Mainstream Media or MSM generally refers to where Americans get their news. Previously, news consumption of an individual comprised of a local newspaper, a local TV news station, and a national news station. However, as technologies have advanced, consumers are inundated with choices for news consumption. The outlets that comprise MSM can be a subject for debate, however, it is generally agreed upon that newspapers, broadcast news networks, and radio are the most typical. A study by the Pew Research Center found that Americans mostly agree that ABC News, CNN, The New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, and WSJ are mainstream media outlets. One thing that makes them stand apart is their multimedia approach and team effort to produce content. Meaning, they have reporters, editors, multimedia staff, etc. all working together. Additionally, they focus on many news beats and provide space in their publication or broadcast for advertisements. MSM is a business as much as it is a publication, driving its loyalties towards advertisers and the audience.
In theory, MSM is the gold standard for journalism. These are the publications that have paved the way for alternative media and multimedia content. They are the driving force that keeps Americans informed about many topics. Many of the staff members serve as a model for budding journalists to learn from and effectively communicate the truth of stories to their audiences. These news outlets are known for their credibility and content delivery. However, some journalists within these companies are giving power to bias reporting. So, if MSM is allowed to be biased, then alternative media can create echo chambers of conspiracies for some consumers.
In practice, MSM allows for bias and restrictions on the flow of information. It can give a voice to the voiceless and take power from the oppressed in one news broadcast. This is a reason why a good news consumer never examines a story from only one source, they must seek to create the full picture from multiple outlets. This will help them identify bias and form their own opinions. Also, the increased bias in mainstream reporting has created a deep distrust in the news media for consumers, making a way for disinformation or the so-called 'fake-news.' The MSM also must filter stories to best suit their audience, meaning lots of stories are left behind. The large audience MSM garners demands a certain amount of filtration of information. Certain issues will be ignored because of air space, print space, and/or general public disinterest. However, sometimes these stories are the ones that are the most important. The public will not know about a problem, without being informed of it in the first place.
That is why news consumers need both MSM and alternative media to coexist. Alternative media provides us with those unique perspectives that MSM misses. Though, the expertise and source contacts of an MSM company are unmatched by the alternative media. Both have their validity and their place in news consumption. Both push each other to be better and more innovative.
MSM as a whole typically requires some sort of cost to be consumed. So, those of lower socioeconomic
status have less access to MSM content. This means some people can be misinformed, not based on their disinterest, but because of their station in life. This would be the only option for gaining information before alternative media came into the picture. Now, alternative media provides a low-cost and often free alternative.
MSM was a constant presence and background noise of my childhood. My mother often watched the news as she cooked dinner and my father read the paper each morning. This, however, is changing. We now expect our headlines instantly and quickly, especially through mediums like that of Twitter. Though, we wouldn't have this without the print news writers that came before. For myself as a future communications professional, this affects the jobs that will be available to me. Will the big powerful companies be powerful when I enter the job market? Still, our society, democracy, and the spread of information are built on and around MSM.
I try not to think about online privacy too much, because it can honestly be overwhelming. I don't like thinking that all my information is tracked and stored. I have been on the internet almost my whole life. Only now am I beginning to consider the scope of the data stored. I think it is easier to sit back and be in ignorant bliss about privacy. So, I am taking this blog post to challenge myself and reflect on how I can do better to protect my data and how I can call for corporations and the government to do likewise.
I have long been told to be mindful of what I post online. My parents closely monitored my social media
posts and interactions. That goes well with Jaun Enriquez's idea of an electronic tattoo. These are permanent data pieces that provide information about who and what you are. Likewise, our phones have facial recognition and thumb print scanners that are stored and even shared to the government. That means we cannot hide from the immense facial recognition technology. A website called Face. com has 18 billion faces, all of which were sold to Facebook. This essentially means we are getting closer to immortality because our data will outlive us.
Sticking with the vein of mass surveillance Catherine Crump enables police departments to gather information about much of us in new ways. Police are able to make decisions about who they think we are based on our information. They have photos of us doing everything- even if we have not done anything wrong. The police hang onto it just in case the data could be useful one day.
Christopher Soghoian points out that our cell phones were first and foremost designed to be surveillance devices, but developers in Sillicon Valley have created encryption software to prevent this. Government officials are mad because the encryption features are turned on bydefault, keeping them from being able to listen at any point. Without this encryption, wiretapping does not discriminate. It can listen to my phone as easily as a drug dealer's phone. In the future police, will have a harder time catching bad guys but the alternative is that anyone can be wiretapped by people with bad intentions.
The notion that myself, my family and loved ones can be monitored at any point is nervewraking. Though I am doing nothing wrong, it feels like my privacy is being violated simply for monetary gain. Though, I still want it to be easy for 'bad-guys' to get caught. This makes it a safer place for my future. Still, if we let the government access our data now, as we become more dependent on technology we will loose much of our agency.
To be protected I think I need to be more stingy with my data. I will be making sure my devices have the encryption features turned on. Furthermore, I have been using a VPN more frequently to try and protect my data. My next steps will be phasing my browsing and work off of google apps and onto other apps. I think everyone should at the very lest clear their cookies and browsing history, if not take more steps.
Additionally, I think the government should allow encryption of devices to be the default of devices. Though, this would not be easy as many politicians want full access of people's data. At minimum, I think the government should stay out of our data unless they have probably cause to look into it mainly in the instance of law enforcement.
It is important to be an informed person about data and how the government and corporations might use it. This can allow you to be more vigilant about what you do online and take preventative measures to increase the amount of security and privacy you have.
The EOTO presentations were very impactful for me as it is not often I am taught by my peers. Hearing about the history of technology from varying perspectives caused me to learn a lot. One piece of technology stood out to me because of its pivotal nature to the distribution of information: The Printing Press. This presentation was given by my team member, Kayla Miller-Sissoko. She was very effective at communicating the ground-breaking nature of the technology.
The printing press allowed for printed content to be mass-produced for the first time. We accredit Johannes Gutenberg with the invention of the modern printing press in 1436. This is known as 'The Gutenberg Press.' Though, the first printing press is unknown but thought to be originally a block printing press from China in the fifth century.
The main problem Gutenberg was trying to address was to find a more affordable and effective way to mass-produce writings. Before the creation of the printing press, texts would be hand-copied or it would be very costly to produce them using technology. So, the Gutenberg Press was game-changing for the way information was spread and laid a foundation for many other pieces of technology.
Thus, the impact of the printing press was monumental. The printing press' invention and the subsequent commercialization allowed for improved distribution of ideas, books, and information. It was also very impactful to Europe's socioeconomic status. The printing press put an end to the middle ages and marked the beginning of the modern ages. The increased distribution of books led to an increase in literacy and communication. Though, the printing press was said to replace workers by doing the work they would have done during the Industrial Revolution.
Refreshing what I knew about the printing press was very informative for me. I think it is very interesting how this machine began the era of technology making things easier while threatening the livelihood of some. This mirrors each new invention of technology and its impact. Though, all of those would not be there without first the printing press.
When I think of antiwar voices, I think about the 60s and those that tried to 'stick it to the man' in response to the Vietnam War. However, today the US is intervening and invoking violence in more countries, but we don't hear those that say no. The news seems to glean over the perspective as well.
A screenshot from Antiwar.com
In the age of biased news, it feels that outlets are tiptoeing around antiwar stances. The news is happy to show the lives lost and costs incurred from a war, but not those calling for a full-stop. What if news outlets conceal anti-war voices for fear of seeming they are taking that stance?
The consequences of such for a news outlet could be losing important governmental contacts that are vital to their news story production. It may be a risk too large for an already struggling industry.
My original impression of antiwar voices is them being something of our history rather than our future. This seems to ring true when I visit the website Antiwar.com.This website's format seems like it has not been updated since its creation. I began to wonder if this reflects the voices that this website is portraying. A website of this appearance does not attract the younger generation. Though, they are the changemakers, the ones who will soon be making the decisions.
The anti-war movement of the 60s was driven by teenagers and young adults. That is who makes waves, who makes people listen up and pay attention. So maybe it isn't that the movement is being silenced but rather that the movement is in the hands of the wrong generation.
Protesters march in protest of the war in Vietnam.
I simply have not considered an anti-war perspective until now. My education has taught me that war brought freedom and change, but today's war seems different. The US had stakes in the wars that the American school systems celebrate, but the wars of today are that of foreign entanglements. The very conflicts we would not have involvement in if it weren't for our troops being on the ground.
I think the only way for anti-war perspectives to once again be heard is for the younger generations to make noise. If the anti-war movement becomes newsworthy, maybe these perspectives will be seen by more of the general public.
Artificial Intelligence is fast evolving into the technology of the future. Intelligence is no longer reserved for humans through machine learning. So, are robots really going to take over one day? A YouTube Original show, The Age Of AI, attempts to answer the question.
Artificial Intelligence involves humans teaching the machine and the machine then becoming smart. These machines are not programmed, but rather they are able to recognize patterns and learn themselves after their creation. One experiment into AI is known as Baby X. Creator Mark Sagar modeled Baby X after his own daughter and believes that starting at the beginning of human life is the key to understanding AI.
Most AI models have neural networks, which are simpler models of the human brain. Baby X, however, has brain nodes, Though, these nodes have a fixable intelligence that humans are able to relate to. Baby X is able to recognize and learn the names of objects through object recognition software. Basically, object recognition software is how a computer sees. Though, to recognize something Baby X must sift through all the data she has to find an answer. Baby X even has affective computing which is AI that interprets and mimics human emotion.
However, the question still remains, should we be afraid of AI? What are they really capable of. When I viewed the show and first laid eyes on Baby X, I felt a little uneasy. She is incredibly detailed and unrealistic. Humans don't like not understanding or knowing. We like to ask questions and get answers. A machine that we are not in control of seems unpredictable. Adding a human face to a machine adds an extra layer of reluctance. Do we want machines that look like us, think like us, and even emote like us?
The documentary argues that we have nothing to be afraid of. The rapper will.i.am is dipping into the world of AI as well because he believes that we are already a marriage of our data and our identities. So, why not have a second version of himself? As a result, he is working to create an avatar in his likeness. The main purpose here is that AI mimics human beings. Meaning their capabilities begin and end in the person they are modeled after. If this is true then we have nothing to be afraid of.
Still, AI is doing much more than creating a semi-creepy baby. It is also allowing nursing home patients to feel less lonely by providing companionship. It is also creating innovations in prosthetic limb technology by allowing amputees to move all 5 fingers on their prosthetic hands using ultrasound technology. I hope AI continues to innovate in ways that support human life but not to replace it.
For this blog post, I wanted to research a technology that I actively use but rarely consider the historical background and cultural implications. For me, that is YouTube. I often find myself watching YouTube videos for background noise, homework, entertainment, and many more reasons. So, as a daily user of the app, I think it is time I learn more about the company.
YouTube first launched in 2005 as a platform for users to share and consume content without restriction, a mission that has since been altered as the platform grows. Today, YouTube is the most popular video distribution platform on the internet. Every month 4 billion hours of video is viewed and every minute an estimated 500 hours of video content is uploaded.
The company was founded on February 14th by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim. The domain name, trademark, and logo were registered in their headquarters located above a pizzeria in California. The three former Paypal employees reportedly created the idea at a San Francisco dinner party in 2004 when voicing frustrations about the difficulty of sharing online clips. The three wanted a way for the general public to share their "home videos" (Hosch, 2021).
Originally, the founders wanted the platform to be a place where people would upload videos introducing themselves and saying what they are interested in. This, however, did not catch on and the idea was pivoted to the general sharing site we know today.
A little over a year later YouTube launched its beta version and the first video was uploaded. The video, which is included below, was uploaded by founder Jawed Karim and is entitled "Me at the Zoo."
Today, YouTube is known to be used by many companies for marketing. This immense marketing potential was first identified by Nike. The brand holds the title of the first viral video clip on the platform. The video was an ad that includeda clip of Brazilian soccer player Ronaldinho receiving a pair of Golden Boots. This video was the first to hit 1 million views on the platform. Nike was also one of the first major companies to embrace YouTube's promotional potential.
YouTube did not stop at user-generated content. Youtube Premium, formerly known as YouTube Red, was created in 2015. The service provides ad-free content to users as well as exclusive content such as YouTube-created TV shows and movies.
Since the promotional potential of YouTube has become an integral part of the platform. This, in tandem with YouTube's Partner Program and AdSense, content creates are able to have full-time jobs through YouTube. In 2006, Google purchased YouTube and helped continue the success by combining the site's current success with the search engine's large amount of internet traffic. Now, Google is able to target specific ads embedded in the videos a person watches. Additionally, in 2019 the website added a 'two-ad' feature. This means that the website can show two ads at once, increasing the revenue gained from videos.
Impact
Though full-time content creators seem ubiquitous today, YouTube was a game-changing platform that paved the way for the profession. It changed the face of marketing by increasing targeting ability. Meaning, specific groups consume specific YouTube content. Google has the ability to gather information about a consumer from other spots on the internet and put this information to use on YouTube. This served as a model for the social platforms to follow.
The platform itself was pivotal for the way information is communicated and shared. Class lectures often are incomplete without a YouTube video. We are able to look back on political events, listen to music, watch videos, and even produce our own content. YouTube was one step in communications big move to the users consuming and creating.
Though, YouTube is by no means perfect. The nature of user-generated content means content with misinformation or potentially harmful or dangerous content could be viewed. This problem has especially become evident with children and their use of YouTube. Due to the platform and others like it, children are being exposed to adult content at younger ages with little to no regulation.
Even if a child is consuming age-appropriate content, the YouTube algorithm could suggest inappropriate content to watch next because it mimics the elements of the previous content (Papadamou et al., 2019). YouTube has implemented an entire platform with parental controls known as YouTube Kids. A study in 2019 found that children are likely to encounter inappropriate videos when randomly browsing YouTube and that the current countermeasure is ineffective at detecting inappropriate content for children (Papadamou et al., 2019).
Additionally, like many of its social media counterparts, YouTube's algorithm is known to sway political views by pushing radical content that is concurrent with your content consumption habits, furthering the gap between the right and left. A New York Times article suggests that once one seeks information on specific topics, the algorithm is likely to suggest similar conspiracy theories about the topic you researched (Tufekci, 2018). This means any person that has access to YouTube, no matter how young is being radicalized as soon as they seek any information about politics. This is threatening to our democracy, as we need educated voters to make decisions.
Sources
Hosch, W. L. (2021, September 15). YouTube. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/YouTube
Tufekci, Z. (2018). YouTube, the great radicalizer. The New York Times, 10, 2018.
Papadamou, K., Papasavva, A., Zannettou, S., Blackburn, J., Kourtellis, N., Leontiadis, I., ... & Sirivianos, M. (2019). Disturbed youtube for kids: Characterizing and detecting disturbing content on youtube. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.07046.
For the current political climate and impending metaverse from the company formerly known as Facebook, Alexander Meiklejohn's participation in the self-government theory of free expression resonated with me the most. It has long been said that knowledge is power, and the restriction of knowledge systematically oppresses our power and freedom. This theory focuses on elections in that if candidates are restricted in their ability to communicate their ideas voters will not make wise choices in elections.
Immediately this made me think of the current restrictions on social media platforms against politicians, especially former President Donald Trump. On January 8th of 2021, Twitter released a statement that Trump is permanently banned from their platform in an effort to prevent more "incitement of violence." This was released in the wake of the January 6th Insurrection. Soon after, Snapchat also permanently banned the former president while Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, and Twitch placed indefinite suspensions on his account.
Now I must admit, following the images I saw on my TV after January 6, hearing Trump could no longer Tweet felt like a breath of fresh air. At the time it seemed that this was the first step to healing. Though, when reflecting on my status as a new voter I begin to wonder if I was ever really presented all the information before I cast my ballot. Did my peers and I glean our political stance from algorithms on the apps that occupy our free time? Why did I experience relief that from the silencing of an individual with equal standing with me in the eyes of the 1st Amendment?
Politics are increasingly becoming the most polarized they have been in U.S. History. One thing that could be attributed to this is the aforementioned algorithm. Algorithms are tailored to their consumer, and, in turn, they can persuade who you vote for. For example, the more content I like on Tik Tok that states the risks or rumors of the COVID-19 vaccine, the more content relating to that area will be pushed to me. If I am consuming anti-vaccine and potentially other far-right content each day, my opinions will begin to meld to the algorithm that was supposed to meld to me. These algorithms are driving us towards other users that think like us and away from those with differing viewpoints. This virtually eliminates any intersectionalities and similar views. So, when we come together to discuss politics in person the other view seems nearly outlandish because we are becoming inexperienced with viewpoints of opposition.
Approaching elections with the single viewpoint an algorithm fed to you has created almost political blinders for voters. They are simply unwilling to compromise because the only ideas they have a foundation for are the ones in their chosen political affiliation. In tandem with the algorithm, the censoring of politicians on social media makes being an informed voter a hefty task. One that the average voter is unwilling to tackle. So, what happens? Misinformed voters make misinformed decisions that place individuals in office that cannot follow through on their promises.
The participating in self-government theory also reminded me of the Netflix Documentary "The Social Delima." The documentary focuses mostly on the dangers of social media's impact on our lives. Though, the most relevant part is its point of how social media has created an echo chamber of opinions, diluting any potential of arriving at the truth. The documentary points that social media is a danger to our communities and to democracy itself.
This also made me think of Trump's very own social media platform that is currently in development entitled Truth Social. I began to wonder if this really would be the platform that reflected the values the government promised in the 1st Amendment. Though, these values do not have to be lived out by any organization other than the government itself. I soon discovered the very forum that prides itself on "truth" will support censorship on their site. They will implement the very thing that seems to be its antithesis. The social media site's terms of servicestate that it will remove posts that “disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site.”
All this makes me realize that I have undoubtedly developed my political opinion from social media. My political opinions seem to be moving further and further away from that of my family. Though maybe that's not just part of growing up; it's part of being a user of social media. However, I cannot let go of the notion that I am an informed voter. I read the news, I consider the positions of candidates and I think about their humanity. Still, the very basis of my voting position may be built upon an electronic platform's manipulation. But maybe that is just what makes me more informed: I am aware that some of my opinions are not my own. Though, my coming from an informed position is under attack as censorship increases. I have many more elections still to vote in and so much more to learn, but a range of information is becoming more difficult to find.
This value of the free expression is teetering in the balance as social media censorship changes and evolves. Informed voters are paramount to the preservation of democracy, but too often information is gained from algorithms or not looked for at all. It will be up to the very people whose political ideology was founded on an algorithm to make the change.
Florida businessman secures unopened nostalgic 'Super Mario Bros. 2' game from auction for $88k.
Taylor Ann Hartley
Q News
An auction house handling an estate sale for a recently deceased Indiana woman said a sealed copy of the 1988 video game Super Mario Bros. 2 sold for a whopping $88,550.
Harritt Group Inc. said workers going through Patricia Martin's Floyd Knobs home to find items to list for the estate sale discovered a box of Nintendo Entertainment System games in the back of a walk-in closet.
The Lost Game
"At first glance, it was a comforting wave of classic Nintendo nostalgia. All the classics were there, Super Mario Bros, Duck Hunt, Qix, and even an NES console. So, we did what any children of the 1990s would do: we fired up the console and tested the open games. It was a great day," Harritt Group said in its description of the item.
"At a second glance, it was something else entirely. The seemingly ordinary collection included an extraordinary unopened copy of Super Mario Bros. 2."
The unopened copy of the Super Mario Bros. 2 game was assessed by Wata Games in Denver, which gave it a 9.8 A+ rating -- the second-highest score it could receive, the auction house said.
The game ended up selling for $88,550 to a Florida businessman.
Super Mario Bros. 2 came about after Nintendo of America deemed Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels too difficult for Western audiences, which led Nintendo to redevelop the Family Computer Disk System game Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic into a Super Mario Bros. game for the international release.
Earning Coins, Taking Names
In July, a sealed copy of the 1996 game Super Mario 64 set a world record in, when it was auctioned for $1.56 million.
An anonymous buyer paid the $1.56 million for a 25-year-old copy of Super Mario 64 in its original packaging, a record price for a video game, according to the auction house that sold it.
Heritage Auctions said that it received 16 bids leading up to and during the live auction on Sunday for the mainly pristine condition 3-D Super Mario game, which sold for about $60 when it was released in 1996 and was the best-selling game for the Nintendo 64 console.
Super Mario 64 is a 1996 platform game for the Nintendo 64 and the first Super Mario game to feature 3D gameplay. It was developed by Nintendo EAD and published by Nintendo. Super Mario 64 features 3-dimensional freedom of movement within a large open world based on 3D polygons.
The top bid was $1.3 million, according to Heritage Auctions, which added a buyer’s premium of 20 percent to the gavel price to bring the total to $1.56 million.
At the time, the price sent shock waves through gaming and collecting circles, even after a recent uptick in five- and six-figure sales of rare video games to investment-minded buyers.
The Legend of the Early Production Copy
The sale was announced just two days after Heritage Auctions said that an early production copy of The Legend of Zelda from 1987 had sold for $870,000.
The auction came just two days after the previous record was set by a copy of The Legend of Zelda, which fetched $870,000 on July 9, 2021.
The 34-year-old unopened copy of the “Legend of Zelda” was sold via auction, and it fetched $870,000 at Heritage Auctions. The still-sealed rare version of the Nintendo game was not opened since it was purchased in 1987, and it was one of the units that were made on limited production for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES).
“Legend of Zelda” is a popular game that was first developed and released by Nintendo in 1986. It is a fantasy action-adventure video game franchise that was created by Takashi Tezuka and Shigeru Miyamoto, who are famous Japanese game designers.
I have rarely given thought to the Supreme Court outside of my studies or their decisions like that of same-sex marriage being declared a right. However, after Tuesday's lecture and watching the video, I have taken away something that, for me, makes the supreme court a lot easier to understand: it is comprised of human beings.
I should point out that before watching the video I was aware that other people of my species made up the Supreme Court, but I never gave them any thought. The video revealed to me that the Supreme Court is comprised of flawed individuals that have a limit and are capable of being wrong.
John Marshall
Before I reflect more on my takeaways, I want to focus a bit on the founder of constitutional law, John Marshall. We owe our freedoms to the founding fathers, and we owe the maintenance of those freedoms to Marshall. Through the Marbury v. Madison Case, Marshall set the precedent that allowed the Constitution to be continually applied, even as the nation aged and progressed. The ability of the supreme court to expound on constitutional laws allows 'We the People' to expand beyond the small part of the nation it originally included.
As a result, the current Supreme Court Justices are equipped to draw their conclusions and consider if previous rulings were constitutional. This brings me back to my point about the court of fallible humans. The 9 Justices are only able to hear roughly 100 of the 7,000 cases that are brought to them each year. They have to research and draw conclusions on issues that will affect the entire nation. Though, the very law or decision the court might make will apply to them the same as their next-door neighbor. They have the freedom of the nation in their hands. As the video said, "The inside story of the court is that there is no inside story, it's people simply thinking."
My sheer appreciation for the Supreme Court has been renewed and refreshed through watching this video. The system only works because the court has earned our trust. In the same vein, as long as that trust continues, our freedom does too. Our freedom is only as good as the credibility and trustworthiness of imperfect humans.
