IpI

I thought it was incredibly interesting.  What struck me was how intelligent government censorship has gotten. I'm not sure I would have ever come up with limiting access to paper like South America, or arguing that world is becoming too globalized and cultures are starting is disappear so we need to insulate ours. It's so simple, but so effective.  I was legitimately surprised at how intelligent their methods are.  I know that I'm not the authority on media or any kind of one.  I was raised to be skeptical of the media and what it tells you, so I've spent my life not reading it.  Well, between being raised that way and then being a staunch believer in the fact that if America is so free then I shouldn't have to work to find credible media sources, they should just be available, I never really gave media a chance.  This attitude means that the censorship the U.S. employs works in my case, because I rarely read news.  In fact, that is why I am taking this class. I've always expected my government to be keeping things from me, and never really questioned further.  What we have been discussing in class and what she was saying about places where the media really isn't free makes me wonder if this is the reality for most people or if some people don't even think to question their government.  Is that really what no freedom of speech looks like?  People blindly following?  No questions? Or is no freedom of press the country where questions are asked and answered, but not published because of the risks?  Whose to say?  The last thing that struck me was how people believe the American people are free.  I find America to be a ghost of it's former self.  Yes, in the constitution it says we have freedom of speech.  Yes, sometimes it is enforced.  Sometimes it's not.  The American people used to care about fighting for things, now most people are so involved with their own lives to fight or even care about things.  The American dream has changed drastically from what it once was.  Like Citizen 4 said most American people weren't surprised to learn about what the NSA was doing, yet we did nothing.  Is that free? Or have we become so used to being "free" that we limit ourselves?  What does that say about us as a people, when some are still fighting to have their right documented?  These were the questions I was left with.

History of News

I feel like today we struggle with a lot of the same things we used to struggle with, they have just evolved.  The printing press had extreme affects on the government and it's ability to censor the material.  In ways it made it easier, because everything was done of one machine.  In other ways the risks were higher, because the audience drastically increased.  The modern version of the printing press is the internet.  Easier to censor, multiple (sometimes untraceable) ways to do it, but the audience increased drastically.  The government and journalists are still at war over what they can and can't print.  The only difference is that sometimes it's not even your government your fighting with.  Our globalized society means that the audience for journalists has never been higher, and there hasn't ever (some would argue) been more of a reason to censor.  Now if you say something it's likely to be heard around the world, rather than in your own country.  More people than you are liable to be held accountable for it.  Most journalists keep their audiences in mind when writing which is why they still ponder Theophraste Renaudot's quote.   Is it their job to question the government?  Responsible journalists evaluate the backlash of their articles, because it is possible for them to put their country in a compromising position internationally.  Wars are still run off of major propaganda, just like in for France and the U.S. Civil Wars.  All I remember about why we went to war with Iraq in the first place was because of their weapons of mass destruction that they were going to use on us.  That was what I heard in the media.  I never heard anyone say it might be a bad idea, until it turned out that there were none.  This type of media only perpetuates the war just like in the U.S. Civil War.  I think we haven't really solved the problems we were struggling with so long ago.  The problems changed and adapted, but we never seemed to solve any of them.

U.S. Censorship

What strikes me the most about news in the U.S. versus new from BBC is that BBC seems to be promoting unbiased information, unless you are looking for an opinion article.  Most news sources in the U.S. are supporting one political party or other and almost all articles contain a detailed description of what we should be doing, because of x...y...z.  This is my biggest problem about the news I read in America, rather than bringing me the information and letting me make up my own mind about it, they tell me what to think and why.  I have a strong distrust of news, because I have no way of knowing, without major research and a gut feeling, which sources are owned and therefore controlled by the government or a political party in the US.  Articles in the US are all about headlines, because people are always moving or working to get somewhere, so we don't read news unless the headline interests us.  Generally these headlines openly support one way of thinking which already puts me off reading them and causes me to be suspicious.  The way the news is handled in America is very indicative of Americans.  We have are opinions, our country was founded on us having a differing opinion, but when it comes to news I want to read about the news and not the editors opinion of the news.

Fergusion, MO is a great example of this.  There is so much press about what is happening, how, why, and the moralities of it.  I live in Webster Groves, a 20 minuet drive from it.  I know when a news article has an agenda, because I see it.  I see how those people are hurting and I see why they are upset, however this problem won't be solved until both sides of the fence will quiet down and start listening.  The media isn't helping solve the problem, they are fueling it.  All the press about the police taking such and such actions, because of ____ just fuels the rage in the people.  Which leads to more protests and civil unrest.

The massive amounts of opinions being told is a way of obscuring the truth.  It is a form of stealthy censorship.

Freedom of Speech and the Ever so Blurry Line

Where does freedom of speech begin and end?  Can people say deliberately hateful things?  Should it be legal?

Given that I was raised in Texas in the U.S. I was brought up to take my personal freedoms very seriously.  When I ask myself these questions I hear an overwhelming yes.  People can say hateful things, because at the end of the day they have a right to say what they like.  You in turn, can choose not to listen.  As long as they aren't forcing you to listen to whatever it is they say; they should be able to say whatever they want and however they want.  You can choose not to listen. I would hope that soon our society will evolve into one where hate speech laws, because irrelevant, but in the meantime they isn't a single part of me that can condone a limit on freedom of speech.  If you are going to use your freedom of speech right in a way that will hurt and offend people you should be aware of what you are provoking.  While whatever happens isn't your fault and you probably don't deserve it, you still provoked it.  Being respectful and tolerant in this world will get you farther than things like talent and money.  People should aim to express their opinions while exemplifying both traits.  Until we live in a world that does that we won't know a world without violence.