Blog 4: Public Media in Communities

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.

Blog #5: Community Resilience

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.

Blog 12: As soon as I finish this, I will no longer be a blogger

It’s hard to believe that the end of the semester is already here and that this is my final blog. At the start of this class, I really thought I would hate the blogging process, but it has actually been a great part of this class. I love to write, and the blogging assignments gave me the chance to express myself in regards to the topics we’ve been discussing.

Been wondering what exactly Political Communication is...it's this

Overall, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this class and the material we’ve covered. My favorite thing we talked about (besides all the Stewart/Colbert stuff, which I know everyone loved) was the book about Kennedy’s election and the Selling of the President book. It was extremely interesting talking about how the media was used in each of these elections to package the candidates and win over voters. As we are currently in the midst of rapid social shifts in regards to the internet and social media, it’s fascinating to look back at a time when TV and radio were the revolutionary new means of political communication

This is a book we read

I honestly struggled to come up with something irrelevant or boring that we discussed this semester. The one thing I can think of is the Sunstein book, Republic.com 2.0. While I understand why we read it, and there were definitely parts of it I agreed with, I found it to be very pessimistic. It was basically an extremely long-form method of saying that we should be cautious of the internet; I don’t feel like I needed to read an entire book to get that he was making that point.

Throughout the semester, I learned a lot about political communication methods, most of which aren’t things I had really thought about before I took the class. Last night, I found myself thinking about many of the principles we’ve covered this year while I watched President Obama address the nation about Osama bin Laden’s capture. He spoke and used his rhetoric to communicate this message to the American people in such a way that emphasized the achievement of justice, while at the same time promoted his administrations efforts.

Overall, I have enjoyed this class a lot. I love talking politics with intelligent and informed people, and this class allowed me to do just that.

...we also read this one

BLOG12. Last Blog (Already?)

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.

BLOG 11: “Democracy Now–Now Known As the Age of the Google”

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!

Blog 11: Being Democratic Today

So much drastic change has occurred since our parents and grandparents generations that being involved democratically has had to change along with this.  Because of the resources we now have through the Internet and technology, we no longer have to rely on the sources past generations have had to use to get their political information.  Yet these new sources also provide such a large amount of information that young people who have no interest in politics can just choose not to take in any political information and instead focus on other interests.

Part of the reason for a decline in use of common political news sources from the past may have more to do with the institutions themselves rather than a disinterest stemming from youth.  The following survey shows a gradual decline in trust in government over the past 50 years in the United States.

This decline in trust has a direct correlation with the polarization of parties that has occurred, which also ties in with the changes that have taken places recently in politics.  Because of the vast array of media sources we now have at our disposal, we can choose only the political information that pertains to our beliefs, if we choose to take in any at all.  This in turn creates stronger allegiances to our chosen political party than generations in the past were used to having.

While the media scene had exploded in our generation, creating more opportunity for involvement, in a 2008 Bennett article interest in political news appears to be declining in youth.  Yet with the large increase in use of social media, it is apparent that today’s generation is finding new ways to get involved and engaged in society today.  To further understand the ways in which young people get their political information requires a thorough look into the rising use of these outlets for communication and news intake.

SUSTEIN…He’s #winning

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.

BLOG 10: Democracy in the “Daily Me”

“The Daily Me” as described by Cass R. Sunstein is a phenomena by which we, today’s consumers, so narrowly customize our media, politics, and news consumption that we sow the seeds of our own destruction.

Perhaps Sunstein was not so overly dramatic about it, but his view of new media technology and its effect on the media, communication, and information environment is certainly a pessimistic one. “The Daily Me”, according to Sunstein, causes a plethora of problems including, but not limited to, a narrowing of the information environment and its diversity, decreased common ground and shared interest to act as the “social glue” in democratic societies, and providing a personalized forum for terrorists and other anti-Democratic groups looking to spread their word.

Republic.com 2.0 was certainly an interesting read, especially for a member of a generation that has virtually grown up in this “Daily Me”, personalized information environment. In the first few chapters of his book, Sunstein goes into detail about the importance of general-interest intermediary (GII) sources, such as public forums or newspapers–sources that require the consumer to consume more than just a particular brand of information. According to Sunstein, general-interest intermediary sources such as newspapers are important because the consumer cannot simply choose what he or she wants to read. In the course of reading a newspaper, the consumer is forced to at least acknowledge various news stories that she might not have otherwise chosen to read about.  Sunstein’s point in these chapters is that this exposure to a diversity of information is particularly important to democracy because it spreads knowledge, creates open mindsets, and allows citizens to connect to others despite differences.

Sunstein has a point. I enjoyed reading about GII, not only because I had never  thought about the newspaper’s role in that manner, but because he certainly has a point about the importance of exposure to diverse information. Where I fall short with him is the assumption that the internet and new media technologies do not foster similar opportunities. As any Wikipedia article-hopper can tell you, it is quite easy to expose yourself to a variety of different information online, whether or not you originally set out to do so.

The various holes in his arguments aside, there were two main problems I had with Sunstein’s book. The first is a comment on style. Sunstein often seems confused about whether he wants to express himself colloquially or pedantically. As far as style goes, Republic.com 2.0 was mostly understandable, although Sunstein’s tendency to throw in more complicated, academic subjects, written in a pedantic fashion, resulted in a book that wasn’t completely user-friendly.

“If the public is balkanized, and if different groups are designing their own preferred communications packages, the consequences will be not merely the same but still more balkanization, as group members move one another toward more extreme points in line with their initial tendencies”

serves as a stark contrast to sentences such as

“When I opened the email, I learned that the attachment was a love letter.”

While I appreciated Sunstein’s use of informal language and structure in example paragraphs, the jump between styles made the reading feel inconsistent and petulant.

The second problem I had with his book is more content-centric. While Sunstein never claims to want to provide a solution to the problem of the “Daily Me”, he spends over 220 pages outlining  a problem that he never gives a satisfying end to. “The Daily Me”, while interesting to read about and certainly relevant, is something a short paper could have sufficed to explain if Sunstein was not going to offer a plausible solution to this apparently earth-shattering problem.

His overly defensive language–he spends much of the time assuring “I have not suggested, and do not believe…” and “Nothing that I have said should be taken as an empirical argument…”–is uncomfortable enough to sift through, but add the constant repetition of themes and pessimism without mentioning counterarguments simply made the book long and his argument less credible, in my not-so-esteemed opinion.

Republic.com 2.0 definitely shed a new perspective–and a refreshing counterexample–to the ever-pervasive opinion that new media technology is good and only good, but I think the book could have been handled better. It could have been shorter, less repetitive, easier-to-read, and offered some kind of end solution so that I was not left, at the end, going “so what?”

I think to students of communications and political science, Republic.com 2.0 is a good book to offer new insight, but I would assign portions of the book, not the entire thing, to read. As for the average reader–I’m not particularly sure how much value they would glean from Sunstein and his analysis. Certainly not a bedtime story, anyway! xoxo!

Blog 10: Republic.com 2.0

I found the book by Sunstein Republic.com 2.0 very repetitive and somewhat boring. Without having to read it for class I probably wouldn’t have ever picked it up to read for leisure. However, I found that he did have valid points and that it was a easy read.I understand Sunstein’s main point of how new technologies are changing the way people give and receive information and how these changes mess with our democratic system.

The best part about the book was chapter one in my opinion. I thought it was interesting when Sunstein talks about how we can make our media however we want it. With technology (and he names all these websites) where you can put together all the media that your interested in.

Google news provides a case in point with the appealing suggestion that, “No one can read all the news that’s published every day, so why not set up your page to show you the stories that best represent your interest?”

Though I personally agree with this statement I understand how it could hurt democracy. I think of it like on my ipod I have ESPN and i get to pick my favorite teams to follow. So I follow my favorite basketball teams but not knowing how other teams are doing doesn’t help me when it’s time to see who has made it to the playoffs. We have to get all the information and not just ones that we are specifically interested in. His key points that discuss why we should not just receive personalized information are ONE: People should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance. TWO: Many or most citizens should have a range of common experiences. I learned in other communication classes how our field of experiences allows us to communicate with others better, because we all come from different places and different backgrounds.

My least favorite part of the book was the chapter when Sunstein says the internet should be regulated. I felt that he kind of contradicted himself talking about censorship and how there should be no government censorship, but then later makes that statement. I think all in all I would not recommend this book to anyone else. I didn’t find it a great read and I’m sure the people who I hang with wouldn’t find this a great read either.

 

Blog 10: Republic 2.0

Overall I did not find Sunstein’s book to be that interesting.The book was repetitive and reading about blogging was not my favorite thing. However, I do think that he made some valid points in his writings. The point he made about the internet isolating people was a good point. People have tendencies to seek out the information that they are looking for. This also means when trying to do political research they will for the most part read articles that argue on the side of their beliefs. He also talks quite a bit about fragmentation and how it can lead to polarization. He talks about how the extremist can become extremely wrapped up in their ways of thinking through the internet. However he also talks about how the general public can gain shared experiences through this. I thought that this was a good point. Since technology today allows us to customize  our settings to what we want people do not have to look at websites that go against their beliefs. This can be both a good and a bad thing. People are naturally inclined to search for things that interest them. I myself have found that I seek information that pertains to me, but since there is so much information floating around out there I tend to find myself on websites that talk about things I am not interested in.

The part of the book that I found most interesting was about the public forums. I think that Sunstein had an interesting view on freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something that we use everyday and most of us do not even think about what it means. Sunstein looks at freedom of speech not as what the government cannot restrict us, but that we have access to people and places to speak. He had three main points. He said that freedom of speech ensures that we have a wide variety of listeners, that we have access to specified people and institutions, and it increases the likelihood that people are exposed. I think that he makes a very good point in these sayings. If we have a problem with a company or a person the government provides us with the ability to go confront the person or peoples that we have an issue with. Most people do not think of free speech this way and I definitely think that Sunstein brings the whole concept into a new light.

Something that I did not like in the book was when he talked about censoring or regulating the internet. I do not think that the government or anyone else should be able to censor what the people can and cannot find. There are plenty of things that I would never want to look at on the internet, but that does not mean that I think that they should be regulated by someone else. Other than that I did not really have a problem with the arguments made. I may not have agreed with all of his points but I would not necessarily argue with them. Overall I did not particularly care for the book. I thought that it was repetitive and focused on blogging, which is not something I particularly enjoy reading about. However for people who are interested in reading about this topic it would be a good read for them. Below there is a cartoon I found funny. It really has nothing to do with the book.