I found that one of the main points of this documentary was to explore how fabricated stories and conspiracies spread online, revealing the real-world harm that these theories can do to individuals, politics, and public trust in general. It traces major cases of misinformation and shows how digital platforms can amplify falsehoods faster than it shows the truth. An example of this was "pizzagate", and I found this interesting since I had never heard of it before. #so315

American journalism operates as a rigid system. This system forces journalists to be seen as agents in the system, but they're really just limited to which stories and perspectives they can cover(these limiting forces are either the professional norms or the elite viewpoints of those running the organization). Market pressures can also further these challenges to media coverage, with the result being a media system that appears balanced, but in reality is in a power imbalance. #so315

Just because someone's presenting two sides of an argument/issue doesn't make it accurate or "fair". This kind of media coverage can often exaggerate a certain viewpoint and reinforce bias. The public wants to be able to evaluate all news sources and points of view, and when some viewpoints are more covered, this kind of critical thinking can't happen. #so315

To me, this chapter really highlighted how much of a "battlefield" journalism is. The chapter really emphasized how much journalists and journalism organizations compete against each other, fighting for the most capital. Also with the US Press becoming less and less free, it makes journalism much more complicated and difficult to navigate. #so315

This Trump-era administration is doing what could've only bee dreamt of during the Nixon Era. The current administration is weakening traditional media through modern channels, making it impossible to tell what's true due to the presence of so much biased news. This podcast episode highlights how Trump is able to get his narrative out there and keep it out there, despite present dissent about how his presidency is being conducted. #so315

I found it intriguing how the text mentioned the state/government wanting to protect the public interest and the people they represent. As an institution that claims to want to protect our safety and interests, the state has such a huge stake in the media industry that most of the news that we end up seeing represents the state's interests instead of the public's. #so315

This source made it clear how much media ownership dictates who gets heard. These bigger corporations, who hold a majority of media ownership, control so much of what people see, in addition to whose news actually does get heard. Even with endless amounts of online content, control of the algorithms and platforms that ownership has often narrows what people actually see; this amplifies a few voices over many, and can silence the voices that either are true or need to be heard. #so315

I found it interesting to read literally anything about local newspapers, a news source that, without a doubt, is undervalued. Newspapers are a part of many peoples' daily routines, and it is a great way for many community members to stay informed. Without local news sources, those communities lose connection to each other and the communities around them. Local news employs a lot of people in a community, so a loss of local news sources isn't just a loss of community, but a loss of jobs. #so315

I knew somewhat about this before, but profit plays a huge part in the media we see and how we perceive that media. Depending on how certain sources are funded and where their content is going, the content of that source may come off as biased. #so315

I found it interesting how the reading mentions that "everyone pays for media". Whether it's actually through money, or with their time and energy, someone pays for the content we see daily. #so315