Category: Uncategorized

Federal Regulation on The Use of Media

 

INTRODUCTION

 

In the past two decades, America has seen a big change in how Politics are perceived. Looking back on the past, it was seen that politics consisted of how the next president would bring change to the country and what policies would be put in place to move America forward in a better direction. Yet as the United States looked past the previous election, there was not much debate on what the next president would do for our country. After watching the primary debate, it was seen that few ideas for America’s future were brought up, instead there was an ample amount of dog fight bickering between the two political leaders former President Trump and now President Biden. Rather than discuss in depth the changes the two leaders would make to the country, they dug into their past trying to one up the other, disregarding what the primary debate should have been used for, discussing their future presidency. After the debate was over, former president Trump went to twitter and commented “Nobody wants sleepy Joe as a leader, including the Radical Left (which he lost last night!)” (Trump). This sparked a response from President Joe Biden who then made a GIF out of Trump and his comments within the debate commenting: “Had enough?” (Biden) with a crying emoji placed on top of Trump’s head. While this is humorous and quite entertaining to an extent it defeats the seriousness and accountability of the actions of the political leaders. Throughout the day after the night of the debate, media sources took it upon themselves to get in on the conflict as both CNN and Fox news tried to poke holes at the other affiliate party. The use of social media and news media and its polarizing effects should be regulated by the federal government through the passing of new legislation. 

 

CONCERNS OF REGULATION

 

Many people believe that if the media was regulated that it would be inhibiting American’s right to free speech. A particular situation in which this has arised was a few months ago when The New York post released the story of Joe Biden’s family. In response, Twitter prevented its users from reposting the articles on their social media platform and Facebook made restrictions on how users could access the information. The response by the American people was harsh. In this case people were outraged that these social media powerhouses had regulated their free speech, limiting their power to spread and share knowledge. Out of this conflict many people believed that the social media companies were trying to affect the outcome of the next presidential election. 

 

Another problem that the American people have brought up is bias stemming from media regulation. An American concern that if the media is regulated even more that it will become biased to the point that social media companies are limiting what they can and cannot see. While this might be a concerning issue, the American people should understand that the media right now still contains bias wherever they look. 

 

THE AMERICAN PROBLEM: SOCIAL MEDIA

 

While social media might be fast and easy to access information it also leaves gaps in what news is seen by different people. Algorithms used within social media are the main cause of this. Social Media sites use algorithms to appeal to what you find most interesting and attention grasping. This, while problematic for the content consumers, allows these big media companies to make the most profit. In doing so however, Social Media companies, whether they know it or not are dramatically affecting our opinions on daily matters, most specifically politics. From the Netflix documentary: The Social Dilemma, Guillaume Chaslot, a software engineer, speaks out about how these certain algorithms are shaping our ideology;

 

It worries me that an algorithm that I worked on is actually increasing polarization in society. But from the point of view of watch time, this polarization is extremely efficient at keeping people online.

 

From this algorithm trying to repeatedly try and show us what we want to see, if we spend a certain amount of time on a certain post or article it reads this and starts to provide us with more and more of that similar information. Over a few days people are provided with only information the algorithm thinks we want to see which then starts to polarize how we will view our information. Within our own social media feed we will start to have a bias of what information is consumed leaving out other important viewpoints. While people might think they are being shown what they want, this is how people get stuck in a loophole and start to perceive things that can be wrong. A particular situation that can have a very negative impact is when people start reading conspiracy theories about politics and start believing in them. Bias then is able to take full control as most of the time conflict arises from the bias viewpoints leading to hate and anger between varying ideologies. 

 

Why this speaks so strongly to exigence is because of the use of social media in the past few decades. Social Media use and how we receive our news has exponentially grown in the past two decades. With more and more people joining everyday it is crucial that the information being shown is that of which hasn’t been diluted by bias or particular ideas that can negatively impact a certain side of politics.

 

 

Even more concerning is that our youth are the ones most dramatically affected by social media. In a recent study done by the pew research center, the statistics show that 48% of people age eighteen to twenty nine get their political news from social media.

 

 

While the information access has greatly increased in availability, is it ok that what we could possibly be showing our youth poisoning their ideology? By this idea, we talk about the effects of polarization specifically. How can America keep going about social media and its drastic and dangerous effects on politics and bias? America is at such a crossroad that it could possibly implode leading to anarchy. 

 

If we go down the current status quo for, let’s say, another 20 years… we probably destroy our civilization through willful ignorance. We probably fail to meet the challenge of climate change. We probably degrade the world’s democracies so that they fall into some sort of bizarre autocratic dysfunction. We probably ruin the global economy. Uh, we probably, um, don’t survive. You know, I… I really do view it as existential.

 

Jaron Lanier, a computer analyst, predicts that the course of which social media is affecting politics suggests that the United States will have another civil war… So what does America have to do to mediate the damage?

 

CONCLUSION

 

The truth of it is that this algorithm and or access to information needs to change. While the government will be inhibiting free speech to an extent, by no means is it negatively affecting how we access our news and information. Eliminating ideas from the far left and right, by no means eliminating facts and or beneficial knowledge, will cut down on the harmful ideas that could insinuate polarization and or conflict. Bias will be of acceptance as it is good to have different viewpoints; but none shall however invigorate violence or hatred to a particular idea or group of individuals. While some conflict will appear almost inevitably it should be of top priority to mediate further spark of conflict. Free speech will be tolerated till it appears to isolate and alienate a certain idea and or group of people.  

 

• Missing a part in the middle about the use of news media*

https://universe.byu.edu/2020/08/06/social-media-use-impacts-political-views/ 

 

https://pelicaninstitute.org/blog/should-government-regulate-social-media/ 

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/internet-censorship-fairness-doctrine-not-needed/ 

 

https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media 

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2020/10/03/the-social-dilemma-movie-transcript/

Jack Rice

CAS137H

October 28 2020

Paradigm Shift Draft

 

• Intro: One of the biggest topics in health and nutrition is smoking and nicotine. However the stigma around nicotine and the devices we use to intake that chemical were not always the same. In the United States during the early to mid twentieth century, cigarettes were promoted for easing stress and were considered good for you.  
  • Thesis?: innovation in science and technology has promoted healthier lifestyles and longer lasting lives. 
  • Give a sentence explaining the ad of a doctor promoting camels. A health professional recommending that you smoke cigarettes. Continuing with the idea that smoking is harmless it goes on two explain how over twenty thousand doctors support that smoking creates less irritation or protects from coughs. 
• This pattern of thinking that smoking is good can be seen repeated and growing from the early 1900’s to 1950. During this time companies like Camel would throw out slogans promoting smoking and the benefits that come with it.
  • Cite
• One example that might capture and support the essence of what the United States thought about smoking is this quote from Camel that you should smoke after every meal to help with digestion. During this time many people were unaware of the health issues and problems correlated with smoking cigarettes which supports the statistics that 47% of American adults smoke. 
  • cite 
• These values can be linked to the lack of research, science, and technology on smoking and its side effects but more importantly, tobacco, of course, was affected by wealth  
• Starting in the 1900’s only wealthy Americans could afford tobacco. However with the 1920’s and the Industrial revolution, tobacco came readily available to the middle and lower class.
  • Cite: PRB
•  Since the wealthy were the first to adopt tobacco, much of history can explain that if the middle and lower class don’t have it and once that certain product becomes available, people are going to want to buy the same things that wealthy people are buying. 
• However everything changed in 1964 when the Surgeon General released reports about tobacco use.
  • Cite
• In the report is discussed the matters of tobacco use causing cancer. After the report, the media projected the findings and in 1966 the first warning labels were on cigarette boxes.
• Over the next few decades more ads appeared of the dangers of smoking and all smoking ads were removed from television. 
  • cite 
• This seemed to have a positive effect as the percentage of smoking in the United States back in 1964 was 42% of Americans dropped dramatically over the decades. In 2001 Gallup polls concluded that 71% of Americans knew that smoking led to cancer. 
  • Cite:
  • Add information and facts/ specific dates to support thesis/ idea that innovation in science and technology promote healthier lifestyles and longer lasting lives
  • Laws, policies, regulations
  • Life in industrial revolution
• Life didn’t change over night. It took multiple decades for the rate of smoking to go down. With the establishment of laws, policies, and regulations, tobacco turned from what everyone endorsed to a killer habit. Thankfully it was a step in the right direction for promoting a healthier lifestyle. Back in the early twentieth century, much of the United States wasn’t regulated or scrutinized for safety or equity. Much of this lack of regulation could be seen in monopolies, personal health, safety precautions, and the lack of regulations in the workplace. During the industrial revolution, thousands of workers, including kids, were overworked in deadly conditions. However over the years safety and health became more of a daunting issue as the CDC was founded in 1946 and started implementing health regulations in all workplaces. But much of the shift occurred psychology within Americnas as media and ads supporting tobacco were taken down and anti-smoking publicity skyrocketed with the new regulations applied.
  • Add more analysis
• After the Shift: Post and Modern day ideology of smoking
  • Stats and Statistics from modern era control on smoking
• Lives became healthier, more in depth look into the nutrition and different safer/ longer lasting lifestyles 
  • Maybe add what the tobacco industry has done to try and deal with falling sales numbers
  • E-vapes
  • E- Cigs
• Older people have acknowledged the harmful effects of vaping or smoking but now kids and teens are being attracted too.
  • Ad of 7,000 chemicals in a vape. 
  • This will help apply the new ideal/ shift of American ideology that tobacco use is now commonly acknowledged as harmful and should be used with caution.
• Conclusion: Americans of the past century have had a paradigm shift in their ideology of tobacco and smoking. It has gone from good to bad not only in American culture but is backed up by data and science. With the combination of scientific innovation and cultural growth, people have challenged the ideals of tobacco and attitudes have ultimately changed. However, this does not make up for the people who know it’s bad and still do it,  much of that is seen in the present day amongst teens and adults. However I think there is a correlation between the development of healthier, longer lifestyles and the promotion of anti-tobacco use. Not only this but looking at the bigger picture, the United States is developing into a safer, more regulated country. This can be most easily seen from a middle class family perspective from the early 1900’s and compared to life today. Life today is abundantly more easy to live because of the laws, regulations, and policies put in place by the government agencies to promote healthier living. 

 

Work Cited

 

CNN, Kevin Liptak and Kristen Holmes. “Trump Calls Black Lives Matter a ‘symbol of Hate’ as 

He Digs in on Race.” CNN, 1 July 2020, www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/politics/donald-trump-black-lives-matter-confederate-race/index.html. Accessed 1 Oct. 2020.

 

“History of the Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health.” Center of Disease Control 

and Prevention, 2019, www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/history/index.htm. Accessed 27 Oct. 2020.

 

“Not All Americans Are Smoking Less.” Population Reference Bureau, 1 Feb. 2011, 

www.prb.org/us-smoking-trends/#:~:text=In%20the%201960s%2C%20smoking%20was,of%20Americans%20were%20regular%20smokers.&text=The%20U.S.%20Centers%20for%20Disease,the%20rates%20of%20the%201960s. Accessed 27 Oct. 2020.

 

“Toxic Mix of Chemicals.” Center for Tobacco Products Exchange Lab, 

digitalmedia.hhs.gov/tobacco/print_materials/CTP-66-LP. Accessed 27 Oct. 2020.

 

“Why Use Doctors in Ads?” Smithsonian, 4 Apr. 2019, 

americanhistory.si.edu/press/releases/historic-tobacco-advertising. Accessed 27 Oct. 2020.

As I was scrolling through the internet looking for an artifact on my rhetorical analysis essay, one just kind of hit me. A poster of COVID 19 and the directions someone should follow. While this might seem as an easy poster dedicated towards ultimately keeping people safe, posters about COVID have been given backlash and hate from certain cultures in America. 

As it stands by itself, the COVID-19 poster proposes the risks and safety precautions someone should know when living in the pandemic world of today. It’s purpose is to spread awareness and to inform people about the proper etiquette with personal space and masks. It’s main job is to inform and educate, while being a warning to anyone that sees. However with the twenty twenty election coming up, people have skewed their opinions on COVID-19 posters and the actual disease. 

While probably not intentionally trying to gain attention, the democratic party and the republican party are at odds with how the United States should deal with COVID-19. With this political backlash the United States has been split on personal ideals and beliefs on whether COVID-19 is harmful or dangerous to say the least. All over social media you see big Trump gatherings with no masks and no social distancing, directly disobeying rules set up by the national government . And then on the other side with the democrats that are more weary and practicing safe actions, maybe even a little overboard, like social distancing and wearing a mask. 

Moving forward and answering the prompt of: What ideas does this artifact think about?

I believe, no matter the background of the individual or their viewpoints, that this poster brings up a conception about what COVID-19 is and what you should do in response. However that is where the similarities end. Instead of what this artifact thinks about, it rather poses the question, how will people respond to this artifact? 

As previously stated, this artifact invigorates our own human opinion about COVID-19. Thanks to the help of politics the poster no longer stands as a warning, rather a sign that sits on a college dorm hallway bulletin board collecting dust and only getting the attention of scanning eyes walking down the hallway. That is why instead of seeing a sign of warning and stopping, like a red stop light or biohazard sign in the doctor’s office, peoples opinions have been swayed. 

You can’t talk about COVID-19 and not talk about politics. That’s why when you look at a poster of COVID, it’s not gonna be the same image someone else sees. Our political viewpoints have overtaken our personal views and have brainwashed us, whether we like it or not, to believe certain logic and information that may or may not be true about COVID. 

While the poster gives us information on a serious topic, humans now look at a COVID poster and not only look at the information but also see how politics are playing a role in dealing with the pandemic. 

I grew up thinking that after the Civil Rights movement America was moving forward in hopes of more equality for all. However in the present day I still see the remnants of oppression, brutality, and inequality. Why do we need to have massive protests out of outrage for our voices to be heard? We live in a world where people still have to fight for basic rights. We have not improved and racism has not gone anywhere. 

In the height of the Black Lives Matter protests in Philadelphia, the Frank Rizzo statue had been taken down. Frank Rizzo was the Mayor and police commissioner of Philadelphia during the mid nineteen seventies. He was a man known for being openly racist and oppressing black people with police brutality. While running for mayor he coined the term “vote white” (Chapel). So why would Philadelphia ever create a monument in honor of a racist and keep it up for thirty odd years? 

As a nation we have told ourselves that we have improved and moved past the dark times of the Civil Rights movement. That we have improved upon our ways in dealing with equality, acceptance, and treating people as we want to be treated. But the simple answer is we haven’t. 

The Frank Rizzo statue symbolized the ongoing presence of racism. Left up for thirty years as people voiced their opinions to take it down. However nothing was done until the outbreak of the Black Lives Matter movement. Only then, when thousands of angry protestors are at the front gates of the police barrier screaming to take down the statue, only then its been removed. 

Racism has adapted and morphed over the years. As a nation we thought we had moved forward but it has only changed into something that lives with us in our everyday lives. That is why we see killings from police brutality and unfair treatment in the present day. As the Frank Rizzo statue was standing for thirty years it represented the hate and violence of racism living around us. Only when people protestested and trashed the statue did congressmen start to hear and understand things need to change. This needs to be fixed. We cannot only allow mass protesting to offer us change when change needs to be done right now. 

We are living in a world where laws and regulations support the murdering of innocent black lives. We have conformed to new ways of systemic racism that we believe are okay. We shouldn’t have killings, protests, and riots for action to occur. A statue should not be up if its praising a white supremacist and only taken down killings, protests, and riots.

 

Work Cited

 

Chapel, Bill. “Frank Rizzo Statue Is Removed In Philadelphia: ‘It Is Finally Gone,’ Mayor 

Says.” NPR.Org, 3 June 2020, www.npr.org/2020/06/03/868848550/frank-rizzo-statue-is-removed-in-philadelphia-it-is-finally-gone-mayor-says.

I don’t believe that as a nation we can define racism until we take a look at our history and how it has shaped modern day beliefs.

We first see trickles of modern day racism in the form of slavery of Native Americans and Africans hundreds of years ago. White people took on the hierarchal embodiment, controlling and enslaving anyone who did not have the same skin color. As time moved forward and some Americans became enlightened that owning other people as property was inhumane, policies and laws changed. But some beliefs didn’t.

Throughout the 19th and 20th century racism developed into this social and psychological persona that many people had a different beliefs on. Since the Civil War United States tension has been high between the North and South and these beliefs really erupted in the mid to late 20th century with the Civil Rights Movement.

African Americans and all minorities gave themselves a voice and were able to pass significant limitations not only legally, but socially and financially as well. So how have we grown in the past sixty years? We haven’t.

Present day I look around and see oppression and prejudice almost everywhere. Everyday I wake up to find a social media post about another police brutality or racial discrimination.

In my opinion, racism is the unequal treatment of another being based off skin color and culture. Unfortunately, racism has bled into almost every part of our lives from jobs to neighborhoods, so defining it is hard. So many underlying factors from our nation’s history make it hard to not see racism in everyday life.

When we define racism we can look in so many different directions. Race has affected us in some manner at some point in our lives and should play a role in how we view the world. There will always be bias and personal opinions on how we define racism but we should all agree bottom line that it’s still very much a problem in present day.

Then that brings up the question of “what about white privilege?” I have to admit I only know as much as that white privilege is to live without certain thoughts or worries in the back of your head; and that white privilege are the nuances of not being of color in America. For example, if you are white, you don’t have to worry about being racially profiled or being pulled over.

Now do I believe that racism and white privilege are correlated? Maybe a little bit. From my perspective of being half white and half chinese I feel like I have the tiniest of abilities to identify that white privilege may sometimes lead to racism. For example, while none of my white friends may see it, there is bias to what they say. Whether it be in a jokingly manner or to get a laugh, some things they say come out wrong and can wipe people of color the wrong way. However I do understand that they have lived that way their whole life, so how would they know if they were doing something wrong?

We live in a difficult world with a million things zooming by us and through our head. But it is our job to understand and to have compassion with one another in order to grow and develop as a nation if we want to decrease and recognize the racism around us.