A Nation Divided

Political polarization has grown across America, to a point where now most Americans believe it is a serious issue that impacts them directly. Violent demonstrations in support of both right and left-leaning political movements are more commonplace than ever. Every election cycle the divide seems to get a little worse. There is always talk about how the country must heal after the election, but no significant progress is made. 

What is driving the increased political polarization? I believe it is due to several reasons. The ever-expanding media environment simply offers much more choice than ever before. News media has pivoted from informing to entertaining. There is more focus on generating profits via increasing viewership. In essence, outrage and conflicts sell. Also, there is distrust in the mainstream media by both liberals and conservatives, which is understandable. Why would anyone trust those that demonize them? Another significant factor is social media accounts that can quickly send out divisive messages to millions instantly.

So what can be done to change the current trend? There is no getting around the fact that media significantly impacts the way society thinks about topics. Academically, this has been labeled the Agenda-Setting Theory. The Agenda-Setting Theory is the news media's ability to influence the importance placed on topics being reported. It determines which news stories are shown in the news media. What topics are being discussed and how they are discussed is what must change.

For there to be a significant change, the way the media chooses stories and how it covers them must change. Stories can't just be covered from one viewpoint, but opposing views should be presented. The tone of the debates must change. Instead of glorifying disagreements, interviewers and guests on network shows must be respectful even if they disagree. If journalists in the media can't be civil with their guests, it sets a bad example for everyone watching. There should be a focus on civil debate, with the understanding that it is ok to disagree in the end.

In conclusion, people do emulate the behaviors that they see. Having a diverse civil debate on news shows will benefit the country. Less outrage and more civility are needed.

A Flawed Social Media Study

As a web designer, SEO, and social media consultant, I am responsible for increasing social media user engagement for my clients. The more followers my client’s social media accounts have the better. Increasing the time those followers spend online engaged on my client’s social media accounts, the more likely sales will be generated. Due to this, I always read social media studies as I worry about the impact of my work on society. The latest study I have read is called The Impact of Social Networking Sites on the Youth. It was an interesting read, and below are my thoughts on each of the sections that comprise the study.

Introduction

The influence of social networking sites on the user’s life will be gauged. Both the positive and negative impacts of online networking are investigated. The study will analyze the credibility of information received from social media. After reading the study, I feel the objectives were not clearly defined with specific measurements. For example, how would the researchers gauge the credibility of the information from social media?

Hypothesis

1. Social media sites have more negatives than positives if both the parameters are evaluated. 

2. Users are more inclined towards fields of entertainment other than relevant information. 

3. Participation in social gatherings is declining due to the overutilization of social media sites.

The hypothesis in this study lacks clarity and is too general. What determines a negative vs. a positive parameter and how are they evaluated? I did not see anywhere in the study what constituents a negative or positive parameter.

Research Methodology

The study used the quantitative approach to study the research objectives. Sampling was via questionnaires where the questions were close-ended, and the target group consisted of ages 15 to 24. The respondents were from the Delhi/NCR region. One hundred questionnaires were filled out, each containing a total of 10 questions. 

Looking at the methodology, I felt the size of the target group was very small and not effective. Choosing all participants from one region does not make sense to me. I feel the study would have been more effective if the target group was larger and from multiple areas both urban and rural.

Conclusion 

The primary objective of the study was to measure the positive and negative aspects of social media usage. Social media use from the target group was found to be heavily skewed towards entertainment. It was found users can discriminate between the real and virtual world. Users realize social media does not build stronger contacts with people than in person. The target group spends on average more than 2 hours a day on social media which keeps them from real-world social interactions. After reading this research paper, I don’t think such a small and localized study can prove much. The research methods seemed flawed from the beginning. Including the criteria for what constitutes negative and positive parameters is needed to provide clarity to the reader. A larger target group from multiple areas would also be beneficial and provide more accurate results.

Stylistic Differences in US vs UK TV News Media

Television Media in a country or region is very representative of its audience. Steve Jobs once said, “When you’re young, you look at television and think, There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic!” I find this opinion to be true. 

When you compare the US television news media to UK television news media, there are vast differences in style and content. US TV media is self-regulated and political advertisements are allowed. During election season, political ads flood the airwaves. News organizations demonstrate blatant political biases, which compromise their ability to convey the news. This issue affects both sides of the political spectrum.

UK television news media, on the other hand, is heavily regulated by the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. There is no political advertising allowed and political broadcast segments are limited to five minutes. The news itself must be impartial. According to the broadcasting code, "News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality".  UK Television news segments focus more on facts and less on opinion. 

I rarely watch US TV news media anymore, but I watched a local US broadcast to make an accurate comparison possible to the UK-based BBC News. The US broadcast covered multiple topics but will focus on two, Covid-19 vaccination progress, and Spring Break violence in Miami Beach. The US broadcast used a far more over-the-top style than the UK broadcast. It first reported on a confrontation between Senator Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci. The confrontation was regarding needing to wear masks after being vaccinated but focused more on the argument instead of the science behind each opposing side. The report on Spring Break violence focused on showing videos on social media of fights and disorderly conduct. There was no context on why this rise of violence was occurring or what the city plans to do about it. I felt the emphasis was on drama over facts.

The two topics on the UK broadcast I compared were Covid-19 vaccination progress and census day in the UK. The UK broadcast style is way different than in the US. The UK news uses a documentary style with far more text to read on the screen. The Covid-19 segment focused on syringe manufacturing in India. It went into detail on how vital increasing syringe manufacturing is and interviewed manufacturing workers. It demonstrated the process in detail. The second segment was regarding UK Census day. It described what Census day was and how the process worked. I felt that facts and hearing informed opinions from interviewees was emphasized. 

I think the UK TV broadcasts focus more on the issues and let the audience decide what to think, while US-based TV broadcasts focus more on sensationalizing the news.

Looking Back On Marshall McLuhan's Views On Media

Three strong points and three limitations of McLuhan's ideas.

Marshall McLuhan was an English professor whose work was pioneering in the field of media theory. His work focused on exploring how different forms of media impact human behavior. He authored several books and coined the phrases the "Medium Is The Message" and "the Global village".

Strong Points

McLuhan believed any communication medium is more influential than the messages sent via that medium. This is because the medium impacts how society processes data, how humans think and relate to the world around them. He believed this changes societies over long periods. I believe McLuhan was correct in both these beliefs.

For example, when humans communicated orally, listening and speaking clearly, was important in an environment dominated by sound. When the alphabet and writing were created, sight became the most important sense. Reading could be done in solitude, which led to the individualization of both people and nations.

The next big evolution was electronic media: telegraphs, radio, telephones, televisions. These devices, with their ability to cross vast distances, re-tribalized society. McLuhan deemed this new phenomenon the Global Village. I believe McLuhan was correct in that he believed that these communication mediums created spaces for human interactions. Like the town squares or coffee houses in centuries past.

Limitations

McLuhan claimed the world would become a global village, but this has not truly been achieved. While people in different geographical areas are connected, their interactions are still mostly limited to those who speak their same language. Language is still a barrier until like in sci-fi movies a universal translator is created.  

Another limitation is that there is segregation based on philosophy. Users tend to speak with others who share their views. The more media choices and communications options the more polarization.

The third limitation is that the medium is the message describes subtle structural change over time that is difficult to gauge via empirical evidence. How do gauge the true impact of a medium on society? Can we truly understand for instance the impact of TV on society? Especially with newer forms of communications such as social media of which there are multiple forms.

How Much Do You Trust Your New Sources?

The mass media has significantly impacted the way society thinks about important topics. This method has been labeled the agenda setting theory. The agenda setting theory is the ability of the news media to influence the importance placed on topics being reported. The same information could be framed differently depending on which media channels you consume. 

Here are the examples of how the agenda-setting theory was utilized in the newscast I viewed: The topic of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus package passed by the U.S. House of Representatives was discussed. The importance of the package was framed as a humanitarian need for US citizens. The focus was on the direct payments of $1400 for each citizen. After doing some additional research online in reality the majority of the funding for the recent Covid relief bill is not directly Covid-19 relief related. Only $422 billion of the 1.9 trillion will go directly to the American people. The majority of the funds will be allocated to local government funding, transportation, infrastructure, education, etc. The funds are also to be spent from 2021 to 2031 thus are not of a true emergency nature. The issue was framed in a way that led one to believe the direct payments were the largest part of the bill, which is just not accurate.

Next was a report about the new J&J Covid-19 vaccine. The newscast described how the vaccine had been awarded FDA approval. The vaccine's single-dose nature was discussed, as was its ease of transportation, only needing to be refrigerated versus frozen like its competitors. The report was framed positively and no cons were discussed. Having researched this vaccine previously, I thought the report did not provide an accurate overview of the vaccine. It left out significant drawbacks specifically in terms of efficacy. Its competitors, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine had a startling efficacy rate in clinical trials of 94% to 95%. In contrast, the overall global efficacy of the J&J vaccine was 66% against moderate to severe illness and just 57% in South Africa, where B.1.351 is now the dominant variant. It was 85% effective against severe disease and, in trials anyway, 100% effective at preventing death. All of this should have been discussed to inform the public. 

Lastly, I watched a story on a robbery that occurred at a local fast food restaurant called Pollo Tropical. They reported that while ordering lunch a man was robbed in the drive-thru. They implied by omission that this was just a random crime, but I had read online earlier in the day that the robbers had been watching a jewelry store and targeted this customer. They had followed him and only robbed him at the drive-thru because it was the first place he had stopped. 

I thought all of the local news stories were not well covered and were framed in misleading ways. Some of this is due to the format of TV, but some of it is just shoddy reporting.

The Move to Online News Sources

The way news is consumed in today’s world is very different than in previous generations. Face-to-face conversations are down significantly compared to previous generations since smartphones became ubiquitous. So is the percentage of people who watch the news strictly on television or read print media. I still remember while growing up, my mom would always read the local newspaper every day after having breakfast. That is how she would get her news, read half the paper in the morning, and the other half after dinner. She would also watch the news on TV before going to sleep. If there was anything in the news that outraged her that day, she would call her sister to complain and they would discuss it. The news for her was consumed at a far slower pace and from very limited sources. This is still her routine now although she now watches more TV being retired and reads less.

Nowadays people like my mom are a dying breed. I get my news strictly online, I do not watch broadcast TV at all. Like most people I have my smartphone with me all the time, so breaking stories I typically get while browsing social media or from a text from a friend. Most of the time Twitter will have reports of sensational news before the mainstream media does. I am also a member of several Whatsapp groups so I get the news that way. In these groups, news reports are discussed and debated virtually. My circle friends mostly get their news online too. I don't have any friends that don't get most of their news via online websites. 

How news is gathered is also changing. Videos taken with smartphones provide a ground view of what is going on during crises like riots, or protests that a traditional mainstream video camera can’t due to its intrusive size. A large camera lets everyone know they are being recorded, but a smart is unobtrusive. I think more and more breaking news will be coming via viral videos first with the mainstream media playing catch up. 

Knowing Your Audience Is Key!

As a future media practitioner, I think it’s very vital to know who your audience is. Who do you want to reach? Target audience characteristic plays an important role in the elaboration likelihood model. We must study and know about our audiences. I would try to pick the best time to deliver the message effectively. To be able to persuade audiences, these factors are very important: make sure they are not hungry, tired from work, school, or driving. Is the audience in a good mood or bad mood, is it too late at night? All these questions need to be evaluated. These factors can influence the audience’s attention and influence how people receive your intended message. 

Another important factor to persuade the audience is to find a topic that they are interested in. How receptive do you think they will be to the topic? Having information from trustworthy sources, statistics and references will add more credibility to your message. It is vital the actual message is well thought out, written concisely with correct grammar and style that is appropriate to the target audience. These items are referred to as message characteristics. 

Including information audiences are interested in persuades them to want to learn more about the topic being presented. The information must be presented that an audience can relate to. When information is presented in a way an audience can’t relate to, the audience will lose attention and process it in what is termed a superficial way. The peripheral characteristic is a superficial learning process. When not receptive to what is being presented, an audience will focus on how attractive speakers are, or how impressive their presentation slides look instead of the message. A receptive audience will be using what is termed center characteristics to process information. This means the audience is engaged in what is being presented and receptive to the message. 

In conclusion, when the listener is highly motivated and interested in what is being presented, they are more receptive to the content of the message. Knowing your audience is key.