If the people don't know all the different potential solutions, how can they be expected to choose the best one? Overall the media has a negative effect on the elections. It allows people with money to dominate in the polls. News stations, while true, don't give all the facts. When one in five Americans thinks that the Sun revolves around the Earth, not knowing the facts can be a major
The superPAC has created a ecosystem where corporations and unions can give an unlimited amount of money to a candidate with the expectation of a return on their investment in the form of political influence (Eggan). Some believe that this is a fair application of the First Amendment and some believe that it is a gross misstep on the part of the Supreme Court. Either way, it can be stated with certainty that the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission case has vastly altered the battleground of political campaigns in America. In 2007 the conservative non-profit called Citizens United made a documentary called Hilary: The Movie which highlighted reasons why Hilary Clinton, who was running for president at the time, was not fit for office. Citizens United had wanted to make Hilary: The Movie available on pay-per-view television following other airings of the film.
They affect our everyday lives from the television shows we watch to the political candidates on the ballot in November. The media’s role is to inform the public to the best of their ability so Americans can make informed decisions. A democracy is a government for and by the people, with power vested to the people, and carried out through our elected officials. The new media monopolies are censoring the public’s information to the point that our decisions become ill informed. Elected officials are influenced greatly by these monopolies as well, and it seems as though one has no chance in politics without some affiliation with these corporations.
Politicians and political parties are keen to use websites, blogs, wikis, podcasts or having listings on social networking websites like facebook and twitter as a way of reaching voters, especially young voters due to the fact that Young voters are less likely to vote. Voter apathy is a major obstacle for all political parties and politicians alike, with only 61% of voters turning out to vote in the 2005 General Election. On the contrary, however, one way of arguing against the view that the media is the most influential factor, is to argue that social class plays an important role. When voting analysis began in 1945 it became clear that social class was the most important factor in the way people traditionally voted. People tended to vote according to their natural
Below are some thoughts, based primarily on the pro-privacy reactions to Zuckerberg's statements from many of our readers this weekend. Though there is a lot to be said for analysis of public data (more on that later), I believe that Facebook is making a big mistake by moving away from its origins based on privacy for user data. In Facebook's early days, and for the vast majority of the site's life, its primary differentiator was that your user data was only visible to other users that you approved friend requests from. As of mid-December, Facebook users were no longer allowed to hide from the web-at-large some information including their profile photos, list of friends and interests in the form of fan pages they followed. Text, photo and video updates shared on the site have always been by default private (friends only) but if you'd never changed your privacy settings before last month, then Facebook suggested you switch them to make those updates publicly visible to everyone.
Every corporation is created in order to make profit and provide a service or a product to the consumer.Most consumers do not understand the complexity of the products they buy and the possible harm they could cause.Since large corporations created such a product, they alone have the knowledge of how to safely dispose of their product.Therefore corporations should provide information on their products to aid the consumer to understand the possible dangers of the products they purchase and how to dispose of them safely. Last but not least, no solution is 100% effective.There will still be pollution created by the products manufactured by large corporations. Corporations should therefore provide a solution that will minimize any loss they might make in disposing the byproduct of their products, dispose their products safely and involve the consumer in the disposal procedure, in order to educate the consumer as well as informing the consumer of what to do and what not to
Lots of women have been describing these injunctions as prejudiced as they are not able to apply for them. The law court say that it is usually only men that need to hide themselves, and that they are more likely to be able to pay for them. If word gets out that someone has been granted an injunction, the editor of the newspaper will be prosecuted. Is it right that celebrities, editors and politicians are granted super injunctions as acts of secrecy? Well, yes it is.
Consumers can be a very powerful group, especially now with the rise of social networks and mobile commerce. Social media has put consumers in the driver’s seat when it comes to the products they purchase. If the manufacturer feels the consumer backlash would be too great to deal with, a manufactures will stop running certain advertising campaigns because their spokesperson or representative has tarred their image. Why does the consumer put up with all these unsafe products, especially unhealthy food products that can cause obesity and can be detrimental to our health. Why do we make a product that cures baldness but can cause impotency in men?
Recently, Wiretime ran an advertisement in a well-known industry magazine blasting BUGusa by stating that their products are inferior and have a very limited lifespan. This would be classified as an intentional tort because these statements “have the potential to impact business relationships and operations” (Melvin, 2011). This particular case would be listed as defamation and categorized further as trade libel. To be considered trade libel the “statement needs to be (1) a clear and specific reference to the disparaged party or product (e.g., using the actual brand name of the product), (2) made with either knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for the truth, and (3) communicated to a third party (similar to defamation)” (Melvin, 2011). References Melvin, S. P. (2011).
The Powerful Effect of Fake News Without media and news media society would be in disarray. The news provides society with an update on the occurring events and controversies that are constantly happening in our world. No one can possibly overstate the influential power of news media and as well new media of television. Television continues to influence the media, which recently an era of comedic television shows that specialize in providing “fake news” has captivated. The groundbreaking The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and its spin-off The Colbert Report have successfully attracted the youth demographic and have become the new era’s leading political news source.