Chapters
4 and 5 brought up several interesting points about Wikipedia, Net neutrality,
and journalism. There are a lot of
questions I wanted to ask the class so be aware for the discussion below!
I first want to start
off with the idea of Wikipedia. Page 108 states that, “Wikipedia ranks near the top of most Google searches- that ‘it’s
unlikely any reference source would unseat Wikipedia.’” Wikipedia
is either highly praised or talked down upon.
I personally like using Wikipedia
because I find it a reliable source. However, I do realize that random people can
just edit the information on it very easily which is not promising at all. Even though many of us are aware of this I
still use it. Do any of you agree?
On page 113 I read
that other countries had higher cell phone service prices. Were you guys surprised to read that cell
phone service was cheaper in other countries?
I feel the United States jacks up all their prices. I compare the United States to being the New York
City of the country. For instance, when
a person goes to the McDonald’s in Times Square the price for a McDouble is so
much higher than the price for one in Collegeville. It’s crazy but I think it’s because it’s a
centralized location. I see the United
States as being a powerful hub for other countries to look up to.
It was also interesting to read about healthcare and
that “Americans pay far more capita than any other nation but get worse service”
on page 116. It’s disappointing because people
need health care and we evidently don’t seem to be getting sufficient attention
and we pay more.
I never realized the comparison with internet and healthcare. It’s all about giving attention to the
strongest links. Both are worried about
the weakest links such as “unhealthy customers or people from ‘risky’
demographic groups” or “customers in poor or rural areas, where the firms find
either revenues are too low or costs are too high.” They are worried about the baggage and only
care about the profit. What do you guys
think of this? Do you think the richer should get richer or should help the
poor?
We learned about Net neutrality is Media and Society
last semester and how everyone should have equal access to the internet. It’s also mentioned on page 118 how “in the
1990s many Americans assumed the Internet was a magical platform that let
everyone have an equal right to speak, thanks to technology.” Do you agree with this stance or do you
believe only certain people should have access to the Internet?
An important topic that I enjoy discussing is
censorship on the Internet. I believe
that censoring things is important in terms of young children surfing the
internet and finding things they should not be looking at. However, I think this is the parent’s job to
monitor this. I don’t think the
government should step in to censor something because it is taking away from
what is available on the internet. It
should be a person’s personal choice to view something. I want to elaborate on censorship with a link
because I think it’s important to know both sides of the debate of
censorship. This reminds me of Communism
because governments in certain countries regulate what their citizens can
see. For example, a Communist government
will not let citizens read something on the Internet that would degrade their country. I personally think it’s not being very truthful
when there is censorship. How do you
guys feel about this?
It reminds me of journalism and how accuracy is the
number one priority. A journalist should
never sacrifice accuracy just to appease the public. A journalist’s job is to be the watchdog for the
public. For instance, if something unprofessional
or controversial is going on, the journalist must do his or her duty of reporting
to the public and informing them of what is going on. My professor always told me that sources will
get angry but it is not your duty to please them. Of course a journalist should be respectful
and ethical though. I love discussing this
topic of journalism and really want to know what the class thinks about
accuracy in the news.
I definitely agree with you on the topic of censorship because the internet should have all of its information readily accessible to anybody. No one person or company should be able to decide what is appropriate and what isn't appropriate because the internet is used by thousands of people with all different tolerances for material. This is similar to how television and movies in America are more censored than in Europe, and sometimes I wonder if we truly benefit from this or if censorship is a detriment to our culture and freedom of expression. This also meshes with the topic of journalism and accuracy, because if the internet is being controlled to appease one group of peoples' opinion of "appropriate", then people are only able to receive sets of information that are skewed to fit the censorship policies, and are therefore robbing the journalism industry of their potential to be completely accurate
ReplyDeleteI agree Linds! The internet should be free reign. This especially relates to journalism and censorship like you said because if things are being censored, are we actually getting the whole truth and every side of everything? For instance, in my journalism class we were taught to include both sides of the story always because reporting something should not be one sided.
DeleteThe topic of censorship is very interesting because I think that it applies to many different facets and not just the internet. I think about how there are many different things concealed over the internet. This made me think about how other information is hidden from the public eye. I think about how the government does not tell the public everything in order to keep the peace. I think that things are needed to be withheld from people at times. I personally think that it is necessary for certain information to be concealed from people. I think that it keeps order and a sense of calmness throughout society, that would not be there if all information was shared. I like that there is censorship over the internet. Censorship is different than journalists lying about information. I don't think that its ok for people to write falsely, but to conceal information I think is ok. Some people I am sure would disagree with me about concealing information from the public, but I think it is for the best.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your side of it because now I see the whole point that not everything needs to be available on the Internet and sometimes there needs to be a limit on what is able to be seen. For instance, do you think Saddam Hussein being hung should be available for everyone to watch? Now that you brought up your point I see a different side of it. Maybe some things should not be available to everyone to watch. Especially morbid things like death sentence, etc.
Delete