Research Project Presentation (News Article)

HATE SITES FROWNED UPON
By Billie Hiraishi

BELMONT – Hate sites should not be protected as freedom of speech under the First Amendment, that's according to a recent survey taken by college students at Notre Dame de Namur University in Belmont, Cali.

88% Of NDNU students believe that allowing individuals to write, post, and share their extremist views worldwide via the internet should be illegal and agree that “Such racist and judgmental sites should be removed and banned from any medium.”
For moral, personal, and/or emotional reasons, a majority of the students believe hate sites promote public misinformation.

Hate sites are websites advocating hatred towards other individuals or groups. These include social network pages, chat forums, and blogs. There are over 11,500 hate sites according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish h h uman rights organization that confronts hate and anti-Semitism.

Of the 26 students surveyed, 15 believe hate sites should not have the right to actively promote their beliefs online.

“It would be wrong to have a website recruiting individuals into their groups, but having a website where they just state facts about their beliefs would be acceptable,” said one student.

While 23 out of 26 students support freedom of speech as a Constitutional right under the First Amendment, it is speech specifically advocating hate that they do not support.

Over half the students surveyed believe that it is morally wrong for hate sites to create a social network page through sites like Facebook and Twitter. 16% of st udents believe that doing so would allow them to send their racist comments all over the world targeting prospective recruits.

But there are exceptions, says one student: freedom of religion. Adding that, “Catholic churches, along with other religions should be allowed to promote their religion online, but the idea of extremist groups promoting such racist beliefs is unsuitable for our society.”

When asked whether hate sites should have the right to post tutorials and video clips with bomb-making instructions, 21 out of 26 students said no.

Of the five who answered yes to posting tutorials, four of them were political science majors. All four students were in full support of freedom of speech for hate sites. One student commented, “We are a free nation, anyone should be able to write as they please.”

Research Project Paper

Billie Hiraishi
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics, & Society
December 2, 2010

Research Project:

Introduction:

According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism and promotes human rights and dignity reported that there are over 11,500 web sites, social network pages, chat forums, and blogs advocating hatred of extremist groups. The internet has become the primary media outlet most people in this generation use automatically, but anyone has the right to write their own opinion on a blog or create a website, and the issue is that under certain circumstances, individuals and groups take advantage of this right. I remember reading a short article in the spring of this year from the New York Times entitled, “Online hate sites grow with social networks,” which helped me come up with this topic. The article’s main point was to inform the public of how online hate sites are using online social networks to inform people about their group. The main online hate sites that I researched included American servers such as the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, Christian Identity, Black separatist, neo-Confederate, White Conservative, and pro-Jewish (Some countries such as European countries have strict anti-hate laws, making it hard to find online hate sites).

Question:

“Do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)?”

* “Hate Sites” also known as “Hate Speech” is defined as any form of communication that “disparages” a person or group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Hypothesis:

Although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of freedom of speech, students will answer no because of their personal and emotional beliefs when coming across an extremely racist and judgmental hate site.

Method:

I surveyed twent-six students on campus using the format of traditional hard copy questioning, including yes or no questions.



Description of Survey Method:

I thought of ideas to approach this subject, “whether or not hate sites deserve protection from the First Amendment,” in a different way then others have approached it in the past. The idea that I came up with is to include a few personal questions at the top of the survey such as; what is your major? What ethnic group do you classify yourself as? If any, what religion do you practice? The reason I want to incorporate this into my survey is so I can get a better understanding of the surveyee and how their personal information may affect their answers to the survey questions.

Survey:

These are the questions that I used in my survey:

1. Do you believe the First Amendment, “Freedom of speech” should be in the constitution?

Yes or No

2. Should “hate sites” (websites used by people propagating hateful, racist, or terrorist ideas, beliefs, and activities) have the right to promote all their beliefs on their website?

Yes or No

3. Do you believe that it is right for hate sites to include tutorials and video clips of “bomb-making” instructions?

Yes or No

4. Should hate sites have the right to create a social network page, on Facebook and twitter, where the public can comment on “what they did during the week to deserve being in that group?”
(Some social networks have people sharing racist stories as an achievement of their week)

Yes or No











Results Summary:

Results for #1:

Yes – 23 students
No – 3 students

Results for #2:

Yes – 11
No – 15

Results for #3:

Yes – 5
No – 21

Results for #4:

Yes – 12
No - 14


Conclusion:

After conducting my research, majority of my results are in favor of my hypothesis. I have proven that although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech, individuals personal and emotional beliefs drives them to disagree with the idea of extremist groups having the right to a racist and judgmental web page. Do you believe the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech should be in the Constitution is my first survey question. Out of the twenty-six students that I gave this survey to, twenty-three of them answered yes to the first survey question and three answered no. I assumed that everyone would automatically answer yes because Freedom of Speech entitles everyone to their own opinion and in this democracy everyone would agree that Freedom of Speech deserves to be in the Constitution. The second survey question is, should “hate sites” (websites created and dedicated for a certain group/belief) have the right to promote all their beliefs online? Eleven students answered yes and fifteen students answered no to this survey question. This was probably the most important survey question when answering my main question whether or not hate sites deserve to be protected by the First Amendment. Given these results, majority of the students agreed that these hate sites should not be allowed to promote their beliefs online. I’ve had a few additional comments on this survey question and one student said that it would be wrong to have a web site promoting, meaning recruiting individuals into their group, but having a web site where they just state facts about their beliefs would be acceptable. Another student stated that religious groups, such as “Catholic churches should be allowed to promote their religion online, but the idea of extremist groups promoting such racist beliefs is unsuitable for our society.” This made me think that religious groups are like cultures and they should be allowed to promote and practice their beliefs through any medium, but extremist groups are like a social group that has a certain goal in “making the world a better place” by eliminating others. Do you believe that it is right for hate sites to include tutorials and video clips of “bomb-making” instructions? This is the third survey question and there is a big difference in the results. Only five students answered yes and twenty-one students answered no. A vast majority of the students agreed that hate sites should not be allowed to have tutorials, such as video clips with instructions on how to make a bomb. In my opinion when answering this survey question, all students were morally obligated to answer no because bomb making is looked down on in society and stereotyped as something terrorist do. The last survey question is, should hate sites have the right to create a social network page, on Facebook and twitter, where the public can comment on “what they did during the week to deserve being in that group?” (Some social networks have people sharing racist stories as an achievement of their week). The results for this survey question were pretty even, having twelve students answer yes that hate sites have the right to create a social network and fourteen students answering no that these extremist groups should not have the right to create their own social networks because of various reasons. I thought that this was also a question that the students would answer based on their moral beliefs. Obviously it is immoral to promote an extremist group such as the KKK on to others by creating a social network in which they can make racist comments. In contrast, there are many others who have the mentality that there is nothing wrong with doing so, but that is based on their upbringing. Therefore, I believe given the results from the introduction questions before taking the actual survey, some students major(s), religion, or ethnicity affected their answers to the survey questions. For example, question three asked the students if they believe that it is right for hate sites to include tutorials and video clips of “bomb-making” instructions, and it has come to my attention that out of the five students who answered yes, they should have that right, four of those students are political science majors. This got me thinking that maybe because they have such a strong belief in the legal system, which includes the Freedom of Speech, because they are political science majors, they do not see a problem with this issue. Another example is the last survey question, where students had to answer yes or no to whether or not they believe hate sites have the right to promote their beliefs by creating a social network to target prospective recruits or make racist comments on their experiences. What I found from the students who answered this last survey question is that most of the students who answered no categorized themselves with a religion, being Catholic, Christian, Baptist, Buddhist, Mormon, or Agnostic. I thought this was interesting because nine out of the twelve students who answered yes to this question either put that they do not have a religion or simply left the religion section blank. In conclusion, do online hates sites deserve protection from the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech? Given my results from this survey I have proved my hypothesis that although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of Freedom of Speech, students personal and emotional beliefs when coming across an extremely racist and judgmental site believe that “hate sites” should be removed because Freedom of Speech shouldn’t protect such cruel and racist beliefs.

Dangerous hatred in the U.S?

This weeks article focused on the idea of how in the United States of America there is a big controversy having Barack Obama as our President. Although it was a short article, there were many opinions stated about Obama that make this country seem very racist and cold. The beginning of the article started off by relating Obama’s healthcare reform proposals to a reason of why people do not like him and is being compared to Adolf Hitler because of his actions of taking over the country with proposals like this. Majority of this article were filled with quotes and opinions of citizens in the U.S. and what they think of Obama, mainly criticizing him. I found most of these quotes very disturbing to read, especially the racist opinions. The first strong “anti-Obama” quote I found was by Glenn Beck when he said on radio that “Obama is a racist with a deep-seated hatred for White people.” Tom Eisenhower compared Obama to Hitler and he said, “I’d take a gun to Washington if enough of you would go with me.” Pastor Steven Anderson from a church in Arizona even criticized Obama by saying, “Why I hate Obama, I’m going to pray that he dies and goes to hell.” All of these opinions were very disturbing to read but at the same time these people have the freedom of speech, but in my opinion the first two quotes were said by racist who don’t approve of Obama because of his skin color. When I read the quote from the pastor it made me second guesses if Obama is unsuitable for being President. The New York Times wrote in an article that “Some people just can’t believe a black man in president and will never accept it.” I thought this was a very strong quote because there are many extremist groups in the United States and also racist uninformed citizens who may not understand that having an African-American president will be different in many ways, so they choose to dislike Obama, instead of giving him a chance. Another idea that came up in this article was the idea of the South’s attitude towards having Obama as President. The African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country is the mentality of these Southern American citizens. In conclusion, I believe that all of these negative opinions are being said because of ones upbringing and that is how they judge whether or not Obama is right for the position of President of the United States. Therefore, I believe that everyone despite their personal opinion and beliefs should give Obama ad least a year before judging whether or not he is unsuitable.

Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting Our Culture?

Before reading this issue, I have already connected my research project to the idea of hate speech, or more specifically hate sites and whether or not they deserve to be protected by the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Therefore, I already have a strong opinion on hate speech and I believe that just because freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment, does not justify if one’s cultural, religious, and personal beliefs are mocked and judged through the media. Being familiar with hate speech, I thought that after reading issue twelve it would be easy to agree with Henry Giroux, who argued that hate speech in the media is directly affecting our culture, but I found it difficult to understand him. In contrast, I found it easier to read Georgie Weatherby and Brian Scoggins research and examples focusing on the idea of how hate speech in the media is not affecting our culture. I believe that Giroux focused his research on the idea of culture cruelty and how entertainment media and information are creating violent behavior in our culture. The example that Giroux used was the beating of homeless people and how the National Coalition for the Homeless claimed that people on Youtube are posting videos with titles like “bum fight” and showing actual footage of individuals beating and mocking the homeless. I thought this was an excellent example of why hate speech (hate videos) in the media is affecting our culture in a negative way because people are judging and assuming that this is how Americans are to the homeless. The reason I found it easier to read Weatherby and Scoggins research was because they explained specifically what hate speech is in our society by using examples like hate sites of four extremist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, the National Alliance, the Neo-Nazi, and the Aryan Nations. One of the main points that I thought was interesting that Weatherby and Scoggins brought up was the idea that these groups are trying more to inform the public about their beliefs versus recruiting them into their group. Another main point that they brought up was how the media, such as the internet allows the group to reach a wide range of people that may believe in what they do, and hopefully recruit them. Weatherby and Scoggins also mention that hate sites are not showing exactly what they want on their site because they want to appear “friendly” so individuals will join their group. In conclusion, all though Weatherbu and Scoggins brought up excellent points, I personally believe that hate speech in the media is affecting our culture, having individuals think its ok to beat a homeless person and discriminate against Jewish or Arabs.

Do Media Represent Realistic Images of Arabs?

Before reading issue three, I already believed that the media does not represent realistic images of Arabs because there are so many shows like South Park and Family Guy and movies like Harold and Kumar that stereotype and make fun of Arabs. After reading about journalist Gal Beckerman’s and Jack Shaheen’s opinions and research about this question, I believed that Gal Beckerman didn’t really give enough examples to persuade me that the media represents realistic images of Arabs. Gal Beckerman’s whole argument focused on the idea of how bloggers from the Middle East are writing about their lives and sharing that with the world so others have a better understanding about their lifestyle. This showed me that all Beckerman could come up with is how blogging represents realistic images of Arabs, but doesn’t talk about how other media outlets like television shows, movies, and even newspapers represent Arabs. I also believe that while reading through the blogs by Arabs in the Middle East, each of these blogs will be different, because all of these Arabs have the same beliefs, but may have a different lifestyle. In contrast, I believed that Shaheen came up with more realistic data and examples. The focus of Shaheen’s research was the idea of how Arabs have been stereotyped for being involved in disasters such as the terrorist attack of 9/11 that misinterpreted Arabs and Muslims. This misunderstanding between Arabs and Muslims were a big focus in Shaheen’s research. He used examples like videotaped beheadings and messages from al-Qaeda and how people automatically assume that those who are performing these gruesome acts are Arabs. Shaheen also mentioned that the profiling of Arabs has made it impossible for others to believe that they are real people because they are known as the enemy and terrorists. In conclusion, my own personal opinion with the comments from Shaheen’s research I believe that the media does NOT represent realistic images of Arabs because there has been too many situations in which Arabs are mixed up with other groups like Muslims or where Arabs are looked at as terrorists because of 9/11 and the media classifies all Arabs in the same category when they shouldn’t.

Do Media Cause Individuals to Develop Negative Body Images?

Before reading issue 4, my personal opinion weighed more on the yes side when answering this question, do media cause individuals to develop negative body images because there are just so many advertisements, images, videos, etc that effects ones body image negatively. Answering yes to this question, both Shari Dworkin and Faye Wachs believe that different types of media, such as magazines, advertisements, commercials, etc are giving consumers a negative idea of themselves and their body because they show how a healthy body should look like. An example is that for advertisements, by selling their product, the business makes the consumers think that by buying their product you will look and feel like the people in their ads. Because my own opinion already agreed with the idea that negative body images are developed through the media, I found it really easy to read through Dworkin and Wachs examples, facts, research, and opinions. One of the examples that they used was the idealized body and how a body with no fat is featured on the covers of magazine ads giving the public the idea that this is how they should look like. In connection to this idea, Dworkin and Wachs mentioned that because the “fat body” is a sign of a “lazy, undisciplined, and poor member of the social body,” the ideal body becomes a fit and healthy image that is a sign of success and a good citizen. In contrast, Michael Levine and Sarah Murnen argue that the media does not cause individuals to develop negative body images because other cultural, social, and psychological issues play a much larger role in giving citizens a negative impact on their own body image. Already having strong support for the examples and research brought up by Dworkin and Wachs, I found that in the end Levine and Murnen didn’t really have evidence that showed that the “Media” doesn’t cause individuals to develop negative body images. All Levine and Murnen did through their research was state examples and facts of how things like eating disorders are caused by psychiatric issues, not an issue in the media, or how peers and people in general who have a “thin-ideal” body image influence others to diet in order to fit in with them. Overall, Levine and Murnen basically used other examples such as psychological and social issues as an influence towards the public to want to change their body image, ignoring the fact that the media is just another one of those influences. In conclusion, do media cause individuals to develop negative body images? I say yes because the media has just become so controversial through advertisements, websites, videos, etc, that only want to show the “ideal” body image of how people should look like, discouraging others lifestyle and making them feel like their body image is completely unacceptable in society.

Reading Analysis #3: Proposal for Research Project

Billie Hiraishi
Patricia Andrews
Media, Politics, & Society
November 3, 2010

Do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment?

According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights organization that confronts anti-Semitism, hate and terrorism and promotes human rights and dignity reported that there are over 11,500 web sites, social network pages, chat forums, and blogs advocating hatred of extremist. The internet has become the primary media outlet most people in this generation use automatically, but anyone has the right to write their own opinion on a blog or create a website and the issue is that under certain circumstances, individuals and groups take advantage of this right. Therefore the question I came up with is, “Do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech)?” “Hate Sites” also known as “Hate Speech” is defined as any form of communication that “disparages” a person or group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Besides not reading much about online issues from the given text Taking Sides, I remember reading a short article in the Spring of this year from the New York Times entitled, “Online hate sites grow with social networks,” which helped me come up with this topic. The article’s main point was to inform the public of how online hate sites are using online social networks to inform people about their group. The main online hate sites that I will be mentioning in my survey and research include American servers such as the Ku Klux Klan, the neo-Nazis, racist skinheads, Christian Identity, Black separatist, neo-Confederate, White Conservative, and pro-Jewish (Some countries such as European countries have strict anti-hate laws, making it hard to find online hate sites).

Hate sites have always been an issue as the internet developed into an advanced resource for information and has started many debates in questioning the First Amendment; therefore, the questions I will ask on my survey will focus on ones belief in the First Amendment and their personal opinion on hate sites. I plan on surveying a variety of students on campus using the format of traditional hard copy questioning, including yes or no and multiple choice questions. An idea that I have is to include a few personal questions at the top of the survey such as; What is your major? What ethnic group do you classify yourself as? If any, what religion do you practice? The reason I want to incorporate this into my survey is so I can get a better understanding of the surveyee and how their personal information may affect their answers to the survey questions. I haven’t come up with the questions for the official survey that I am going to use for my research, but I have ideas of how I want them to be.

When answering the question, do Online ‘Hate Sites’ Deserve Protection From the First Amendment? I believe people would automatically answer yes agreeing that online hate sites have the right to write whatever they believe because of their right to freedom of speech, allowing those hate sites to express information, opinions, and ideas free of government restrictions. In my opinion in relation to my survey, this is a very intense subject to research and when people take the survey they will be emotionally distracted of the kinds of disturbing information they have access to on these hate sites. Therefore, my hypothesis is that although hate sites are already protected under the First Amendment of freedom of speech, people will answer no because of their personal and emotional beliefs when coming across an extremely racist and judgmental hate site.

Do Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior?

After reading Issue five of Hanson’s Taking Sides, both Craig Anderson and Henry Jenkins presented excellent examples either answering yes or no to the question, do video games encourage violent behavior. Craig Anderson’s main point was that video games make young people more aggressive and violent than other media outlets. Henry Jenkins’s focused on specific examples arguing that video games do NOT encourage violent behavior. While reading the introduction I found a few interesting facts. First, I came across a long lasting controversy of how some parents and critics believe that because some video games, such as, “Grand Theft Auto” contain nudity, which encourage behavior that is unsuitable for young people. Second, I found it interesting that Jenkins believed that the “fantasies of children’s culture are an important arena to understand how we as a culture are constructing our future.” I thought this was interesting because it shows that violence is obviously a big issue in our communities and by not informing children about this issue, they won’t have the correct knowledge about violence in the future. After reading both sides of this question and using my own personal thoughts on whether video games encourage violent behavior or not, I would have to agree more with Jenkins facts and examples. I believe that Jenkins had more specific and factual examples and research, but I found two interesting ideas that Anderson brought up. First, Anderson mentioned that some video games “Reward” players for killing subjects such as police, prostitutes, etc, using many weapons such as guns, knives, swords, baseball bats, etc. Having been raised with being familiar with video games, I always thought that video games revolved around killing a certain opponent, every man for themselves, using the best weapons, etc. Although some children may play video games involving killing and brutal weapons, they won’t all if any at all become extremely violent in the future, because I as well as my two siblings grew up playing video games and we are no where near violent. Second, Anderson had an idea that violent video games are connected to the increased aggressive behavior, thoughts, and affects people have after playing them. I would have to partly agree with this idea because video games in general give one the freedom and space to do whatever they want, and I believe that its that persons mental stability whether or not they can control themselves by keeping the violent actions and thoughts they have in the video game and not bring it into their own lives. As I said before, Jenkins had many interesting and factual examples supporting the idea that video games do not encourage violent behavior. His first idea was introduced as a research that involved people serving time for violent crimes and how they consumed fewer media before committing their crimes. This research obviously supports Jenkins opinion because its shows those prisoners aren’t very familiar with media sources because they don’t use them. Second, Jenkins used statistics from a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General’s report research and found that school crimes centered on mental stability and their home life, not media exposure. I thought this was interesting because school is a young person’s main community for the beginning of their life and knowing that the child’s home life and mental stability is their main resource for why they act or don’t act violent makes sense. Third, Jenkins used an example involving the Federal Trade Commission and how they researched found that 83 percent of people who purchases video games are parents or parents who are with their children. This showed me that either parents (adults) or parents (adults) with their children enjoy playing video games or support their children playing those games. Fourth, Jenkins brought up a very interesting opinion on females who play video games. Jenkins mentioned that female characters are usually portrayed as “powerful and independent” individuals, which can build their self confidence and their challenges in their lives. Fifth, Jenkins wrote about past research that proved that video games can enhance learning abilities, and I remembered from issue 18, “Are people better informed in the information society,” Linda Jackson did a research and found that video games improve visual intelligence skills. Sixth, Jenkins added Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner’s opinion on this issue and he believed that violence will always be a huge issue in our communities, but leaving children unequipped about this issue by not having violence in video games or even movies will miss guide them for future purposes. Lastly, Jenkins made an excellent point of how video games are a great way to socialize, from playing video games with family and friends in your own living room to playing video games with friends and even strangers around the world via internet. In conclusion, do video games encourage violent behavior? No because their will always be other influences such as movies or other media outlets, school, home lifestyle, and people that would affect ones violent behavior more than a video game that is basically used for entertainment.

Is Advertising Good for Society?

Before I started reading issue 7, my own opinion on this question, is advertising good for society was an absolute yes, because I believe that advertisements are like advice columns for consumers on what they should have. After reading both John Calfee and Dinyar Godrej’s opinion and answer to the question, is advertising good for society, I heard a few interesting points. Calfee’s main focus was how consumers benefit from ads and how they can learn about certain important issues. Godrej’s main point was that advertisements basically cause anxiety towards consumers because they stress on the idea that if they don’t buy the products shown in ads, they are making a huge mistake. Something that stood out after reading this issue is that Calfee had many more facts, information, and examples in why advertising is good for society and Godrej had only three main points. One of Calfee’s main ideas that I agree with is that individuals can learn about important issues in the world through ads and the example that he used repeatedly is the issue of health. Calfee stated that “advertising is a tool for communicating information,” and what better way to inform the public on a health issue then through advertisements. The example that Calfee used is how the Kellogg Corporation, a cereal brand did a campaign with the National Cancer Institute that focused on the idea that by eating Kellogg bran cereal people can prevent cancer because according to the NCI, fiber prevents cancer, and Kellogg’s cereal only has nine grams of fiber per serving. I thought this very interesting because one, this ad was done over twenty years ago and Kellogg cereal still mentions how they have less fiber then other cereal brands, and secondly, the ad showed that cancer is a serious issue in the world, and by doing so (eating fiber) people can prevent cancer. Another interesting point that Calfee mentioned was the idea of how advertisements were very persuasive and giving consumer’s reasons to make some adjustments in their lives. A specific example that Calfee used was the example of public health, such as advertisements on soap and detergents that informed the public on improving private hygiene. After reading this I researched old advertisements on hygiene and watched them and I couldn’t imagine a time when brushing your teeth when you wake up and before you go to sleep and washing your body with soap every time you shower was not done on a regular basis before. The only main point that I found interesting from Godrej’s research is the idea of how advertisements make us question our choices when buying a certain product or before making certain decisions in our lives. I thought that was interesting because when I go to the store I sometimes have a hard time choosing what brand of toothpaste is better or what department store will have quality clothing. Overall, Godjej made a good point by saying that advertisements can make consumers indecisive when buying a product, but on the other end, advertisements could also point us in the right direction in buying the right product for ourselves. A great example of that is the Pantene commercials they have and how Pantene has created certain shampoos and conditioners for curly, straight, waving, or colorful hair, making it easier for consumers to make an informed decision when buying a product. In conclusion, I learned from this reading that not all advertisements can benefit everyone, but I still stand by my opinion that advertisements are good for society because they give advice to consumers on what they should have or what products could assist them in their lives, whether it’s making sure they eat the healthiest cereal or having the right shampoo and conditioner for their hair.

Survey - Are People Better Informed in the Information Society?

Billie Hiraishi

Patricia Andrews

Media, Politics, & Society

October 23, 2010

Introduction:

In unit 6, Issue 18 from Alexander Hansos book "Taking Sides" Hanson approaches the question, "Are people better informed in the information society," having Linda Jackson answer yes and Mark Bauerlein answer no, both giving reasons to support their answers. Jacksons main point was that internet usage at home helps the academic performance of low income children. Bauerleins main focus was arguing that this generation of young Americans are poorly educated and will not succeed in work needed for the future of the United States because of the digital age. After reading both sides of this question, are people better informed in the information society, I found Jacksons reasoning more interesting because she brought up interesting facts, such as improving your visual intelligence skills by playing video games that I've never heard before. Because I found Jacksons research more interesting I've decided to come up with a hypothesis for my survey that focused more on Bauerlein's point of view to see if by conducting a survey from his perspective, I would find some interesting facts, and I have.

Hypothesis:

In my opinion, although citizens of California have complete access to information about the upcoming elections through different media outlets, they are not educating themselves and making aneffort to become informed.

Survey Method:

After coming up with my hypothesis, I strategized on finding a way to prove it was right in the end. The method I used was to target young Americans with questions that would be easy and fast for them to answer, but questions that would show how uninformed they are about the upcoming California State elections. I used a basic hard copy survey and had a few of my teamates on the NDNU men's and women's soccer team fill them out because we were traveling for games in Hawai'i and residents of Hawai'i wouldn't be as informed if informed at all about the California elections, as these student-athletes are.

Description of the Survey:

My survey consists of five questions tha include either yes or no questions, multiple choice questions, and on enumber rating question. Here is a copy of my survey questions:

1. Are you a registered voter? Yes or No

2. When reading the paper or using social networks online, such as facebook, twitter, and blogs, which name do you come across the most?


a) Jerry Brown
b) Meg Whitman
c) Taylor Swift
d) Lady Gaga

3. Do you know when Election Day is? Yes or No, if yes when is it?

4. If you have access to the internet on your phone, what do you mainly use it for?

a) Updates on the upcoming election (which can include news outlets)

b) Social networks (Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter)
c) Work or homework
d) You don't have internet access on your phone


5. At the end of the day, having access to all media outlets (newspapers, internet, television, etc) how well informed are you of the California State Elections from a scale of 1 to 10?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Results Summary:

Results for survey question 1 - Are you a registered voter?

11 Student-Athletes answered YES

10 Student-Athletes answered NO

Results for survey question 2 - When reading the paper or using social networks online, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs, which name do you come across the most?

1 Student-Athlete answered Jerry Brown

1 Student-Athlete answered Meg Whitman

3 Student-Athletes answered Taylor Swift
16 Student-Athletes answered Lady Gaga


Results for survey question 3 - Do you know when Election Day is?

2 Student-Athletes answered YES

19 Student-Athletes answered NO

Results for survey question 4 - If you have access to the internet on your phone, what do you mainly use it for?

0 Student-Athletes answered updates on the upcoming elections

15 Student-Athletes answered social networks

1 Student-Athlete answered work and homework

5 Student-Athletes answered that they don't have access to the internet on their phone

Results for survey question 5 - At the end of the day, having access to all media (newspapers, internet, television, etc) how well informed are you of the California State Elections from a scale of 1 to 10?

5 Student-Athletes rated 1

3 Student-Athletes rated 2

4 Student-Athletes rated 3

4 Student-Athletes rated 4

2 Student-Athletes rated 5

2 Student-Athletes rated 6
1 Student-Athletes rated 7
0 Student-Athletes rated 8

0 Student-Athletes rated 9

0 Student-Athletes rated 10

Conclusion:

After conducting my results, I came to the conclusion that majority of these Student-Athletes have access to information about the upcoming California Election through different media outlets, but theu don't take advantage of this privilege, which leaves them uninformed about the upcoming elections. I started my survey off by asking the Student-Athletes if he/she is a registered voter because that is obviously the first step towards being educated and contributing their own opinion for a better society. The results that I received from the first survey question was pretty close in numbers having 11 Student-Athletes answer yes, they are a registered voter and 10 Student-Athletes answer no they are not a registered voter. Because the numbers were extremely close and other information from another survey question supported my hypothesis, I believe that there are many citizens whi are registered voters, but do not vote. The second survey question was, when reading paper or using social networks online such as Facebook, Twitter, and Blogs, which name do you come across the most. The options I had were Jerry Brown (Democrat candidate) who had one Student-Athlete, Meg Whitman (Republican candidate) who also had one Student-Athlete, Taylor Swift (Country artist) who had three Student-Athletes, and Lady Gaga (Pop-Artist) who had the majority of sixteen Student-Athletes. The results for this survey question showed me that while having access to newspapers or social networks, the majority, nineteen Student-Athletes to be specific remember the names of music artist such as Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift, whereas only two Student-Athletes remember the names of two important candidates running for the 2010 Governor of California. An assumption that I made while looking through the answers of survey question two is that these Student-Athletes probably had such as high number for Lady Gaga and Taylor Swift because they chose to focus on the words "Social Network" instead of "Newspapers" when reading the question. The interesting thing about this is that if these Student-Athletes focused this question in a familiar name they come across in the newspapers rather than social networks, the result would be different, but its because these Student-Athletes probably use social networks more then they read the newspaper. To figure-out whether or not these Student-Althletes are informed about the upcoming elections, the third survey question I asked was if he/she knows whe Election Day is. The results for this third survey question showed that out of the twenty-one Student-Athletes, only two of them know when the correct election day is, which is November 2, 2010. These results showed me that just because you are a registered voter (taken from the first survey question) or might be a little familiar with the candidates, it doesn't matter if you do not know when the Primary Election Day is. The fourth survey question is, if you have access to the internet on your phone, what do you mainly use it for. The options that I gave were, updates on the upcoming election (including news outlets) which had zero Student-Athletes, social networks (Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter) which containted fifteen of our Student-Athletes, work and homework, which had only one of our Student-Athletes, and five of our Student-Athletes do not have access to the internet on their phone. Looking over the results and taking information from Bauerleins perspective, our generation now is very socially connected to eachother online and its only obvious that when using the internet, whether its on our phones or computer, young Americans, such as these Student-Athletes will always use a scoail network more then they would use news updates, such as the upcoming elections. For the last survey question I asked the Student-Athletes, at the end of the day, having access to all media (newspapers, internet, television, etc) how well informed they are of the California State Elections from a scale of 1 o 10. From my research for this survey question I noticed that there were 18 Student-Athletes who rates were in the lower side, rating from 1 through 5 and only 3 Student-Athletes rated on the higher side from 6 through 10. Becaues this is a straightforward question asking the Student-Athletes their personal opinion on how informed they feel they are about the upcoming elections, it shows the truth on how they really feel, which majority chose uninformed by rating 1 through 5. From my research and results I've come to the conclusion that my hypothesis is right when answering the question, "Are people better informed in the information society?" My hypothesis emphasized the idea that although citizens of California have complete access to media outlets that have all the information one needs to be well informed about the upcoming elections, they do not discipline themselves good enough to be greatly educated on this election because they rather be using social networks such as Facebook, Myspace, or Twitter.

Are People Better Informed in the Information Society?

After reading this issue I found it interesting that both Linda Jackson and Mark Bauerlin take a different approach towards answering this question. The main focus of Jckson and her colleague's research is that internet usage at home helps the academic performance of low income children, whereas Bauerlin uses his research to argue that this generation of young Americans are poorly educated and will not succeed in work needed for the future of the United States because of the digital age. After reading both opinions I found that using the internet has both positive and negative outcomes; some people use the internet to gather information and educate themselves on the latest news and others may use the internet in an inappropriate way. When reading this issue I found Jackson's research more interesting because I already hear a lot pf opinions and people studying the youth generation now and how their values, morals, and intellect are only getting worse because of the digital age. The first argument that I found interesting from Jackson and her colleague's study is that computer skills improves cognitive skills, mainly visual skills. The example that they used were playing computer games, such as video games that have rapid movement, imagery, intense interaction, and multiple activities occuring at the same time because it improves ones visual intelligence skills. I thought this was interesting because so many people play video games now, mainly boys, and sometimes have an obsession with them, but from this research I learned that theu are actually improvig their visual intelligence. A second argument that Jackson and her colleague's focused on a lot is the idea of using resources at home such as the compter to get better success in mathematics and science. I agree with this argument because having a computer at home gives one access to the internet and other toold such as computer games like solitaire, chess, minesweeper, etc on the computer at all times to improve mathematics and science skills. In realtion to the idea of home internet access, Jackspn and her colleagues also came up with the idea that poor children with an academic performance below average are the ones less likely to have access to internet at home. An argument that I thought was obvious that Jackson and her colleagues found was that younger children use the internet more for information gathering than theu do for communication purposes. I thought this was obvious because younger children don't use e-mail, facebook, and dating sites as much as adolescents and adults. The last argument that Jackson and her colleagues found that ws interesting to me is the cultural influence that some people have on communication preferences. The example that Jackson used is the African-American culture and how they are an "oral cilture," which means that they prefer to hold face-toface communication rather than e-mail. I thought this was very interesting because in Hawaiian culture we are the same and believe that befire technology was convinient towards education, such as e-mail, using a telephone to communicate with someone was frowned upon as a sign of laziness or disrespect when one can simply write a letter or personally find a way to speak face-to-face. In conclusion, are people better informed in the information society?Yes, I believe that although there are many inappropriate websites and resources online, the public can definetly choose whether they want to go online and research the latest news, improve their mathematic and science skills, visual intelligence skills, or take advantage of ot by chatting and spending hours on facebook.

Reading Analysis #1

Dear C-Span,

For starters, three of your channels (C-Span, C-Span 2, and C-Span 3) including your radio station and several of your websites provide uninterrupted live coverage of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, live public affairs events, archived C-Span history, events such as Presidential press conferences and speeches, other government meetings and hearings, and pentagon press conferences. Occasionally you provide international events such as the British House of Commons meetings from the United Kingdoms BBC parliament. While I was reading and reflecting on the news coverage you provided I don’t have a doubt in my mind that you have the best political coverage in the nation. While being the best political coverage “nationwide,” it amazes me that within the C-Span television channels, radio station, websites, programs such as the Washington Journal, and overall, you are able to provide a substantive amount of objectivity within your works. The general public is informed by many different media outlets nationwide, being exposed to many bias and negative opinions within politics. For example, Meg Whitman, a candidate for the Governor of California is being hassled about her past issue with finances by other media outlets such as Fox News. In contrast to these bias media resources for political coverage, I would like to thank you for providing the most unbiased political coverage in the nation. There are two main reasons why you are the best objective political media outlet. First, the Washington Journal Program that airs live every morning on C-Span shows some objectivity in its line of works. What I recognized while watching your Washington Journal anchors is that they don’t use their names when covering a story, which is something that I greatly appreciate you doing. When the media anchor doesn’t use their name and is basically not allowed to talk about themselves and their character, which happens in your Washington Journal program, it removes them (the media anchors) as characters from the news experience. What I mean by this is that news outlets such as CNN and Fox News, provides the names, physical characteristics, and overall personality of their news anchors. Knowing all of this about a news anchor gives the public an idea of whether or not to like the news anchor because of his/her personality, if he/she is very opinionated, etc, the public will always judge a news anchor based on how they present themselves. In the end, news outlets like CNN and Fox News will have the public judging their news based on how it is presented and whom it is presented by. Your Washington Journal Program is brilliant because of how the anchors provide no character to be judged by the public because presenting the news is all they want the public to hear. In conclusion to my first main reason why you are the best objective political media outlet in the nation is because of how your Washington Journal anchors don’t want to be apart of the experience of the news story, but they simply want to give the public the news so they can judge it themselves. The second main reason why you are the best objective political media outlet in the nation is because of how the Senate hearings are organized. While watching CNN and Fox News coverage on the Senate Hearings their routine is to always have a reporter outside of the Senate Chamber reporting and interpreting to the public on television what’s happening inside the Senate Chamber. What I love about C-Span is that you folks put a camera man inside the Senate Chamber and let the film roll for as along as it takes, giving the public complete access to what is actually going on inside the Senate Chamber versus listening to some reporter from CNN or Fox News interpret what they are getting from this hearing. In conclusion to my second main reason of why you are the best unbiased political media outlet is because in the Senate Chamber you have a camera man inside recording every move and every issue brought up, basically putting the information out there for the public and having the public view it on television and judge it themselves. Whereas CNN and Fox News have a reporter outside reading off notes he got from listening to the hearing; but what better resource is there for the public then their own ears and eyes? In my opinion, the objectivity maintained by C-Span has been lost to “entertainment,” (being “personalities” like the mainstream media anchors) at other news outlets. Therefore, to all C-Span affiliates thank you so much for providing the best unbiased political coverage in the nation by giving us more objectivity by not changing the news, but simply putting the news out there and having us, the public judge it ourselves.

Keep up the great objectivity C-Span!!!!!!

International Perspectives on Local/Global Issues

One of the biggest controversial issues I’ve been watching on television and also online is the Arizona Immigration Law. Basically the Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer signed an immigration bill into law stating that immigrants in Arizona are required to carry their alien registration documents at all times and the local police are required to question people if they are suspected to be an illegal immigrant. The bill also mentioned punishment for those who hire illegal immigrant laborers or transport them while knowing they are illegal. Although this is a local issue in the United States other international press has been writing articles stating their opinion on this issue.

Starting locally, the New York Times wrote about this story right when it came out, the article entitled, “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration.” The New York Times stated that this law is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” mentioning that within this new law, Governor Brewer is giving the police “broad power” to detain anyone who is suspected of being in the United States illegally. Some critics have mentioned that granting the police this right is like “an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship.” An interesting point that the New York Times used was the perspective of Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles on this issue and how he believes that how the authorities, such as the local police have power to demand documents is like “Nazism.” I thought this was interesting because so many places around the United States have many good and bad police officials, and if they are given a right such as demanding anyone to show them identification of citizenship some of them will probably take advantage of it.

I had a hard time trying to find an internationals press perspective on this issue because obviously it is in the United States, but I was curious of how an issue that is considered life changing locally in the United States effected others around the world. A found an article from BBC News Canada entitled, “Judge blocks Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law.” This article starts off talking about how federal judge Susan Bolton blocked key parts of the Arizona’s immigration law hours before it took effect. Judge Bolton wrote that, “Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.” I completely support Judge Bolton’s comments on this issue because this law is actually going against the United States Constitution by having officials question and demand information from citizens.

Those were the two main sources I could come up with in giving great detail about the issue of the Arizona Immigration Law. Another short article that I read online was on behalf of the Associated Press mentioned that Mexico along with ten other Latin America Countries wants the federal appeals court to consider looking over this new law again because they have an interest in ensuring they have reliable relations with the United States that won’t be affected by the state of Arizona. Another short article from the Associated Press that I read online was interesting to me because it was entitled, “Colorado GOP wants to copy Arizona’s immigration law.” This article basically said that Colorado Republican lawmakers sent a delegation of lawmakers to Arizona to talk about adopting a similar law in Colorado because they believe that Colorado’s economy is suffering because of illegal immigration.

In conclusion, after reading all of these articles online from local news resources to international press perspectives, I noticed that because this issue, Arizona Immigration Law is a big “local” issue not an international issue it was hard to find international press perspectives on this issue. On the other hand this issue affects people all over the world extremely because they are illegal immigrants if they try to migrate to the state of Arizona without legal identification. Therefore, I believe that different perspectives will always be printed out on all the international news resources and it’s the reader’s decision where they want to get their information from.

Fox Primary: Complicated, contractual

While reading about the four republican candidates who are considering running for president, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee I found it interesting that they all have a contact with Fox News. In my own research fox news is said to be the number one watched news channel and news source in America. At first while reading that the contact that these four candidates have with Fox news that they can only be watched through Fox and no other media channel got me thinking, "Wow, Fox News really knows how to run a news channel." In many ways having information reported about these candidates only through Fox news is wrong because the public who watch other news channels will not be able to get information from these four candidates. On the other hand Fox news is getting great benefits and channel ratings because of its contracts. When I read about C-Span and its editor Steve Scully trying to get an interview with Sarah Palin and how Fox simply refused that idea made me think of Fox as a selfish news channel in some way. In conclusion, I agreed that while having candidates with Fox contracts the GOP will suffer in the general election because these four candidates are avoiding to speak to the other three big news networks.

Can Media Regain Public Trust?

Starting off in issue eight, the author described how time changed so much and came up with new developments in the media such as cable and the internet to the point where journalism isn't always credited beacuse of things like the lack of substantive coverage. Michael Schudson calls the press, "unlovable" because he believes that the press doesn't care sometimes about what they are reporting and that is what causes the public to "unlove" the medias behaviors. I completely agree with Schudson when he pointed out that the "media is focusing on events rather than trends and structures, focuses on conflic right when it happends, shows disrespect towards politics and politicians, and how they alienate the communities." I agree with Schudson because since the media is portrayed like this no one would really "love" these journalists. Schudson mentioned that journalist know how to identify a story and usually what they do is find an "event-centered story" where their adrenalin is pumping, such as an event of a deranged pilot, hurricanes, tragedy, etc. In relation to journalist searching for event-centered stories, conflict was used as a topic by Schudson and how like certain events, it can embarass the powerful. Supporting the idea that the media cannot regain public trust, John Hockenberry brought up an idea that I thought was very interesting and is such a great example of how the public cannot trust the media anymore. The example that Hockenberry used was the idea of "spammers" and how they caught a person who was trying to spam a Dallas housewife through e-mails and had him apologize on camera. Although I agree with this idea of how the media is getting very doubtful to communities because of this "trust" issue, but overall I would have to agree with Schudson that the media can regain public trust. In conclusion, Schudson mentioned that the journalist who he admires are the ones who "get behind and beneath events, eliminate trends, structures, moods and not just conflicts, believe in the virtues and values of pilitical life and hopes it inspires, and feel connected and commited to their communities-global, national, and local." This statement by Schudson persuaded me to believe that although the public cannot always trust the media, there are going to be some "good-hearted" journalist out there that love writing substative and truthful reports. On the other hand there will always be people in the media such as spammers who are making it difficult for the public to trust them, but in the long-run its all up to the public to chose what kind of media they want to engage in; will the read "fake" and "untruthfull" news like The Onion Newspaper, or will the public choose to educate themselves using "truthfull" and "newsworthy" resources, such as C-Span or NPR?

2010 California Governor Election!!!!!

While I was researching the candidates for California Governor online there were many resources and videos that popped up. The main candidates that constatntly came up on every search were Jerry Brown, who is part of the Democratic Party and Meg Whitman, whos is part of the Republican party. Before this I honestly never knew anything about the candidates before this research and because I don't have a television in my room, the main mass media resource I use for information is the internet. After researching a little on who the important candidates for Governor is I went in dept and researched their own websites which are, jerrybrown.org and megwhitman.com. I found it very useful that when I was researching all six candidates i the beginning it was very common that they all had their own website and I found that very interesting because about ten years ago it probably would've been different and it showed me how fast technology can create great resources for the public. Anyways while I was educating myself on the two main candidates, I found Jerry Brown to be the favorite of California because Brown was the California Attorney General, Oakland Mayor, ex-governor, ex-secretary of state, and ex-democratic chair. Jerry Brown has been in politics for over forty years which shows me that he has the experience to be a great governor. Other things that I learned about Brown was that he supports the global warming agenda, he is a gun advocate, opposed marijuana legalization and supports same sex marriage. On the other end I found Meg Whitman to be least supported by the people because of her past mistakes. What I learned about Whitman is that she was the CEO of Ebay, she supports major corporate expansions, opposes Arizona immagiration law, opposes marijuana legalization (something both candidates have in common), and is tied to global corporate structure.While I was researching online looking through newspapers I found that in the primary election Jerry Brown had 2.021,189 votes and Meg Whitman had 1,529,534 votes. What I found interesting was that many of the articles that are writing about Meg Whitman are giving a negative vibe because of her pas issue with spending millins of dollars. Besides learning about the candidates, I found it very easy to use the internet, whihc included Google, Wikipedia, youtube, newspapers online, the candidates websites, etc. But on the other hand what I found twice is that some websites did not have updated information which confused me because that is how misleading the media can be online. Therefore, I found it easy to stick to traditional ways and use the newspaper as my best resource on the California Governor race because it is updated everyday so you know you are not reading old news and is accessible online. Lastly, I also found it very disturbing that there are many people who are very strong supporters of one candidate and they create videos and write articles about how the candidate is not only a very bad candidate for Governor, but how he/she is a very bad persona and doesn't know how to dress. On youtube and huffingpost.com I found many videos with negative information about the candidates and found it interesting to see that many people already watched them and the comments they wrote seemed like a social debate online where there are many people leaving their own opinion on them and others opposing their opinion. I just found it very interesting that videos such as these are creating issues between random people around the world.

Will evolving forms of journalism be an improvement?

Issue ten in the book “Taking sides” starts off by mentioning forms of participatory journalism such as the “explosion of voices,” described as independent news reporting and commentary from members all over the world through technologies such as web sites, blogs, digital newsletters, YouTube videos, etc. The purpose of having this kind of participatory journalism is so individuals can report and comment on news using their own opinion, whether they are positive or negative comments. In relation to participatory journalism is the idea of “networked journalism” where everyone shares facts, questions, answers, ideas, and perspectives in order to get the real story. This certainly shows that forms of journalism are evolving, where professionals and amateurs can put their ideas together through new advances in technology, but it doesn’t mean that it will improve our society. To support my opinion, Eran Ben-Porath in his article “Internal Fragmentation if the News: Television News in Dialogical Format and it consequences for journalism” brings up the idea of how the mass media is using a dialogic format versus the traditional practices. The idea is that the media who is supposed to be improving journalism is using conversations (the dialogical format) rather than reporting (the traditional practices) and is coming up with opinionated news rather than actual facts. In conclusion, will evolving forms of journalism be an improvement? For now I say no, because like Ben-Porath said, “Question asking is becoming the norm rather than fact checking,” and in my opinion, until the media can find the traditional practices of journalism, improvement in the evolving forms of journalism is what is still needed.

Does fake news mislead the public?

I have no doubt about it that fake news misleads the public. I watched videos and read articles from The Onion, which is an entertainment newspaper that also has a website featuring satirical articles and videos writing about local, national, and international news. The Onion only has only one section in the newspaper which is described as a separate independent section called The A.V. Club. The A.V. Club is described as “non-satirical entertainment,” and reports on interviews and reviews on many new released media and weekly features. I read an article the other day that was a perfect example of why The Onion reports such satirical news. The article was called, “Easy wife gives it up on first date night.” Obviously from the title you could interpret the main idea of this article and how useless this type of news is being printed and shared across the world as “News.” Another disturbing article that I read and considered fake news was titled, “Second-Most Popular Kid in School Assumes Power Following Death of Star Quarterback.” I found this article very disturbing because despite the idea that the article was fake, it included the idea that because the star quarterback died unexpectedly, the next popular kid in line is in power of the high school now. The article also included fake names, fake photos, and a fake high school. Fake news reports like this shows that the public is being mislead by stories that aren’t true and basically written for their entertainment. The last example that I am going to use is a video clip of a story by The Onion which was entitled, “Obama releases 500,00 Men From U.S. Strategic Bachelor Reserve.” The main focus of this news report is that Obama is releasing 500,000 single men around the continental U.S. in order to satisfy the needs of women. This news report seemed real to me while I was watching it because they had President Obama on camera and speaking on behalf of this idea, but it is very fake news. In my opinion, newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle would not find any of the top reports from The Onion newsworthy and relevant to society. Therefore, I truly believe that because of the change of some media that went from substantial coverage straight to humor and entertainment, fake news is now misleading the public because they are either unaware of the reality or the media is either finding a way to manipulate ideas into the public and having them think for a second, “Is this news really true…….”