New Media and Internet Drama
People don’t like change. We live in a time of mass media and constant flux, getting data in real-time. Every change that happens in the world is known instantly. Journalists do not have time to make sure that the information they present is accurate; getting a semi-coherent story out there before everyone else is vital to remaining an active player in the world of media. Both readings- Carr’s article and the study of the effect that media has on policy making– touch on the fact that the internet has drastically changed both the way we research, process and provide information.
I really enjoyed the study on Media and Policymaking. I have often noticed that topics vary by paper, probably based on the expectation of the readership. For example, the WSJ and NYT vary greatly, and they are two papers from the same region! Those two (daily newspapers) differ greatly in content and quality from weekly magazines such as the New Yorker, which offers more in-depth analysis of current events and does not exist to inform, but rather to interpret that information. The NYT, though once a bastion of journalistic integrity, has suffered in its adaptation to the faster pace of 24/7 reporting. NYT articles, though still respected, no longer carry the same weight and universal respect they once held.
The media wields enormous power on what people talk about, and to some extent pander to that. Though the study focused on how the “media”– in a sinister, shadowy way– controls the mind of the masses, it does not adequately address how the masses, in turn, control what the media has to offer. There was a recent NYT letter (attached below) written in by a former CNN correspondent lamenting the fact that the masses do not buy papers with in-depth, objective journalism, instead choosing the papers that most resemble pop culture and fit their needs. To address the trend of journalism moving from articles to blurbs, abstracts, tidbits– getting broken down into simpler pieces of information (Carr’s article addresses this somewhat), he suggests that the government provide economic incentive for good journalism.
Taking these two articles together: they paint a picture of a changing world; not only in our media and policies and newspapers, but in the way we think! The world is constantly evolving and it is neither better nor worse. It is just a new reality to which us Luddites are forced to adapt.
6 Comments
Tamarah Nagel
April 14, 2016For some reason the wrong link got stuck in my post and I couldn’t update it. This is the right one ==> http://nyti.ms/1LUIOon
Tala Azar
April 15, 2016You raise some really interesting points! I like how you related the conciseness of the New York Times articles to our bustling everyday lives, which I feel like we touched in class, but focused more on how the Internet changes how we think. I believe there is a lost value in summing up so much information in such a short amount of words, and the NYT article you attached described this really well. It read (excuse the length of the quote, but I couldn’t shorten it without taking away its integrity),
“Americans are constantly being polled about complex political subjects…Yet American presidential candidates are responding to them with quips, tweets and photos, and potential voters are learning about them through the news equivalents of those 100-calorie bags of chips and cookies. It’s a terrible diet if the goal is beefing up understanding.”
We can be considered to be up to date with the rest of society by knowing the major events that are occurring in the world, but that also means that we aren’t incentivized to know more about them. I find that this is the case in my own life- I know about political issues on the surface, but don’t really take the time to explore their causes or possible effects.
Alasdair McLean
April 19, 2016I think you mentioned a really interesting point but I think the suggestion offered by the author of the article is a slippery slope. It sounds like a good idea to offer government incentives but I fear what could happen down the line. It could easily cause problems if there is a particularly inflammatory piece about the government of exceptional quality which is rejected for the incentives- obviously people would be upset, and thus unrest would be generated.
However, I found the concept of cyclic interest very interesting and accurate- it’s a bit of a tragedy though, that every time any particular issue gains some momentum, media attention shifts to another topic, and so the process continues.
I really liked your point about the time-sensitive nature of journalism as well. It’s something that doesn’t immediately enter one’s thoughts when reading an article, but chances are that article was rushed to get out to print on time before anybody else could pick up. The age of information has intensified the need for instantaneous knowledge of every event in the world as it happens, regardless of the importance of that issue. It is interesting how easily trends and parallels can be drawn between media and our own social structure, and although we might not like to believe that the two are related, the truth is scary- they are more related than we know.
naomicameron
April 19, 2016The mass media carries a great responsibility to the public. Readers that are faithful to one mass media outlet believe that the correspondents and contributors they see or read everyday can be trusted to find the facts and deliver them objectively. When we turn on the news or pick up a news paper, we are allowing that outlet to give us the fodder of opinion- information- and we believe that the information we receive is reliable. This is a huge responsibility because a reader’s whole world view, the opinions she or he forms about serious matters, and even one’s understanding of the work that they can do in society are all influenced by the media.
I loved reading this blog post and seeing that the media is just as heavily influenced by the masses as the masses are influenced by the media. I found it ironic that the only way the former CNN Correspondent could suggest that would bring objectivity back to journalism is money! Imagine that: the correspondent is basically saying that media is motivated by money and will report whatever series of events drums up the most business.
The difficulty in the cyclical nature of media influence over the public and public influence over the media as was mentioned in this post is the challenge: what can we do about it? We do not know where this toxic relationship between the public and the media started anymore than we know whether the chicken or the egg came first. How, then, are we supposed to ensure that the media begins practicing objectivity? And how can we ensure that the public starts appreciating real news from which they can form opinions rather than prepackaged journalism opinions that they can memorize and rehearse?
Ben
April 19, 2016You brought up a couple of really interesting ideas. Mainly, the one that sticks out to me, is that even though we’re acknowledging the fact that the media has a massive impact on what we think/talk about, we still have the overall control of what the media tells us. All media needs an audience, and without us gobbling up whatever information the media feels like throwing our way, there would be no media because at the end of the day, most of enjoy to be told what’s important and what’s not so important. It’s almost sad because we can’t even decide for ourselves, we must look to the media to do the thinking for us. As you mention though, it is evident that whatever the media may be covering one day or one week, is quick to disappear the next, leaving us only scratching the surface as Tala said. Regardless, it seems clear to me that without the mass media we encounter today, the world of policymaking would be drastically different from what it is. Whether that is a good or a bad thing, I can only speculate.
tanvirislam7
April 19, 2016I like the points that you make in your response!
Nowadays, there is almost a race to see what media outlet can deliver information or address an act of breaking news first. Recently, when Sullenberger saved his plane from drowning, media outlets went as far as to pay bystanders, who took photos of the incident, thousands of dollars. The desire for being the first in releasing the news has become a trend for the media today. However, this brings up the potential for harm when media outlets do not fact check information as much and instead focus on just spreading out opinions in hopes of reporting news fast. This has negative consequences as seen when the media spread opinions that vaccines were harmful, which is contrary to the opinions of hospitals and physicians who have research to prove otherwise.
You also mention that the media has also become biased towards reporting what consumer bases are interested in for the purposes of selling papers. Although economical, the process is not genuine and results in tabloid like stories to be the front cover of papers. Moreover, messages that evoke fear of attacks or show off lavishness of glorious sports victories and personality lifestyles are often in the cover because that is what people want to read about and consequently ends up selling the rest of the paper. Likewise, Time magazine has transitioned from a credible magazine that dealt with domestic and international affairs to a tabloid more or less.