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.