I believe that the availability of public media is essential to a successful and thriving community. Public media distributes important information about culture, crisis communication, city services, and community resources. All of this information is distributed through TV, radio, print media, and the internet, and plays a major part in bringing communities closer together. Without public media, communities would not be as well connected and would not work as a unified system. People would not be warned in time if there was inclement weather or a natural disaster. They would not know where to find information about their communities public leaders or new laws. People would also have a much more difficult time learning about local cultural events and entertainment which can play a large part in shaping a community and its citizens. Without public media, our world would be stuck in the dark age. Therefore, public media is one of the most important aspects of a community and a vital part of its future and growth.
According to Norris and our online reading, an overall disaster readiness strategy is created through the development of four “primary sets of adaptive capacities”. These capacities include, “Economic Development, Social Capital, Information and Communication, and Community Competence.” Now to me, this all looks like a bunch of mumbo jumbo so before we get into the communication techniques aspect of these capacities and how they might be used to create community resilience let’s first define what community resilience is. According to Norris,
“Community resilience is a process linking a network of adaptive capacities (resources with dynamic attributes) to adaptation after a disturbance or diversity.”
OR according to Norris, other individuals have their own way of defining community resilience as well. He references:
My favorite way to define community resilience comes from the document (also pictured in Norris’ work) by Egeland, 1993. They define it as,
“The capacity for successful adaptation, positive functioning, or competence…despite high-risk status, chronic stress, or following prolonged or severe trauma.”
So now with this basic understanding of making a positive recovery from a tragedy we can move on to what communication strategies might be used in doing so. Norris touches on aspects of communication that we have discussed in class in terms of getting a message across. He addresses the importance of correctly relaying correct information, using a trustworthy messenger who reflects the values of the community, and how to relay the information. Norris references September 11, 2001 in identifying strategies for communication. He writes,
“Communication infrastructure is also a valuable resource. On the basis of their experiences in New York City after the September 11th terrorist attacks, Draper et al. (2006) maintained that it is advantageous for a life-line (or hotline) system to be in place beforehand. These communication systems can be ramped up after the disaster to coordinate and deploy volunteers, and later they provide a central means for the pubic to learn about and access services (see also Norris et al. 2006). Media also can be engaged to publicize available services and educate the public about typical reactions to disaster (e.g., Gist and Stolz 1982; Norris et al. 2006).”
Norris calls attention to the common crisis communication theme of planning beforehand. This helps create order when everything appears to be out of place. Additionally, he references the media as a communication strategy. What better and faster of a way to disperse information than through the media. In class we have discussed television and radio usage but most importantly the use of social media as a communication strategy. Facebook and Twitter are phenomenal means to get a message to the public, and fast.
Now how do all of these add to community resilience? The answer is simple. Through the planning ahead communication strategies not only is restoration much easier to achieve but so is dictating how to restore, what resources are needed, and where to locate them. The strategy of media and more importantly social media enhances these objectives. Additionally, social media can serve as a network to establish advocates in the community, a mean for volunteers to be in the loop, and for those affected by the disaster to find comfort and hope. It is through these strategies that community resilience is able to and can be fully achieved.
Time does fly QUICK! I can’t believe we’re already wrapping up a semester and writing the last blog post.
This class has provided so much information and knowledge about US politics and the relationship between media and politics.
As being a korean lived most of my life in Canada, I had little or shallow knowledge about politics at all. Taking this class was definitely helpful understanding what i was lagged behind of the areas as well as increased interests toward what i was not so much interested about. Political satire/comedy shows are the first example. Prior to this class, i thought these shows are just political junkies, which all they do is acting as an opponent of government and creating the hostility amongst citizens. However as i was watching these shows to understand them in order to write blogs about, i realized that i had wrong ideas. I found that these political satire are not only helpful to keep up with current political issues but also to increases the sense of critical views of issues our society has.
I found it extremely interesting that changes and patterns in trends of political participation through the decades have closely related to the changes of technologies. Invent of printing press and broadcasting once assembled the citizens to politics and in turn, media and journalism was well respected in 1970s and 1980s. However beginning of 1990s journalism became the least respected institution in the society and until now. And as its interests dropped people’s participation to politics dropped as well. Then the new medium, the internet has appeared. while it may or may not recovered people’s respects toward journalism it definitely played a crucial role in increasing the political participation. Through working on my research paper, despite my agreement on Sunsein’s arguments on Republic.com 2.0, i realized that the internet have played a big role helping building democratic.
Over all, i have had a great experience in this class. I have learned and developed knowledge about political communication a lot that i will need and will help me as a student and an educated constituent.
Democracy, if you think about it, is kind of a like a Pokemon. You start off with one creature in one shape with one set of powers. You nurture it, play with it, come to know it intimately. Somewhere down the line, you realize that you can’t cope with external pressures anymore. Your Pokemon evolves because you needed it to, because you’ve taken care of it long enough to see it change into a creature that’s more helpful.
Okay, so admittedly, I’ve never played Pokemon and even as a fifth grader, I was utterly disdainful of everyone who had the trading cards on the playground. The point is the same, though–Democracy, as an institution, as a bureaucracy, has evolved over time and with it, so has the role of the Democratic citizen.
The 20th century was a time of rapid change for our democracy. The Progressives limited the power of the political party, political parties realigned their values, women gained the right to vote, the voting age was lowered, television won Kennedy the presidency, and Vietnam rocked the political world. To be a democratic citizen in the 20th century depended entirely on when you were being a democratic citizen.
Initially, the responsibility was simple–vote. Listen to the President on the radio, register with your political party, turn in a ballot and vote for the candidate determined by your party. If you had political discussions at the dinner table, good for you.
Nixon, Vietnam, the war between the Democratic and Republic parties–the 1960s-1970s changed the very face of our democracy and, with it, the responsibilities citizens had toward it. The media became much more critical of our government, television afforded publicity and gave a face to Washington D.C., so when Nixon’s “betrayal” and the entry into Vietnam rocked the surface of our democratic trust, so it changed the nature of political participation as well. Suddenly, the importance of democratic participation did not rest solely in voting or just consuming what the President said. Suddenly, democratic participation meant analyzing the government’s actions–being a critical consumer, if you will–and protesting when you disagreed with it. Nixon and Vietnam ushered in a wave of democratic participation and activism fueled by a suspicion of government that hasn’t fully gone away.
The difference between the protests that stemmed from Vietnam and protests in 2010 is not a very subtle one. Signs, protests, and organized marches on Washington mall are still heavily favored, of course, but 2010 has something that the 70s did not have–the Internet. The fundamental difference between Democratic citizens today and our parents is that we have a multitude of forums through which to protest and participate. Participation is no longer simply a black-
and-white exertion of physical effort. Sure, you can march in downtown Los Angeles for immigration rights or through Washington for some misbegotten Tea Party movement, but you can also begin an awareness campaign on Facebook, you can have political discussions on online forums, you can Tweet live pictures, and organize Rock the Vote parties.
With this expansion of opportunities, of course, has also come an increased expectation of what entails a real Democratic citizen. It’s not enough to vote anymore, it’s not enough to simply watch televised debates anymore. To be a well-respected, well-involved, active citizen in democracy–American or otherwise–you have to participate tangibly, visibly. I suppose it’s just as well that Google, Twitter, forums, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and Tumblr create pressure to be involved or at least well-versed in current events and politics, because with Google, Twitter, forums, blogs, Facebook, YouTube, and Tumblr eating up our extra time, we certainly need that easy-access forum to participate at all.
That’s not to say, true political participation can’t be completely avoided regardless. You might fail miserably at Jeopardy and be judged from here to the coasts and back, but it is, I assure you, entirely possible. I wouldn’t choose it as an alternative, though. Seriously, take five seconds to read Obama’s platform on a blogging site and go vote. Really, it’s not that hard. xoxo!
As a budding communication scholar, Cass Sunstein’s book Republic.com 2.0 is a book that should be understood by all communication scholars (especially one’s in development). Confession: I do not like reading. Additionally, if I am not previously interested I really do not like reading, but I must say after sitting down and forcing (yes, forcing) myself to read the first couple of chapters I understood the views, concepts, and opinions of Sustein and other cited authors. So, my initial reaction was surprise followed by a bit of enjoyment. The ideas introduced were more commonly understood than place in reference to other activities. For example, looking at polarization, or group conflict, and other areas such as sports or other entertainment – we all know those can get messy.
Is partially from my willingness to play devil’s advocate – simply put I like to prove people wrong – that my favorite part of the book is half way through when Sunstein begins to argue and disprove (or reject) the claims of views from other authors. Two things stood out to me just as they stood out to other readers. He believes that we (more directed towards the American government) should not regulate or even attempt to regulate the Internet. He goes on to further explanation that the Internet is already regulated by Lessig and that our society is built on democracy and regulating the internet, which is strongly correlated with our right of freedom of speech, would contradict the morals our nation was built upon. Sustein, yes, he is the man (#winning – check this out!).
My recommendation for this book would come from my perspective as a scholar. If not a developing communication scholar, I can honestly say they can live without the book. If one has become more interested with communication and the theories and opinions behind it, this book not only clarifies but strengthen my…to read and research a little bit more. The title of the book through me off a bit at first, but now that I have further understanding it is fitting, however, my recommendation would not come from this alone.