#Ferguson

Area 1

It seems that one very considerable area of concern in the modern media climate (according to the text) is the rapid distribution of information. In the past, there was a certain buffer that preceded information like the Rodney King incident. The video was recorded, given to a source in the press, and data was gathered in order to methodically deliver more complete particulars of any noteworthy incident. With the introduction of the internet and the resulting exponential user base, that buffered delivery has virtually disappeared. People are no longer waiting on the morning paper, the morning shows, or the 11 o’ clock news. We began to pay attention to what we chose, rather than what was given to us. Emails, message boards, then feeds began to bring it even faster, and then came the proliferation of camera enabled cellphones. People were now able to see a vastly different world than they were used to, or had chosen to believe did not exist. Also absent in this new way of receiving information is the vetting process; when this information is received, is it accurate? What is the context? What are mitigating circumstances? Is the source of the information delivering in good faith, or are there other motives and biases at play affecting said delivery? The way a source decides to index a tweet with a certain hashtag can have unintended results, depending on a very wide range of possibilities.

Area 2

In my personal view, the benefits of the bleeding edge of modern media distribution are roughly equal to the negative aspects. The speed with which information is distributed and spurs on the beginnings of formative public opinions are haphazard at best; though, not without merit. A very large portion of the population was not privy to certain things happening outside of their own neighborhoods, and sometimes even oblivious within their own communities. The rapid growth of media technology and subsequent network sharing of raw media pulled back a veil that many had not previously detected, a window into the widespread plight of underrepresented communities that had previously been dismissed or unknown. People are still reeling from the initial shock of these goings on, and have decided to process it in one of three ways;

1.      They’ve either become or have been aware of social inequities, and are seeing many areas where the existing system supports said inequities.

2.      They’ve decided that the social inequities are somehow invalid, false, or brought on by circumstances created by these groups themselves, and that the system is viable.

3.      A group that may have leanings toward either perceptions, but feels that the situations are being largely sensationalized and are really not so different than things have been for years.

I find myself in the first of these categories. I feel that many are in disbelief of all that they have been shielded from, and have an internal struggle that cannot reconcile the values they had long been taught to them and what they see happening. What’s more, they feel a sense of tragic betrayal about the state of things. This group is reviled by the second group, a group that thinks the learned values are sacred and therefore anyone who falls afoul of those is getting exactly what they deserve. Anything contradictory to this worldview becomes irksome and traitorous, even threatening. We have recently seen the results of this ideological polarization play out a multitude of times; everything from protests and counter-protests, “cancelling”, doxing, physical assaults, and even acts of domestic terrorism have recently escalated and show no sign of slowing. With an election looming ever closer during a tumultuous year, it seems far from over.