities are reliable.
ReplyDeleteI have points where I feel I both agree and disagree with you. On the Howard Dean example, I think rather than the major networks ruining his campaign bid by playing his squawk over and over, the video would be an instant internet hit. Because of the internet and television (heck, probably even with radio) that sound made people think twice about his candidacy, and I think that's legitimate for a presidential candidate.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about the multitude of available news sources is a very good one. Truly, when citing a very specific newspaper, it's not uncommon to realize that you're reading an AP story. Now, people can get their news from many sources. We can read different interpretations of the news, we can choose to listen to pundits or comedians comment (I think this is a good thing) on the news.
Some could argue that news parody shows such as Colbert Report and Daily Show (both of which do involve current events) actually make viewers smarter and more informed about politics and current events. Because they mix reality with fiction, fans must be on their toes as to not be duped into thinking that a skit was actually a real occurrence.
ReplyDeleteAlso, news cannot be reported in a 100% unbiased way unless you receive a complete transcription of what happened in the event being reported on. Whether a reporter is aware of it (and a good one always is) or not, every little detail included or omitted from the report is spinning the story away from reality, however slightly.
It's interesting that while most of us are thinking about the disadvantages of the inaccuracy of the internet, you're thinking about the benefits and the freedom it provides. It's important to take a step back and decide for ourselves if the costs outweigh the benefits. The internet has definitely given us more freedom. However, I feel that this freedom may be good and bad...depending on how consumers use that freedom. If consumers are using that freedom to gain knowledge, discuss it, and build upon it, excellent. On the other hand, if consumers are simply taking this freedom to block others from participating and believing absolutely everything they see, then they're in big trouble.
ReplyDelete