Censorship

Our converstaions about censorship this past week seem to hold a lot of relevance in the world today. From The Heights to the outside world, censorship seems to be everywhere. My main concern after all of our talks is what determines censorship?

If important stories such as the taxpayer's price-of-living costs for inmates charged of marijuana possesion, and American human trafficing crime aren't published to the public for fear of outrage and protest- then what are they showing us as news?

If the important stories that affect our livelihoods and common culture aren't reported to us openly, then what is the point of a free press? By censoring or pressuring a medium to withhold a story, our media outlets really aren't free at all. In fact, they become increasingly influenced by money and corporate pressure to form an entirely restricted type of news.

The stories we do have access to hold very little cultural or individual importance. An isolated crime or a far away scandal, while entertaining, holds no real relevance to our lives or better understaning the world.

On the other hand, in regards to the race articles in The Heights and The Observer, where should editing and censoring be allowed? Though it was an opinion piece, the girl's controvercial article held some unfortunately phrased views and lacked viable sources. Should The Heights have edited or asked her to revise her entry? Or should they have let it stand as is?

Inflamatory as the article was, I'm glad they kept it. I don't necessarily agree with her or like how she wrote it, but I like that she took a stand on an issue and defended it. I also like that The Heights published it as is- allowing for multiple view points to be heard.

Censorship can be important in the public's understanding of an issue, but I'm afraid of how much of a story is hidden for fear of bad publicity. Censoring key parts of a story or an entire story itself does a great injustice to the people it effects the the people with the power to influence it.

Historically, the media was used to jump start political and social movements-- the revolutionary war, presidential appointments, propaganda, etc. It was an outlet for people to voice their opinions, alert others to their issues, and inspire public reaction. Today, the media is almost exclusively used to sell products and comercialism.

Music originally came from the people to reflect their voice, their ideas, their hopes. Now it does little more than sell sex and extravagance or give a catchy tune for a car commericial. The Beatles used their music to relate to their fans and time period. Today, we have no such voice unless you count Flo-Rida or Mylie Cyrus as an important symbol for our generation.

However, this year Taylor Swift broke out onto the scene. A country star, usually looked over by the mainstream population, became the most recognized and deocrated artists for the year based mainly on her ability to capture the simple emotional ups-and-downs of adolesence. Though not a groundbreaking message, she was a breath of fresh air compared to the "Blame it on the Alcohol" and "Get Low" music also released this year.

Sadly, her popularity did not go unnoticed. She is now featered in flirty jeans campaigns, commercials, billboard advertisements, and more. The simple messages from one teenage heart to another (or several million others) has now been turned into one of the highest grossing capitals in the nation. The "public sphere" we talked about in class is limited to the non-sucessfull. Though it can be accessed, once it becomes sucessful, it will be commercialized.

Media and American ideals

This week as we discussed the socialization of Americans through television and media, I could only think of my young cousins back home. One is a ten year old sporty, GI Joe-loving, good-ole' American boy; the other is a Disney princess ballerina seven year old girl.

TV becomes an easy babysitter, and while they don't watch anything bad, per say, I still wonder about how it will affect them.

For Kendall, will the images of what a girlie-girl "should be" limit her from trying new things? How and when will she rebel? I've know too many girls with eating disorders and low self esteem to disregard the impact the media can make on people...

Mitchell concerns me less- the media does not target men in the same way they do women. Considering the strong female influences in his life, I can't imagine he develops into a stereotypical beer-drinking football frat boy. But, hey... who knows.

I hope their good-natured family can help keep them grounded and real through their adolescence. Its a hard world to live in with pressures to be thin, athletic, cool, etc. rain in from all sides.

How I Consume

In terms of media, I'd like to think I'm a rather conscious consumer. I don't watch a lot of TV, I'm a frugal spender, and I've learned to love my body rather than critique it for its "imperfections." In those senses, I'm pretty grounded.

However, I realize how much of the news I watch on TV has bias and in all honesty I don't really care. I watch MSNBC and defend my biased information by saying it negates Fox News. How ridiculous is that? News of all things should be sacred and real, not biased and swaying in its presentation.

TV is one thing- the bias is easier to catch. On-line news, however is harder to determine because the writting gives less indication of side if you aren't expressly looking for it. There are no limits to the internet- anyone can post anything they want about everything.

I hope to keep a more mindful watch on how I understand and process the news for the future.