Social Media And The Media

We now live in a world where social media has changed the way we interact with the world around us. At a young age we are programed to worry about how strangers view our lives and our decisions. People are worried about how many likes they get and social acceptance. Though these outlets individuals build their social foundations that will later become the building blocks of their careers. People tend to fall short excepting criticism, communication skills, and analyzing information.

Nowadays, social media is practically a staple in everyone’s lives. While some use it solely to stay in touch with friends or family, others wouldn’t even know the latest of current events if they didn’t have their phone notifying them that their friends are talking about it. The Internet and social media have bred a new generation of socially-aware people which has given them a platform to learn and share on. Because this generation’s growth is largely-based online and through technology, it has formed a new brand of social activism. While some feel social media has made it too easy to claim a movement or position, others believe that it is what we need to spread a message

Monica Anderson and Andrea Caumont investigate how social media sites are reshaping the news and their effectiveness in engaging their audience. The authors posed five questions in their article, considering how social media users participate in and discover news, as well as the impact of social media on discussion of news events. Anderson and Caumont found that social media users are very likely to share news stories, discuss the events, and even share their own coverage of a news event. They also found that users often spend more time on a news site if they arrived there directly, rather than through a social media site. Finally, the authors state that social media can stifle one’s willingness to share their own opinion and discuss a news event. The authors obtained these conclusions by utilizing data from the Pew Research Center. This source is useful to my research topic as it sheds light on the ability of social media to encourage discussion of news stories.

Although the book was not published too long ago, the fact that it was published in 2008 makes it unable to account the changes that have come about in the United States that have made it easier for young adults to become more involved in politics. Lewis-Beck notes that “few young adults express a strong party attachment, whereas those with a lifetime of experience do” (145). While young adults may not have as high of a voter turnout as older generations, this is not necessarily the only way to measure the political activity of a cohort. When the research by Lewis-Beck was published, social media was only beginning to become popular. Facebook was only four years old, and Twitter only two. Now, the younger generation has taken to social network services, like Facebook and Twitter, to spread voter education. Additionally, the utilization of websites like Change.org to express contempt with certain political views has become more common among younger

The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. during the 1950’s and 60’s showed how effective activism is on political issues. Under the leadership of major civil figures, most notably Dr. Martin Luther King, the organized and peaceful movement brought about major change to the civil rights of African Americans and other minorities. Moreover, this movement made historical strides in changing U.S. policy, and did so without the use of social media. Today, social media activism is merely a means to an end. Social media can share a vast amount of information, and raise awareness on a broad spectrum of issues. However, the ability to make major changes on government policy, as proven by many occurrences in history, requires high-risk activism under an organized hierarchy. I argue that social media is not an effective tool for political actions because it lacks the necessary traits to make an effective impact.

Social media is also one of the main election sources that keeps its information up to date for everybody in the country. Based on the 2004 election campaign, the leading sources of social media include television news, public radio, and cable news (Klotz 29). The main problem is millennials are not being reached through these channels because they believe that their will be nothing worth listening to or anything related to them. Robert J. Klotz, author of “Different Experiences of Young Adults and Other Adults in Mediated Campaigns” confirms this statement based on the statistics that he includes in his article. Local television news was 53% for young adults and 72% for other adults, cable news was 30% for young adults and 44% for other adults, and public radio was 13% for young adults and 16% for other adults (Klotz 29). The truth is the only way that these percentages will increase is if campaigns decide that they need to not only go after older generation votes but also millennial votes because they could end up being the change in the election that could work towards their

The study mentions that, “Unlike sitting down and watching the evening news, Twitter and Facebook provide users with the ability to pick and choose what information they see…” which shows how Millennials have the freedom to choose what they prefer to read, and how what they prefer to read may not always be the right information. If Millennials are consistently misinforming themselves, that will contribute to them being unaware of what truly is happening in the world around them. The study also brings up how, “... does social media keep Millennials as informed [?] … it does allow people to become more informed if they choose to use it that way” which represents how depending on the person, any given Millennial could be more informed or less informed, yet the majority of Millennials choose to be less informed. If the current generation had less freedom on what news they could read, perhaps they would be as informed as the generations of the

Instead, the focus is on keeping viewers entertained and excited. The rise of political content through social media has occurred through our last three elections and will continue to do so until Americans become more vigilant in their skepticism of where content originates from. Political polarization has enabled biased opinions and a stubbornness to change. A decrease in biased coverage from major news organizations would create an opportunity for a more informed citizen and a less polarized political

In the first article titled, “How Social Media Is Ruining Politics” I found that one of the strongest observations made is when the author pointed out how people tend to only seek out information that they believe is right. When talking about blogs and how the internet was some years back the author mentions that people tend to seek, “information that reinforced their biases and rejecting contrary perspectives” (Carr 5). This is especially true today as a person is very unlikely to google something that contradicts what they believe. The author does a very good job at providing examples of how this is applied to social media. For example, on Twitter one can only like a tweet only reinforcing the spreading of one’s own ideas to others with similar

This statement further defends the argument that social media is an influencer to the way people think. Just knowing that the mind needs the ability to be receptive the to the thought. When going onto social media sites from personal experience. I have noticed myself in a vulnerable state of mind. Meaning that my mind has the ability to be easily molded to whatever, I may stumble upon. Making myself have that receptive ability to accept the thoughts of others, and accept them as my own.

4: We are slowly turning into slaves of technology; setting our mindsets into shortcuts, to abbreviations, to initials, to emojis, to GIFs, to stickers, and to memes.

As a logical consequence, Postmes and Brunsting (2002) reasoned that the Internet is changing society because people's cognitive processes, triggered by access to information and communication, replace the strong social ties that traditionally underpin committed activism. In simpler words, in the past, humanity used the herd instinct as the main driving force behind committed forms of activism. Thanks to the Internet, we climb another step or three on the evolutionary ladder, and simply do away with the herd instinct and replace it with reason. The argument, if put this way, does not sound particularly strong. What can be taken away is that social media is still evolving, that social media changes the way we – or most of us communicate, that social media is used in social and political activism, and that the Internet increases quantitative if not qualitative access to information.

No matter how much potential social media has for political or societal change it is important to criticize its negative aspects. An article written by Andrea Moncada, begins her argument with the question has social media had the same impact on advocacy. Similar to Gladwell’s points of view, Moncada states, “social media can help get the word around, but participants must be united by a core message and traditional methods…” This source of uncertainty is the basis for its support and is understandable.

As technology develops rapidly in the modern society, the broad social influence it brings is also widely discussed, especially about its effects on social change. In the past, social movements were raised without the help of technology, specifically without social media, whereas social media has recently played a non-ignorable role. The connection between social media and social activisms concerned, here come some different voices. Few people maintain that social media now has no practical influence on social change, while others hold the opposite view, thinking social media is already a crucial factor in it. Personally speaking, I agree with the second kind of view: it is true that social media is not able to create social movements by itself in today’s world, but it plays an important and essential part in making real social change.

Our world is full of information. We receive a lot of information not only through TV news and newspaper but also through social media such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Hunt Allcott, an associate professor of economics at New York Univeristy, and Matthew Gentzkow, a professor of economics at Standford University, claim that 62 percent of adults in the United States get news on social media in 2016 (212). However, not all the news on social media are true. Fake news are more widely shared than true news and people tend to believe fake news more than true news (Allcott and Gentzkow 212). We need to have the ability to think critically and objectively to identify what is fake and what is true. Otherwise, it can cause a critical damage to our society. For example, social media had a great impact in the United States presidential election in 2016. Allcott and Gentzkow claim that “the most discussed fake news stories tended to favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton” (212). They found many commentators suggest that “Donald Trump would not have been elected president were it not for the influence of fake news” (212). Therefore, whether it was right to choose Trump over Clinton or not, it is obvious that critical thinking has become even crucial to our life these days. The quality of our life depends on the quality of our thought. Critical thinkers don't simply accept what they have seen or heard as a fact. They analyze what they hear and experience, and integrate