Summary Of Re-Thinking Objectivity

In Esther Dyson’s “Cyberspace: If You Don’t Love It, Leave It”, the existence of the internet is seen as potentially dangerous to today’s society. Dyson insists that the internet was once a sanctuary for tech savvy individuals such as gamers and professionals like engineers. The author focuses on the negative websites and communities that are often found offensive to the majority. She thinks the World Wide Web harbors a lot of power. This power can be accessed and conquered easily by most of the population. According to Dyson, responsibility is the key to changing the future (295). Her argument is convincing but slightly unrealistic. The internet seems to be growing into a whole other alternate universe. Society’s rapidly growing technology industry will only be harder to regulate. Most people will do what they want, when they want especially when it comes to the internet.

Consequently, the political sphere is now being colonised by the media, and politics has begun re-orientating itself to satisfy the logic of media organisations (Meyer, 2002, p. 71). Therefore, the media are active participants in the policymaking process and the ability to stimulate change or maintain the status quo depends on their choice of subject or policy issue and how they frame it. Active investigative reporting attempts to shape policy outcomes, but this does not necessarily mean that it always represents the most successful approach for gaining policy changes (Spitzer, 1993, p. 7). In fact, sometimes passive, straight reporting can have a greater influence on policy choices. When this occurs, media independence is largely bypassed, as the news generated depends solely on the information released (as public relations material) from legitimate news sources. For example, in the United States, White House staff routinely make ‘leaks’ - expressively to influence policy decisions (Davis, 1992, p. 143; Robinson, 2001, p. 948). Robinson noted that journalists regard “leaks… as indispensable to their work” and that they are aware of their use by officials in return for scoops (2001, p. 949).

Internet expands more each and every year. Although this is a good thing because we have way more resources now. It becomes way too progressive that humans get to into it. The government takes advantage of this. Humans have emotions and sometimes a way to let them out is to have the internet. People believe everything they post is safe but the government owns some of these websites we use. The government withholds a lot of our information, so it is questionable ton ask if what we put online is safe. The author extensively explores the role of internet censorship in the right to decide what art, or entertainment tool we use (1). This shows that not only do we think everything we post is safe but in the end it is our fault. We document part of our life and post on social media to make our life better or cooler in some ways. It is good to believe that most of the time the government will not do anything but it is also scary to know that they can track where someone is at any

Since the beginning of the Internet’s birth as ARPANET in 1969, communication has improved massively. As with all great wonders there comes a cost-the Internet is slowly becoming much more regulated and observed. With the Internet, the government, whether it be local or national, is slowly progressing towards an Orwellian future. It is extremely difficult to situate borders for privacy, and that brings multiple questions to the table. Is it moral to allow people like white supremacists an unchecked platform to offer their ideas? Is it okay for the government to censor content it deems immoral? Will observing and profiling people actually help counter any threat of terrorism? In order for such significant issues to be dealt with, we the people must learn to adapt.

"Americans are unique due to our technological advancement, which means we set the precedent of how this new technology is to be controlled. The internet is an invention that raises new questions everyday. One controversial issue is wether or not the government_Ñés interference online is necessary. On one hand, the internet is a place where people speak up and speak out, even if it is against the government. Should the government be able to spy on this? If we let them take control of the internet, is that the same thing as limiting our freedom of speech? On the other hand, the internet is the prime location for criminal activity that goes far beyond simple teasing. Do we need government interference in order to protect us from criminals who hide behind the keyboard? Would monitoring the internet actually help prevent criminal activity such as terrorist attacks?

The government has been monitoring and regulating an every day’s persons website history and what we buy and look at on the Internet. With the Internet growing rapidly and the amount of users on the Internet increasing, the easier it is for the government to find out peoples’ interests. Many people argue whether or not we should have vigorous rules and regulations when it comes to the Internet. One of the main concerns people have when it comes to their Internet is their privacy. There are many people who want to do harm using the tools that the Internet provides us with. The Internet should be regulated but not as harsh as some

The Internet’s continuous advancement has produced the need for an on-going debate on whether or not the government should have the power to control the Internet. The idea of the government having control over what each country’s citizens can see on the Internet is also called Internet Censorship. Internet Censorship “is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet.” Internet Censorship varies from country to country depending on each country’s current usage and philosophy of how it should be used. (toptenreviews.com) Currently, there are ten countries including

The Internet has incurred a tremendous amount of growth and opportunity for the country as well as the world; elevating communication, information, and commerce to a new level. With all this unprecedented innovation, the Internet has also brought controversy that challenges the very foundation of rights that countries like the United States were founded on. With countless websites containing unregulated and objectively offensive content, and the public having an ease of access to this content will result in severe damages to the development of the youth if no censorship is put in place for them to view this content. Additionally, markets are being exploited by piracy which has resulted in billions of dollars being lost by the domestic economy

How has the media’s objectivity been affected by the explosion of information sources? Will individuals increasingly live in worlds of their own ideological and moral construction by further isolating themselves from competing ideas? Are we entering an era of “choose your truth”? How does information technology further expand the same rifts between civilizations and between individuals in the same communities? How does it bridge those divides?

In today’s society, remaining connected and knowledgeable of current events and the newest trends is vital to staying ahead in business, education, and social standing. This information is supplied to everyone through the internet, newspapers, television, and radio. One can tune into stations such as CNN, NBC, Fox News, Al-Jazeera, and many others (“SQs of Media Outlets”). In order to meet the needs of viewers, readers, and listeners, the ideal media system would contain accurate, quick information, with a purely impartial view on the facts as they are known. However, this modern media system has not maintained an objective view, pushing opinionated and slanted reporting onto the population in order to create profit and gain customers. The exploitation of information media for personal gain has created a toxic and inaccurate present, constant in today’s society.

The government does not give these rights to us, so the government cannot take them away or infringe on them (United States, Congress, House, Madison). However, due to the corruption and dishonesty of the federal government, these rights are constantly infringed on with internet censorship. Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state informs the public that, “[they] must be wary of [government] agendas and [stay] united in [their] shared conviction that human rights apply online" (Clinton). Clinton explains the reason behind censorship: twisted and corrupt governments try to force their agendas online. That often can mean silencing critics, whistleblowers, and activists. By silencing these people, the government takes away their right to free speech and their right to a free press. Because these individuals cannot exercise their rights online, the government is violating basic human rights to commit evil. Thus, the government does not have the right to censor the internet because it is a violation of human rights. Government censorship also has a negative impact on all internet users, something the federal government does not have the right to do. Because, “when ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished for all of us. What

Though the First Amendment protects the freedom of expression [1], not all speech is protected by law.  What if material on the Internet advocates illegal conduct or issues threats of violence?  What if information such as bomb-making instructions helps someone carry out a threat of violence?  As stated in the preceding scenario-report, the controversial website Anarchist Fever inspired amateur anarchist Paul Berkowicz, to build a bomb (with instructions found on the internet) and blow up a federal courthouse.  Obviously, he will be punished for his actions, but the issue now is what will become of the websites that helped him etch his name in infamy?  What can be done about digital conspirators who hide behind free expression?  Often, there can be no direct link established between such websites and physical crimes they inspire.  When deciding about these gray areas of free speech on the internet, we must consider issues such as regulation of the Internet, the extent of free speech, and established legal precedent.  These are the real factors that determine whether or not content of the Internet is objectionable enough to be censored or even criminally punished.

These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of

Throughout society, the mass media constantly changes over time. The mass media play a prominent role in informing the public about what occurs within the world, especially in areas which audiences do not acquire direct experience and knowledge. This essay will argue that the propaganda model is no longer valid as it has become outdated. This essay will also discuss the model in relation to the five filters and draw on Rampton's critique of the propaganda model in contemporary society.

To wholly have a grasp on how this new founded approach to journalism has changed alongside technology—as well as understanding the dangers such openness brings forth—one has to understand what exactly those changes are. Primarily, those that are writing for the sake of offering information have, whether willingly or not, fed into the usage of social media as it has become a centralized method of distribution that is relatively inescapable with the current times. As such those framing the news for the masses find an authentic avenue to stay in contact via social media that has benefits ranging from, “its extraordinary newsgathering potential; its potential as a new tool to engage the audience; and as a way of distributing our news” (Eltringham, 2012), all of which are deeply different from the presentation of reporting that occurred during earlier eras. Days of strongly structured instances of journalism that could not travel with such speed have been replaced as, “social media has trashed many of the foundations on