#4

The First Radio

In today's society, most people simply think of "the radio" as a way to listen to music in the car. However, throughout history, the radio has ushered in many eras of media advancement, each with different implications.

The first radio was invented thanks to the discovery of electromagnetic waves. In the 1880s, the theory that these waves could travel at the speed of light and be received at a great distance was proven. After this scientific breakthrough, Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi successfully broadcast the first transatlantic signal by the end of 1901. Now, this signal was only dots and dashes, and it remained Morse code for 5 years until physicist Reginald Fessenden sent the first long-distance transmission of human voice from his station in Massachusetts.

From there, the radio took off. It served as a novel mass communications medium, making it easier to reach large populations without the use of newspapers. This revolutionized the entertainment industry as hundreds of radio shows were created. There were comedies, dramas, world-events coverage - really everything that we see on TV today. In fact, big names like David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, and Jimmy Kimmel all began their careers in broadcast radio.

With this incredible new way of reaching others, the commercial industry was revolutionized as well. Along with products being advertised on radio stations, those who ran stations had to navigate how to hold an audience through a digital channel. They had to consider who would want to listen to each particular genre. They also had to consider when most people would listen so they could determine when it was best to air content. It was even discovered that certain features of a broadcast - such as the use of music - tended to attract listeners more effectively than other features. All of these ideas influenced the foundations for modern marketing strategies that we have today.

The years that the radio boomed were from around 1930 to 1955. These decades were referred to as the Golden Age of Radio. While there were many positive effects that the radio had on society, there were many concerns that had to be addressed with them. One of the most significant was the need for regulation. Radio was a business and with any business comes government policy on what it can or cannot do. This was especially a prominent concern in the US because early acceptance of radio was occurring right around WWI, meaning there were political factors at play. Congress eventually passed the Radio Act of 1927, which set standards for government licensing of frequencies and emphasized that broadcasts should be in "the public interest, convenience or necessity." The specifics of this act were better laid out by the Federal Radio Commission in the years to come. The Federal Radio Commission later turned into the Federal Communications Commission, applying rules to phones and TV.

Ultimately, we wouldn't have most of the technology that we have today if not for the radio. More importantly is we wouldn't utilize technology the way we do if not for the integral part the radio played in the entertainment and commercial industries.

Blog Post #3

The Eight Values of Freedom

Out of the Eight Values of Free Expression, the value of Stable Change was the most interesting concept to me. It is essentially the idea that discontent citizens who can freely speak their minds are more "stabilized" because they are less likely to express their grievances in a harmful way. This creates a safer society, while also aiding governments in detecting possibly threatening people. I feel this has been especially relevant in our digitalized society since there is a lot of controversy surrounding censorship laws that prevent open speech on social media. It piques the question of where to draw the line with censorship and whether censoring online content actually does more harm than good. Perhaps it's better to let people do what they want online since there isn't any direct physical damage that can ensue. In my opinion, there is also a plethora of nonsensical content that is uploaded to the internet, so someone's "venting" may simply blend in with all the other negative content that already exists. To me, this seems like it'd be a win-win scenario in which people get to voice out their views and the government can mitigate violent conflict.

In the second Supreme Court video, there was a point brought up about the Court's authority. It explained how ultimately the Justices can't act on an issue unless it is brought to them, meaning that for any issue they make a decision on, it's only done because that issue has become a significant concern to the public. I believe this dynamic is similar to the one between the public voice and the government. Allowing people to speak their minds will eventually signal to the government that there is a possibly widespread concern that they need to be addressing. The government may not know what needs to change for the sake of the people unless they're told by the people themselves.

The Stable Change value also reminds me of the stereotypical situation in which kids with strict parents tend to "act out" when they get older. Many people who grew up in a family environment that kept them from speaking their minds or holding constructive discussions now find themselves behaving in ways they never thought they would. Subconsciously, they are finding ways to make up for their lack of a voice during their childhood by making irrational decisions now. The same is true in society: those who aren't able to voice their opinions peacefully resort to violence to ensure their voice is finally heard.

Another value of freedom that caught my interest was the value of Promoting Tolerance. I wonder how society comes to a general consensus of what is right and wrong. After the class recitation on the Supreme Court, we learned about how morals change over time. At one point, slavery was acceptable and not uncommon. Now we consider it to be a complete violation of human rights. I'm curious as to what makes society a competent decision-maker if we have found ourselves to be wrong in history. Then again, we are all human, so we naturally have flaws and limitations to our judgment. 

Like Stable Change, this value also relates to the content of the second Supreme Court video. The government doesn't necessarily need to force change, because people tend to come to a general consensus on what is tolerable or not. That consensus then creates norms around different behaviors. In the end, the people are the deciders in what is acceptable, whether those decisions are made through norms or through what is brought to the Supreme Court. The Court - or other branches of government - is not fully responsible for any decision made in this country since it is the public that is responsible for claiming that a decision needs to be made in the first place and that there is a certain way that decision should go. I think we often forget this duty we have as citizens.

Ultimately, there are numerous factors to consider when regarding free speech and the role the government and people play in its significance. While there are both benefits and flaws to our current system of laws, I think it's important to hold continuous discussion on difficult subjects. We, as a country, have the power to change things in mighty ways. It has taken time to get to where we are now, and it will take time to get where we want to be. We must remain open-minded, yet dedicated to the values in our Constitution. As long as we strive to grow, our conversations as a country will only push us forward to what the future holds. The value of free speech is essential to include in those conversations.

Blog Post #2

The Supreme Court: My Reflection

The Supreme Court has always been a far-off entity to me. I knew of its general purpose, but I had never taken the time to consider how the Justices approached their jobs and fulfilled their duties. After watching these two videos, I now have an understanding of the fundamental philosophies that guide the Supreme Court's decisions and the complexities that accompany them. 

The first video helped me grasp the extent to which the Supreme Court bases its decisions on the Constitution. I knew beforehand that the Constitution plays a key role in the Court's activities, but it never resonated with me that it is the document of the Court's foundational principles. The history behind this is incredibly interesting too. I was most surprised by the changing reputation of the Supreme Court. Perhaps since it's held in such high regard in current times, there was no reason for me to think it had ever been regarded otherwise. However, after the Dred Scott Decision in 1857, the Court did in fact take a hit to its credibility. The Justices - under Roger Brooke Taney - ruled that Congress couldn't end slavery, ultimately weakening their authority. Nowadays, people hold a general acceptance of the Court's authority, as the Court has established that it's predominantly guided by the Constitution. It's important to note, though, that the Constitution holds different implications for us now. After the addition of multiple amendments, every human being is considered the "People" in "We the People."

The second video gave insight into the technical workings of the Supreme Court. I learned about the oral argument, which is a public discussion between the Justices and lawyers. My biggest takeaway from the Justices describing the oral argument is that the Court is essentially having a conversation with itself by using the lawyers as an intermediary. I thought this was such an interesting way of looking at it. Ultimately, this idea helped to remind me that the Justices are regular people: they have emotions, internal conflict, and the need for external opinions to bounce their own opinions off. This is where the oral argument seems to come in. It allows the Justices to "check" their thought processes, which are naturally subject to human bias. Questions that would never be brought up by the Justices themselves are brought to light. Lawyers can also ask questions about the brief in a very open and honest environment.

After the oral argument takes place, the Justices vote and have one on the majority side write an opinion paper. Opinion writing is a time-consuming procedure, as the drafts can last for months and can be up to 80 pages long. The finalized paper is sent out to the press to interpret in simple terms for the public. Learning about opinion writing caused me to gain a newfound respect for the Supreme Court. I feel that because the Court is set in such a political climate, people (including myself) expect the Justices to hold a sort of agenda. However, I don't think we comprehend just how much effort and thought is put into their jobs. At the end of the day, the Justices do their best to take a long-term view for the sake of the country, even if that means opposing "contemporary political ties."

Blog Post #1

My Top 5 Sources of Information

Oftentimes when people hear the term "The News", they immediately think of negative, political-based stories on CNN or Fox News. However, with the increasing variety of media, I've found that many people my age intake information through platforms other than news channels. This influx of novel media sources has caused me to be more aware of what information I choose to influence my own beliefs or knowledge. While I have never identified myself as someone who consistently stays up to date on world events, I have still come to put more consideration into any sort of media I consume. My top 5 sources of information are a reflection of how I've worked to diversify my information intake.

#1 People

No, not People the magazine, but real-life people. As a people person, I'm always talking to others and naturally get most of my news from word-of-mouth. This source is the easiest way to incorporate information intake into my daily life as conversations happen no matter what - they aren't planned nor do they prevent me from putting time into other priorities. Exchanging information through people also encourages conversation. Most other sources leave me to make my own unquestioned conclusions, whereas speaking with others allows me to be exposed to different perspectives. This prevents me from being stuck in an Echo Chamber in which the media I consume only reinforces my preconceived opinions.

#2 Instagram

I believe that social media is a powerful tool - something through which people can influence and be influenced all at once. While everyone has a feed that is somewhat curated for them due to Instagram's algorithm, the app still provides opportunities for discussion as people can upload almost anything they want. Whether it's reels or stories, I am still exposed to other opinions when my friends post content on particular subjects. Instagram is also a platform that is familiar to me, making it easy to use and find information. It often serves as a starting point for me when it comes to world news and trending topics. I discover many key moments in politics or pop culture as I'm scrolling. Once a recent event is made known to me through Instagram, I can then conduct deeper research through other platforms such as search engines.

#3 Google

Google is generally the first place I turn to when I intend to conduct in-depth research or when I fall into a hole of curiosity. I love Google because it has information on everything: politics, science, food, celebrities, plants. No matter what I'm interested in looking up, I can always trust Google to give me thousands upon thousands of search results to browse. Similar to the other two sources I mentioned, Google exposes me to several different viewpoints because of these search results. Another useful aspect of this platform is how it can direct users to other sources. For instance, if I want to access Spotify to listen to a podcast, I can look them up on Google rather than having to download them.

#4 Podcasts

Podcasts make news more digestible to me. Since they are a form of entertainment mixed with information, they are likely to spark my interest and keep my attention more than other sources. Podcasts are perfect for auditory learners or those who are always on the go. They are also a convenient way to promote personal growth as anyone can play a podcast while washing dishes or working out. In these cases, podcasts are beneficial alternatives to listening to music or conducting tasks in silence because they're actually teaching something. While there are podcasts of every genre, I prefer ones on subjects like health, productivity, or business. One of my favorite podcasts is On Purpose with Jay Shetty. It's a series of conversations that offer insight into mental well-being and an overall healthy lifestyle.

#5 The Wall Street Journal

At the start of this semester, one of my professors encouraged us students to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). He mentioned that it only costs 50 cents per week, so I figured such a small investment would be worth trying the platform out. As someone who doesn't keep up with recent events, subscribing to the WSJ has helped me ease into becoming a better-informed citizen. After browsing the website and app, I have learned more about topics such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Oscar nominations, and the upcoming Presidential Election. The WSJ is notably one of the most unbiased sources as seen on the Media Bias Chart. Along with having only a slight right-side bias, the WSJ reports reliable information with fact-based analysis. Knowing that it's a credible source gives me a sense of reassurance in my choice to obtain information from the WSJ.