Net neutrality is something that matters to me an awful lot. I use the internet for nearly everything: file storage, communication, entertainment, and also for schoolwork and even at my job on campus. That said, it’s obvious why I would be a proponent of net neutrality. Much of my life revolves around my ability to access the internet universally, and without biased repercussions. Certainly my love for the game Star Wars The Old Republic, a massively multiplayer online role playing game, would be difficult to enjoy if I were to have to limit my data upload and download speeds and totals, as the game requires a large amount of data transfer in order to run. A limit on my transfer speeds would also serve to limit my ability to email files to and from colleagues and professors, and in my sharing of files with other people through popular programs such as Dropbox. Knowing that many other students at RPI have similar levels of connection to the internet as I do, it isn’t hard for me to classify net neutrality as something very important to not only me, but most of this school as well.
With all of this said, it should come as no surprise that I believe that a loss of net neutrality will destroy the internet as we know it. The Federal Communications Commission enacted rules that safeguarded non-mobile internet connections, but as Campbell, Martin and Fabos have mentioned, many people, myself included, do not feel that it was enough. I happen to own a smartphone, a tremendously useful, and simultaneously distracting, device. Where it should be a device that allows me to access anything I need at any time, so long as I can connect to the internet, instead I am forced to live in fear of overage charges for using more data than the data plan I was forced to buy would allow. Were this my only connection to the internet, I would feel almost shackled by the data plan, and would not be able to experience many of the wonders of the internet.
I feel that a similar plan for the entire internet would limit creativity, and kill innovation on the web. Innovation is a large part of how the internet has grown throughout its lifetime, with huge advancements made by individuals with many gifts and talents, more so than companies who can build infrastructure. It is because of this, that I feel that ne neutrality is such an important thing, and that if we want the internet to continue to be the open forum, the grand knowledge database, and the facilitator of business and entertainment that it is now, we must push for a continuation of the net neutrality that currently exists, and fight for a more strict enforcement of it.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Whoever Won the 2012 Presidential Debates, the People Lost
With all the buzz of which candidate did well during each of the debates, it is really quite easy to lose track of the most important part of these, what used to be, vital pieces of information for both decided and undecided voters. Veiled by the ‘performances’ large media conglomerates so love to sensationalize and sell to the masses, we no longer see debates for what they should be. We no longer use them to judge a candidate’s position on a topic, or to learn more about how a candidate would act in office. We see a dumbed down version, where the only thing that matters is who ‘won’ or who ‘lost’. While this is horrible, it does tend to be what the masses want, or the media couldn't sell it so well, could they? Regardless of who is to blame, the fact of the matter stands: these debates are no longer the tool they used to be, and are farces of something that used to be useful.
Throughout the three debates, we saw both, and that it is only two is another problem, candidates not just fail to answer numerous questions in an adequate fashion, but actually avoid questions entirely. When they finally, rarely answer a question, the answer we receive is so convoluted and twisted that it is nearly impossible to tell what the candidate really means with what they see. More recently, though, we have seen Governor Romney change his views from week to week, debate to debate, which only makes it harder to take what he says seriously, and harms his reputability. His ever changing position was only part of the cause of President Obama’s ‘poor’ ‘performance’ in the first debate, combined with what many viewed as a serious lack of respect for the President during that debate and especially the next. Meanwhile, the President appeared to not even care about his participation in the first debate, something that he should hold near and dear to his heart, to help the American people to the best of his ability, even if that means helping them to elect an opponent who they might believe will do a better job than he himself has.
As if these problems did not make the situation bad enough, these debates fail to truly encompass the entirety of opinions represented within the ballot. Even the more popular third party candidates such as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were denied entry into the debates based on archaic rules that prevent the current bipartisan system from falling out of power. This limits further the already limited discussion, which is already only on topics that the two ruling parties agree are fair game to talk about, and so what we see in the debates is a severely narrow-minded view of what is really important in American politics. No matter who won these three debates, it is the American people who lost.
Throughout the three debates, we saw both, and that it is only two is another problem, candidates not just fail to answer numerous questions in an adequate fashion, but actually avoid questions entirely. When they finally, rarely answer a question, the answer we receive is so convoluted and twisted that it is nearly impossible to tell what the candidate really means with what they see. More recently, though, we have seen Governor Romney change his views from week to week, debate to debate, which only makes it harder to take what he says seriously, and harms his reputability. His ever changing position was only part of the cause of President Obama’s ‘poor’ ‘performance’ in the first debate, combined with what many viewed as a serious lack of respect for the President during that debate and especially the next. Meanwhile, the President appeared to not even care about his participation in the first debate, something that he should hold near and dear to his heart, to help the American people to the best of his ability, even if that means helping them to elect an opponent who they might believe will do a better job than he himself has.
As if these problems did not make the situation bad enough, these debates fail to truly encompass the entirety of opinions represented within the ballot. Even the more popular third party candidates such as Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were denied entry into the debates based on archaic rules that prevent the current bipartisan system from falling out of power. This limits further the already limited discussion, which is already only on topics that the two ruling parties agree are fair game to talk about, and so what we see in the debates is a severely narrow-minded view of what is really important in American politics. No matter who won these three debates, it is the American people who lost.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Media Monopolies
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, citizens of the United States of America saw a series of laws put into place to limit the ability of any one company to establish a monopoly over any one portion of the market. This had been done in response to the recently ended Gilded Age, during which corruption reigned supreme, and also to give unions a better chance at being able to negotiate for their members. For a very, very long time, these laws abated the growth of many already large corporations, and prevented total monopolies. While these laws were not extremely effective, they were at least an attempt to stem the tide. Unfortunately, we have recently seen the passing of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, which, according to the case study in this week’s reading, removed most of what little restrictions media companies once had on how much of the market they could own, and completely obliterated minority ownership of media companies, giving rise to the possibility of a very one sided representation of the world around us by media companies.
These larger companies are now able to use their even more ludicrously large amount of resources to buy out what few companies they do not yet own, in order to more completely ensure that their message is the only one that reaches the ears of their audience. They have removed almost all minority opinions, as well documented by Campbell, Martin and Fabos. A loss of all but less than 10% of all media corporations to the majority, when the minority represents almost 40% of the country is unacceptable. This is not a capitalist democracy at work, it’s a totalitarian oligarchy, a few individuals (read CEOs) within a small number of companies retaining complete power over what information is fed to the masses, and knowledge is power. This terrible turn of events has marked a period of American history where our voices have become increasingly smaller, and less easily heard where we are bombarded by the same series of thoughts and ideas that likely do not align with our own thoughts and opinions of important matters. We are bombarded and assaulted until our mental barriers protecting our original thoughts are brought low, and we are converted.
We live in a sad age where we rely so completely on media corporations for our news, and they hold an amazing, unchecked power to influence what we see and hear, with absolutely no transparency. While we might like to think that we’d stand up to this, that we would not let someone so completely dominate our thoughts and our national discussions, we see it every day, and honestly, some of us are happy to oblige. It’s easy when they don’t have to think for themselves, when they can just blindly believe what they are told on television, or via chain emails. But this does not a true democracy make. Eventually, and hopefully sooner than later, we will finally, as one people, realize how intolerably we have been wronged, and we will rise up and take back our democracy from those who would subvert its purpose.
These larger companies are now able to use their even more ludicrously large amount of resources to buy out what few companies they do not yet own, in order to more completely ensure that their message is the only one that reaches the ears of their audience. They have removed almost all minority opinions, as well documented by Campbell, Martin and Fabos. A loss of all but less than 10% of all media corporations to the majority, when the minority represents almost 40% of the country is unacceptable. This is not a capitalist democracy at work, it’s a totalitarian oligarchy, a few individuals (read CEOs) within a small number of companies retaining complete power over what information is fed to the masses, and knowledge is power. This terrible turn of events has marked a period of American history where our voices have become increasingly smaller, and less easily heard where we are bombarded by the same series of thoughts and ideas that likely do not align with our own thoughts and opinions of important matters. We are bombarded and assaulted until our mental barriers protecting our original thoughts are brought low, and we are converted.
We live in a sad age where we rely so completely on media corporations for our news, and they hold an amazing, unchecked power to influence what we see and hear, with absolutely no transparency. While we might like to think that we’d stand up to this, that we would not let someone so completely dominate our thoughts and our national discussions, we see it every day, and honestly, some of us are happy to oblige. It’s easy when they don’t have to think for themselves, when they can just blindly believe what they are told on television, or via chain emails. But this does not a true democracy make. Eventually, and hopefully sooner than later, we will finally, as one people, realize how intolerably we have been wronged, and we will rise up and take back our democracy from those who would subvert its purpose.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Is telling the truth really so hard?
Why does it seem that at every turn, we, the American People, are lied to by those who wish to govern over us? I hate to single out any one single party or candidate, but the entire Romney Campaign seems to be attempting, to quote a Fox News contributor (which makes this all the more poignant), “to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech.” It would seem that these politicians are willing to take whatever measures are necessary to secure their spot in the White House this year… but wait.
Haven’t we seen that from their entire party for the entirety of this presidential term? Lying to, cheating and deceiving the American People seems to have become their favorite past time. From voter suppression barely thinly veiled as an attempt to prevent voter fraud to statements that their first goal this term was to unseat the President, it’s a miracle that most of these politicians still hold office. The only explanation I can come up with for why they have remained for so long is this: that they are well versed and highly skilled liars, capable of whipping up any explanation for their actions. They can spin any story to put themselves in a positive light, and anyone they happen to dislike at the time in a negative light. Of course, this doesn’t include the fact that they have some of the most vocal media outlets completely under their thumb.
What is amazing, though, is that we let this happen. From Paul Ryan’s Republican National Convention speech to Romney’s performance in his first presidential debate, we seem willing to ignore the fact that half of what they spew is lies, and grade them on their performance otherwise. Despite the fact that we’re becoming aware that we are being lied to, we are simply taking it lying down. Between the two of us, the media, and ourselves as citizens of a once great democracy, are failing the Constitution and ideals upon which this once glorious nation was founded. We have shown that we value sensationalism and showmanship over honesty and substance, and it has become unacceptable. It is becoming ever more apparent that we cannot trust the Republican Party to be completely honest with the American People, the Democratic Party to challenge their opponents on this dishonesty, nor ourselves to call either of them out on these issues, and this is what I believe to be one of the greatest problems, and greatest challenges, of my generation: to fix the problems with the Bipartisan American Political system.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/
Haven’t we seen that from their entire party for the entirety of this presidential term? Lying to, cheating and deceiving the American People seems to have become their favorite past time. From voter suppression barely thinly veiled as an attempt to prevent voter fraud to statements that their first goal this term was to unseat the President, it’s a miracle that most of these politicians still hold office. The only explanation I can come up with for why they have remained for so long is this: that they are well versed and highly skilled liars, capable of whipping up any explanation for their actions. They can spin any story to put themselves in a positive light, and anyone they happen to dislike at the time in a negative light. Of course, this doesn’t include the fact that they have some of the most vocal media outlets completely under their thumb.
What is amazing, though, is that we let this happen. From Paul Ryan’s Republican National Convention speech to Romney’s performance in his first presidential debate, we seem willing to ignore the fact that half of what they spew is lies, and grade them on their performance otherwise. Despite the fact that we’re becoming aware that we are being lied to, we are simply taking it lying down. Between the two of us, the media, and ourselves as citizens of a once great democracy, are failing the Constitution and ideals upon which this once glorious nation was founded. We have shown that we value sensationalism and showmanship over honesty and substance, and it has become unacceptable. It is becoming ever more apparent that we cannot trust the Republican Party to be completely honest with the American People, the Democratic Party to challenge their opponents on this dishonesty, nor ourselves to call either of them out on these issues, and this is what I believe to be one of the greatest problems, and greatest challenges, of my generation: to fix the problems with the Bipartisan American Political system.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/
Social Media and Press Releases: Bad News for Us
With the advent of social media, we have seen the creation of a media outlet that seemed nearly impervious to the influence of corporations: everyday ordinary people informing other people of the goings on in the world at large. We saw the possibility for a more transparent news outlet, one where people could inform other people without the meddling of public relations firms, or other insincere corporate twists on a news story. These new methods of communicating ideas could put an end to fairy tales such as the great and kind John D. Rockefeller. We could finally realize a society where lies and dishonesty in the name of a public image were brought to light, and we could finally begin to actually trust what people said: as they would know they would be caught in any lie they attempted. Unfortunately, it would seem that media relation firms are up to the task of continuing their deception.
This week’s reading contained a case study on how social media has changed the method in which companies and individuals give press releases. It was honestly quite disheartening to see that such methods of blanketing harsh realities with lies and half-truths were being converted to become compatible with today’s social media scene. It had been a great hope of mine that social media could help put an end to the ability of those with enough money to deceive the common citizen, and convince them that nothing was wrong, no matter how badly it was.
Thankfully, though, it seems to be an imperfect method, as seen in the somewhat recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Those old enough to comprehend most of what is said in this post are old enough to remember BP’s public relations fiasco that was that massive oil spill. No matter how many commercials they released in an attempt to make amends for their mistakes, It would seem as if people still see them as a rather environmentally unfriendly company. This leaves me with the hope that we may still one day reach a point where the citizenry of not just this country, but of the whole world, can get by without having to rely on information hand fed to us by those wanting to appear a certain way. While I doubt media literacy will ever become an unnecessary skill, I still see the possibility for it becoming a much easier skill to learn.
This week’s reading contained a case study on how social media has changed the method in which companies and individuals give press releases. It was honestly quite disheartening to see that such methods of blanketing harsh realities with lies and half-truths were being converted to become compatible with today’s social media scene. It had been a great hope of mine that social media could help put an end to the ability of those with enough money to deceive the common citizen, and convince them that nothing was wrong, no matter how badly it was.
Thankfully, though, it seems to be an imperfect method, as seen in the somewhat recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Those old enough to comprehend most of what is said in this post are old enough to remember BP’s public relations fiasco that was that massive oil spill. No matter how many commercials they released in an attempt to make amends for their mistakes, It would seem as if people still see them as a rather environmentally unfriendly company. This leaves me with the hope that we may still one day reach a point where the citizenry of not just this country, but of the whole world, can get by without having to rely on information hand fed to us by those wanting to appear a certain way. While I doubt media literacy will ever become an unnecessary skill, I still see the possibility for it becoming a much easier skill to learn.
A Doomed Environment
After the first Presidential Debate of the 2012 election, I am again struck by a striking, disquieting realization: neither of the two largest parties’ candidates appear to be worried about the environment, climate change, or science in general. With the threat of global warming looming darkly over us, it pains me to see both candidates so callously ignore the danger it represents. Already we can see entire countries1 plan to evacuate their citizens due to rising sea levels caused by global warming. This problem threatens national sovereignty, and yet both candidates dismiss it as some secondary issue, insignificant when compared to arguing over who gets the last word in any given section of a debate. What happened to the days when politicians took the recommendations of scientists seriously, where they respected the decades spent learning about their field in order to better the understanding of humanity as a whole? Governor Romney certainly used to.
During his gubernatorial term in Massachusetts, he argued for, and indeed pushed through, strict environmental policies, policies that would lead to cleaner air, water and homes for his constituents. He fought back against corporations lobbying to prevent these plans, and he dedicated himself to ensuring that his commonwealth became much more environmentally friendly. Governor Romney teamed up with staunch environmentalists, because he was concerned for the future of his state. He accomplished a great deal of good in his term as governor, including the creation of a governmental “agency” in order to “integrate policy in housing, transportation, energy and the environment.” Then he put in charge of it an environmentalist who lead a group that had filed lawsuits against Massachusetts due to the state’s poor energy practices. Governor Romney “was like Nixon to China,” according to a Democrat, high praise coming from his opposing political party.
Of course, this golden age was not to be forever, as Romney, near the end of his term, shot down a plan he had worked on for two years, likely because it would hurt his chances for the presidency in the upcoming years. He gave in to bipartisan politics, and refused to do what was needed, indeed what was right, and allowed concern for his own political future cloud his better judgment. Once again, science was ignored in favor of political safety, and a candidate put his own needs in front of the needs of his constituents. I fear that by the time we are able to have a serious political discussion on the state of the economy, amongst the big players in Washington, at least, it will be entirely too late, and we will be unable to change our course and prevent irreparable harm to our beautiful planet.
During his gubernatorial term in Massachusetts, he argued for, and indeed pushed through, strict environmental policies, policies that would lead to cleaner air, water and homes for his constituents. He fought back against corporations lobbying to prevent these plans, and he dedicated himself to ensuring that his commonwealth became much more environmentally friendly. Governor Romney teamed up with staunch environmentalists, because he was concerned for the future of his state. He accomplished a great deal of good in his term as governor, including the creation of a governmental “agency” in order to “integrate policy in housing, transportation, energy and the environment.” Then he put in charge of it an environmentalist who lead a group that had filed lawsuits against Massachusetts due to the state’s poor energy practices. Governor Romney “was like Nixon to China,” according to a Democrat, high praise coming from his opposing political party.
Of course, this golden age was not to be forever, as Romney, near the end of his term, shot down a plan he had worked on for two years, likely because it would hurt his chances for the presidency in the upcoming years. He gave in to bipartisan politics, and refused to do what was needed, indeed what was right, and allowed concern for his own political future cloud his better judgment. Once again, science was ignored in favor of political safety, and a candidate put his own needs in front of the needs of his constituents. I fear that by the time we are able to have a serious political discussion on the state of the economy, amongst the big players in Washington, at least, it will be entirely too late, and we will be unable to change our course and prevent irreparable harm to our beautiful planet.
Monday, October 1, 2012
How Stereotyping Still Holds Us Back
As seen in the case study in this week’s reading, there has, for a very long time, existed a habit of stereotyping different groups of people within advertising. From men who can’t get by without a beer in hand, to women who can’t even operate around their own house without the guidance and advice of a ‘competent’ male narrator; many of us are still old enough to remember how awkward these commercials made us feel. Despite what Campbell, Martin and Fabbos may believe, these stereotypes are long from dead. While they are much less common today, digging under the surface reveals that they are not entirely extinct.
So this brings up the question of: do these stereotypes do anything helpful, or contribute to society as a whole? The answer, of course, is obvious: no, they don’t. They leave the impressionable close minded, and unaccepting of ideas that may break what stereotypes have been ‘forced’ upon them, and it doesn’t stop at product advertisement. It carries over into the advertisement of ideas, ideals and people, too, and unfortunately, people are willing to believe whatever they see on TV, or in a magazine. All these stereotypes, and the outright lies seen in some other adds, lead to is an ignorant, intolerant and influenced population that has yet to learn to think for itself.
So we once again see a return of the need for media literacy, in debunking the myths and stereotypes reinforced by questionable sources of information, and even by sources that we should be able to trust. With an increase in media literacy, we can finally bring about an end to the intolerance and ignorance that so fully permeates this country. We can put into motion the end of intolerance, and create a society worth defending. We can begin to see the untruths and outright lies fed to us by many companies and corporations and by people in a position to be able to do so, and debunk the falsehoods we may now believe.
We can bring about a more truthful society, one where we know that we can trust the information that is being given to us, no matter the source. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about where a company got its statistics or how a political candidate arrived at her or his final numbers presented in a particularly effective speech? We can make this happen, but we have to act as a responsible society, one that cares about the well-being of its future, and one that is not completely absorbed in the here and now.
So this brings up the question of: do these stereotypes do anything helpful, or contribute to society as a whole? The answer, of course, is obvious: no, they don’t. They leave the impressionable close minded, and unaccepting of ideas that may break what stereotypes have been ‘forced’ upon them, and it doesn’t stop at product advertisement. It carries over into the advertisement of ideas, ideals and people, too, and unfortunately, people are willing to believe whatever they see on TV, or in a magazine. All these stereotypes, and the outright lies seen in some other adds, lead to is an ignorant, intolerant and influenced population that has yet to learn to think for itself.
So we once again see a return of the need for media literacy, in debunking the myths and stereotypes reinforced by questionable sources of information, and even by sources that we should be able to trust. With an increase in media literacy, we can finally bring about an end to the intolerance and ignorance that so fully permeates this country. We can put into motion the end of intolerance, and create a society worth defending. We can begin to see the untruths and outright lies fed to us by many companies and corporations and by people in a position to be able to do so, and debunk the falsehoods we may now believe.
We can bring about a more truthful society, one where we know that we can trust the information that is being given to us, no matter the source. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to worry about where a company got its statistics or how a political candidate arrived at her or his final numbers presented in a particularly effective speech? We can make this happen, but we have to act as a responsible society, one that cares about the well-being of its future, and one that is not completely absorbed in the here and now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)