Posts Tagged: information

My view of WikiLeaks has changed.  Before, I thought it was a sketchy site that was only interested in digging up controversy and saw Julian Assange, the face of WikiLeaks, as a dangerous trouble maker.  I was unclear about their sources and how they acquired the information that has put the spotlight on this site in recently.  Basically, I saw WikiLeaks as a site that was trying to take down journalism.

Clearly, WikiLeaks is a whistle blowing site.  But isn’t that what the purpose of the Internet was intended for?  Although it is a complex phenomenon, WikiLeaks represents the evolution of the Internet and journalism.  It has become a platform that citizens are comfortable using to spread global issues and concerns while protecting themselves and remaining anonymous.  Journalism as an institute has come under fire in terms of trustworthiness in recent years and WikiLeaks is the global community response.  It is the modern day example of a true “free press”

WikiLeaks gives me the sense that we now have the power to watch “big brother” instead of the other way around.  Thanks to technology, people are gaining more of an individual voice and have media platforms that suit their needs to get their message out.  Never before have ordinary citizens had the opportunity to change the world in such a dynamic way.  It has given power to the people that was normally reserved for media agenda setters.  A topic may not be deemed newsworthy by a team of journalists, but they will sooner or later pick up on the story if there is enough buzz in the global digital community.

So will WikiLeaks take the place of journalism?  I think not.  A site like WikiLeaks can’t solve all of the world’s problems or cover everything that may need special attention.  That’s why we have investigative reporters.  Journalism can adopt some of the techniques and tricks that WikiLeaks has pioneered in relation to digital information gathering.  However, if journalism wants to compete they need to get on the bandwagon quickly and not let this opportunity pass them by yet again.  Journalism can survive if it embraces the new digital culture of the new millennium.

Where as I thought WikiLeaks was scum only a few days ago, now I have respect for the site and it’s mission.  This proves that we need to better understand our evolving surroundings and advancing tools to better serve our communities.  WikiLeaks took this step and created controversy along the way.  But we have to keep in mind that times are changing and radical ideas are bound to shake our everyday lives simply because they’re different than what we’re used to from the past.  We may not agree with them at first because it alters our view of what is deemed correct.  As we evolve our technology and information outlets, we need to evolve our minds and societies as a direct correlation.  Otherwise we will never see progress.

Another week, another response post. This week, we looked at comm theory from psychological and sociological views, basically paralleling our two theory classes: Interactive Media Strategies, and Theory and Audience Analysis, respectively. My first question looked at the early days of theory, and how much is still relevant? Well, the bottom line is, human nature doesn’t change all that much. However, collective thought does. There was a time when humanity was sure that the world was flat, the universe orbited the Earth, and the insanity was called by demons in your head. Although science has made tremendous strides in all of these areas, we still possess the same psychology and human nature. For instance, its not as if everyone conducted these experiments and all concluded that the world was flat, etc. There was an authority that told them it was so. Unable to see any curve on the Earth, would we not also logically agree?

Today, we learn about these communication theories, yet they come from the authority of a textbook, not from our own study. Yet, we can still identify why these theories seem true – we find truth in our own experience. Like those who did not see a curve in the Earth, today we understand the Uses and Grats theory because we too can identify uses and gratifications in our own lives. So when we look at mass communication theories, our knowledge is informed by a broader sociological and authoritative source, and then confirmed by our own psychological thought process. Even when this information is scientifically wrong, our minds are influenced by society to have a natural leaning towards the collective thought.

Let’s consider Agenda-Setting Theory. Agenda-Setting Theory tells us that the mass–news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space to give them (thanks Wikipedia). For example, since I titled this article “Is the World Flat?” I brought your mind to reevaluate this assumption. Of course it isn’t, but there mere fact that I made that the title directs our thought process. This is closely integrated with what I was just discussing. The idea that the mass media can direct the collective thought over a particular subject means that our minds will be inorganically led to placing importance on that subject.

But really, with out the influence of mass media, how do we ever determine what is important? We do this by measuring how much this subject will affect us. Yet, what if there is an invisible, scentless, poison gas seeping into our home? We can not identify it, so does this make the subject unimportant? Sometimes our minds need to be nudged towards something for us to realize its importance. So obviously, there is a balance that we, as media-savvy students, need to find. On one hand, we have all the information the media gives us. On the other, all the information that we gather ourselves. Neither are sufficient enough for us to live fully-realized lives, but we need to be able to discern all the information that is thrown at us.

Overall, be careful where you get your information. Some sources may have an agenda, and some (like ourselves) may just be blissfully ignorant.