Writing Under Oath
The media is forced to encourage majority bias while it suppresses minority voices. With that, not everyone is heard. This limits the information being spread. Why may this be bad, you ask? Well, with only one side being told, people's beliefs are tested and may result in a biased result.
Although gatekeeping has a lot of cons, there are also some pros. Only focusing on one side allows the media to have a higher chance of content quality and a lower chance of misinformation being spread. Pursuading individuals to choose their side. This also allows us to maintain the values and rules of the community. Whether it's cultural standards, if it's appropriate or not, or just content saturation in general. This limits the amount of news that is being spread throughout the web.
Some examples that Makaylah shared with us for gatekeeping are listed below:
- major news sources (CNN, CNBC, Band News, BBC World News, etc.)
- social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter/X, etc.)
- newspapers, radio channels, and journalists
Now, with these individuals, we see the information being run through this theory in the diagram. Interviewers get majorers around information from primary sources, it is run through the channels, and then is stopped at the first gate. Will the interviewer publish what they found, or are they going to alter it to make it sound different? After that, it goes through the channels again and hits the audience. From the audience's part, it is the audience's choice to alter their beliefs or contradict what is being said and publish a new statement opposing what has been said in the first place.Let Me See
While we think "WE want to watch" whatever is on the screen, behind the scenes, the media influences what people think and what should be seen live. Now that is what agenda setting means. This theory shapes public perception and public opinions drastically. Especially during the political season, you can see agenda setting in campaigns, ads, and even posters around your community. One key thing about enforcing agenda setting is the enforcement of policies it must take when it action.
To counter that, agenda setting has a wide range of cons to it. First, it is similar to gatekeeping, and it can potentially end in biased results. Another problem is that sometimes individuals can be influenced by oversimplified media and can be distracted by the main problem or news that is being produced. This encourages arguments that can possibly end in deadly matters. Stereotyping groups of people is highly relevant in agenda setting because of today's politics and how the world is evolving.
Below are examples of agenda-setting movements that Makaylah discussed:
- #MeToo: Giving a voice to those who were survivors of sexual violence and to build a robust community of advocates and allies.
- #BlackLivesMatter: Advocating against violence inflicted on those from Black communities by those with power.
While these are more of the popular ones, these movements are examples of agenda setting. After more individuals shared their stories, the #MeToo movement started to gain more media coverage, and eventually, major celebrities and media outlets played a big role in bringing these stories to the forefront. With #BlackLivesMatter, agenda setting was both beneficial and counterproductive. Some media sources highlighted the peaceful protests and the need to reform, while others focused on instances of violence and rioting, influencing public opinion on the black communities and this movement.
Influence
In our society, gatekeeping impacts media narratives and how people receive and interpret information. Meanwhile, according to Media Theory, agenda setting influences priorities, perceptions, the severity of issues, people, and the media. These theories impact social hierarchies, discrimination, exclusion, and make education and information difficult to obtain. Hopefully, this blog and Makaylah's presentation will bring awareness to gatekeeping and agenda setting.
No comments:
Post a Comment