Other Issues in Media and Society

Other Issues in Media and Society

In pursuit of further knowledge for issues surrounding the media, I come across some other blogs that discuss issues that are interesting to think about in todays society.

Imran Mohd: http://violencemedia188.wordpress.com/

Imran Mohd's blog on Violence and Media discusses the different ways in which media is currently promoting violence, and how it is not necessarily a good thing for the future. This blog is interesting in the aspect of what the outcome of violent tendency and their relation to media.

Bahram Gulzade: http://onmusicandus.blogspot.cz

Bahram's blog is on Hiphop, and its affects in our culture. I found it quite interesting, as it discusses the current idea of hiphop, as well as the cultural meaning it holds to many African-Americans since its founding, and why it is important in media today.

Dominika Sindlerova: http://dominikasindlerova.blogspot.cz

Dominka's blog focuses on the question of beauty in media, and how it is portrayed. This issue is extremely important for the current trends being set, and especially to promote equality between men and women in all parts of life.

Alina Maisigova: http://alinamaisigovasblog.blogspot.cz

The idea of Alina's blog is to focus on youtubers, and what it is that makes them so special. Youtube is still a fairly new form of media, and the industry behind it is growing increasingly strong as the years pass on, so much so that it's fairly common for people to know "youtube stars". This blog is an interesting read for anyone that follows a youtube channel religiously. 

Edguardo Cerna: https://xcernae.wordpress.com/2015/01/11/how-i-see-it/

Edguardo's blog focues also on Media and Violence. This is an important issue, and the way that children are affected, and how we educate viewers early on, as soon as they start becoming exposed to the violence, is crucial. His blog covers these issues well, along with multiple platforms and mediums.

How I see it:

                Freedom of Press in media today is tied greatly in three ways, restrictions to the internet, the obligation of society, and the perceived view upon controversy. This can be shown in how the media purports issues today.

                In the “freedom of the internet” issue, today we face a growing idea of how things should be limited. What is meant by this with the freedom of the internet is, who should control it. The world governments are still trying to limit the way that we use the internet, and whether or not the companies that provide us with the service should have the final say in what is restricted and what is saved. In March 2014, the EU passed a new cyber-security law, that in essence.  Jennifer Baker states that “It will be up to members of state how they write the directive into national law” (Baker, 2014). This brings up the issue however, why should a single government be able to control how we post our idea. Perhaps there should be some kind of intervention against our use of free media, however, letting a company control how we use it based on their business is highly debatable.

                An obligation to society that media today presents is through the “whistleblowers” that are shown. Julian Assange, the founder of wiki leaks, showed just how deceptive the world is by publishing many things that were considered “secrets” of the United States government. More recently is Edward Snowden and the NSA scandal. The National Security Agency spies on US citizens. That alone is scary enough. What is worse was later on when Snowden testified that the US government was spying on far more than its own people. Governments throughout the world were working together to better “police” their country through monitoring the actions and conversations of citizens through various online means. This brings the need for journalist willing to talk about the issue, and research what it is that is happening behind the scenes. “The role of the media to scrutinize decisions made by government officials is a particular crucial connection” (Hyklova, 2010) Hyklova’s statement in her thesis is directed towards how it is that governments make decisions relating to war. Her paper continues to talk about the role of media exposing the start of wars. Perhaps today we should focus the same thing on governments, but instead of looking for war, we should observe how it is we are being restricted. A pseudo war even, the war against our free press. We must continue our demand of free speech, press, emotion, and more importantly, to express it how we wish upon any medium.

                Controversy is the adversary to our idea of free speech, however. In today’s society, being able to instantly send messages across the world can create plethora of issues, whether they are based upon the actual content of the messages, or reflection of what is being discussed. One such example of controversy within the media is with the case of Trayvon Martin.  Trayvon was a young black male staying with his father in Sanford Florida for a vacation. Upon leaving a convenience store, he was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, a man that was doing a “community watch” for his neighborhood. This sparked a nationwide controversy. Media’s reports of the issue varied. This issue quickly sparked into a world-wide story. What was purported was different within every station, depending entirely on what agenda the news station wished to push. This idea is best stated by with Graeff’s statement “The vicious/virtuous cycle creates opportunities for power shifts around agenda setting” (Graeff, 2014). This horrible tragedy sparked an outcry for change, and with it, we as a society were able to better understand the problems and issues in even today’s world. Change must happen, and through a series of extreme media reports, awareness to the issue came forward. This is the biggest concern for positive change. Awareness of the problem, and the ability to have a group that is on the same page.

                Without free press and media, we lose the chance to connect our problems within society. The price of free speech is high and constantly changing. We must unite together to truly have a chance to keep our ideas spoken, otherwise we risk the chance of being forced quiet.

Bibliography:

Graeff, erhardt; Stempeck, Matt; Zukerman, Ethan. The battle for ‘Trayvon Martin’: Mapping a media controversy online and off-line. First Monday, {S.I.} jan. 2014. ISSN 13960466 Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index/php/fm/article/view/4947/3821. Date accessed: 10 Jan 2015.

Hyklova, M. (2010, January 1). The Image of War: The Changing Role of the Media. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from is.muni.cz/th/224955/ff_m/Thesis.doc

Baker, J. (2014, March 13). PCWorld - News, tips and reviews from the experts on PCs, Windows, and more. Retrieved January 8, 2015.

For Further Research:

The following are sites that I came across during my research, and would recommend to anyone that wishes to further their knowledge on the issue of freedom of press and speech.

http://www.freepress.net/blog: This site focuses on a wide variety of topics, from current politically issues involving the media, to net neutrality and those who stand with it. Most of the blogs are done by people who support a liberal biased towards the government, if not apolitical completely. There is also a particular interest in how the internet can be used to further free press.

https://www.eff.org/bloggers: Eff.org is a site that focuses on informing bloggers and other users about the current issues of free speech. Their focus is on how you can take action to secure your freedom of press in media, and to keep you updated with current agendas concerning free press

.

http://www.freespeechweek.org/about-fsw/: Free Speech Week is a site dedicated to the week of free speech, (October 20^th-26^th). This site raises awareness of why free speech is important today, and helps readers to take a stand and promote it, especially during the week observation it promotes.

Photo by Chappatte©

What the experts say 2: S.M.

It’s no surprise that what we post online can be used against us. Free speech, and in that light, free press, has always been able to be held against us in some ways, particularly when threatening the life of another individual. That’s precisely what happened in 2011, when one Anthony Elonis threatened his estrange wife through a series of online posts. This blog focuses on the repercussions of what our free press gives us today. In line with how easy it is for us to post our thoughts. The key point of this article to me is the line used by the author, S.M., “what happens in future cases when the government seeks to punish people for venting”, (S.M. 2014). Mr. Elonis is hardly an isolated case, and it can be assumed that in the future that these kinds of charges will be continued against those who unwittingly post hateful comments towards others online.  In cases of domestic violence, or murder, it may seem completely natural for these things to be used in a court, but that is in an ideal world where a clear boundary would be drawn. The question lingers in the air, however. Where is the line for using our publications against us?

M., S. (2014, December 3). Little to 'like' Retrieved January 5, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/12/free-speech-and-social-media

To read the original blog click here: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/12/free-speech-and-social-media

Current Events 2: The Interview of Kim Jong Un

For the past six months, a Google search of Seth Rogan and Kim Jong Un will reveal some shocking results. Before May, 2014, no one would have ever expected a well-known comedian and actor to have any association with the dictator of North Korea, however a movie released through Sony titled “The Interview” has created a Korean stated “Act of War” between the two. Un has stated that if the movie is released, retaliation against it, and in line, the United States will be upheld. The controversy from this issue rises from what the movie depicts. In Rogan and James Franco’s movie, they are both spies sent to assassinate the current leader of the dictatorship, which is depicted as Kim Jong Un himself. North Korea is a heavily secretive society, and in that way, bans it citizens from any access to outside media sources, internet use, and even leaving the country in most instances. Refugees are known to flee into the neighboring south, while not much is known except from depictions given by these people, or from the trips to Pyongyang the heavily decorated capital. As of the release of the movie on Christmas Eve, North Korea has staged no attacks or acts of war, however over the months; they have fired test missiles into the sea. Only time will show the lasting repercussions of this film’s release. The idea that a film causing this much controversy, simply based on what it depicts is shocking, however it has happened in the past. Movies like The Da Vinci Code or The Passion of the Christ are in the same light, however from their religious aspect. If free press is restricted at the foundation of offending other cultures once, there will be nothing to stop it from happening again. Fortunately, the film was released even with the backing against it; however it was cut in some aspects. Certain scenes, undisclosed by Sony Entertainment, were removed to tone down the offending aspects. I believe this movie is a prime example of how media today is controlled for a different agenda. To stop negative “propaganda” against the North Korean government, they threatened a war, over just a movie. This is more than a cultural issue, and must be looked at as such. A satirical attempt to show the North Korean government in the light the rest of the world views it as was nearly stomped to the ground. The way North Korea restricts its people must be observed further to understand exactly why this happened. It’s no surprise in the end, from a country that blocks access to its people. As of today, it’s uncertain just how many people are in poverty within the state, or how many are currently in a prison camp for speaking out against their tyrannical government, but it is certain that the number exceeds what should be allowed under basic human rights.

For more information on the “Interview, click these:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-north-korea-tests-the-interview-20140626-story.html

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/local/2014/12/27/controversy-interview-drawing-people-cinema/20956537/

What Experts Say 1: John Nichols

John Nichol’s blog article “Fake Net Neutrality” focuses on President Barack Obama’s stance on the Net Neutrality act. Over the past 5 years, the US Congress has had a surge of bills attempting to limit what can be posted on the internet. Essentially, what is proposed in these bills are how internet providers can limit our internet used, based on what site we visit, and how we represent ourselves through this medium. The internet is by no means a medium of media to be taken lightly, as can be seen in the idea of posting a blog, and the limiting use of internet is a scary prospect. Genachowski is stated in the blog to have said “The proposed rule…. Falls far short of what’s necessary to prevent phone and cable companies from turning the Internet into cable TV”. (Genachowski, 2010) The idea behind this, as stated in the blog, is basically, internet providers could limit speeds for what content they don’t want to push, and only offer high speeds towards paid services, or media that they approve as “Beneficially” for their company. Albeit an older article, Nichols still calls for the people to stand together, stating “America won’t have to settle for a fake net neutrality”(Nichols, 2010), further stating his point that we must work together to stop our freedom of speech from being taken away from us in this medium.

Nichols, J. (2010, December 1). FCC Chair Genachowski's Fake 'Net Neutrality' Scheme Threatens Internet Freedom, Digital Democracy. Retrieved January 7, 2015,

Link to original blog: http://www.thenation.com/blog/156766/america-needs-real-net-neutrality-not-false-promise-compromising-fcc-chair#

Photo from Charlie Hebdou©

Current Events 1 “Je Suis Charlie”

On January 7^th, 2015, an act of terror took place in Paris, France. A weekly satirical newspaper, known as “Charlie Hebdo” meaning, “Weekly Charlie” was attacked my Islamic extremist. 9 members of the “Charlie” work force were killed, including their editor in chief,  Stephane Charbonnier. These attacks originated from a long standing feud between the community and the magazines depictions of the prophet “Mohammad”.  In 2011, the magazine was firebombed for the depiction of the Islamic prophet, and now after another drawn depiction of a high standing figure, an attack was carried out. Two men entered into the magazine’s corridors, gunning down a specific list of people, proving this was most definitely a premeditated killing spree. As of 10/1/15, the editors of “Charlie Hebdo” report that they are most definitely continuing their magazine, in the same, satirical, view as always. Anything is up to attack under Charlie.

This attack truly shows the way that media can provoke aggression. This is a far more complicated issue than just blaming any religion or a group of entities. Whether it was a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or even Pagan group of individuals shouldn’t be the focus of this. Instead, we should look deeper at what sparks controversy. This decades old newspaper suffered a tragic loss, all based on what they decided to release. We must think how it is that free press is limited, and if they were to instead post satirical pictures only of other figures, would this attack have happened at all. Religion is by far one of the biggest influences of what is reported in the media. It’s not common to see a media source blatantly supporting their religion, however behind the scenes; many different agencies are run by different values. Is it possible that in today’s society, one that is so focused on the idea of “tolerance” that we’re unable to see what is happening? It’s extremely refreshing to hear that the publishers of Charlie Hebdo are going to move forward past this, and the attention that it draws from all groups can hopefully bring a bit more attention to how the media is under pressure to be self-restricted today.

For more information on the attack, look at these:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/08/europe/charlie-hebdo-attack-timeline/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11340358/Charlie-Hebdos-Wednesday-edition-to-include-Prophet-Mohammed-cartoons.html

To support Charlie Hebdo, and free speech, click here: http://www.charliehebdo.fr/index.html