The And The World Wide Web

It is said that “The true content of a photograph is invisible, for it derives from a play not with form but with time”. This makes me think that the real content of a picture, which is what the photographer tried to express, is not evident to perceive unless an explanatory text is provided. In fact, I believe that our perceptions of pictures changes over time as the historical context do. In addition, our opinions are never fixed as they are influenced by our environment. Therefore, when looking at a particular picture at a given time, it is certain that our perception of it will be different in the future based on what happen between the first time and second time we saw it.

In the study, each source was ranked based on the political leanings of its audience. As a result, it ranked sources such as Buzzfeed more liberal than average while it ranked sources such as the Rush Limbaugh Show more conservative than average. However, none of the sources earned a perfectly neutral ranking (Wormald). The correlation between news sources and their audience’s political leanings becomes interesting when compared to the type of content each news source produces. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is infamous for his conservative rhetoric, whereas Buzzfeed is known for its lighthearted quizzes and comical representation of liberal politics. This reveals something about our perception of truth: biased sources allow individuals to ‘select’ the truth. When conflicting information is pushed to the side, it becomes nonexistent. Subsequently, the sum of partial truths interpreted by an individual becomes a whole truth in their mind, especially when partial truths are reinforced by mainstream media sources such as Buzzfeed or the Rush Limbaugh Show. This is harmful because, as Lewis implied, the entire truth is lost in this process and mutual understanding becomes harder to

According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs, the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words” means pictures convey information more efficiently and effectively than words do. Many people believe this to be true because pictures display concrete evidence of events that happen, they are able to “see it to believe it.” They believe that since they can see it with their own eyes, everything in the photograph must be telling the true story. On the contrary, pictures can be just as biased as textual sources of information and the photographer may not be providing the viewer with the whole story. Knowing this fact, Oliver Wendell Holmes describes this phenomenon in the following way, “The photograph is an illusion

Photography gives you a small sample of reality, but these realities have been changed to what the photographer wants to present. However as Sontag stated, “Of course, photographs fill in the blanks in our mental pictures of the present and the past.” Pictures show proof that all of the history that we learn is true, but although it confirms that, pictures does not show us the entire picture of how people felt about the situation. For example, one might have a picture from WWII and show us the setting, but does that picture really show the feeling of the people? That is why we say that photography only goes as far as to how the photographer wants to show the

Photos are just recorded information and how it is presented is actually based on individual interpretation by the photographers themselves. It is not absolute reality because the viewers themselves are not there to witness the event; therefore it is not entirely factual. The meaning of a photo illustration is also dependent on viewers' individual views and assumption. As the old metaphor says, "is the glass of milk half full or half empty?"

Ignorance due to inability to spot biased is a monumental issue in the U.S. In 1984, people did not have an option on who or what to believe. They were all required to watch a Two Minute Hate so they would dislike what the Party wanted them to dislike. The people could only see what the Party wanted them to see as no other channels they existed. In fact, the telescreens could not be shut off at all. Constant exposure to the Party’s beliefs caused people to be biased towards the government’s views. In this country, people hear, watch, and absorb news every day, but they do not always see or hear the presented bias. For example, Fox News is conservative-leaning and MSNBC is more liberal (Garrett 2&3). People who only watch one news channel without acknowledging or spotting the bias tend to accept what they hear as fact without a second thought. Depending on where information is collected or heard, the person forms opinions based on bias rather than facts without realizing the error in their wapithes and become easy to manipulation occurs.

In chapter one, Wattenberg discusses the declining trends of Americans who regularly read newspapers between the 1960’s and present day. This can be attributed the aging patterns among generations who frequently read newspapers as well as with the use of technology rising. Reading the newspaper is a habit that either is or is not developed by the time one reaches voting age. With this, newspapers have become an older generation’s primary source of information, however, are still the best source for political matters. Younger generations tend to be more computer literate and have grown up with television and media more accessible to them than the previous generation. These trends not only reflect in American culture, but in other countries

Robert J. Samuelson’s essay, “Picking Sides for the News,” details the problem of citizens only hearing the news that they want to hear through statistics. Samuelson begins his essay by giving the reader the opinion of Americans in regards to news being reported. He goes on to say that Americans are increasingly choosing to listen to news based on “partisanship,” meaning conservatives listen to Republican news and liberals listen to Democratic news. Samuelson highlights the fact that most Americans are starting to not believe what they hear in the news, partisan growth resulting because of the distrust. Samuelson concludes his essay by describing why the reader should care. He believes the reader should care because the media’s bias’ are shaping

The national media is instrumental in allowing the electorate to develop opinions about contemporary issues. The media is incredibly influential and its power can be wielded for the benefit of all, or it can become a detriment to society. Some media outlets seek to sensationalize the news, sacrificing informing voters in favor of the bottom line. It is through people and organizations who seek to provide the most accurate and impartial view of an event that popular sovereignty gains much of its power. A commitment to informing the public, even when the information conflicts with a writer’s social and political philosophy, can be a difficult one to maintain. Yet, reporters uphold it everyday. This can be seen in the news site CNN (Cable News Network), which is known for having a liberal bias. Despite said bias, it does not shy away from portraying Hillary Clinton, a democrat, as a flawed candidate in an effort to be unbiased. Such a commitment is essential to creating a political and social dialogue in our nation, and as the saying goes, “when dialogue fails, democracy fails.”

After reading the article, “The dumbing down of voters,” by Rick Shenkman, I was first shocked by his claim that public has an immense lack of knowledge concerning politics. But the more I thought about the claim the more I realised the truth about the statement. Many people in the United States are oblivious to what the government is doing and who is a part of the government. The lack of knowledge from the public is also unsettling because if the public doesn’t know basic knowledge like what are the three branches of government, then the country could take a turn for the worst. Voters are also giving out their votes to presidential candidates that local newspapers focus on because they either are too lazy or ignorant to think for themselves

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 way media is run justifies MacDonald’s argument that people are making things that are, “hastily slapped-together stuff… and would be foolish to waste much time or effort on writing or reading.” All in all technological advancements have made everything more accessible and eventually handicaps people from finding the truth for themselves.   Instead society just takes in the information that is spoon fed to them with no thinking required.

As discussed in class, one of the most influential agencies of socialization is the media. The way we see ourselves or the way other people see us come from what we are told by others and what we tell ourselves. In the Better world handbook, the chapter on media states that “the way we think and act in our daily lives is inextricably linked to the information we receive about the world” (Jones, Haenfler and Johnson). The chapter continues to discus how information delivered to us can be bias and this raises the issue on who controls the media and what we see through it. The problem with this could be that that whoever controls the media does not necessary have our best interest in mind and the content that is transmitted through the media is profit driven. . In the article “Lies my teacher told me: Everything your American history textbook got wrong” gives a perfect accept of how easy it is for information to get omitted based on what people what you to know and what they don’t want you to know. From a young age, people decide what they want you to know, so that they can decide on what they want you to think about certain topics whether its American history or something else, its like the

Communication--it is a fundamental part of our everyday lives. It characterizes who we are, what we do, and how we relate to others in society. It is a very powerful tool that holds many different uses for our basic needs and survival. At a very simplistic level, it is key in attaining our very basic needs for survival. In that respect, it is key in achieving all needs in Maslows hierarchy. Its uses and possibilities endless.