Blog #9: News Deserts

As defined by the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media, a news desert is a “community, either rural or urban, with limited access to the sort of credible and comprehensive news and information that feeds democracy at the grassroots level.” 

In simpler terms, a news desert is an area that receives little to no information from local news sources. These communities are left in the dark about a variety of important topics as a result of this issue. 

News deserts do the public an extreme disservice, as it prevents people from obtaining vital information about their local politics, businesses, and events. News deserts always almost lead to uninformed and unengaged communities. 

News deserts promote negative societal impacts such as the spread of misinformation and the decline of journalism. UNC even went as far as to say that “many newspapers have become ghosts of their former selves, both in terms of quality and quantity of their editorial content and the reach of their readership.”

Misinformation runs rampant in news deserts because people often turn to social media and other untrustworthy sources due to an inability to obtain reliable information regarding their hometowns. As a result of this, rumors and false information begin to take the place of truth and honesty. 

Ever since the rise of the digital age, print journalism has been on the decline. This is due to the fact that many people nowadays rely on broadcast or online news, thus eliminating the need for printed works. The demand for newspapers is slim, and this in turn results in a loss of quality and quantity.

The industry is not the same as it used to be, and neither is the market. News deserts are growing at a rapid rate in today’s day-in-age for a number of reasons.

The first and most common cause of news deserts is financial constraints. Many of the local, independent sources of news across the country have suffered greatly due to online readership. They no longer have the audience they used to, which essentially leads to a loss in subscriptions and revenue. 

Another issue that has ultimately led to a number of news deserts is investment entities and big corporations. According to Penelope Muse Abernathy, Knight Chair in Journalism at UNC, a third of all newspapers, including two-thirds of the 1,200 daily newspapers in the nation, are owned by the top 25 newspaper companies. 

The problem is that when these large newspaper chains take over smaller publications, it restricts the types of stories that are written and reduces the quality of the work being produced. Many rely on local papers to report on essential matters and provide truthful insights, and these big corporations often remove this aspect from local news.

News deserts can take place anywhere, but they are most found in low-income areas. In Tom Stite’s analysis of the previously mentioned UNC research, he mentioned that “rural areas, as well as minority neighborhoods in big cities, have long been cited as particularly arid news deserts.” 

To further emphasize the severity of this rising issue, half of the counties in this country only have one weekly newspaper that is used to cram everything together. And even worse, there are about 200 counties that do not even have a newspaper at all.

As time goes on, this issue grows more and more severe due to financial limitations, investment entities, and online readership. Rather than enabling this threat to our democracy, it is crucial that we support local stations and make an effort to diminish these risks before it is too late.

No news is bad news. And it is our duty to recognize this issue and fight to resolve it.

Blog #8: Privacy, Online & Off

While technology has enriched our lives in a multitude of ways, it has also exposed us to a number of threats to our privacy. 

The development of technology has completely altered the way we live, work, and communicate, and although these benefits are undeniable, the harmful impacts are often unavoidable. 

Technology has made the problem of privacy more complicated and dynamic. And we are the ones to blame.

Our digital footprints will follow us for the rest of our lives, and as Juan Enriquez mentioned in his TedTalk, our online lives are just as permanent as a tattoo.

This is a reality that many seem to forget. What is posted online will remain there forever, even if it is deleted.

Aside from the personal issues of posting and permanency, many of the search engines, websites, and social media platforms we use on a daily basis collect and analyze our personal data. And it is often done without the individual’s explicit consent.

Think about it. How many times have you agreed to the terms and conditions of an app without actually reading it? How many times have you pressed the “accept all cookies” button when visiting a new website for the first time? How many times have you entered a phone number or email into a web page to “unlock” some sort of benefit such as a discount code or giveaway?

In the moment, accepting these terms or releasing these small tidbits of information may not seem important, but it all contributes to a greater plan in the end. 

Have you ever shopped online for a specific item and then later discovered advertisements for that same product on a different platform? That is not a coincidence. Our information is being stored and sold to companies for a number of reasons.

Our personal information is being used behind our backs for advertisements, research, and surveillance. By turning a blind eye to these privacy violations, we enable further infringement. 

That is why it is so crucial that we read policies before blindly accepting and limit the information we choose to share. These privacy issues are not going to go away overnight, so we need to do our part in protecting ourselves. 

So, next time you go to enter an email address into a website, I hope you use a fake one. And next time you go to check off that you agree to the terms and conditions, I hope you thoroughly read it.

Blog #7: Diffusion of Innovation

All inventions go through a series of phases before they inevitably fail or prosper. This process begins in the launch phase, when the initial idea or product is introduced to the world.

If the product survives this crucial time, then it carries over into the uptake phase where early adopters claim it. After this, a tipping point is reached, and the early majority accepts the invention.

Once the tipping point subsides, a maturation phase occurs, and the late majority follows in the footsteps of those who adopted the product earlier. The final phase of this process is the saturation phase when the laggards finally join in with the rest of the consumers.

The saturation phase is what most inventors fear because it is at this time that the product reaches a stagnant point. Most people have already bought or invested in the product at this point, so there is not much more room for growth. For this very reason, many products go through constant changes to compete with other companies and boost their overall sales.

When reviewing the invention phases, there is one company in particular that stands out to me. This company is known as Tesla, Inc. Whether you love it or hate it, everyone knows the name. 

When Tesla, Inc. produced their first electric vehicle, many people doubted the safety and the reliability of it. There were very few people who trusted the invention.

However, as time progressed and sales increased, the idea of electric vehicles became more normalized, and people were no longer opposed to the idea. It took numerous models, adjustments, and changes, but the end goal was eventually met. 

Tesla, Inc. is now a household name due to the strides they made in the automotive industry. Although they have certainly come very far from their humble beginnings, the company still continues to release new and exciting features in an effort to avoid the saturation phase.

In order for an invention to succeed, there must be brave pioneers to test the waters and give the product a chance. From there, more and more people will give in to curiosity and participate in the trend. 

Blog #6: The Progressive Era

The United States was founded on the ideologies of freedom and liberty, and in a perfect world, these principles would remain true today. But we don’t live in a perfect world. 

The fact of the matter is that we don’t have as much freedom as we would like to think we have. They say we have the right to dissent, to disagree, to criticize, but where are these representations in the media?

They are few and far between. Large, well-funded news sources favor government opinions, slyly swaying readers to hold those same viewpoints, even if the language used is not outwardly biased. 

The primary duty of the media is to inform readers, but most mainstream sources fail to do this. It seems as if the only strong voices and unpopular opinions are being shared by small, independent outlets.

Specifically, anti-war voices are constantly being silenced, and it is not a coincidence. The government rejects anyone and any publication that they find threatening or damaging to their reputation. They would rather have an uninformed population than one that holds different viewpoints.

Although the government will never admit it, they like being in war. It gives them more power over the public. It gives them the ability to silence people without being questioned because it can easily be blamed as a security threat.  

Since the beginning of United States history, anti-war voices have been either shut down or punished, and it is no different today. The Anti-war website mentions headlines that would never be shared in mainstream media because they try to cover up the harsh realities of war to prevent dissent. 

One title in particular caught my eye. It was titled “I was the Only US Official Imprisoned Over Torture Program - Because I Opposed It.” That headline alone not only confirms my suspicions, but it emphasizes my point that anti-war voices are being shoved under the rug.

John Kiriakou’s post explains how he initially joined the CIA in hopes of serving his country, but he later realized the true corruption that lay within. He criticized the government for its inhumane torture, unwillingness to reveal the truth, and its refusal to take accountability for their crimes. This resulted in Kiriakou being charged with five felonies and serving 23 months in a federal prison. 

Accounts such as the one from John Kiriahou highlight the government’s intolerance to opposition. The government claims to guarantee dissent rights, yet they still choose to attack those who wish to exercise it. 

The government uses a multitude of tactics such as censorship, intimidation, and propaganda to silence anti-war voices. Censorship is typically used by the government to control media outlets. When accounts post opinions that differ from their stance, they often shadow-ban the account and prevent the post from getting any exposure. 

Similarly, the government uses intimidation techniques to discourage people from criticizing them or to persuade them to retract their negative remarks. But the most common yet damaging tactic is propaganda. The government uses propaganda to shape public opinion by sharing misleading information to promote their stance and villainize those who wish to oppose. 

In suppressing these voices, the government violates the public’s right to dissent, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. This leaves the public uninformed, unheard, and unprotected.