With a seemingly limitless supply of news at our disposal, how can we (as individual citizens) ensure that we dedicate our time to consuming the most important (as well as the most accurate) information?

There are many different ways to get one’s daily dosage of news; there’s the television, the radio, the internet, and of course, the newspaper. However, often times people feel that the information they are consuming from the news lacks accuracy and many of the important details. The truth of the matter is that the news isn’t always accurate and doesn’t always have all of the important details on a story. For this reason one must put in a bit of extra effort and do a bit of research on their own in order to obtain the most accurate story that they possibly can. Unfortunately bias is inevitable, and one cannot solely rely on one source to get all of their news from because most of the time they will only be getting one side of the story. The solution to this problem comes with time; there is no quick and easy way to attain a perfectly unbiased, completely accurate, and carefully detailed understanding of any news story. One must be wiling to explore their options, they must be willing to get out of their comfort zone and try reading a different newspaper or watching a different news channel. By doing this they will get a sense of the different attitudes and views of the various news sources available to them. Once one has tested the waters they can then apply their knowledge of who’s biased towards what and seek information from opposing sources to build a more accurate stories for themselves as well as their own opinions. The internet, although it may seem a bit intimidating, is actually a great resource to use because its fast, efficient, and holds an enormous amount of information. By using the internet one can find many different sources, opinions, and stories to help build their own personal and accurate understanding of the news. The key is just being willing to set aside the time to check out a couple of different websites that will provide different views on a certain topic.

-Georgia Nicholas

Is bias/subjectivity an inevitable part of the news? Why or why not?

In response to this question, I am inclined to believe that bias/subjectivity is an inevitable part of the news.  First and foremost because Gladstone, in her work, “The Influencing Machine,” dedicates pages 61-70 for outlining “the biases [she] believes [we] should worry about” (Gladstone 61).  While speculative, I am sure that she would not take the time to do such if she did not believe that bias/subjectivity was an inevitable part of the news.  Secondly, Gladstone goes on to assert that commercial bias is the biggest bias because “news needs conflict and momentum” (Gladstone 62) so that the news stays new. When observing news outlets, they “too rarely follow up on stories they’ve already reported” (Gladstone 62).  In my own experience when watching the news, I too feel as though the stories being reported on last much longer than necessary.  One example is a local tire-slasher in Philadelphia.  Over Christmas break a man was arrested for slashing tires across the southern district of Philadelphia.  By the end of Christmas breaking, having heard this story daily, for more than a week and a half, I thought the story would be put to rest.  I remember going home for mid-Winter recess and hearing a news report about this man’s trial and how he was claiming mental insanity for slashing people’s tires – the story was not terminated for week almost two months, according to my mom.  These stories appeal to the human nature that craves the sensational news deviating from the factual and becoming that similar to a novel.

Finally, bias/subjectivity is an inevitable part of the news because news is a subset of the media, thus it is an enterprise.  The goal of an enterprise is to gain capital, therefore by using the commercial bias or any of the biases, which Gladstone outlines; a news outlet is attempting to maximize their capital gain by obtaining higher viewer ratings.  In short, these biases help to expand viewer demographic thus fulfilling the latter. Bias is inevitable simple because of the nature of the news, human nature and, frankly, because Gladstone asserts such an argument.

-Akaash Agarwal

What responsibilities do media producers have to their consumers?

Media Producers have many responsibilities to uphold to their consumers. The most important responsibility they have is to instill trust. Before becoming a well-known source, media producers need to build a strong growing relationship with the public. If people do not trust the news outlet, they will have no reason to continue watching or paying for that specific program. Why waste time and money to learn falsely reported news? If media producers do not take time to ensure that their consumers trust them, the producers will end up losing consumers and dropping in ratings. People want to watch accurate news. The public does not want to be responsible for spreading a false story that they heard on the news. Naturally, people want to be the most informed first among their peer groups. One gains a sense of self-pride from it. If a news outlet began reporting false stories, their consumers would slowly make the move to another media outlet. Overall, trust is the most important responsibility media producers have to their consumers.

The media producers also have the responsibility to continue providing the public with updates on old news and brand NEW stories as soon as they occur. They have a responsibly to report on stories first before any other news outlet covers it. The faster they report new stories, the more consumers they will gain. For example, on each presidential election night, each news channel is racing to call the results of each state first; however, the media producers must be responsible and careful in what they put on the air. Once put on the air, it can never be revoked. If they are to predict a state wrongly or much later than their competitors, their consumers will be very angry and change the channel. Therefore there is a constant race and battle to be the best and the most accurate.

The media also must be responsible in ensuring that they make their consumers feel safe at all times. This involves interviewing specialists and analysts related to the current crisis that has occurred at the time. This is important in helping to calm the public down after signs of threats or outbursts of crimes or diseases.
- Celine Olcott

Are we a better republic and better voters because of the development of digital/social media?

Wether or not we are better voters because of the development of digital/social media or not really depends on a couple of factors. Wether the canidates effectively use social media or not and wether the voters use social media or not. These two factors vary all across politics which makes answering are we a better republic and better voters difficult. Overall I would say social media does make us better overall voters, although not all voters and not all politicians utilize social media for those who do it most certainly enhances the overall voting experience.
Digital/New Media is changing politics, almost every action and every word politicians say can and usually is put up on the internet for the world to see. This creates a very "informed" public, a lot of the information is valuable and helps make better voters but some of the information is useless and, if anything, makes us worse voters. For example in the forum on tuesday when the guests were asked who utilized social media the best out of the three canidates there was an agreement that Romney was utilizing it best out of the republican party. He tweets and shows useful information about his politics and where he stands on certain issues. Canidates like Romney help create a much more informed voting public and its because of people like him and Barack Obama that I beleive the social media is making better voters overall. Where the counterarguement comes in is when the public receives social media from politicians such as Sarah Palin. When her name was brought up at the social media forum the three guests laughed and basically said her social media was entertaining but in no way was useful to their political mindset. Other then the actual content I think more people need to get involved with social media for it really to become a factor in the way we vote. I for one, was not really aware of the social media options available to me, I didn't know there was so much political information and knowledge waiting to be learned from simply making a twitter and following the right people. I feel as though many people are in a similar situation and they need to be shown, as I was, the usefullness and information that social media can offer. Overall I think social media does help us become a better republic and better voters but if we could also improve on the content and the amount of people using social media it would be an even bigger factor to our republic and our voters.

Traditional Media Vs. Investigative Media and its Effect on Politicians

America trusts in its people to vote responsibly, which is essential for an effective democracy. This means that the country’s voters should be encouraged by the media to examine the personal lives of candidates for political office to evaluate not what they are, but who they are. In Roosevelt’s four terms as president, the people’s confidence in him may have been reinforced by the media’s tentativeness to photograph him above the waist, not displaying his handicap, but his wisdom, swift decision-making and resilience of character are the traits that allowed for his sustained support. In other words, a front-page photo portraying his paralysis would not have received nearly the equal negative affect on his image as his leadership and eloquence added positively. This is because candidates receive political office based on merit, not appearance.

Former president, Richard Nixon and former congressman, Anthony Weiner are clear examples of people whose true characters were brought out by the media. The explosion of media regarding Weiner’s sexting scandal and the intense Watergate investigation allowed American voters to realize that they had inaugurated disingenuous men each of whom must have claimed to stand behind family values. By shedding light on their scandals, the media can share the facts with the people who then have the opportunity to elect someone new (in the case of Weiner). This lets politicians know that they must the live under the same standards they encourage while campaigning and encourages voters that democracy still exists.

Respect for privacy by the media is valuable for everyday Americas, but for those running for important political office, they must know that they are subject to high expectations and their flaws will be noticed. If their imperfections, whether physical or action-based outweigh their strengths and become a significant distraction or impairment to their jobs, voters must be trusted to take responsible action, and investigative media helps them do that.

-Luke deWilde

What Responsibilities Do Media Producers Have to Their Consumers?

Media producers play a vital role in making sure that the business that “the media” conducts satisfies and keeps the consumers interested. The responsibilities that media producers uphold are: to make the news feel evocative, entertain the audience, educate the public, and most importantly to give consumers options. By making the news evocative or, in other words, making the audience feel connected to the story, the consumers are more likely to enjoy what is being produced because they are able to identify or relate to the situation presented. For example, if a news broadcast presented a documentary on diaries of people suffering in Darfur as opposed to just statistics being rambled off, the consumers are going to feel more compassionate and intrigued in the story. However, I feel there is a grey area in the media between entertaining the consumer and educating the consumer. After all, the main role the media plays in our society is a business designed to educate and entertain. Where do we draw the line? This is a tough commitment media producers endorse to the public, to provide education and entertainment, because when dealing with a broad heterogeneous audience it is hard to please most people with more education rather than entertainment. I believe that the media producers have to find ways to present “the boring news” in lively new ways to diminish the line between entertainment and education and simply make it one.

Lastly, when reading Republic.com 2.0, Ch. 1 I discovered another responsibility the media had to their consumers: giving the viewers options, but not so many options that the viewers become a narrow-minded type of audience. The book explains that this is another hard situation to deal with because how do you offer different types of options, but at the same time have to be careful with the amount of resources that you do offer so society doesn’t lose the sense of Democracy and free-speech? If people are given too many options they begin to listen and speak only to the “like-minded”. With evolving technology, the media has to be careful with the resources they provide to the public to avoid people obtaining tunnel vision instead of getting a holistic view, which is ultimately idealistic. To wrap up, media producers have difficult responsibilities to make sure that they remain in control of their business to avoid the collapse of democracy and the rise of extreme racialists, but also have to keep their business entertaining, educative, but also evocative. That is quite the job.

-Brittany Marien

Should the news be personalized? Why/Why not?

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