Blog Post #4 - The Progressive Era

After browsing both Antiwar.com and The American Conservative, I feel incredibly uninformed and uneducated on the sheer amount of foreign entanglements the United States has become involved in. It feels wrong to be misguided on mainstream media in the direction of less controversial subjects. Regardless of whether or not it's going to be profitable for said news networks to discuss the United State’s positive and negative involvements in foreign affairs, I strongly believe that these topics should be released and emphasized more openly/often. 

It could be argued that the U.S. government hasn’t been the most transparent with what specifically is going on in each militarized foreign operation, however it should be the duty of not only the U.S. government, but also American news reporters to actively seek out and release critical information involving the nation’s foreign affairs. It seems that popular mainstream news networks overtime are accustoming their audiences to less and less stories involving around the United State’s involvement in foreign affairs until a “major” story arises like a bombing or gunfight resulting in the loss of American lives. News networks should be confidently posting articles involving the U.S.’ international relations without the fear of being silenced or receiving subsequent punishment. The less these topics are discussed, the higher the odds are of the said information to be misrepresented or misconstrued. Having to go to an obscure news source to find information about anti war material lowers the reliability and educational expectations of mainstream news companies. Hopefully audiences realize that these popular networks are withholding information from them and choose to branch out and research new means of acquiring information.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/web-categories/foreign-affairs/

https://www.antiwar.com/

 

Blog Post #2 - Founding Era Timeline

The “Founding Era” for the United States of America transformed and established the government we have today through revolution, patriotism, the pursuit of freedom with liberty and justice for all. The beginning of such an era began on a sour note however and could be argued as a stain on the timeline. In 1619, an English privateering ship docked in Jamestown, Virginia, looking to purchase numerous African slaves in exchange for food. English landholders and colonists knew they could take advantage of the slaves as a resource and put them to work in their labour-starved colonies like Jamestown.

Years down the line, tensions between England and the colonists continued to rise leading to the American Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence in 1776 which affirmed the United State’s decision to fight for their national freedom from England. Colonies were additionally urged to create State Constitutions specific to their state’s popular vote. 

By 1782, the Articles of Confederation was written becoming the then 13 colonies’ Constitution. It wasn't until 1783 when the Revolutionary war was over and the Treaty of Paris was signed. Six years later in 1789, the U.S. Constitution was ratified allowing congress to finally convene under a national constitution. In the early 1790s, the Bill of Rights was ratified and the 10 amendments were established. Such an act established the nations positive and negative rights. Positive rights being a U.S. citizen’s right to be helped in situations like healthcare, a fair trial, and a minimum standard of living. Negative rights being constitutional rights which are unable to be interfered with by the government. One 1803 president case which created a doctrine was Marbury v. Madison. The case resulted in the establishment of Judicial Review by the Supreme Court which allowed them to review all actions made by any branch of government and determine their constitutional merit. 

It's not until over 100 years later in 1925 when the Judiciary Act was passed allowing certiorari, or the ability for the Supreme Court to be more specific with which cases they choose. This rough timeline highlights key moments within the Founding Era which laid the foundation for governmental practices today within the United States.

https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/supreme-court-facts

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/timeline-american-founding/

Key Blogpost #2 - EOTO Com Tech Timeline

From an early age, I have always been interested in radio and its seemingly magical way to audibly capture the attention and hearts of its audience unique to any form of media beforehand. Growing up listening to the radio on my way to and from school, exposed me to an incredible variety of music genres, radio personalities, and advertisements. An amount which would have been comedically overwhelming for someone growing up one to two generations earlier. Radio is a tool which revolutionized the way in which companies advertise their products, and the way people behave and arrange themselves culturally within both public and private spheres of their lives. Throughout this blogpost, I plan to discuss these topics as well as give a relatively brief history of Radio. 

                                         

At a time when wireless telegraphy was in one of its earliest stages, and wireless communication was just recently able to reach across the Atlantic, Reginald Fessenden decided to change the game. Fessenden, an engineer for Thomas Edison’s company, General Electric, created an alternator transmitter allowing for an increased number of electrical ticks and for Fessenden himself to speak over the air. On Christmas day in 1906, he christened the Electromagnetic Spectrum by reciting passages from the bible and playing “O Holy Night” on the violin over the radio for anyone with a receiver to hear. Overtime, additional regulations were instituted regarding how and which companies could operate on the spectrum.

In 1912, the Radio Act of 1912 was passed giving the secretary of commerce the authority to split up the spectrum delegating which parties could send messages on which frequencies. It wasn’t until the Radio Act of 1927 when the Federal Radio Commission (later known as the FCC) was established and took control of the EMS’s regulations. By then, licenses had to be purchased by those interested in operating on the EMS for a specific amount of time. At this point, the EMS was something that nearly anyone could access. Over the next few years, tens of millions of dollars are made by radio stations from advertisements. Noticing the increasing impact radio was having on our culture, President Franklin D. Roosevelt started his “Fireside Chats” where he spoke inclusively to his audience and calmed the panicked American people during the hard times of the Great Depression. An act which better established his positive relationship with the American people and increased his political popularity. By the late 1940s, hundreds of millions had been made from radio, yet television was taking over the popular scene. 

 

One major impact of Radio was its ability to create popular culture within the United States. What it meant to be a kid in South Carolina and the popular culture surrounding that area was much different than that of a kid living in Missouri. But now companies and their products could be advertised nationally reaching an audience far greater than what was previously thought possible. There became a societal need to stay informed and up-to-date on all the news, advertisements, music, politics, religious sermons, and the popular dissemination of ideas provided through radio. The distribution and direction of furniture within the average American household was rearranged to focus the room’s attention around the radio. It wasn’t until the increased popularity of the television was the American household affected by such a drastic change to its traditional values.

https://transition.fcc.gov/omd/history/radio/documents/short_history.pdf

http://www.wcbn.org/history/wcbntime.html

Key Blogpost #1 - Eight Values of Free Expression

Speech theory number three, “Stable Change,” suggests that angry/alienated citizens will be less physically violent if they are legally allowed to be more audibly and digitally aggressive. Allowing the masses to “vent” their personal, cultural, and/or political frustrations through assemblies and social media supports/encourages honest self-expression and the positive evolution of cultural norms. Additionally, granting more “dangerous groups” to speak their mind allows the government the ability to better monitor them and gage any threats against national security or a group of people.

Dr. Charity Kurz, a professor at SAGU posted an article discussing “The Psychology of Venting'' and the positive and negative effects it has on not only the communicator, but also the listener. Within the study, Dr. Kurz highlights how venting is a stress-relieving coping mechanism which if done in a safe environment could succeed in reducing stress, however if done incorrectly, could result in “heightened stress and physical health concerns.” Kurz notes that in order for the venting to remain healthy, both the communicator and the listener have to play their equally important roles through the practice of active listening and empathy.

Building off these points, a year ago I took a sociology class, Mass Media and Society. Within that class we discussed psychologist Paul Eckman’s study which identified the six universal emotions which all humans feel, those being: happiness, sadness, fear, disgust, anger, and surprise. Throughout class we discussed how different social media platforms use these humanistic emotions to their advantage to promote the platform. Some examples being how Twitter users often use the site to express meanness and frustrations, while Snapchat users often promote more positive and comedic content. What if for whatever reason, Twitter began banning anyone from using the platform who had posted a negative comment against a political party? Would the masses continue to trust the “safe space” they once trusted to express their viewpoints? Under such a hypothetical, both the active listening and empathetic process involved with the act of venting, would most certainly result in the negative social and physical outcomes Kurz discussed in her article.









Another speech theory which could be applied in tandem with “Stable Change” is number six: “Promote Tolerance.” The theory suggests that protecting hateful speech can actually be used in a positive manner to educate the masses as to how to live a more tolerant life. Emphasizing how society learns and adapts from the use of inappropriate language to better educate the masses as to what are acceptable norms and behaviors. My problem with this theory is that nowadays, it seems like more politicians are acting more openly aggressive through social media and advertisements against their competitors. It seems like powerful figures are becoming more openly intolerant of their foes through false advertising through exaggerated or misinterpreted messages of their beliefs or actions. I do believe in the theory, however I don’t want the cowardice of some who intentionally spread misinformation for their own gain, to persuade an audience of potentially invested viewers who give them their attention.




https://www.sagu.edu/thoughthub/the-psychology-of-venting




https://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Are-There-Basic-Emotions1.pdf