When the media reports on crime, the debate weather or not to reveal the identity of the criminal can be apparent. Many times, it depends on the type of crime that had been carried out. Many times after a mass shooting, the media does not hesitate to disclose the name and face of the criminal in charge, but when the media talks about a case of sexual assault, they often chose to leave the identity of the victim blank.

Personally, I believe that media outlets should be concerned with weather or not to disclose information about a criminal or victim of a crime. However, I do think that most of the time for big news networks failing to disclose a criminals identity is often times felt unnecessary as other outlets would likely share the identity of the criminal anyways thus leading their efforts pointless. This is why I think that if the media decides to keep anonymity when regarding criminals and crime victims, they will have to communicate together. What good is hiding a criminals name on CNN when you could just hear about it on FOX? This is where I think the media can bring about consistency when discussing individuals involved in a crime.

And weather or not people should ever be named in the first place is also up for debate. Personally I believe that depending on the crime, criminals should be named because it brings about a sense of shame. The idea being that the media shaming one single person as a criminal would discourage others from attempting similar crime. I think however, in the case of widespread tragedy such as mass shootings and acts of terrorism, the media should refrain from referring to them by their names. I think this simply because criminals who are disturbed enough to want to commit a mass killing of any type are not bothered by the shame previously mentioned. I think that fuels them. They want attention and they know that committing an awful crime will get them, the person in charge, recognition. For example, most of us don’t know the names of the people who hijacked the planes on 9/11, and for good reason. We should not “give them credit” for their actions.

In conclusion, the media is a very powerful influencing tool that can help shape the way the public perceives a recent crime. If the media wants to keep those involved with the crime anonymous, they will need to work together to ensure that other news outlets are not doing the opposite. Also, the media should consider what type of crime they are reporting and weather or no including names and identity is important. For example, leaving the name of a rape victim out of the news coverage is always going to be the safe move for the victim and the viewership.

As somone who has traveled to China with my mother to adopt my 3rd sister, I have a few instances I remember of internet communication being impacted by the countries policies. Because of the excitement of traveling to a new country and adopting another child, my mother wanted to share photos and stories of our trip with friends and family back in the United States. This is where she began to encounter issues.

My mother wanted to use her Facebook to communicate with friends and family, however despite our best efforts she was unable to access Facebook at all. At the time my mother also was writing a blog, however she was unable to publish new posts while we were in China. Eventually, she simply resorted to E-mail. I also recall E-mails being slower than usual, resulting in a much larger delay. This could have been caused by a number of things, like long distance, but we assumed that it had somthing to do with the Chinese internet policy’s.

In addition to internet communication, I also noticed that using Google was different. It functioned identically, however it was very apparent that search results were missing or skewed. At the time I didn’t think much of it, but now that I understand how China’s internet censorship program operates, using Google is the most obvious example of the enforced policy.

My trip to China was very fun and interesting, and I can remember a lot of great experiences. However, the way that China regulates its internet communication was very apparent and did cause problems for us foreigners. Anybody traveling to China should be aware of potential problems they will encounter in attempting to use internet communication services while away from home.

With development of technologies such as the internet and social media, the original reasoning for regulation related to legacy medias such as radio and television, have begun to change. With the rise of the radio in the 1920’s, commercial radio became “a free-for-all” with stations competing for frequency and wattage. As commercial radio began to grow larger, governmont regulation was required to help the new industry grow properly. As with most accounts of governmont regulation, concern over weather or not the new policy would violate the first amendment were expressed. Though over the many years radio seemed to turn out just fine. We are again at a point where a new medium has been widely adopted, and has potential need of governmont regulation; that being social media platforms.

Social media platforms such as Twitter allow anybody with an internet connection to speak their mind publicly to the world. In essence, Twitter allows its users to enjoy the benefits of free speech by letting users share public statements without regulation, however there are still guidelines that Twitter enforces. For example, Twitter has a hateful conduct policy that entails that users are to refrain from using hate speech on the platform. Another social media platform, Instagram, does not allow for pictures of videos depicting strong violence, or photos/videos that are “inappropriate for a diverse audience.” These terms and conditions that social media platforms put in place and enforce are self regulated and are disconnected from the governmont.

Thought with recent instances of people getting their accounts ban for so called “hate speech” when the majority would argue that an individuals post was suitable for the masses, some people are beginning to consider what governmont regulation could do for social media platforms. This is where the governmont regulation would have to shift its change in attitude toward the subject. They would not longer be regulating companies, corporations, and large conglomerates, they would be regulating the speech of the people, and that is an extreme challenge. Governmont regulation already exists for social media platforms under the regulation put in place for the world wide web, however it is not as explicit and focused directly on what people post on social media.

The short of it is, as we continue to move into the digital age where bringing a message to the rest of the world is as simple as write and post, regulation on what is being said will need to be present. Weather the governmont should step in and attempt to regulate social media platforms as a more narrow sub-set of the regulation currently in place for the world wide web, is to be debated. Social media is still very new, and we are still yet to see its full potential for good and for bad, and weather or not the governmont should begin regulation of social media platforms.

Violence in the media has been around for as long as mass media itself, and as such, many people begin to contemplate weather it can have negative effects on people. After all, when we hear about a violent crime, and later hear that the person who committed that crime had the idea from a movie, TV show, or video game they watched or played, it can be very concerning. Parents especially are always at the forefront of this problem as children are known to absorb things from the media differently. They are known to model certain actions after characters they see on TV or in their video games. With how powerful mass media is in effecting the viewers in different ways, its always important to discuss the negative effects that might occur.

Personally, as sombody who has grown up in a world heavily dominated by early morning cartoons, Disney animated films, and golden aged video games, I began to see the effects of mass media on people form a young age. Ill never forget the time my brothers would play a game they called “Templeton”, where they would steal food from under the dinner table just like the rat character from the animated movie Charlotte’s Web, or the time my friends and I would swing sticks around like we were Link from the Legend of Zelda games. Of course these actions are relatively harmless and didn’t cause any negative effects on me, my brothers or my friends, but there are plenty of instances we hear a violent crime and wonder weather the criminal was influenced by something they saw in the media. In tandem with many study’s showing little to no connection with violence in the media and real world violence, I believe that violence in the media does not affect the viewers personal levels of violence.

With all the talk about violence in the media, video games, being a rather new medium, have been under scrutiny every time a violent crime is committed. However despite the many negative claims towards violent video games by the media, a decade long study of over 11,000 children in the United Kingdom published in the British Medical Journal “has found no association between playing video games from the age of five, and mood or behavioral problems later in life.” Many other studies have shown the same results, that playing violent video games does not cause real world violence. These studies are not the be all and end all to the topic however. Suppose its true that violence in video games and other forms of media have no effect on the viewers violent tendencies, there are still people who are simply more susceptible to wanting to commit violent acts because of what they see in the media. The truth is, however, that that is a small percentage of people who participate in violent media. Think about all the people who watch violent TV shows, or play violent video games; millions upon millions of people that is. How many of them commit acts of violence because of the media they are exposed to?

For big companies that rely on mass audiences to be profitable, it is important for them to understand what their audiences are attentive to. Companies do this by monitoring audience behavior. They employ methods such as interviews, watch logs, and meters.

I think that there is great importance in understanding what mass audiances are paying attention to and what they think about it. One of the simplest forms of monitoring this is by interviews. Interviews however are a rather inefficient and costly way of gathering information from a large group of people. Companies have tryed other things such as watch logs, where an audience member would keep a log of what they watched on TV, when they did, for how long, etc. This is beter than interviews, but there are still flaws. An audience member may record incorrect information, or they may simply forget to send the log back to the company that gave it to them in the first place. Perhaps most efficient are meters. Portable meters are devices that can track what an audience member is watching in any place. This alleviates the need to keep track of everything, and increases accuracy.

With all of these methods that companies use to try and better understand the focus of their widespread audiences, I think it is clear that this information is very valuable to these companies. For example, they might find that people are more likely to pay attention to a specific ad if they are in a social enviroment like a bar. Or maybe that people are more likely to change the channel when an ad comes on at a certain point in the day. Companies can do a lot with this information. They can place advertisements and content in places that is more fitting and more profitable according to the data they have collected by rating the broadcast audience behavior, and that is why I think that rating broadcast audience behavior is important for companies.

It is apparent that many companies wish to ensure that consumers hold a standard to their brand name. An example of this can be seen with Apple. It is quite evident that Apple knows that their brand alone will sell products. They use that to their advantage in many ways. When it comes to advertising, say for example a new iPhone, Apple does not need to show off its new features as much as they just need the consumer to know that there is a new and improved iPhone on the market. A consumer ready to purchase a new smartphone that just wants a good reliable phone is likely to purchase an iPhone, not because of its fancy new features, but because they trust the brand is providing a quality product.

Recently, when I needed a laptop for school, I like many students had an overwhelming slew of options. Going back to the Apple example, many students would rather pay a premium price for Apple’s Macintosh computers because they know its a quality product simply by the brand image alone. I did not have much time to make an extremely educated purchase, and I knew I did not want a Mac. That leaves the consumer in a mine field of cheap and poor products that may not last. I decided that I should get a laptop from Microsoft because I knew that though they charged a premium price for their Surface products, they had unmatched quality in the PC market space. Because I as a consumer have a healthy perception of Microsoft as a brand it was an easy decision for me.

I think that technology companies are especially susceptible to this idea that consumers will buy a product simply because of the trust in the brand. Many people don’t have the time to sit and research what phone, tv, laptop, etc. has the best features, best customer service, or best quality overall, so they are more likely to purchase a product from a brand that they or a friend have past, positive experiences with. This is why it is important for brands to keep a positive image in the eyes of the consumers.

When considering news bearing legacy medias: newspaper, radio, magazines, and television, elements of entertainment can sometimes be incorporated. Take for example, the newspaper. Not all of the content contained by the paper is just news articles. There are of course advertisements, and sometimes even simple games or puzzles. We have probably all at one point seen somebody doing a crossword puzzle in their newspaper. Some even have mazes, riddles, or number puzzles.

Magazines are also partially known for encompassing entertainment. Since most magazines are centered around a single topic, unlike the newspaper, they reach a more focused audience. This means that publishers of magazines can put in fun and entertaining articles related to the publications subject matter. Magazines, due to their narrow subject matter can also discuss entertainment as a whole. The publication, “Entertainment Weekly” is a weekly magazine that discusses things in the American entertainment industry, such as movies, tv shows, music, and more. This magazine has reviews written by professional critics.

Radio also has certain methods of entertainment. Sometimes a station will run a contest that listeners can get live updates on. Other times they may even have a special guest on the show to talk. I have also seen a short segment of a morning news radio broadcast dedicated to reading trending tweets and social media posts.

Given some thought, the news encompassing legacy medias have many ways of incorporating entertainment into their airings or publications. I think this is because a form of media that was not very “fun” would have a hard time catching on. If the radio only talked about the big news topics, I’m sure less people would be interested in listening to the radio to hear news. A lot of times, people want to be engaged in their news and encompassing certain elements of entertainment proves an effective method of doing so.

Early in the days of the World Wide Web, from around 1990-2000 with the widespread adoption of the internet came a time of excessive speculation. Many companies began investing into the internet. This became known as the “Dot-com Bubble.” Though many companies struck gold with the rise of the internet such as Google, many other companies lost big, as is common with investing into unknown markets.

To this day investors have continued to pour money into risky and unproven media ventures. When it comes to things like internet infrastructures and social media outlets, investors have a chance to gain exponential growth in a short amount of time. A company like Facebook which is now incredibly successful at one point just a biproduct of something completely new. After the success of Facebook many other companies tryed to get in on the social media pie. Google another majorly successful company tryed to compete with Facebook directly with Google Plus. Its a safe assumption that they invested quite a lot of time and money into the project, but most people would consider the Google Plus platform a failure.

If you step back and look at the services that are available on the internet, free or paid, you can begin to notice a trend. Typically, in a given field there is a “top-dog” product. For example, within the field of online video sharing, YouTube is at the top with the most users and widespread adoption. Other companies who want in on the online video sharing market have to go up against an already proven product. This means that a company has to invest more time and money if they are serious about being a competitor with another companies product.

In conclusion, the reason why companies tend to invest so much in unproven and risky media ventures is because should they be successful, it will become very difficult for another company to steal their thunder. I think that this is a very good thing for consumers because it encourages true innovation, and improvement. For a company to be successful with a media service, they have to listen to their users. If people dont like a new policy or change, their exist other platforms that do the same thing that they can use. For example many people who dislike YouTube for live streaming have began to favor Amazons alternative platform Twitch.

With the rise of the internet as we know it in the 1990’s, we are observing more and more mass communication models become obsolete in comparison. With the help of the internet and its technology, getting in touch with people is faster, finding answers is simpler, and sharing things with the world is widely accessible. As an example, for most people things like E-mail have almost replaced the idea of sending letters through the mail because it is faster and more efficient.

The internet is built from a concept known as internetworking. To explain briefly, internetworking is the linking of computer networks together so that computers can send “packets” of information between one another. Though it gets much more complicated when things like encryption are introduced into the equation, this is fundamentally how the technology of the internet works. With the introduction of the World Wide Web, anybody who has a computer and an internet connection can communicate with other users all over the world. This is an incredibly powerful thing. So powerful in fact, that it is changing the way most of us consume mass media in our daily lives. For example, prior to internet news networks, if one wanted to read the news, they would have to wait for their newspaper, read all about the current events, and then wait what might be a whole week for their next installment. In contrast the internet allows users to read, watch, and listen to news stories as soon as they are published. No waiting is involved.

Another incredibly important way that the internet has effected the culture of mass communication, is its fundamental accessibility, and the capabilities it brings with it. With the creation of social media platforms, blogs, and video sharing websites, it has for the first time in history been this easy to voice your opinion to the whole world. Anybody can voice their opinions and ideas and there is a way and platform for everyone to do so. You can write 1000 words, or 20. You can film a short video, or an entire movie. This allows for people who use the internet to see and hear from the people in the world around them, not just the people in their immediate community, or through the eyes of big news networks. This rise of new technology does however create problems such as message distortion and the spread of misinformation. But as with any new technology, there are always kinks and problems to work out.

In many ways I believe that the internet is a revolutionary technology that we will see change the world forever, just as technology of the past such as Gutenberg’s printing press did. The power and accessibility of the internet is without a doubt going to make previous methods of many things obsolete, and just one of the “victims” of this, is methods of mass communication. Methods of mass communication such as the newspaper, flyers, public town hall meetings, though not completely killed off, have lost much of their ground in the mass communication space in favor of a new technology that has and will continue to create more efficient ways of spreading mass communication.

When it comes to sources of mass media, everybody is a little different. Some people consume there media from books, magazines, news websites, social media, or most commonly television. In my case, I consume much of, if not all of my mass media from a variety of YouTube channels. These channels can range from technology and gaming news, to discussions of social/political issues, to educational “how-to” videos, or just plain entertainment. This is what can sometimes be called “user generated content”, because it is content that is generated by a single user, (or in some cases a small group of people) outside the regulation or influence of corporations.

Because everybody is different when it comes to mass media sources, it is inevitable that people will then evaluate their media differently. For example, my grandfather without a doubt consumes all of his mass media from a few television news networks; his favorite being CNN. These news networks have a responsibility to bring news and current events to the people with an objective viewpoint. In contrast, user generated content that can be found on sites like YouTube or other social medias will inevitably carry with them more subjective deliverance methods because anybody can voice their opinions on a subject. So while my grandfather and I might hear the same story, it’s possible that I may hear only what one person wants me to hear; I might run the risk of not getting the full story, and consequently form an uneducated opinion.

As more and more people begin consuming more mass media from these social media platforms, it is incredibly important that we as consumers are critical thinkers, and are not too quick to form an opinion without the proper knowledge or perspectives. It is important that people hearing about a new topic for the first time look in more than one place to fully understand the situation. Chances are if the topic is important, many people will be discussing it. So consumers should go out of their way to watch different news stories, see more than one networks coverage, and to hear multiple people’s opinions to become properly educated about the topic.

In conclusion, because people consume their media from many different sources, there are differences in how people will evaluate their media.