Both modern communication devices in their times, the telegraph and the internet served as breakthroughs in media history. Although they are from separate time periods, seemingly, both systems had similar issues with how the government related to the advancement. The telegraph and the internet were intended for communication and information, but they were extremely cost efficent for their time. It was the problem of laying out the cable. The meager cost of the cable was only avaliable to more established locations. Towns and other villages farther from these places were hung out to dry based on geographic luck. Although the term is usually used in more of a broader sense, i am going to make my own subfield and calling it, Americans Geographic Luck. But i digress and think that the more rural places experience the inferior affects of this concept. My point is that during both time periods of government controlled communication, Rural and distant locations seemed to lack the ability to advance their technology. In both the 18th and 20th century, cost and increasing prices seem to be the main concern.
The expansion of both devices is what separated the two devices. The telegraph was owned by Western union as they formed a monopoly on the telegraph industry. Since it was new technology, it made sense that only one group had the success and the money to make this all happen. Because technology became more advanced in the later 20th century, more people could find ways to enhance the quality. With more knowledge pertaining to technology in the later years, the technology bomb took off. Everyone wanted a piece of this industry and it was a very successful one. Television grew farther across the country as people could now afford T.V’s. Just like the government taping in on telegraph wires, T.V’s FCC was created to monitor television. Both are relatable in some way because the government has both tried to shut them down.
The history of technology is recently traceable. Our past has displayed a linear progression of advancements over time and it doesn’t show signs of abating. without these advancements, our technology would be nowhere near where it is today.
For this blog post I have decided to look into how Mubarak’s departure as president of Egypt and the increasing prominence of the Muslim Brotherhood was dealt with by two ideologically opposed media outlets, Fox News, the bastion of conservative rhetoric in the U.S., and the Huffington Post, the blog and news hub of the liberal persuasion. The topic I have chosen presents a good fit for these two opposed outlets because the Egypt debate has taken on very different characters on the two sides of the ideological isle. Read more…
When the union leader protests began at the capitol of Wisconsin in February 2011 in reaction to Republican Governor Scott Walker’s bill, it sparked a controversy across the nation that ideologically divided many, especially in the media. The proposed bill would diminish bargaining rights for public workers and require them to pay more towards their health care and pensions in order to shrink a $3.6 billion deficit. Among those divided are two news sources: The Mark Levin Show on the radio, a bold conservative show, and CNN.com, a more ideologically neutral source, with hints of liberal lean. These two sources reported on the protests using very different approaches to cover the topic and differing frames to present their news that in some way are consistent with their respective political sides. Those on the right believe the public union employees are being freeloaders and stealing from the taxpayers, while those on the left feel public union employees’ rights are being imposed on by the government. The two stories compared in this paper were both breaking stories for both sources; CNN broke the story first on February 16th while Levin aired it the next day on February 17th.
The Mark Levin Show‘s History and Demographics
Mark Levin is one of America’s preeminent conservative commentators with his conservative talk radio show, The Mark Levin Show. His radio show began in 2002 on Sunday afternoons on WABC. In 2003, he obtained the competitive daily 6-8pm time slot. Within the first 18 months, he became the number one show on the AM dial and eventually in 2009, he was given an extra hour. In 2006, Citadel Media, formerly ABC Radio Networks, took over the syndication of the show. Citadel Media is owned by Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, a radio-only media corporation and the third largest radio group in the U.S.
Feminist International Radio Endeavor
Our alternative media source is Feminist International Radio Endeavor (FIRE), which is an Internet grassroots feminist radio located in Costa Rica. This radio broadcast originally began in May 1991 as a short wave radio broadcast. Then in May 1998 they converted their radio broadcasts to the Internet. Despite their title, their main focus is not just about women’s rights, but also about raising women’s voices and perspectives on current events. This also gives women a stronger presence in the media. FIRE is directed towards women and focuses on minorities throughout the world. As a result, FIRE can appeal to a global audience not just woman. However while this can appeal to a global audience, the demographic can be fairly concentrated towards Spanish speakers since many of the articles/broadcasts are in that language.
If you’re reading this, then it’s doubtless that somewhere on the Internet you’ve come across news about the earthquake and tsunami that have devastated northeastern Japan. Those of you who are more up to date will likely also know about the deepening nuclear crisis unfolding there as the damaged nuclear plants’ reactors near meltdown because of cooling system failures. What you may not know, however, is how media, both social, traditional and global are shaping the aftermath of this disaster. Read more…
Both the telegraph and internet signaled incredibly exciting new eras in information speed. The US government’s general lack of action in the two services save for regulation has made for a rather open market, and has created the problems with net neutrality that we now face. When the telegraph was developing in the early 1800s, the US Congress was faced with a mode of communication with unheard of rapidity. In 1843, Congress appropriated $43,000 towards experiments with telegraph technology. This would be the extent of any significant interest by the US Government. Clearly, they did not understand the magnitude of what was in front of them, and yet the telegraph was used by Congress to send Nevada’s state constitution to President Lincoln for his signature, an action which strengthened his support in Congress.
The US government took a similar approach to internet that it did to telegraph, with little interest in funding or controlling the service. This has led to a very open market, with only a handful of regulations imposed by the government. One sticking point has been that of net neutrality, but the recent events in court with Google and Verizon have thrown this area into choas as well.
Had the government imposed some kind of greater control, we may have seen better results in the interests of net neutrality. However, had the government stepped in, a host of other problems could have occurred, services could have become slower and mediocre, and there would have been no market competition. I think that they best course for the future of government regulation is one which regulates in law only, and refuses deals for the cessation of net neutrality.