Navigating the High Seas of Media in the Modern Age

Fairness and equality are two key ingredients for a healthy democracy. In modern society, these elements are increasingly threatened by widespread media that can — at times — suppress ideas and promote a subversive agenda that challenges fairness and the very sense of what’s truth and what’s “fake news.” There are three components to a healthy democracy: popular sovereignty, political equality and political liberty. When any of these three pieces are missing, a healthy democracy is difficult to sustain. Our current culture of challenging freedom of speech is a direct threat to the health and vitality of our democracy, and it is a wake up call for us to seek truth beyond the press, beyond the possibility of alternative agendas.

The threat seemingly knows no partisanship: it challenges the truth of both conservatives and liberals alike. Conservative speeches planned at universities throughout the country are being cancelled at an all-time high. A recent example is the cancellation of an Ann Coulter speech at the University of California Berkeley, which — after great debate and controversy — was cancelled. “It’s sickening when a radical thuggish institution like Berkeley can so easily snuff out the cherished American right to free speech,” Coulter said. The threat looms large on both sides of the aisle as well. While most of us use social media as a way to engage with our friends and the world at large, others with a more hidden agenda may not. Facebook is one of many social media sites that is currently under investigation for its platform being manipulated with extreme conservative messages during our recent national election. Facebook is being investigated for both implanting digital team staff members from Trump’s campaign, as well as selling around 3,000 Facebook ads to fake accounts that linked to Russian propaganda groups.

Although these threats may make it seem as though we live in a corrupt bureaucracy rather than a thriving democracy, our liberty and equality has managed to survive and — at times — thrive. The health of our democracy is supported in large part by the vast number of persons that are deeply concerned about this growing threat, and who are committed to taking action to protect our fundamental right to free speech. In fact, a key reason for the successful political journey of our president, Donald Trump, is his finely crafted use of social media. The very same freedoms that foster manipulated messages on a massive scale have also enabled a non-politician to rise through the political ranks to leader of the free world. It can easily be argued that Donald Trump’s freedom to tweet and post whatever ideas were on his mind is the reason he became president, and that no other nation in the world would be able to elect a leader like Trump.

While the threat of extreme media is our new reality, we should not despair. Though it’s not perfect, for the most part what we are witnessing is democracy in the age of immediate and widespread information – and the ultimate challenge lies in our ability to manage and navigate these new, uncharted waters without damaging the very principles that we hold most dear.

https://www.wired.com/story/robert-mueller-russia-investigation-facebook/

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-coulter-berkeley-20170426-story.html

7 Responses to "Navigating the High Seas of Media in the Modern Age"

David Shaw says:

January 28, 2018 at 1:35 pm

The Ann Coulter situation was an interesting one that highlights a different aspect of this debate. Though she was supposed to speak, there was a growing concern about student rioting and violence on campus that gradually suffocated her plans. First, the University wanted to move her date and time to a more mediocre hour to avoid mass protest, then the group sponsoring her pulled out for fear of violence. Berkeley has had a long history of out of control student protest and it creates an interesting discussion of how far people, in this case students, can reasonably go to shut down those who they disagree with. While I’m no fan of Coulter’s, it is unfortunate that cancellations like this are such an epidemic at Berkeley, and there’s an interesting old Reagan quote about student protests breaking legality in his time that feels relevant now. So while I can’t agree with anything she says, it’s unfortunate to see so many schools having situations like these because the students don’t agree with a viewpoint.
Carlin O'Neill says:

January 28, 2018 at 3:24 pm

In the case of the Ann Coulter situation I think that there is a dangerous contradiction between being able to exercise ones right to freedom of speech and exercising the right to protest something that he or she doesn’t believe in. While Ann Coulter should be able to give her speech, as it is her Constitutional right, the students should also be entitled to their right to protest an event that would cause unease and displeasure. I think that this example and the contradiction within it is indicative of how the media also plays a role in exciting the public’s opinions, especially on a college campus. As young adults, social media is ever present and its a gateway to connecting with friends. In this case I can imagine that as students and peers banded together over social media it gained the notice of the university and as a precautionary measure they canceled the speech in order to appease the mass of young adults who opposed it over social media. While social media might have played a role in limiting Ann Coulter’s right to freedom of speech, it fostered the students’ rights to protesting a potentially unwanted event.
Chloe Blond says:

January 28, 2018 at 8:42 pm

Lizzy, your argument that social media is threatening freedom of speech is interesting and reminds me of the 2011 conviction of Anthony Elonis. After Anthony’s wife life left him and took their children with her, Anthony posted the following alarming message to his Facebook account, “there’s one way to love ya but a thousand ways to kill ya. I’m not gonna rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and drying from all the little cuts.” Believing to have been exercising his freedom of speech, Anthony continued to post intimidating messages on social media targeting, now, his coworkers and local community too. Despite a disclaimer included in his Facebook profile that stated all content posted to his account was strictly for entertainment, Anthony was convicted of a federal offense and sentenced to 3+ years in prison. Anthony challenged the conviction saying that his comments were “satire and black humor” and that his Facebook comments were not true threats, explaining internet users may vent online if they have no intention of actually acting upon their threats. Anthony stated that he was protected under the first amendment.  

Lizzy, at the end of your post you say that “while the threat of extreme media is our new reality, we should not despair” and that we must learn to “manage and navigate thee new, uncharted waters” that come with the digital age, but shouldn’t we? With the context of the Anthony case in my mind, I can’t help but question at what point do social media threats become criminal acts and not just expressions of the first amendment? Where is the line drawn? At what point do expressions of the first amendment threaten other freedoms?

https://www.americanbar.org/publications/youraba/2015/march-2015/aba-panelists-debate-free-speech-limits-on-social-media.html
Hannah Grow says:

January 28, 2018 at 9:27 pm

Lizzy,

Thank you for post. I think you perfectly summarize our current condition when you specify our need to maneuver this new age without undermining the freedoms that comprise our democracy. Your point about Donald Trump’s clever utilization of social media in his run and eventual success in the presidential election has urged me to bring up an alternative point regarding Donald Trump’s use of social media in this age of “immediate and widespread information.” Although it is impressive and perhaps inspiring to see someone with no political background rise to the leader of the free world, this has come with some consequences. Donald Trump has continued his use of Twitter into his presidency and the content of his tweets has sparked debates over our national security. President of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haass tweeted “In last 24 hours Trump has threatened to 1) cut aid to nuclear-armed, terrorist-laden Pakistan; 2) cut aid to miffed Palestinians after he alters U.S. Jerusalem policy, and 3) boasted his nuclear button is bigger than Kim Jung-un’s. This is our commander-in-chief. Think about it.” What was once a convenient campaign tool is now a platform for President Trump to mock formidable leaders of other nations and as a result threatens our nation’s security. As we navigate these uncharted waters, we must ask ourselves at what point should we continue to allow extreme media to threaten our nation’s security and ultimately our democracy?
Virginia Myers says:

January 28, 2018 at 11:40 pm

Lizzy,

Thank you for your post. Social media in politics has drastically changed campaigns and the way Americans interact with elected officials. The ability to communicate with officials is at our finger tips and has become increasingly popular, which means the public is becoming increasingly more candid and honest in how they communicate. Of course, communicating through social media is an effective way to reach the masses. However, as Hannah mentioned in her comment above, officials’ exercise of freedom of speech via social media threatens the security of our nation. Plus, it seems there are less productive conversations about politics because of the candid language used and the arguments that occur on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Although people are exercising their freedom of speech, it seems many people are taking advantage of the casualness and saying much more offensive things than in previous years. Also, social media is popularly used among right-wing and left-wing activists to create protests, pages, and share their opinions about current events. As a millennial, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the state of our nation with my peers. However, while digging through social media pages of some far-right supporters, it is clear that some exercise their right to freedom of speech too far with their language and images. With the advancement of technology and growing popularity of social media, how much more messy can politics get? Will the president jeopardize our security by simply writing a message with less than 140 characters? What can our generation do to create a more productive dialogue?
Austin Marsilia says:

January 30, 2018 at 9:39 pm

Lizzy,

Your argument is one that is very interesting and relevant to modern politics. The one point I tend to disagree with is calling modern media, “extreme media.” Arguably, political stances have become more moderate than they were during the early 2000s. However, modern technology and the mass media make it extremely easy to access a variety of viewpoints. In addition, modern media has strayed from reporting unbiased facts and has added personal commentary to the dialogue. If you watch a newscast from before the 2000s, you will notice there is not nearly as much personal commentary or criticism on the issue being reported. This trend has led people to believe that modern media is more extreme than it has been in the past. Biased reporting can be seen during the 2016 election. Each news station provided its own political commentary on candidate’s character or political presence, but often times failed to outline his or her stance on common social, economic, or political issues. I remember watching a CNN newscast following a presidential debate and the commentator did not mention the details of Trump’s economic policies, but immediately called them idiotic, not allowing the viewer to form his or her own opinion. I do not think the issue with modern media is the lack of freedom of speech, but rather the lack of unbiased reporting and media etiquette created by deep set political rivalry. As a solution to the issues of “fake news” and “extreme media”, modern media outlets should return to a more unbiased approach when providing coverage of events. This would restore the public’s trust in media coverage and allow the viewer to formulate his or her own political opinions based solely on facts.
Alexander Morris says:

January 30, 2018 at 10:11 pm

Elizabeth,

Very interesting points made in your article. Relating to the incident at UC Berkeley and Ann Coutler was very interesting. My sister in fact was at UC Berkeley at that time during what was supposed to be here speech. In fact, many students and California residents were there rioting and creating chaos. Relating to your point about Donald Trump and his gain of power through social media is a bit steep. I agree with you on the restless opinions of the man and his ability to tweet his mind. However, saying he gain political power through this action, I’m not so sure about. If anything I believe that it would have done the opposite of this manner. On another note, his tweets and use of social media is very untraditional and moving forward I think we will see more government officials and high ranking partisans using a means of social media to make decisions. The issue of protecting these individuals may also come into question as well with the, ‘up to the minute’ whereabouts of these professionals. This past year was the first time I had heard about the notion of “fake news.” I believe that when Trump and other candidates where slammed with allegations, I could not form my own opinion about the manner because often I did not know what to believe. I think is a big problem that comes along with our great democracy. I believe your points on a healthy democracy will help us move in the right direction when referring to our freedom of speech. Immediate and widespread information has turned our democracy to active tweeting page full of fake news and live updates of information that is not relevant to our society’s well-being.

Comments are closed.