Media Law and Literacy Blog

  I was never the person to worry too much about the privacy aspect of our phones and social media. I remember there being quite a big uproar when the fact that apps like Facebook or Instagram compile our data in order to create a feed more suited to our interests and an even bigger uproar when it was discovered that these same apps listen to our conversations in order to display targeted advertisements. While the majority of people around me were freaking out about these obvious breaches of privacy, I wasn’t too upset. I thought it was pretty cool and definitely helpful that I could talk about needing a new hair straightener or product and later on that day log into Instagram and find an ad for exactly what I wanted. At the time, the biggest issue I saw with the whole thing was the enabling of quick fixes or immediate satisfaction rather than having to do a little bit of research and go buy the products ourselves. I can see the concept of solutions to our minuscule problems being ...

       Is technology providing me with valuable information or could it be misleading- taking me down a number of thought paths I would not have typically taken? Am I spending too much time on my technology or is this just the way the world works now? Is it possible that social media could be triggering loneliness or even depression and in this sense, is my relationship with technology unhealthy? If you asked me these questions a few months ago, my answer would have been quite simple: No. I was the kind of person who was on my phone all the time. Really any time I wasn’t completely invested in another activity, my phone had my attention. I got so good at multitasking with my technology, that I could be entirely involved in a conversation happening right in front of me and yet at the same time, be able to process every single post on my feed without the slightest bit of hard work. For a very long time, I didn't see this as a bad thing. The media outlets I was using w...

       The illusory truth effect is a type of cognitive bias in which one’s brain is prone to believing the things we see repeatedly, despite how accurate or inaccurate these concepts may be. In other words, if one were to see a news story every day about how a category five hurricane is going to take out the midwest, one would eventually believe it to be factual- regardless of how illogical this statement is. When analyzing whether something is true our brain seeks to examine the material in the context of what we already know and what is familiar to one. As absurd as such a statement is, the repeated exposure to said information causes it to be familiar and thus, processed more quickly and/or fluently. Additionally, the human brain has learned over time that the quicker stimuli is processed, the more familiar it is, and thus, the more truthful it must be. In this sense, the illusory truth effect works in tandem with the processing fallacy known as the pro...

Through a number of supreme court cases between 1919, starting with the Quartet of antiwar protestors, to 1931 when the Near rule was created, a clearer line was drawn regarding what is and is not protected by the First Amendment. According to Holmes in 1919, a variety of opinions and ideas is beneficial as it creates a marketplace of ideas in which the people have the freedom to pick the "best" one or the one that most closely aligns with their viewpoints. Additionally, the Near V. Minnesota case determined that to ban a publication would be a Prior Restraint and is seen as unconstitutional. Due to this, the authors published on both of these websites have the freedom to express their views no matter how far they may dissent from the common perspective or popular idea of the time. In the same way, news sources have the right to pick and choose what they decide to report on and ultimately, convey to the public. Unfortunately, the journalism and press industry is one of cut t...