the Real News Story

Recently, in our final media law and literacy class discussion I was astounded to learn about the truth behind the Wikileaks situation and Russia involved in election meddling. I wasn’t aware that the supposed hacking of the DNC conducted by Russia wasn't exactly the case but instead was leaked by someone who copied information about Clinton trying to take advantage to steal the election in 2016 from Sanders. I also learned a lot about WikiLeaks and its founder after more research: Julian Assange. He is an Australian journalist, computer programmer and the founder of Wikileaks who is serving a prison sentence in the UK and is refusing extradition to the US. A lot see him as a hacker and whistleblower but he rather sees himself as an advocate of information transparency. 

Wikileaks bring international attention to war crimes, human rights issues, and corruption. In 2010, Chelsea Manning published leaks in an article under Wikileaks describing a collateral murder video, Afghanistan war logs, Iraq war logs, in which the government then launched a criminal investigation into the company and asked the international community for assistance. In November 2010, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange likely due to him uncovering American documents and a month later he surrendered to the UK police. He then was losing extradition charges and decided to seek asylum at the London Embassy for about seven years.

In 2016 Wikileaks revealed email communications sent by HRC during the election period from her private server during her tenure as Secretary of State. Mueller discovered that the Russians worked with Wikileaks in carrying out this attack. Assange denied having any part which is logical due to his incarceration at the embassy whereas in April of 2019 his asylum was revoked and the authorities came in to drag him out where he serves 50 weeks in a super-max prison in the UK where he is starting to undergo further serious charges. 

This raises the questions over whether he did have a part in any of this and in any of the other actions he’s accused of, which again, is difficult to believe when he had no technological access within the embassy. Furthermore, it must be analyzed if him exposing secrets and bringing about transparency should be treated with such vigor and punishment to the extreme level that he is currently being treated at.

Other Groups' final presentations

I found other groups' presentations to be extremely interesting. I think they did some great jobs in tying together the points of this semester into key concise subject matters. I like how the first group touched upon total information awareness and propaganda. In today's society we are fed illusory information that almost tends to brainwash us. If you go home and turn on the news there is nothing but the same thing on TV every single day. The government feeds us propaganda all the time. There is no progress in the government but all that we hear is the Russia Collusion story. That's not news but just information meant to persuade our opinion about our leaders in a very bias manner and is shoved in our face every day.

Other groups went on to speak about the mainstream media and channel news classifications. I found this to be very interesting because it just emphasized my above point about how news channels are supposed to be unbiased but rather lately have been very picky in choosing a side that financially betters their station. I remember a day when you could turn on the news and hear about things going on around the world but lately its just been a ton of garbage. I like how the team listed out a ton of right and left classifications of the news stations because there was not one channel for the most part that is mainstream media that was in the middle (as all should be).

Nevertheless I can only hope that one day news channels revert the way that they used to be and tell factual stories that vary that pique my interest. All the news is doing now is brainwashing the public and just rotting our brains, plain and simple.

Group Presentation on Policy

Our group presented upon the matter of policy. We decided to touch upon the Sherman Antitrust Act, Media Consolidation, Vertical Integration, Net Neutrality, News Deserts, and Cord Cutting.

The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by Congress to prohibit trusts and used the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Trusts dominated a number of major industries and destroyed competition since a company can then start to function as a monopoly. The act also authorized the government to start proceedings against trusts in order to dissolve them and any declaration to form a trust was deemed illegal. Penalties were a $5,000 fine and a possible year in jail. The goal of this act was to restore competition among firms.

News Deserts are a community with limited access to the sort of credible news information that feeds democracy at the grassroots level. This tends to be poor, older, and less educated communities that include very vulnerable citizens.

Media Consolidation is a process where fewer individuals or organizations control increasing shares of the mass media and where small firms dominate the media industry. These firms have complete control of information going out to media sources that plays to the interests of people in power rather than the general public.

Net Neutrality is what keeps the internet free and open to everybody and is the result of keeping private companies from regulating what is seen/heard on the internet.

Cord Cutting is a term for people cancelling their subscription for cable service. Streaming services are coming out and people are starting to lean that way and push older companies out of business. Cord Cutting is occurring in 20% of American homes and will increase to 30% by 2024.

Vertical integration is a supply chain owned by the company where the company is able to control all parts of the supply chain process rather than just one. This allows companies to create their own products entirely and make sure everything goes logistically smooth but reduces competition greatly as a downside in the market.

Overall, these different ideas and acts all contribute to the policy of our nation and the trends in which society and individuals are turning in the future.

Religious Advertisements and the 1rst Amendment

A relative sized Arizona town had placed limits on the sizes of church signs that were being put up. It brought about mild but short controversy whether or not this violated the 1st amendment. The case is titled reed vs. town of Gilbert. It concerned an ordinance that had "restrictions on political, ideological, and directional signs".
It then went to the Supreme Court. In all, the supreme court justices decided favorably in a 9-0 vote that it was in direct violation of the constitution and the first amendment but they disagreed in the fact that six of the justices argued that they agreed upon the bottom line but not the rationale of the decision, which is an extremely counterintuitive thought.

Essentially, the argument is about the freedom of speech for the right to choose a religion. Normal signs, in the town, were acceptable all the way up to 32 square feet. However, when dealing with any sign that were church related, the sign was unable to surpass 6 square feet. As a result, it is obvious that the first amendment does not tolerate this unequal sort of treatment. However, what is still being discussed is the amount of signs on one road pertaining to the same topic for advertisement purposes but also if they pass content-based laws which arises another whole level of issues/topics.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/major-supreme-court-cases-in-2015.html?_r=0

Blogging's important role in society

Personally, for me, blogging has been the most fun as well as best learning experience throughout the semester. This is because I was able to speak about my ideas and beliefs through mass communication. First, I'd like to acknowledge what blogging has meant and has done for society in the 21st century. The internet in general has changed society drastically and continues to do so on a daily basis because people are expressing themselves and interacting themselves with others through a computer monitor. A Worldwide Web filled with endless things to do, look at, and participate in. Blogging has come about in this age as one of those activities to interact and participate in.

Blogging has made it so that instead of spreading ideas on telephone polls or in person, people can rather express themselves online to an even greater platform of people. Blogging is the use to exercise First Amendment rights in an effective and efficient way while all at the same time connecting to an ever-growing database of people. Blogging allows individuals to communicate thoughts internationally, something people could not easily do before the use of internet and especially worldwide blogging. Blogging has paved the way for expediting the way things should be done in society. If activists in the past, like MLK Jr., had internet and blogging as a resource then his ideas would have rapidly caught on fire spreading around the U.S. and especially the world in a much more prolific manner, perhaps even getting what he wanted to achieve done faster. Blogging has truly made First Amendment rights easier because people can even anonymously or openly blog their feelings without retribution or consequence, which advocates for one of the main points of the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech.

What the First Amendment really means

In society there are many who have different and sometimes even opposing viewpoints of the first amendment. Some live their lives following the first amendment, while others don't pay much attention to it. However, there are some that seem to totally dismiss history and altogether are not even sure of what the first amendment represents. The first amendment is the trademark to the bill of rights and constitution and those who don't know it typically don't have the strongest background in history nor did they ever often take interest in it. When interviewing a randomly selected population of people, only 7/10 knew something remotely about what the first amendment means but sadly there was only 1/10 that knew EXACTLY what the first amendment means.

The first amendment is the main representation of freedom in this nation. The first amendment has 6 clauses of freedom that are the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom from religion, the freedom to petition, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of press. The first amendment is something that should be taken very seriously in this nation and was the first step in giving citizens of the United States their freedom to live a happy and non-constricted life. Furthermore, the first amendment is supposed to be read as it is described in the text and not left up to much interpretation. The first amendment is something that has shaped the course of history and will continue to lead the infinite future and the peoples' freedom. 

In all, the First Amendment is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Apple versus the government

A Couple of years ago, one of the people connected to the San Bernardino shootings had a password on his phone as well as encryption. The phone very likely contained top secret details regarding the plot of the shootings. The FBI pleaded for apple to essentially create a backdoor into the iPhone to unlock it and retrieve the data. Apple simply refused. Apple refused because they felt that it would jeopardize the national security of the people and violate their first Amendment rights. They felt that by showing the FBI that there's a way to get into the iPhone, and by the way this is technology that apple claims has not even been developed yet, then it will keep the people of this country unsafe. The FBI, however, argued that unlocking one phone will not hurt everybody in the United States but apple claims that the minute a back-channel is created that people will be under surveillance like never before. FBI then took it to court.

Apple continued to argue that win or lose the court case that they would not give up the backdoor to accessing the phone. When people buy an iPhone, Apple promises to keep all information on there secret. It also became an extremely important political argument because it would violate the first amendment if apple were to give up the information on unlocking the iPhone. Furthermore, apple deemed it unlawful and the people of this nation began to converge around them as well arguing that they don't want their personal information looked at. Apple also argued that the FBI should be able to figure out the details that they need to know on their own since they are in fact, the FBI. It was the decided in a twist of events, on Tuesday March 1, 2016 that the courts deemed Apple the win and now Apple will no longer have to fight the FBI on even attempting to create a backdoor to the iPhone
and thus jeopardizing the first amendment and national security of the people.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/29/apple-wins-major-court-victory-in-its-battle-against-fbi-in-a-case-similar-to-san-bernardino/