While offering many diverse news sources is a clear sign of a free, uncensored society, it should not be personalized. Personalized news does provide curious people with a many options. However, society cannot rely on everyone to be curious, and seek out news that may conflict with his or her beliefs. It is inevitable that people will seek out news sources that agree with their beliefs, reinforce their ideas, and make their beliefs more and more extreme.
An argument discussed in Sunstein’s book is that people must be exposed to unplanned, unanticipated encounters. The news is an entertaining stream of current events that are rarely anticipated. If one settles into a routine of only watching liberal news shows, or only reading about celebrity scandals, they will isolate themselves from the majority of current events, resulting in a society where general-interest intermediaries no longer exist. The news should be convenient and diverse. However, people should not be able to isolate themselves from their peers through one-sided news sources.
-Tricia
I agree in part that the news shouldn’t always be personalized; but there are times however where it is important that they are. Yes, it is probably true that some news shows when watched in excess by can cause extremists. Those that watch solely liberal programming will solidify their beliefs to a more left winged outlook than those who chose other resources. But not all programming causes this skewed perception. For instance, this upcoming year is huge in politics. With the war in Afghanistan, the debt crisis and unemployment sky rocketing, this upcoming presidential election will be one for the books. For that reason, it is important that we educate ourselves as much as possible. We must know where each candidate stands on the topics. If news programs weren’t personalized we would never really get too much information about each of the candidates. Because of programs like Meet the Press and This Week with Christiane Amanpour we are able to watch programming that is personalized solely to politics and the understanding of what is going on in the political world. The idea of personalization goes beyond politics though. For stations and programs like ESPN and Entertainment Tonight, the information given is personalized to a specific audience. It is personalized because not everyone wants to hear about how the Patriots are doing this season or what Sandra Bullock was seen wearing at last night’s award show. It is personalized because the people, who are interested in the matter, want to know all of the facts about it. Yes, while personalized news in excess might not be good for a society, news that is not personalized is just as bad. Personalized news is where people get specific information. If we didn’t have it where could we find the same detailed information?
ReplyDeleteAmelia
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the media should not be personalized on a large scale, but I believe on a smaller scale it is perfectly fine and wont have the damaging effect of creating a generation of extremists and racialists! On a smaller scale, such as iTunes' genius recommendations I believe is extraordinary helpful and not detrimental to the fate of our society. The same goes for TiVo or DVR, these devices allow you to personalize the type of entertainment you want to watch and also offers recommendations for new shows to watch based off the ones you already watch. Even though Sunstein seems to think that the small scale personalization in the media is merely stepping stones to completely personalizing all media and the beginning to the creation of an extremist generation, I beg to differ. Conflicts aren't going to arise in society because someone only listens to Britney Spears opposed to listening to classical music. Or an outbreak of a war because someone would rather watch the Jersey Shore than TLC's Toddlers in Tiaras.I think if you are personalizing your entertainment it is more of a small scale situation and society SHOULD be okay (even though a war between Snooki fans and Beauty Pageant Mothers would be quite humorous). On the other hand I believe on a larger, potentially on a more important scale such as politics is a completely different story. Sunstein mentions that technology has been created, such as DailyMe, to completely personalizes the news you read and exposes you to nothing but the type of news you agree with. To have be an educated citizen you should have exposure other views besides yours even if you don't agree with other people's opinions. It gives you a more holistic view on whatever situation it may be and it may give you a perspective that you may have never thought of before and lead you to change your views. If society reaches the point where Liberals are only exposing themselves to liberal media, the same goes for Conservatives, this is where I worry for the uprising of racialists and extremists. Im not saying that you personally should make a huge effort to seek other opinions, but be willing to slightly expose yourself to new media whether it is consciously or unconsciously. Skimming through a newspaper you might find an article that you may not normally read, but this is the exposure I'm talking about that will help our society! I recommend for our society's sake, we should avoid purchasing the DailyMe device (especially for trying to acquire education based media) and when dealing with entertainment based media stick to the smaller personalization tools.
ReplyDelete-Brittany Marien
In response to Tricia’s and Sunstein’s arguments, I would contend that personalized news should be available for those who want it. Those who choose to educate themselves via the news in the modern age should be given the benefit of the doubt in that they will examine issues from multiple perspectives. The fact is, people who want to understand the world should inherently understand the importance of understanding the other side’s arguments. Additionally, no matter how prevalent filtered news media becomes in our world, the “street corner” effect will always be there, at dinner tables, in common rooms and, yes, on the Internet. There’s too much content, for everyone not to be exposed to at least a smattering of all of it.
ReplyDelete-Luke deWilde
When you go to the store, you can be looking for anything that catches your eye or you can walk in looking for one particular item that you want or need. An audience has the same ambiguous motives in searching for what can be an unknown media outlet. Personalizing allows a consumer this freedom to take advantage of the innumerable sources of education, information, and entertainment. I can understand Sunstein’s argument that an audience should be exposed to unplanned and unanticipated information but how does limiting news outlets ensure the quality of the information being provided? An audience without options is only left to bank on the sole information they are given, so if for example, the only news station on a desert island was to tell its audience that a dog-human hybrid was born, how could they prove that their information is legitimate or not? If anything, permitting an array of media options gives the consumer the opportunity to take advantage of different perspectives. Whether or not an individual takes advantage of their options or chooses to stick primarily to the one media source which perfect aligns with their views is based solely on the judgment of that individual and no one can attempt to take control of that responsibility without attempting to inhibit a person’s free will.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, limiting options does not give way to the entertainment and education of all consumers. Different people want different things, and different classifications of people will have different interests. In order to meet consumer demand, media sources have to supply what an audience wants, meaning that a few sources won’t cover all demand. From a business standpoint, media companies can’t afford to meet one consumer’s demand and not the other because with one consumer pleased, there are still numerous ones still demanding something more from the media. The media is an ever-continuous cycle and putting restrictions on what the media can and can’t do not only goes against their freedom but also inhibits this cycle from going and prevents media businesses from continuing to grow.
Angelica
I agree that there should be a limit to the personalization of the news - a balance between what entertains (and attracts the audience) and what educates. Generally, people have the tendency to stay within their comfort zones, avoiding any clashes with the "opposition." Is it not true that people who follow the news today choose news outlets that match their views? While it is convenient for a soccer fan to go straight to the sports section to view the latest score, convenience is not always the best option. At least in part, the media should attempt to introduce audiences to topics that are outside of their comfort zone. Like experimenting with a new cuisine, exposure to new ideas can lead to self-discovery and diversified interests, which can in turn help the media (diverse interests = diverse ways to hook the audience).
ReplyDeleteWhile Luke presents an interesting point concerning the "street corner" effect, wouldn't people who turn to personalized news outlets also attempt to surround themselves with people of matching outlooks? While it is an idea that is worth considering, I do not see it as a dependable news outlet. Word on the street changes constantly as it travels from person to person: just look at rumors at St. Paul's and that much is evident. Media outlets are inevitably bias also, but the facts are more or less there. Unless there is a way to guarantee accuracy in the news "on the street", the news should be limited in personalization so that everyone really is "exposed to at least a smattering of all of it".
- Amy
I agree with Sunstein's assertions regarding what a "well-functioning system of free expression" must follow. Personalization of news is not only dangerous because each person is able to choose exactly what they want to see and ignore the rest, but because people allow other sources to do this for them, creating profiles and telling them what others with similar interests are looking at. This raises the question of the control these media outlets and special services have over consumers. Would you have chosen to look at an article or website if you had found it on your own versus being fed links by a service helping you to find out more about your own interests? Perhaps yes, but sometimes perhaps no. Are the producers linking to things that are really going enrich your education in your chosen topic or interest or are they merely directing you to a site or service that somehow supports them? On the consumer side, there is no way to know. This relates to Brit's post because the producer must have the integrity to provide not just information that will somehow profit themselves, but that will truly help the viewer's experience.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Tricia's reenforcement of the idea that too much personalization risks creating narrow-minded and increasingly radical consumers, a proven phenomena.
The question is: How can we allow personalization for convenience sake but still be exposed to unexpected and different points of view?
-Kateline
I think that personalization on a small scale is a good thing. As Britt was saying, If someone chooses to watch baseball over football, or Mad Men over Gossip Girl, it will not have a monumental effect on society. The key part is that people do not lose touch with general interest intermediaries. People who read these intermediaries "have a range of chance encounters, involving shared experiences with diverse others" (Republic 2.0 8) As long as someone is relying on one of these, whether is a Newspaper, or something read online, as well as their personalized news, they will be receiving a balanced amount of information. Reading something from someone else's view, or about something you thought you were not previously interested is always beneficial, whether it strengthens your viewpoint or forces you to discover something new about yourself.
ReplyDelete-Katie Beck
This is a very politically correct response but i beleive there is a time and place for both the news to be personalized and for it to be standard among everyone. For starters I beleive news should be able to be personalized by where you are in the world. I do not need or want to hear about local news from Miami Florida living in Montana, but on the other hand if I used to or am planning on living in Miami sometime it would be nice the personlize my news feed to learn more about the Miami area. I dont beleive news should be able to personlized to an absolute level. What I mean by this is if on a daily basis I only learn about sports news, but today there was a terrorist attack in the U.S the news SHOULD! tell me about that. Regardless of wether its on my regular scheduled programming or not. Other than bizzare and or extreme situations like that I don't think personalization of the News is a bad thing. If news is important enough people will generally hear about it word of mouth anyways, so if I just want to watch sports tonight I should be able to.
ReplyDeleteThe news being personalized would lead to a completely radical society. It is people whom only watch news that cater towards their views that ruin this great country. We need to face the fact that media outlets foremost goal is to make money. Any companies’ real job is to make money. Media is no different. However, seeing that the media is responsible for informing the entire general public of the happenings in the world, there should be some standard for what they can and cannot do. If the news were personalized, it would lead to a country full of complete radicals. If the country became full of radicals (even more so then we are now), it would further divide the American public, and could send the whole country into a complete downfall. Let alone the House, it would lead to the entire country being radicals and irrational “politicians”.
ReplyDelete--Browning
It's clear that the media being personalized would bring about untold extremism. I actually inadvertently talked about this in my comment on Brit's post. There is a fine line between providing diverse news and providing news interesting to the reader. The consequences seem to be apparent: diverse media leads to a more educated society while focused media leads to radicalism. Today it seems as if most news is leaning more towards the focused side of this spectrum, however there is still plenty of diversity out there for individuals to stay well informed without too much effort. I've got more to say, but the internet's got a solid 60 seconds left so i'd better post and bring my ideas to class tomorrow.
ReplyDelete-Austin
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tricia’s argument that news should not be personalized.
ReplyDeleteAs people limit their news feed to articles that reflect their same points of view, biases, and interests, they only amplify their existing beliefs. They lose their appreciation and tolerance for diversity of thought and their attitude about some ideas pushes towards extremism. That’s when it becomes dangerous.
While some may argue that the “street corner” effect will be there to moderate the effects of personalized news, that might not always be the case as producers of general interest intermediaries experience a decline in demand for their products.
Personalized news allows people to completely shut themselves off from any information outside of their interest range. In that regard, the news would be working as an isolating force instead of helping to connect people. As Sunstein points out, filtering already exists on a smaller scale in media selection, and we don’t need to take it to the next level.
-Julie
ReplyDelete