While I appreciate this guide to being more media literate, are people actually going to invest in this four step plan? They mentioned people tend to post and consume content without fact checking. Because it's easy and fast, I feel like nobody gives a second thought to random content they consume. Media is a fast way to be "in the know," which is why people like it. I doubt many would actually devote much more time to deep diving into facts unless they were going down a rabbit hole. #so315

If you have a job that requires you to show up high, have trauma bond sex in stairwells, think 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack, and you constantly seek out the company therapist... you should be finding another job. We have been taught to not spend too much time in front of a screen or else our brain will be mush, and this is their whole career. Except they have to endure content nobody should be recording in the first place. These are inhumane conditions that are insane to ask of anyone. #so315

The whole fact-checking moderators has me in a spiral. In the "Content Moderation" article make me propose important questions like: Who gets to decide what gets flagged, the app or the people? Who gets to decide what is appropriate content, people of authority or the public? Is content moderation the responsibility of the public or the employees of the app? How much strain can we put onto those who have to view the content before it is deemed safe or not? #so315

I found one term in particular really intriguing from the beginning and it stuck with me throughout the documentary. They mentioned that we are living in a "weaponized information environment." To me, they meant that now people are using intel and stories that aren't public knowledge yet and are crafting them into things to promote their side. Which is just so crazy to me to think society can be so vulnerable and naive to anything said by authority figures. #so315

In class we talked about how journalists try to stay objective in their work but may come across as biased due to what their sources provide. There sources determine how the story may get relayed. Jensen offers an additional peace that, "Official sources dominate the mainstream news." This plays on the theory that the ruling class ideology becomes the norm. If authoritative sources and people are seen as trust worthy, the the story will too. A cycle of ease and trust is formed. #so315

The article made me think of the repetitive cycle in media. We don't consume enough media with an open mind in order to form a well rounded opinion. Rather we just like to argue that journalist are biased because they don't share the same views as us or may cover a side of the story that conflicts with our beliefs. That leads journalists to fear covering certain parts of the story because they may get criticized for bias. Then people are again not fully educated and the cycle continues. #so315

This article reminded me of sociological conversations I've had about people who see things as black and white vs those who see the grey scale in between. However, this can get tricky with the presence of "False Balance." You should take in both sides of the story and be open minded, but you shouldn't present both sides equally if one is already clearly outweighing the other. So we must look more closely at public commentary and not confuse readers with trying to be entirely balanced. #So315

I really appreciated the work of these journalists to take an initiative to set a foundation and understanding for their work. They established their own top 10 values from professionals actually working in the field. They strategically chose points that weren't vague, could still be relevant throughout continuous evolution of society, and gave clear solutions for 70 years of collective work. They didn't just take citizen criticism, but gave thought out and backed up public explanations. #so315

The chapter shares of how newsrooms pass down their conventional ways and follow a routine. When technology was introduced, those routines adapted to the digital age. I wonder, though, how much really changed. In another sociology course of mine, we've talked about bias and shared opinions being passed down throughout the ages. Have the same traditional methods just continued to be passed down with the same brainwashed opinions. Is that why some brands are known to always lean one way? #so315

My phrase for the entire podcast was, "There's no such thing as bad exposure." Once again we're presented with the tensions of sociology. We want media to serve use or for it to go away. It's very hard to have just one or the other; reality needs conflict. There is always going to be a push and pull. The media needs those good exposing stories to stay entertaining. Celebrities need attention for popularity, but happy stories aren't always the most interesting. #so315