That's an obtuse title and I hope that, by no means, it implies that I am an expert or believe I am an expert in this topic. Also, this is not written in consultation with The Elements of Style nor was it planned prior to creation so appreciate the ideas more than the expression, if you will. All thoughts and feelings reflected are my own. I am always looking for feedback and always willing to discuss and learn. **
I am currently taking a Digital Media Studies class and, on our first day, we discussed the differences between the terms digital and analog.
The root of digital being digit, a term originally used for fingers and toes before developing its more modern numerical meaning, suggests that for something to be "digital" it must be able to be manipulated. Analog, on the other hand, breaks down to mean "requiring thought" or "thinking through an idea."
Nowadays, however, these words define each other more than their actual definitions; think about the distinctions between a classic wall clock and an Apple Watch and you'll see what I mean. While many scholars on the topic have come to nicer-sounding conclusions about the distinctions between digital and analog, here's a brief summary of what the class came up with:
Digital- Faster, accessible, adaptable
Analog- Basic, inflexible, more time-consuming
This made me consider Professor Pitney's statements regarding initial reports of mass shootings: "The first reports are always wrong."
A far cry from the days of newspapers, journalists and every-day people can now use their phones and the internet to share information practically instantaneously. Historically, journalists were put on probation and often disgraced for misreporting information but in the era of live streams and Twitter, there seems to be less concern for delivering accurate information as opposed to fast information.
With digital media, news outlets can reach more people in less time which means that if false information is published, it has the ability to spread like wildfire; similar to the "Paul Revere Effect" discussed by Campbell in chapter two of Getting it Wrong but on a much larger scale. This, compiled with the fact that nothing on the internet truly goes away means that false claims can arise at any time. This is such a common phenomenon that we have created websites such as Snopes to debunk recurring hoaxes. I’m sure there is something to be said about journalism culture in this context- whoever puts out any information first will get the most attention- however, these digital technologies have made it easier to communicate information without placing much importance on veracity.
This scenario alongside modern mistrust of the media recalls the story of the media-driven myth about Orson Well's War of the Worlds radio broadcast; specifically how newspapers seemed to sensationalize the "mass panic" created by the production. It brings to mind the suggestion that newspapers were hypercritical and hyperbolic about the impacts of the broadcast because radio was dominating print media.
Creating public mistrust in a new medium that informs the public in real-time... Hmmmm... Sounds familiar.
In my experience, those who seem to criticize modern media the most seem to be those who still read the newspaper every day*- people who didn't grow up with the media being as prevalent and information being as accessible as it is currently. It may be that pre-millennial generations mistrust modern digital media because they were brought up in an era that placed journalistic integrity somewhere above the speed of communication. However, I catch glimpses of their lingering trust in my Great Grandmother's ridiculous Facebook Wall, filled with misinformation, sensationalist headlines, and racist/sexist/homophobic/fill-in-the-blank-ist memes that all do one thing: validate her opinions.
Clearly, that trust has stipulations. Stipulations reminiscent of the statements made by Hearst on page 15 of Getting it Wrong:
"Newspapers claiming to be conservative and reliable are the most untrustworthy of any on earth... Not always due to intention but more frequently to ignorance and prejudice."
As a southerner (who has escaped!), I feel like this mistrust of the media is what leads a lot of people back home to Fox News. My dad, an avid friend of the Fox and Friends friends, has frequently made similar jabs at the "Leftist Mainstream Media" for making jokes about and spending airtime laughing at what hosts see as the incompetencies of the current president and his administration. It seems to be relatively consistent that people do not criticize those that agree with them as Fox News is certainly no stranger to journalistic errors.
Now, this is where I start to think about McCarthyism and Ed Murrow. In response to the destructive media coverage of Joseph McCarthy, Gilbert Seldes was quoted as saying, "It is more important to use our communication systems properly than to destroy McCarthy," (Campbell 50). So, when the "Leftist Mainstream Media" jokes about or even reports on the downfalls of the Trump Administration, is it misuse of our communication systems? What is the media's role in reporting on the government and the issues within it? With politics everpresent in entertainment (SNL, Late Night shows, Veep, and POSE, to name a few) what is the media's role in portraying corruption and political controversy?
That was a very long-winded way to ask a question I don't know the answer to but maybe we can discuss and figure something out.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
- Kendall
* Sorry, Prof. Pitney; this is a generalization and is absolutely not directed at you.
** Why so many disclaimers? I'm from the South-Eastern United States and am accustomed to being attacked for expressing my political opinions!
No comments:
Post a Comment