The Final Blog Post Extravaganza: Social Media Edition At last, we have finally arrived at the final blog post for the Journalism 150 course. It has been a great semester. I happen to be a communication major and did not realize that this course was based around mass communication until the semester had started so I was happy to be able to learn a little more about my major in a journalism course that I was not quite expecting to tie into my major. The industry we will be looking at in this blog post is the social media industry, as of late I have been very into social media with the COVID-19 outbreak because I really have nothing else to do aside from working out and schoolwork. Now with the semester ending, my use of social media will most likely increase even more. The social media industry allows people around the world to connect with each other in unique ways. The social media industry also allows news to be spread in ways that have never been conducted before. Social media has even allowed people to watch sports on a few different social media platforms. Since the beginning of the introduction of social media, the industry has changed a lot since then and some of these changes have been beneficial, and some of these changes have been not been too beneficial. Overall, these changes that have been made since the introduction have lead to the fact the social media industry or just social media in general has developed into a very essential part to everyday to life and reaps many benefits however, these benefits come with some negatives but the benefits that social media brings do outweigh the negatives that the industry brings. Social media and it's industry has gone from a simple yet very efficient way of contacting people anywhere to a very powerful, if used correctly, tool in today's society. The beginning of social media can be traced back as far as the year of 1844. According to Irfan Ahmad of SocialMediaToday, “Samuel Morse made the first steps towards some resemblance of social media when he sent a telegraph from Washington D.C. to Baltimore. Morse’s first message read “What have God wrought”” (Ahmad). Another one of the very first types of social media was launched by France in 1980. According to John Pavlik and Shawn McIntosh of Covering Media, “In 1980, France launched its videotext service—test delivery over the air or by cable for presentation on television screens or other electronic displays—known them as Teletel and later as Minitel” (McIntosh, Pavlik, 196). As we can see, the purpose of social media has always remained the same since the very first types of social media being introduced with the purpose being to communicate with people in unique technological ways. These types of social media lead to the emergence of types of social medias such as email and chat rooms. Chat rooms and email have allowed people to contact with each other more directly over the internet. These platforms come with their side effects, however. Things such as spam which is “unwanted mass emailing from advertisers” (McIntosh, Pavlik, 198). These spam messages could even be scam messages in order to deceive people in order to gain money and private information such as social security numbers and such. While the social media industry was active well before one might think, the industry did not really start to boom until the mid-2000s. The first prominent social media platform to break the surface would be Facebook in 2005 (McIntosh, Pavlik, 204). As we all know, Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook during his time at Harvard University. But what some people may not know is that Facebook was not used the way it is today originally. When Facebook was first developed, it was more for students to connect with their professors at colleges all around the United States. For reference, Facebook was more like Edmodo in its early years (McIntosh, Pavlik, 204). Following Facebook, YouTube was launched in 2005, and Twitter was launched in 2006 (McIntosh, Pavlik, 204). Instagram was launched in 2010 (Instagram.com). Since then, the social media industry has evolved every year. Today, the social media industry today is the second most popular industry in the world behind television (medialandscapes.org). In fact, “Today around seven-in-ten Americans use social media to connect with one another, engage with news content, share information and entertain themselves.” (pewresearch.org). In the context of politics, the social media industry really serves as a place for people to express and share their political beliefs. A lot of movements fighting against racial injustice are played out on social media platforms. In July 2013, Jordan Zimmerman, a white male, was acquitted of charges for the murder of Trayvon Martin, a black male. In response to this, people fled to Twitter and used the hashtag “#BlackLivesMatter” (Bonilla, Rosa, 12) in order to spread awareness of the clear case of racial injustice that had just occurred. Surprisingly, this up rise against something so horrific actually received backlash from some members of Twitter. People simply did not understand the hashtag. These people read it as “black lives are superior to other lives, when the hashtag really meant “black lives matter just as much as any other life”. (Bonilla, Rosa, 12). In the context of politics, the social media industry can be a great place to spread awareness for causes that is near and dear to most to everyone’s heart, but there are always going to be people who disagree with these causes and with that disagreement and even misunderstanding, create even more conflict. The social media industry in the context of economics can be considered to be a gold mine. In today’s world we use social media excessively, as “today’s consumer spends up to nine hours per day online” (LaHaye). Because of that, “social media has proven to be the most effective way for businesses to reach new audiences on a global scale.” (LaHaye). To me there are no downsides to the social media industry in the context of economics, as it has opened up so many opportunities. According to Felix LaHaye of adweek.com, “Social media is also helping to fuel the global economy by creating new jobs, democratizing information and pushing brands far beyond their borders.” (LaHaye). In the context of society, the social media industry may not be as beneficial as everyone suspects. Jacob Amedie of Santa Clara University wrote a scholarly article highlighting the negative impacts that the social media industry has had on society. In his article, Amedie mentions that “Several researchers have proposed a new phenomenon called “ ‘Facebook depression’, which is defined as depression that develops when individuals spend an excessive amounts of time on social media sites, such as Facebook, and then begin to exhibit classic symptoms of depression.” (Amedie, 7). The social media industry also brings about stress on society. According to Jacob Amedie, “social media is also a common source of stress to its users” (Amedie, 9), and that “Another survey performed on 7,000 mothers, found that 42% of mothers using the photo-sharing site Pinterest, reported occasionally suffering from Pinterest Stress” (Amedie, 9). Social media is a great tool for society to use in many different ways, but it can also be mentally damaging. Social media and technology have seemed to develop at the same pace. Back when social media first began to gain attention, it was nothing more than just a way for people to communicate with others essentially, which is what technology was if you think about phones, computers, and television. Now social media has caught up to a technology such as television because social media can provide entertainment just like television does. However, just like we discussed in the society context, social media can be mentally damaging. Social media can cause people to become addicted to technology and developing the symptoms of excessive use of technology previously mentioned (Anderson, Jiang, 4). In the context of culture, social media can be very powerful. According to Frank Furedi of the aspen review, “The Internet and social media are very powerful tools that can influence and shape human behavior. The social media has played a significant role in recent outbreaks of social protest and resistance.” (Furedi). Social media can help push for changes, but it can also change human behavior, which is not always a very good thing. If I were to provide an outlook on social media and the social media industry it would be that we have developed a very powerful tool for today’s society and culture. Social media can be used to inform, entertain, and fight for causes. But social media needs to be used carefully as we learned with the side effects of excessive use of technology. The industry is powerful, so powerful that it can cause one’s mental well being to take massive hit in a negative way. Looking back, we saw how social media first started. Social media was first mainly a way to communicate with others directly, which was plain and simple. No real harm to the people doing it. Then came the mid to late 2000s when the industry started to boom with many different social media platforms designed to have people interact with each other and even more people at once but while this is great for a society that needs efficient communication like any living organism needs water, it does bring some pretty harmful side effect to the table. But overall, if social media is used properly, then the positives will always outweigh the negatives. From here, I do not really see the industry changing in anyway. The only way I see the industry changing is if ways to limit the amount of time people use it are created so we can cut down on mental health issues caused by the use of social media. Bibliography-“About Us: Official Site.” Instagram, about.instagram.com/about-us.
-Ahmad, Irfan. “The History of Social Media [Infographic].” Social Media Today, 27 Apr. 2018, www.socialmediatoday.com/news/the-history-of-social-media-infographic-1/522285/. -Amedie, Jacob, "The Impact of Social Media on Society" (2015). Advanced Writing: Pop Culture Intersections. 2. https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/engl_176/2 -Anderson, Monica, and JingJing Jiang. “Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018.” Pew Research Center, 2018, pp. 1–10. -Bonilla, Yarimar, and Jonathan Rosa. “#Ferguson: Digital Protest, Hashtag Ethnography, and t he Racial Politics of Social Media in the United States.” American Ethnologist, vol. 42, no. 1, 15 Jan. 2015, pp. 4–17., doi:10.1111/amet.12112. -“Demographics of Social Media Users and Adoption in the United States.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research Center, 12 June 2019, www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/. -Furedi, Frank. “How Internet and Social Media Are Changing Culture.” Aspen Institute Central Europe, Apr. 2014, www.aspenreview.com/article/2017/internet-social-media-changing- culture/. -LaHaye, Felix. “The Digital Gold Rush: How Social Media Fuels the Economy.” Adweek, Adweek, 2 Apr. 2018, www.adweek.com/digital/the-digital-gold-rush-how-social-media- fuels-the-economy/. -Pavlik, John V., and Shawn McIntosh. Converging Media: a New Introduction to Mass Communication. Oxford University Press, 2019.
0 Comments
The foreign country we will be looking at for this blog post will be Italy. I am 25% Italian, so it was easy to pick this country. Italy’s culture structure is based around the arts, food, music, architecture, and family. According to thelocal.it, Italy’s political structure is “is a constitutional republic.” (thelocal.it). According to focuseconomics.com, “Italy is the world’s ninth biggest economy. Its economic structure relies mainly on services and manufacturing.” (focuseconomics.com). According to bbc.com, “Mr. Berlusconi's Mediaset owns Italy's top private TV stations, and the public broadcaster, Rai, has traditionally been subject to political influence, so that when Mr. Berlusconi was prime minister, he was able to exert tight control over both public and private broadcasting.” (bbc.com). Also included in the bbc.com article is “Rai and Mediaset dominate the TV market and are a potentially powerful political tool, especially as 80% of the population is said to rely on TV for daily news. Sky Italia has a near monopoly of the pay-TV sector.”. (bbc.com). Italy’s media is not exactly owned by the government but most of it is owned by a former government official. Medialandscapes.org describes Italy’s media as “In spite of its limitations, the Italian media landscape appears very alive and able to feed a public sphere focused on problems of general interest” (medialandscapes.org). Since there are limitations placed on the Italian media landscape, the theory that would most likely coincide with the Italian media landscape would be the social responsibility theory. This is so because the social responsibility theory “asserts that media should be free from most governmental constraints to provide the most reliable and impartial information to the public” (Pavlik, McIntosh, 410). The Italian media has its limitations but is still very useful. Italy’s printing industry, like most countries’ industries have taken a fall since the beginning of the 21st century with the rise of technology. According to medialandscapes.org, this decline has been so bad that “Between 2007 and 2015, revenue dropped by more than 30%, from 41.4 to 30.6 billion euros.” (medialandscape.org). The decline of the print industry in Italy also a play a big role in advertisement revenues as “Between 2009 and 2015, the publishing industry lost about 50% of its total advertising revenues” (medialandscape.org). I would have to imagine that the Italian printing industry will try to make a move for the digital world. Along with Italy, the United States’ printing industry has declined as well. Declines in the United States print industry have been drastic to the point where “Between 2006 and 2016 total newspaper industry revenue declined from $49 billion to $18 billion.” (medialandscape.org). One of the main differences between the printing industries in Italy and the States and how powerful these industries are. In Italy, “Compared with other countries, local newspapers have a minor circulation and play a limited role in agenda setting.” (medialandscape.org). In the United states, newspapers like The Washington Post hold a great deal of power when it comes to agenda setting and news circulation. Contrary to the printing industry of Italy, the radio industry has experienced a good deal of success. In Italy, radio has “increased their global revenues by 0.8%, reaching a total amount of €8.5 million” (medialandscape.org). I think it is hard to imagine a time where the radio industry would ever fall regardless of the country because of the use of radios while people drive. In my own opinion, the only way the radio industry would fall would be if the motor vehicle industry fell and obviously that is hard to imagine. The Italian radio industry also includes private stations. Contrary to those private stations, the United States have more of a national public radio. This national public radio draws in about ”14-15 million listeners daily” (medialandscape.org). Another big part of the United States radio industry is the presence of podcasts, unlike the Italian radio industry. The television industry is the most popular industry in Italy. According to medialandscape.org, “in 2015, Italy’s television audience reached a level of 10.4 million “viewers in the average day”. (medialandscape.org). Italians also have a lot to choose from when watching television. According to medialandscape.org, “Italian viewers can choose from more than 230 national free and subscription channels, as well as an average of 100 local channels for each provincial district.” (medialandscape.org). Similar to Italy, Americans seem to be attracted towards the television industry the most as “It remains the most important source of news for Americans, with 50 percent saying they often get news from television” (medialandscape.org). If television is where most Americans get their news, television is bound to be the most popular industry. The difference between the two industries is that America has a lot more channels to offer. Companies like Sinclair, Nexstar, Gray, Tegna and Tribune, all own a combined “443” (medialandscape.org) channels. The similarities between the United States and Italy continue with their internet freedom. According to freedomhouse.org, Italy’s internet freedom score is a 75 which is considered “free”, and the United State’s internet freedom score is a 77 which is also considered “free” (freedomhouse.org).It is obviously always good for multiple countries to have internet freedom scores. Italian cinema is based around “Italian neorealism”. Italian neorealism is based around stories set amongst the poor and the working class, filmed on location, frequently using non-professional actors (Wikipedia). This is very different from American cinema. American cinema can stretch from superhero movies like The Avengers to a drama like Uncut Gems. If I am being honest, I do not think I have ever seen a film that would closely associated to Italian neorealism, as it seems more European than American. Since these two countries have similar systems, the pros and cons of their systems coincide with each other. Each of these systems are pretty laxed on their restrictions and as we saw with their internet freedom scores, citizens in each country can essentially do whatever they want on the internet. It is hard to identify any cons for these systems because there are little to no responsibilities, but these limited responsibilities could lead to reckless activities. Another pro is the television popularity. Using a television is easy. All one has to do flip to a news channel, and they are set for receiving news as opposed to using the internet when one has a to do a bit of navigating. Sources
- https://medialandscapes.org/ - https://freedomhouse.org/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/ - https://www.thelocal.it/ - https://www.focus-economics.com/ - https://www.bbc.com Link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-modernizing-immigration-system-stronger-america/ The speech I will be analyzing is a speech from the President of the united states, Donald Trump. His speech was made on the night of May 16, 2019 from the rose garden at the White House. In his speech, President Trump is laying out his plan for the new a new immigration system. President Trump’s speech lacks an attention getter. It is more of just an introduction to his topic rather than an attention getter. There is plenty of emotional appeal included in his speech. One example of this appeal would be when Trump states that “Our proposal builds upon our nation’s rich history of immigration, while strengthening the bonds of citizenship that bind us together as a national family.”. Trump shows how relevant this issue is by providing even more statistics that can also be used for emotional appeal. The statistics that Trump includes are “Currently, 66 percent of legal immigrants come here on the basis of random chance.”. The framing of Trump’s speech is overall positive because he is talking about an immigration system that allows people of all backgrounds to connect in the United States. Overall, I think his speech is effective because of the positive vibe it gives off because of the intended goal of the plan and based on how the plan works. After Trump made his speech laying out the blueprint for his new immigration system, many news outlets reported on the speech and there were many different frameworks of reporting on the speech given by President Trump. The framework of news reports on certain subjects is the angle or perspective from which a news story about a certain subject is told. Obviously with the speech being analyzed being a speech from President Trump, there be right side and left side reporting on the speech. The first example of a news outlet reporting on this speech would come from CNN. The link to this article is https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/donald-trump-immigration-plan-announcement/index.html. Off the bat, one can clearly tell that this the framework of this article is more left sided based on the title of the article, which is “Trump unveils new (likely doomed) immigration plan”. (Vasquez) The article is written by Maegan Vasquez, and Vasquez goes on to state that democrats deem this proposal to be “drastic and inhumane.” (Vasquez). CNN is notoriously known for being a more democratic news outlet so it is not surprising that Vasquez would go that far when talking about Trump’s new plan. The word choice that Vasquez applies is also very telling of the framework she is creating. Vasquez says, “Trump boasted his measure was not drafted by politicians” (Vasquez). The word that really sticks out there is “boasted” as she is trying to get the idea across that Trump is bragging, which is something that arrogant people do. Vasquez also adds to her left sided negative framework when she states that “Just before the White House unveiled its immigration proposal, the mood on Capitol Hill was largely one of shrugs.” (Vasquez). Clearly, Vasquez is trying to find every way possible to place a negative perception on the unveiling of the new plan. The overall main point that Vasquez is making in this article is that this plan is not going to work clearly from the title and Vasquez also goes on to say her article that “The proposal, which many lawmakers are quick to describe as well-intentioned, isn't expected to provide the immigration breakthrough that has eluded lawmakers for the entirety of Trump's presidency” (Vasquez). The next report/article we will be looking at in response to President Trump’s new immigration system will come from FOX news and the link to the article is: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-unveils-sweeping-plan-to-transform-americas-immigration-system. At first read I notice that this report is more of a run down of what the plan is and what it is suppose to and what President Trump hopes it will achieve, contrary to the report released by CNN. With this report being released on FOX news, it is safe to assume that this article’s framework will be more right side and have a positive perception on Trump’s plan. To exploit this framework, writer Adam Shaw states “The plan does not deal with those already in the country illegally, including those who came to the country as children and were protected under an Obama-era executive order.” (Shaw). The two words that stick out from this quote from the article are “Illegally” and “Obama-era”. These words convey the idea these immigrants who came illegally came into the country came in while Obama was president, not Trump which also conveys the idea that Trump is a better president than Obama. The main point of this article is to explain that Trump’s new immigration system is more about letting immigrants who are more likely to be more productive in the work industry rather than just any immigrant. Shaw makes the main point very clear when he says “The proposal would judge immigrants with a points-based system that would favor high-skilled workers -- accounting for age, English proficiency, education and whether the applicant has a well-paying job offer.” (Shaw). Shaw wants the reader to know that this new system is about boosting morale. The final news report we will be looking at will be an article from the New York Times. The link for the article is: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/politics/trump-immigration-plan.html. Annie Karni, the writer of the article makes it very clear from the start of her article about where she is going with the framework and main point of her article when Karni says, “But within minutes of taking the podium on Thursday, Mr. Trump struck a more familiar tone, bashing Democrats as advocates of “open borders, lower wages and, frankly, lawless chaos”” (Karni). One can clearly can tell that Karni is structuring a left sided and negative framework. Similarly, to the CNN article, Karni talks about the way he spoke. Karni states “his speech — a relatively low-energy address” (Karni). These left sided writers seem to nit pick at anything they can pick up from Trump’s speeches aside from the things he’s actually saying. The main point overall of Karni’s article was to criticize Trump’s performance as speaker, if you will.
One of the main differences between speech/response and the coverage is that with the speech the media is just letting the speech playout, no analysis yet until the coverage. I do not think a frame can ever be accurate of a speaker’s message because of the bias of the person making a frame. People biased against the speaker obviously will have a negative response towards the speech but people who are more bias towards the speaker will always agree but will not exactly represent the message. They would probably fabricate some stuff to make the speaker’s message even better but less accurate. Liberal, conservative, and foreign news networks cover political speeches and its messages in different ways depending on who the speaker is and what they are saying, again, it is more about the bias. I think bias in the media is the most important factor when it comes to thinking about how a news network will cover a political happening whether it be a speech or an event. This means that the audience is most likely to want to receive their news from the news outlet that skews more bias towards the specific audience member’s political views. References -https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-modernizing-immigration-system-stronger-america/ - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/us/politics/trump-immigration-plan.html -https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/politics/donald-trump-immigration-plan-announcement/index.html -https://www.foxnews.com/politics/president-trump-unveils-sweeping-plan-to-transform-americas-immigration-system |
Archives
August 2021
Categories |
Proudly powered by Weebly