When thinking about “fake news” a
lot of things come to mind because of the time we live in. Mass media has such
an influence on how we think and act and conduct our day-to-day lives. The
media and people in society and on social media love to make fun of Donald
Trump and his horrible twitter full of words like “FAKE NEWS”. MY example,
however, is actually in favor of Donald Trump and as someone who doesn’t
necessarily agree with Mr. Trump, I believe this is a horrible injustice in the
media. The example of “fake news” that I think is extremely significant,
especially now, is Donald Trumps Executive Order being referred to as a “Muslim
Ban” across all mass media sites. While I don’t necessarily agree with Donald
Trump’s platform, this situation is just a huge injustice in my opinion. The
most ridiculous thing about the entire portrayal to the media is the fact that
the order didn’t even mention Muslims, or all or even most Muslim countries. To
say where this actually originated would be impossible without addressing the
fact that former president Barack Obama designated all the actual groups that
were included on this order. The media
calling it a “Muslim Ban” literally just creates hysteria among the masses.
Calling it a “Muslim Ban” is just trying to further the agenda people have in
regards to calling Trump a racist bigot. While all of that may full well be
true, this was not an example of that. The media calling it a “Muslim Ban”
literally is just adding fuel to a fire that has been erupting since Donald Trump’s
nomination.
This order absolutely resonates
differently with different audiences. Reading this as a hardcore Trump
supporter you may even see it as a “Muslim Ban” and be fully in support of it.
You could feed into the misconception and spew hatred about banning other
minorities and use it to make people mad. If you were a hardcore Trump hater when an article such as this
comes out it would instill a rage inside of you. I think this order resonates
with these two groups (obviously in totally opposite ways) the most. I believe
the media using the word “ban” to describe the order symbolizes a lot to me. I
think it was used as way to further divide our nation and to instill more
hatred in the population. When I first heard about this I was told it was literally
an order banning Muslims from entering the country for an undisclosed amount of
time. I was under the impression that Donald Trump sat down and made a list of
countries he didn’t want to associate with (primarily Muslim based) and made
sure to carry out the order. When I was made aware that that’s not even
slightly what happened in this situation it actually made me really mad. Donald
Trump has done a lot of despicable things but this situation was just not one
of them and that is why I think it is so important to analyze.
You do a pretty good job here of summarizing many of the talking points that have emerged around the Trump administration's executive orders on immigration. As with so many other issues, the nuance and the complexity are quickly swept away and the most severe and spectacular interpretations become elevated as "fact" in the public discourse. This post does well to articulate the frustration that people might feel when they recognize that what is reported is, in fact, not specifically factual but rather SPIN on the facts.
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly not the only person who was surprised to hear that the countries identified in the executive order were countries identified as potential threats to this country by the Obama administration. You are also not the only person to be surprised that what was called a "ban" was actually not a "ban" as much as a temporary halting until additional verification (vetting) could be done. You discuss how stories "feed into the misconception" and how that can make people mad about something that isn't exactly true. This is the real danger of propaganda - that it can play upon negative stereotypes and emotions rather than respecting the public's intelligence and powers of reason.
I appreciate how you can separate the "despicable things" Mr. Trump has done from the even-more-extreme ways Mr. Trump can be portrayed in the professional media. This president has fostered an acutely adversarial relationship with much of the mainstream media. It will be very interesting to see how this relationship ultimately impacts the progress of this administration - even up to the potential for re-election.
Good start here. Please let me know how I can help.
So this topic fits the criteria of what you’re asking? I was worried because I didn’t know if this type of example portrayed what you were asking but your response makes me more secure with the topic. It really is crazy how much of an impact stuff like this makes though. Especially in a situation that deals with a person that holds so much power in a very high position.
DeleteThis topic really makes me want to take a closer look at a lot of the headlines that are common when talking about Donald Trump because obviously different sites are going to say different things, but I’m curious as to see which “buzzwords” are most closely and repetitively used when speaking of him. I think this would help me better understand the true impact of the media on us a whole. It’s one thing when a site like The National Enquirer embellishes on a story about the Kardashian’s, but this sort of blatant spin on truths that could cause riots or protests should really be more controlled. Especially when they’re coming from news sites people rely on daily.
I think having these sorts of “spins” on the truth just feeds into the Spiral of Silence theory to be honest. The media is partially making it hard to speak well of anything Donald Trump can/could do in the future because if you dare to speak up about him you’re labeled a bigot and a racist and a slue of words that aren’t necessarily true. While yes we all know that loudmouth Trump supporter but that’s not who I want to focus on. People like myself, who literally just wants what’s best for people, don’t really have the chance to consider Trump as someone who could help because of how terribly he’s scrutinized. In part we have to acknowledge that sometimes Mr. Trump doesn’t help himself in the eyes of the public when it comes to his social media or some ways he conducted himself through the election, but its also just as important to separate fact from fiction. It’s also extremely important for me to remember that the media is literally there to make money and attract viewers. I’d like to also go one some left wing and right wing political websites and see what the click-bait associated with them is. Click-bait, I think, will play a really big role in what I want to take a closer look at because it’s a very frequently used tactic today.
Okay so I guess my final questions and thoughts for you are, is looking at what words are associated with Donald Trump a good start? Looking at click-bait as well, should I merge those two into the same observations or keep them both separately? Also is the Spiral of Silence something that goes along with this type of situation? I feel like it is but I’m not entirely sure. Also I’m going to keep an eye on how the media portrayed him before, during, and after the election to see how this could/will impact the future elections with or without him as a candidate. I’m curious to see if this administration has changed the way our presidential system is forever.
It's certainly true that the professional media has become one of Mr. Trump's foils as his administration develops. It's also true that the tone of some media outlets has become very divisive - almost completely converting into propaganda for one or the other partisan perspective. Remember that your artifact selection ought to be a particular piece of discourse - as opposed to numerous examples of a particular phenomenon. Rhetorical analysis is something done to a specific message - or perhaps to a specific classification of communication. Looking for a bunch of instances when Mr. Trump was ridiculed in a particular way is not quite the same thing.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Spiral of Silence is very likely to be among the forces shaping public opinion in the world today. However, the immediacy and global reach of social network media, combined with its anonymous nature, renders the SoS theory a little wobbly and perhaps less applicable than it was before the Internet. Because people can express themselves online without personal consequences (unless they decide to make themselves known), there is decidedly less pressure today to conform to public opinion. The basic tenets of the SoS still would apply to face-to-face communication, but I'm not sure that public opinion polling is at the mercy of the SoS as it had once been.
Come talk to me when you can about the direction of your project. I like the way you are thinking here, but you need to be more specific with your selection of artifact. Let me know how I can help.