Blog post #8 | The Diffusion Theory

The Diffusion Theory explores the rate and implications of a technology and how it becomes an integral part of society. The innovation I would like to focus on is the iPhone. Produced by Apple, it was the product of mobilizing the functions of a computer. I believe it was a brilliant innovation because it was able to do so much while being so mobile. If you wanted to call someone before having the iPhone, you needed a phone booth, pagers, Blackberry, or mail. If you wanted to play a game, you needed some kind of device with a computing system to run it. Wanted to listen to music? You need a SONY Walkman or some kind of device which could play audio off of an audio track. Did you need to find any kind of information? Get out your trusty Encyclopedia book and flip the pages continuously until you found the information you needed. 

The iPhone compacted all those needs into a small rectangle which could fit into your pocket. Just the idea of that is crazy and that was the reason early adopters were so eager to obtain the iPhone. The caveats to the iPhone were that the BlackBerry was still very popular at the time, so the iPhone had to overtake them. Plus, iPhone when it released still had functions it had yet to develop, so it would be a few years before it became the societal necessity it is now. Otherwise, the battery life was not amazing, the keyboard was inconvenient, and it was expensive. Those were the biggest reasons not to take the gamble and get the iPhone at the time, though those who saw the possibilities became early adopters who helped popularize and integrate the iPhone into the society we live in today.

With every new version of the iPhone, a critique would be fixed and a new, quality-of-life improvement would be made, which made early adopters happier and encouraged more people to cave and buy the iPhone. People who purchased had so many recreational and informational capabilities at their fingertips, and they would have made that purchase because it made life so much easier. Innovations are innovations because they make the quality of life better at a small price in terms of work. Sure, you might have to spend a few hundred bucks to get the iPhone, but that return in advanced capabilities was worth the cash. The positives outweighed the negatives, especially considering how quickly the iPhone developed in two decades. Plus, the cost-benefit is still pretty good, considering how Apple has generated an amazing level of brand loyalty, making it so a good chunk of their buyers buy the newest version of the iPhone immediately. 

Blog post #9 | Mainstream media

Mainstream media (MSM) has existed for a long time through many different forms of communication. It has existed from the first form of mass media, Johannes Guttenberg’s printing press, to FOX News on evening television. Mainstream media are social channels where a large population gets most of their news. In the U.S., MSM would be entities like the New York Times, FOX News, CNN, ABC News, etc. These corporations will go out and get information about things occurring on local and/or global levels and then convert it into a form of media to be shown to their consumers. The big three MSM sources in the U.S. are ABC News, CNN, and the New York Times as of a survey done by the PEW Research Center in 2021. 

Mainstream media gets tons of attention because they have large followings, which generates positives and negatives. The overarching positive is that these companies are so large that they can use their resources to obtain all sorts of news from everywhere. For example, the New York Times posts articles online about news going on in the world on that specific day. On March 24, 2024, they shared news on events such as the Russo-Ukraine War, actors contributing to video games, Supreme Court cases, etc. 

Having mainstream media makes it incredibly convenient for people to find news on everything and anything all in the same place. The other benefit to mainstream media is that it is tailored to a large group of people who share a similar, broad opinion, which usually applies to multiple, if not all, topics they consider. So by finding a mainstream media that appeals to you, you find a large follower base who shares a similar opinion about the subject at hand.

By “increasing access to information”, these corporations allow people to develop connections and perceive things that normally would not be perceived. If someone sees an interesting article from an author at a mainstream media source, they can connect to that person regarding the article. For instance, Kalhan Rosenblatt published an article regarding the term “Rizz” in 2023 on behalf of NBC News. If I had a question about it or had a commentary that could be important to that article, I could connect to Rosenblatt and discuss it with them. 

The overarching negative would be the human factor in publishing or receiving mainstream media news. Regarding publishing news, authors and newscasters like to share their opinions on news and what they believe it means for their audience. This leads to no longer objective news, and people will gloss over important details if it helps their opinion on the matter seem more important. Mainstream media can be such a big appeal to people because it draws people sharing similar opinions. However, that can be a pitfall because those people are not exposed to objective, potentially 100% true news. Biased news does help with developing endorsement in people, with accepting someone’s opinion may not be the same as theirs, but lately it seems like the development of that acceptance has not been a common occurrence.

Otherwise, mainstream media having biased news generates a sense of loyalty and trust to that media. This is good for that media’s business, but it can be bad for the person’s ability to process news objectively without that media’s perception on a topic. If I handed a CNN news article to someone who's been reading FOX media news for years, they would immediately be mistrusting and not very accepting of that differentiated perspective on a topic.

    Mainstream media for me means a large publisher which collects information and displays it to me. It may or may not have a bias, but it is up to me on whether I should let that bias affect how I perceive that topic and develop my opinion. My family and friends should be aware of how it affects them and shapes their way of perceiving events and topics circulating the world today. I think if they let mainstream media further develop their independent opinion of a topic, then yes, kudos to them. If they just take the opinion of that media and act as a vessel of it without letting their personal ideas factor in, then no, that is not healthy. My generation is more focused on social media news than mainstream media, but that can be one-hundred times worse depending on how little they fact check the information. Overall, I think mainstream media can be a blessing and a curse, but it all comes down to how people let it affect them.

Blog post #7 | Antiwar & obscure websites

I have to search obscure websites for strong antiwar voices because having wars helps economies, even if they are not directly affiliated with the war. Take World War Two, for instance, when economies boomed because all countries worked hard to win the war. There was a huge increase in federal and defense spending, with an increase in nominal GDP. 

This concept still applies today. Businesses in the resource industry have profited greatly from the Russo-Ukraine war. I believe it is difficult for an average person to make an argument against war when important people profit from it. Those important people have the leverage in society to suppress entire voices which offer contrasting opinions on controversial global events, which shine a poor light on what makes the important people money. 

Since those important people have the leverage to suppress voices, they have to go to more obscure publishers to have their articles put on the internet and be seen, like the ANTIWAR.com website. The other thing is that the obscure websites are not very user-friendly. When I first opened the ANTIWAR website, I was overloaded with the amount of text compressed into an area which tests the drive of a person to find the news which goes against what is put on mainstream media. The American Conservative is more user-friendly, but still, it does not show all their articles on the home page, which I feel does not help them convey their articles and news.

Additionally, I believe that the concept of the big stick policy still applies today. The big stick policy was coined by Theodore Roosevelt, and it refers to a country's ability to have a strong military power while pursuing peaceful negotiations. You may argue heavily and heatedly with a normal kid, but would you argue and criticize someone without care so much if they had a bigger stick, aka military, than you? People want to be in the country that has the biggest stick, and the only way to test that is with war. If you win the war, that belief is confirmed and you have patriotic pride. I believe this mindset goes along with why antiwar voices are suppressed. People who believe that violently ending war is wrong can be seen as unpatriotic citizens because they do not side with their government's decision to contribute to the conflict. 

Also, I feel like antiwar voices go against political agendas. I do not have an example or references to source, but if I were a greedy politician who profits in some fashion from warfare, I would want to call any favors I could to keep antiwar voices off of mainstream media. Additionally, those antiwar voices would be calling greedy politician me out for being a greedy politician who wants the war to continue to stay rich, so I would want to suppress them because those voices would call for me to be taken out of office or not be re-elected. Overall, antiwar voices do put pressure on politicians and governmental authorities, so I can imagine they would want to suppress voices which shine a negative light on them.