Blog 12: What Media Law Has Taught Me

Before taking Media Law, I didn’t realize how much I was relying on social media for information. TikTok and Instagram were basically my only news sources—and honestly, I believed almost everything I saw. I never questioned the credibility, and I definitely didn’t consider the possibility of bias or missing context. This class helped me realize how important it is to step outside of that bubble and approach news more critically.   

 One of the first things I learned was how biased even traditional news stations can be. I used to think that picking one channel and sticking with it was enough, but now I understand how dangerous that mindset is. By learning to check different websites, read across the spectrum, and compare sources, I’ve become more aware of the full picture instead of just one side of a story.    

Another thing that stuck with me is how important it is to be educated on both sides of an issue. It’s easy to stay comfortable in your own viewpoint, but this class taught me that real understanding means learning the arguments of the “other side,” even if you don’t agree. It’s about seeing the full landscape, not just your corner of it.   

 Professor Smith also helped reshape the way I think about politics. Before this class, I honestly thought it was impossible to talk about politics without it turning toxic. The left and right felt so deeply divided, and it seemed like no one could speak calmly or rationally. But Professor Smith showed us that it is possible to approach political topics evenly—without hostility, without name-calling, and without shutting people down. He taught us that if you’re educated enough, you can see the hypocrisies on both sides, and from there, find a space in the middle that’s guided by fairness and common sense. These days, politics feel so emotionally heightened that just having a conversation feels impossible—but in this class, I learned that it doesn’t have to be that way.  

  Another major eye-opener was the conversation around censorship. I always assumed the U.S. was the most “free” country when it came to speech and media—but the reality is more complicated. We’re actually much more censored than we think, and it’s often done quietly, through algorithms, platform guidelines, and government pressure on tech companies. Whether it’s removing posts that challenge the mainstream narrative or silencing certain voices online, censorship is a real and growing problem. What’s scary is that most people don’t even realize it’s happening. We’re blind to how controlled some of our public dialogue really is—and THAT is TRULY “dangerous for our democracy”

     One of the most powerful moments for me was watching the video on artificial intelligence. It was honestly terrifying. I knew AI was growing fast, but I didn’t realize just how many human jobs it’s already beginning to replace—not just manual labor, but creative work, writing, teaching, and more. What scares me the most is the potential for people to stop thinking critically and just rely on AI for everything. I really believe this could lead to a mass loss of jobs and a serious decline in real education and human connection.

 Finally, this class taught me how important it is to know your rights and understand the laws that protect you. Whether it’s about freedom of speech, privacy, or how you represent yourself online, knowing your legal ground can make a huge difference in how you navigate the world we live in today.Media Law didn’t just teach me about legal definitions—it taught me how to think for myself, how to approach media with clarity, and how to have smarter, more respectful, and more productive  conversations in a divided world. I’m leaving this class not only more informed, but more hopeful that we can actually bridge the gaps—if we’re willing to listen, question, and learn.

Blog Post 11: EOTOR2

                                  

   

     Through this set of presentations, I learned that misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation are separate distinct concepts, each with its own origins and implications. At first, I thought they were just different words for the same idea (false or misleading information) but I learned that they have specific meanings and serve different purposes. Understanding these differences has helped me recognize how information is manipulated and why it matters in media, politics, and everyday communication.

Misinformation is false or misleading information that is spread without the intent to deceive. It can be as simple as someone sharing a news article with outdated or incorrect details, believing it to be true. A common example is when people spread health myths. The person sharing it doesn’t mean to mislead anyone; they simply believe it to be true and pass it along. Misinformation often arises from misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or incomplete knowledge. This is why it is important to research and use more than one source! The origins of misinformation can be traced back to the earliest forms of communication. Before modern fact-checking, people relied on word-of-mouth, and myths or inaccuracies could easily become accepted as truth. Today, misinformation spreads rapidly through social media, where people share content without verifying its accuracy.

Disinformation, on the other hand, is deliberately created or spread to deceive people. Unlike misinformation, which is unintentional, disinformation is intentional and often used for political, financial, or ideological purposes. Governments, organizations, and individuals have used disinformation throughout history to manipulate public perception. One of the earliest known uses of disinformation was during wartime, when military leaders spread false information to mislead enemy forces. In the modern era, disinformation is frequently seen in propaganda campaigns, fake news, and deepfake videos designed to distort reality. A well-known example is the spread of false reports during elections to manipulate voter opinions. Unlike misinformation, which can be corrected with factual information, disinformation is crafted to be persuasive and difficult to debunk.

Malinformation is another category of harmful information, but it differs from the first two because it is based on real, factual content that is shared with the intent to cause harm. This includes leaking private information, or taking truthful facts out of context to damage someone’s reputation. Malinformation is often seen in political smear campaigns, where real events or statements are twisted to create a misleading narrative. For instance, a politician’s speech might be selectively edited to make it appear as if they said something controversial, even though the full speech tells a different story. The origins of malinformation lie in tactics of manipulation and power struggles. Governments, media outlets, and individuals have long used malinformation to attack opponents or shape public opinion. Unlike misinformation, which is often a mistake, and disinformation, which is nit true, malinformation is dangerous because it uses truth in a harmful way.

    Learning about these distinctions has made me more aware of how information is used and abused in society. It has also taught me to be more critical of what I read and share, ensuring that I verify sources and question the intent behind the information I encounter.

Blog Post #10 Age of Ai

    

    The PBS documentary In the Age of AI offers a fascinating deep dive into the growing impact of artificial intelligence, particularly when it comes to job automation and privacy. One of the biggest takeaways is that AI isn’t a future concept, it is here and now; constantly transforming industries and reshaping the job market. While many people assume AI-driven automation is still years away, the reality is that machines are already have been replacing human workers. From robotic factory employees to self-checkout stations, businesses are cutting labor costs by relying on technology. In an economy where many are already struggling, the idea that “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” feels more relevant than ever. AI has rid corporations of hundreds of jobs and our leaving less for the working class.

    But job loss isn’t the only issue. The documentary also highlights how AI is shaping privacy. Massive tech companies now use AI-driven data collection to track user behavior, serving up targeted ads and curated content. I mean, how often have you talked about a product out loud and then suddenly have a pop-up add for something just like it on social media. Personally, this happens to me an uncomfortable amount. While this might make scrolling more “personalized,” it also raises ethical red flags. Companies like Google have been collecting data since the early 2000s, but AI has made it easier than ever to monitor, analyze, and even predict human behavior. Governments and advocacy groups are pushing for more regulations, but big tech isn’t backing down, arguing that AI-driven personalization ultimately benefits consumers.

    Beyond automation and data tracking, In the Age of AI also explores the sheer power of artificial intelligence. A great example is Google’s AI system mastering the game of Go. Experts initially believed human intuition and strategy would win—but AI proved them wrong. This moment wasn’t just a win for technology; it was a wake-up call. AI isn’t just learning from us—it’s surpassing us in ways we never thought possible. And with AI already making strides in fields like education, medicine, and business, the question becomes: how far will it go?

    The documentary doesn’t just focus on the negatives. It also highlights the benefits AI brings to various industries. In education, AI helps students refine their research and writing. In healthcare, it assists in early disease detection and drug development. It’s even improving accessibility for people with disabilities. 

    At its core, In the Age of AI paints a picture of a world that’s evolving faster than we ever imagined. AI is transforming how we work, communicate, and interact with the world around us. The challenge is finding a way to embrace innovation without sacrificing jobs, privacy, or ethics. While no one can predict exactly where AI will take us, one thing is clear: we’re already living in a new era, and how we navigate it will shape the future for generations to come.

Blog Post #9 Gate Keeping

 

    For this presentation, I had the opportunity to report on one of my favorite controversies—gatekeeping. It’s a term we often hear in everyday conversations, especially online, when someone exclaims, “What’s that song? Where’s that outfit from? Don’t gatekeep!” But beyond social media slang, gatekeeping has serious implications in shaping access to information, resources, and opportunities. Originally a concept in communication studies and sociology, gatekeeping was first introduced by social psychologist Kurt Lewin in the 1940s to describe how information flow is controlled. In 1950, journalist and media scholar David Manning White refined the idea, applying it to newsrooms where editors acted as gatekeepers deciding which stories reached the public. Over time, the concept expanded into various fields, including academia, economics, and entertainment, highlighting the power dynamics that control access. In the 21st century, gatekeeping became a widely used term, often associated with exclusionary behavior in industries, knowledge circles, and even conspiracy theories. One of the most intriguing examples is Hollywood, where secrecy fuels speculation, such as the elite retreat Bohemian Grove, where powerful figures—celebrities, CEOs, and politicians—gather for undisclosed discussions and rituals like the "Cremation of Care" ceremony. Questions remain about the nature of these gatherings and the influence they wield. In science, a major gatekeeping conspiracy suggests that a cure for cancer exists but is deliberately suppressed by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies to protect their billion-dollar industry. Some doctors who claimed to have found a cure died under mysterious circumstances, further fueling speculation. Academia has its own gatekeeping issues, exemplified by Aaron Swartz, the activist who fought for open access to academic research. Charged with computer and wire fraud for downloading research papers from JSTOR, he faced severe legal consequences and took his own life in 2013, sparking global debates about knowledge accessibility. The financial world also has its share of gatekeeping, as revealed by leaks like the Panama and Pandora Papers, which exposed how billionaires, corporations, and politicians hide trillions in offshore accounts while everyday people bear the tax burden. In the music industry, some believe that fame comes at a cost, with rising stars allegedly making deals with powerful secret societies like the Illuminati. Occult symbolism in music videos and career sabotage rumors—like those surrounding Kanye West—fuel speculation that an unseen force controls success. Finally, one of the most fascinating historical examples of gatekeeping is the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Built in the 3rd century BCE, it housed an estimated 400,000 to 700,000 scrolls on science, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, and astronomy. Whether it was accidentally burned by Julius Caesar’s forces, destroyed by early Christians to suppress pagan knowledge, or lost to some other cause, its destruction erased centuries of invaluable knowledge. Imagine how different civilization might be if that library had survived—perhaps humanity could have advanced in medicine, engineering, and space exploration centuries earlier. Whether in media, finance, academia, or history, gatekeeping continues to shape the world, raising questions about who controls access to knowledge and power.

Blog Post #8 Innovation

 BLOG #8 Diffusion Theory. 

The telephone is undoubtedly one of the most significant technological advancements in communication history. Although it started as an expensive and exclusive invention, it quickly gained popularity and became an essential tool for individuals and businesses. By examining the telephone’s adoption through Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation theory, we can trace its journey from an elite innovation to a household necessity.

Contrary to popular belief, the foundation of telephone technology was built by multiple inventors. Antonio Meucci was the first to develop a prototype, but Alexander Graham Bell is widely credited with its invention. Elisha Gray was a competitor to Bell but did not achieve the same level of recognition. Initially, the telephone was designed to enhance the capabilities of the telegraph, and each of these pioneers played a role in making that vision a reality.

At first, only a small group saw the telephone’s potential. Due to its high cost, the telephone was primarily used by wealthy individuals and large corporations. Direct lines were set up between specific locations for communication, but long-distance and international calls were not yet possible. The first telephone line was established in 1878, but the technology had still not yet reached the general public.

Widespread adoption of the telephone accelerated with the introduction of the “transcontinental” telephone line. This innovation allowed people across the United States to connect more easily, increasing the telephone’s appeal (1915). Although still expensive, it became more accessible to a broader audience.

World War I played a huge role in further expanding telephone usage. During the war, the U.S. government took control of telephone and telegraph lines, placing them under the direction of the U.S. Post Office. By 1919, the telephone had become a key communication tool, and its popularity excelled throughout the 1920s, when it became a standard feature in homes and businesses.

Despite its widespread adoption, some people resisted the transition to telephone use. Many could not afford the technology or did not see a need for it. However, throughout the 20th century, the telephone continued to grow in popularity until it became a staple in most American households.

The rise of mobile technology ultimately led to the decline of landline telephones. As cell phones became more affordable and convenient, people gradually abandoned traditional telephones. By 2022, a report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that only 29% of homes still had a landline, an extreme contrast to the 90% recorded in 2004. While the telephone had few disadvantages aside from its initial cost, its impact on communication was revolutionary. The desire to stay connected drove its popularity, and its benefits far outweighed any drawbacks. Although newer technologies have replaced landlines, the telephone remains one of the most important communication innovations in history

Blog Post #7 Anti War

     

After looking over this content, I am faced with the question, are we really getting the full truth from the government? or just the version they want us to believe? After spending some time exploring The American Conservative and Antiwar.com, it became clear to me that there’s a whole world of government-related information out there that rarely makes it into mainstream news. The major media outlets we rely on leave out antiwar perspectives, making it harder for people to see the full picture.

    The websites I explored for the first time, ANTIWAR.COM and The American Conservative, exposed me to a wider range of perspectives that I hadn’t encountered before. It was eye-opening to see how many people actively use their voices to protest against war.

    One particular article stood out to me, that being, Whatever Happened to the Antiwar Left? The first sentence alone caught my attention… “On Feb. 15, 2003, 14 million people poured into the streets of 800 cities worldwide to oppose the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.” 14 million people. This wasn’t just a small group of activists; this was one of the largest protests in our human history. Despite its significance, events like these don’t always get the attention they deserve in mainstream media. It made me realize just how much information isn’t being censored. But why? War is bad let alone expensive. I’ll never understand why people would prefer war over alternate resolutions. These protestors should’ve been the main topic on the news. 

    The government has one of the biggest influences over what information is easily accessible, and antiwar viewpoints are often pushed aside because they challenge the mainstream narrative. They’re not completely erased—so it’s not outright “censorship”—but they’re buried beneath sources that align more with government-friendly viewpoints. This isn’t a coincidence. It’s a way of shaping public opinion, making sure that the loudest voices are the ones that support the status quo.

    Unfortunately this isn't new (and in my opinion will never end). Antiwar sentiment in the U.S. has a long history, dating back to the Progressive Era of the early 1900s. When America entered WWI, not everyone was on board. Protests and riots broke out as many people voiced their disapproval. Among the most vocal were immigrants from Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe, who were often labeled as "unpatriotic" just for disagreeing with the war (Why it is considered unpatriotic to not want your fellow citizens to get blown up is beyond me). Their concerns weren’t always about loyalty—they simply did not believe the war was justified. But back then, and still now, going against the official narrative came with consequences.

    Before this, I hadn’t realized just how strong today’s antiwar voices are—or how long they’ve been fighting to be heard. It’s no secret that the government has a say in what information reaches us, but it feels like antiwar perspectives are especially sidelined. The more I looked into it, the more it became clear. The government isn’t just presenting information, it’s curating what we see, making sure that certain viewpoints are harder to find. This is why it’s so important to seek out different sources. If we rely only on mainstream media, we risk seeing only one side of the story, especially with the way algorithms are tailored today. Websites like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative offer perspectives that challenge the dominant narrative, and while they may not always be completely unbiased, they at least provide alternative viewpoints. That said, not every independent site is reliable—some push conspiracy theories and misinformation—so it’s just as important to fact-check and think critically about where our news is coming from.

    At times, I feel like people are afraid to face the truth about what’s really happening in the world. It’s easy to skim the first article we see, take it at face value, and move on. But that can lead to a lot of misinformation, conflict, and misunderstanding. We have to be smarter about how we consume news, making sure we’re staying informed with accurate facts rather than blindly accepting whatever is put in front of us.

    In a world flooded with information, it’s up to us to filter through the noise and find what’s real. Not everything will be on the front page of a major news site, and not every alternative source is credible—but the key is to think critically, check multiple perspectives, and question narratives rather than just accepting them. The truth is out there, but we have to be willing to look for it.

Blog Post #6 EOTO1 React

 Blog Post #6    Write a regular short post about a technology that you learned about from someone else.

Ella’s presentation helped me understand the key differences between DVDs and CDs. Before her presentation, I thought they were the same thing. She explained that both are optical discs used for storing data, they serve different purposes. CDs primarily store audio files and have a maximum capacity of around 700 MB. DVDs can store more data (4.7 GB to 17 GB)making them best for video storage. Ella also demonstrated how DVDs use a smaller wavelength laser than CDs, allowing them to store more information in the same physical space somehow. The science of it is nuts to me. She also explained that DVDs have multiple layers of data, while CDs have only one layer. By the end of her presentation, I had a clear understanding of why DVDs are preferred for movies and large files, whereas CDs are mainly used for music and smaller data storage. Before this, I truly could not have told you the difference!