Theories

I thought the third group’s presentation about theories was fascinating. They discussed the Illusory Truth Effect, Confirmation Bias, Gatekeeping, Agenda Setting, Overton Window, and the Spiral of Silence. 

Illusory Truth Effect:
First, they covered the Illusory Truth Effect and how if people have seen information before then they tend to think it is accurate simply because they have been it before. For example, a statement that is repeated enough in the news tends to be perceived as true even though it is not. In Laura Galante’s TEDTalk, she talks about the illusory truth effect as the validity effect, truth effect, or reiteration effect. The more one hears the same news repeated over and over on TV, the Internet or on social media, the more likely the person is to believe that it is true. 

Confirmation Bias: 
Group three also talked about how confirmation bias is an individual’s inclination to try and understand evidence being presented as validation that their current belief or theories, regardless if it is accurate or not. With confirmation bias, once a person forms a view about something, they hold onto what they believe and look for information that confirms their view while ignoring contradictory information. A good example of when confirmation bias can be seen is peoples view on gun control. Whether a person is for or against gun control, they tend to search for and read the stories that support their belief or make interpretations of a story to support their views. Growing up I would hear, “oh, people hear what they want to hear” or “people are going to believe what they want to believe.” It was just a way of saying that people tend to interpret information in a way that confirms their beliefs about topics in the news. Confirmation bias can make people tune out others when they are not aligning with their beliefs or way of thinking. Interesting, the phrase, “Fake News” is circulating but maybe what is happening is that reporters and journalist are only researching and interviewing witnesses and experts that support and affirm their view so maybe we should be saying, “Confirmation Bias.”

Gatekeeping:
Next, the group talked about gatekeeping, which is the method of choosing, and then filtering, the content of media that is viewed within the time and space the person has available. A gatekeeper determines what information is allowed, and what is not allowed, to proceed past the "gate" to the people. Based on the preferences of the receiver the gatekeeper decides what information should reach them. The role of a gatekeeper is even more critical now since we have an abundance of ways to get news from TV, the Internet, and all kinds of social media platforms. There is a rise in outlets for which anyone can relay the news to the public. People are hearing breaking news before the information has even had time to be processed for truth and accuracy. Gatekeepers help bring out the truth and uphold professional standards. In a society where a significant portion of our news can come instantly from various social media platforms, the public needs a media gatekeeper that they can count on for accurate and credible information.

Agenda Setting: 
Agenda setting is the ability of the media to impact what issues are viewed as important by the public and is considered to be a powerful influence that the media possesses. According to the presentation, agenda setting by the media can even go as far as to influence the focus of presidential campaigns. In 1972, the first examination was done in a study by McCombs and Shaw, who were researching the 1968 presidential campaigns and their primary emphasis was on awareness and information. The McCombs and Shaw study found that what the public saw as important issue for the 1968 US presidential election was what they were most feed from the media. As media has evolved so has the public’s relationship, need, trust and distrust of the media. The media plays a role in shaping politics by what they choose to put in the news and how much time they spend on that news. Through a multitude of ways, the media can shape the attention issue receive and of their importance. The media effects what people think about based on what they put in the news about our economy, society, politics and even science. Agenda setting by the media popularizes what issues become the focus of the public. 

Overton Window:
The Overton Window is the range of views on different policies and agendas. These views change overtimes based on who is holding political office, social norms, and values. In 1990 in a conservative think tank in Michigan, Joseph Overton explained that public officials have to choose policies to campaign on that are politically acceptable during that time period. The window of opportunity will come and go depending on the economic and social tide. For example, at times thought radical and other times thought appropriate to discuss would be issues such as women voting, animal rights, climate change, immigration and Medicare for all.

Spiral of Silence:
The Spiral of Silence, which was proposed by a German scientist, says that due to a person’s fear of being alone, they will not voice an opinion that goes against popular opinion of the group. The theory proposes that when it comes to public issues, individuals who think they have an opinion that is in the minority will stay silent, and those who think their opinion is in the majority will be more likely to discuss their opinion and the issue.

Privacy

In his Ted Talk, Your Online Life, Permanent as a Tattoo, Juan Enriquez, compares an individual’s online presence to having a tattoo, both very permanent. The data of what everyday people so online is now being saved, not only is it a person’s online activity but their face too.  Enriquez uses the example of being in a bar and taking a picture of someone, and because of their ‘electronic tattoos’, you know everything about them before even saying anything. I am a private person so find this terrifying. It also made me feel uncomfortable to learn that there are companies who link your photograph and social media to know your likes and dislikes for people to then know what to sell you, as seen in Enriquez example. 

The next alarming Ted Talk was by Catherine Crump, the Small and Surprisingly Dangerous Detail the Police Track About You. She discussed the fact that the police are gathering information on the public via mass surveillance. Using location tracking the government monitoring where people are going in their daily lives, and combining the information to see how people interact. It is unsettling knowing that there is collected data on a person's daily travels. Modern technology has given the police the tools to acquire enough information the make a conclusion about the type of person you are. Due to Automatic License Plate Readers, the police are keeping track of where people are driving. The example Crump gave is frightening, when Mike Katz-Lacabe asked the police about the data collected from the plate reader, they got: the date, time, location, pictures of him, and if he was with someone, their picture, and pictures of him in his daily life. Knowing that kind of personal information is out that is extremely unsettling. Not only are law enforcement agencies collecting data on the publics’ movements, but also using cell towers to locate people. Both of those data collecting methods are a massive breach of privacy, and I agree with Crump that this is a threat to civil liberties. 

The third Ted Talk was How to Avoid Surveillance…with the Phone in your Pocket given by Christopher Soghoian. This Ted Talk started out the scary statement that phone companies have be providing the government help with wiretapping for over 100 years. Advancement in technology has allowed wiretapping to evolve and is now companies have “surveillance features into the very core of their networks.” Thinking about that is chilling; the fact that most people’s main means of communication is wired prioritizing surveillance. Any phone call made could have another person listening. However, Soghoian said that Silicon Valley companies have not been allowing surveillance. In fact, they have been taking measures to try and prevent surveillance. For example, Apple is one of the companies that have done this. They claim that not even Apple can see the text messages sent from iPhone to iPhone or hear the audio from phone calls.

This has greatly infuriated government officials that have been able to listen to phone calls for over 100 years. Specifically, technology companies building in encryption features and turning them on as a default is what has made the government so mad. According to Soghoian, by doing this technology have democratized encryption, and by encryption making emails, texts, and phone calls hard for the government to get. This is good, the government should not be able to access everyday people's private information. 

Surveillance systems can be dangerous to everyday people since they can be compromised and then allow foreign or harmful entities or people to monitor people. This is a huge issue with surveillance technology and can put the safety of people at risk. There is no way of controlling who is going through the information, if they are good or bad, or have helpful or harmful intentions.  

Soghoian suggested that, and I agree, networks need to be built in the most secure way as possible. Encryptions will make wiretapping more difficult and also means police will have a more difficult time catching criminals. This would be creating a world where no one can list to people phone calls or read their texts. It would be horrifying to live in a world where our government, other government, intelligence agencies, or criminals could listen to our phone calls and read our personal messages. 

Confidential Sources

Confidential sources help to disclose information to reporters that otherwise would be hard for them to access. They reveal transgressions in the government and other organizations. Sources are more willing to share sensitive information with reporters because of  ‘reporter's privilege’ and ‘shield laws,’ which gives a reporter the right to withhold the name of their sources in court. According to the Society of Professional Journalist Code of Ethics, a journalist must take into account a sources reasons for wanting their identity to remain confidential and “reserve anonymity for sources who may face danger, retribution or other harm, and have information that cannot be obtained elsewhere.” Protection for confidential sources is necessary; otherwise, people would not come forward to share information. By using confidential sources, writers such as journalists, correspondents, editors, and anchorpersons can expose and enlighten the public on issues. In some cases, it causes the problem to be fixed due to public outrage or merely due to the embarrassment of having the transgression exposed.

Confidential sources are helpful to journalists in that they share information about wrongdoings or misdeeds of the government or other organizations. Since confidential sources usually come from within the government or organization, they have a unique perspective on the issue they are revealing. This can be beneficial in the instance that if a transgression is harming or affecting people in a negative way, by making it public, hopefully, it will be fixed or the action will be stopped. Confidential sources can be a negative when the information being shared with the reporters is not true. This deception could happen if a political party was trying to ruin the reputation of the other party, a policy created or a decision made by the opposing. For example, if one party sends a confidential source to tell a reporter that the opposing party’s new policy is polluting rivers when in reality it was not, is a negative use of confidential sources. The goal of this would be to have people believe the information about the river and tarnish the reputation of the party, the new policy, and even to have the policy removed. This is not a proper use of confidential sources. Confidential sources can bring to light corruption, but sometimes they can also be unethical in sharing information.

Reporters and journalists use confidential sources because many times it is the only way to get the information to the public. The sources can have different reasons for wanting to get their information out there in the public eye that can be beneficial to our society about illegal things going on that are entwined in the political and social fabric of our society. Many heated issues have been brought to light from confidential sources from Watergate to Trump. There are debates whether confidential sources should be guaranteed anonymity but without anonymity bribery, extortion, crime, and fraud can go undetected or unexposed. What a disservice to society if issues like corruption are not brought forward by confidential sources.

It is essential for journalists to make sure their source has accurate and truthful information. News travels so very fast and can be distributed across the globe in a matter of seconds. Untruthful or wrong information not only affects people but our commercial markets as well. Incorrect information can have consequences that fracture, divide and rupture people, places, policies and our economy. Wrong information from a confidential source can end up with lawsuits.

Any privilege is just that, a privilege. If a confidential source has information that is relevant to an issue that needs to be exposed, it is imperative that they get the information out there, but at the same time, we must guard the integrity of this so-called free flow of information to protect all.

Online Presence and its Effect

I use numerous different social media platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, and Pinterest. I would not say that I have a huge online footprint, I only post pictures or updates on Instagram and Snapchat, rarely on Facebook. I use Instagram the most out of all the different social media sites to post pictures of different places I have visited or fun events I have attended on campus. The idea of any anyone being able to see my posts bothers me, so I keep my account on private. That allows me to filter who follows my account and can see my images. A lot of social media platforms ask a new member for their phone numbers and emails. I try to avoid giving my phone number, but unfortunately, an email is necessary in most cases. 

I do think that social media can make people feel alone and depressed. I agree with the points made in the article from The Atlantic about social media making people feel lonely. The article commented that people “have never been more detached from another or lonelier” than they currently are with all the new social media platforms. One of the reasons people are so affected by social media is because they end up distancing themselves from real-time social settings. They feel a social connection but at a cost that sucks them into a world of isolation. With numerous "novel modes of socializing, we have less and less actual society” people think they are socializing through social media platforms, but in reality that does not satisfy their need for human interaction. They spend too many hours looking at social media in the digital world versus socializing face to face with the world around them and become disconnected.

Someone who spends so much time viewing others lives to a point where they neglect their own lives fuels their feeling of aloneness. Devoting a significant amount of time looking at others on social media and thinking that the other person has a fairy tale type life makes the user think others are happier and cooler than they are and thus they feel bad about themselves. Users see pictures of events or groups of friends for which they were not included making them feel excluded, sad and alone.

The more a person spends on social media, the more it becomes crucial to them and keeps them from engaging in person. Consequently, they are alienating themselves from much-needed human interaction. Generally, society has an interest in balance and spending so much time on social media instead of real interactions creates imbalance and isolation. When used appropriately, social media can be great for connecting with others, searching for work, promoting yourself, sharing ideas, seeing the news, finding old friends and making new ones. When misused, it can make a person feel sad, lonely, easily distracted or depressed.

Factors of Social Media

Social media plays a significant role in today's world. The innovation of Snapchat allows users to chat with their friends by sending pictures or messages. Users can also look at Live Stories being posted from all over the world as well as catching up on the news under the 'Discover' section of the app. Snapchat allows users to "experience the world in new ways, every day".

Snapchat created a communication channel that allows people to send pictures or messages that disappear after they are seen or read. When sending photos to another person as a method of communication users can add a filter by tapping on their face, switch faces with their friends, or have the ability to play a game. Once the picture is taken stickers or drawings can be added.

The passage of time has escalated Snapchat's popularity. The ability to send a picture and later a message and have it only last a short period of time is a function that has made the app in high demand. Even with the pictures disappearing people could still screenshot them. In 2011 Snapchat released an update that alerted people if another user took a screenshot of messages or photographs. Next, in 2012, Snapchat introduced videos on the app. Both of these updates in 2011 and 2012 made the app even more popular. Snapchat continued to grow in popularity as new updates were released "2013-2014: Stories and Chat," "2015: Discover and Lenses," and in "2016: Memories".

Snapchat has created a social network of people sharing their different interactions and daily life. It has made it easy for people to stay in touch with a friend who is far away and give them the ability to feel like they are not missing anything in each other's lives. In addition to creating a platform for social interaction, Snapchat is also a source for news from websites such as Cosmopolitan, People, Buzzfeed, National Geographic and more. This creates a network of people receiving the same information from the same source.

Eight Values of Free Expression

Checks on Governmental Power is an important value of free expression. Both the people and the press are part of checks and balances within the government. For checks and balances, there are three levels, federal, state, and individual, all keeping checks and balancing out one another, making sure one entity does not gain to much power. They all keep an eye on each other. The "individual' part of checks and balances refers to the press. The freedom of the press allows a citizen to be informed about the government's abuse of power. Once learning this information the citizen has the right to stand up and say no to the government, which can be done through speaking out. For example, this can be done through social media outlets such as Twitter or making a blog. Citizens can also stand up the governments misuse of power by voting the abusive government out of power or to change policy. 

The citizens of the United States have the final check on the branches of government. This is done by voting. Every two years the people vote on their Representatives, every six Senators, and every four the President. In addition, through these people voted into office they impact the composition of the judiciary. 

This is important because it keeps the government in check from making the mistake of trying to abuse their power. They know that if an abuse if made the media will share it with the people and as a result, the people will speak out against the government and if the abuse is bad enough use the ballot box to vote the government out of power. This keeps checks on government officials because they do not want to lose their power or be voted out of office.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions every year asking them to hear cases. In public courtrooms, important questions our nation faces are argued. The Supreme Courts authority is in the Constitution, but its power comes from the faith the public has in them to interpret the Constitution. They are expected to defend Liberty, protect the Union, and maintain the rule of law.

On the Supreme Court, the justices are appointed by the president and serve an average of 16 years, but some are on the bench much longer. Justices have a responsibility to the law, the institution, and to their integrity. The public has no direct capability to affect the decision of the court through voting, thus, showing the importance of the appointment process.

The Supreme Court is tasked with telling the president, Congress, and the States what they can and cannot do. After 200 years, the American people have acknowledged the authority of the court. When the government of the United States moved to Washington, John Marshall was named chief justice. For the first time in Marbury vs Madison the highest judicial power was used overturning an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Including this first time, the Supreme Court has deemed acts of Congress unconstitutional 182 times.

During the years Marshall was chief justice the court earned the respect of the public; however, 20 years later the court tackled the most troublesome issue in the history of the United States. Dred Scott, a slave who claimed he was a freeman under an act of Congress. The court ruled that Congress did not have the power to ban slavery and that black people could not be citizens. This decision is remembered as one of the darkest moments. After the Civil War, the constitution was amended adding the Fourteenth Amendment, telling states they could not withhold the due process of law or equal protection to any citizen.

The Supreme Court has to wait for the people to bring the issues to the court via petition in order for the court to do anything about the issue. When the Supreme Court hears a case, the lawyers on each side get 30 minutes to share their arguments prior to the oral argument. Currently, on the Supreme Court website, there are transcripts and audio of the oral arguments. Within a couple of days following hearing the arguments the justices assemble in a room alone to vote on the case. An opinion describing the legal reasons for the verdict is written by one of the justices on the majority side. Every other court will hold this opinion in future cases, these are announced in late June at the end of the term.

 

Free Speech and Boycotts

Long ago, Americans were given the right to exercise freedom of speech and free petition.  We have the right to speak our minds on a street corner and we have the right to choose whether or not to participate in a boycott. A boycott, divestment and sanctions movement called BDS has boycotts against Israeli companies, events, and businesses. Based on BDS’s website, they are protesting the treatment of Palestinians by Israelis’. Right or wrong, they have the free choice to boycott. Sen. Marco Rubio wrote a bill that is under much debate. There is a provision in this foreign policy bill that would give states a right to punish companies that boycott Israel or Israeli-owned companies. Here stands the violation of free petition. Whether for or against boycotts, once our government allows states to punish Israel boycotters, freedom to petition is at risk. The issue of free petition is not an international issue, nor is it a conservative or liberal campaign issue; it is a First Amendment issue. Plain and simple, federal protection allowing states to penalize or punish non-violent boycotting is an encroachment on free petition. Whether one is for BDS or anti-BDS, it is a personal choice and should not be regulated by punitive actions by our government. But then again, it never really is about boycotts or Israel, but more about the state of affairs between and among the Democratic and Republican parties. 

https://nyulocal.com/nyu-student-groups-endorse-bds-7a7de79a6808