Often times, I witness how the media frequently highlights funny or debated aspects of an event. I do not strongly disagree with this because after all, isn't media meant to inform and entertain its audience?
However, I do see a problem when the public discusses an event and loses the focus of the argument.
A while ago, I read an article that allowed me to see that I am
not alone in this observation.
To begin, a few weeks ago during the "free
the pot" argument, I found myself sitting on my couch watching some sort
of national news channel. The point of the news segment was to figure out how
people felt about the legalization of marijuana around the nation. On the news
channel, one lady against the legalization felt the need to insult a male who
disagreed with her statement. Earlier on in the program, that same male
admitted to smoking marijuana on a daily basis. I believe she called him a "crack head" or something of that offensive nature. At this point, everyone
involved was trying to get her to apologize for her statement, losing focus of
the session's goal.
The article that I referred to earlier, written by Kelby
Carlson of Vanderbilt University, also summarizes an event in which the point
of the argument was lost. In the article, "Fighting Words: Why Our Public
Discourse Must Change", Carlson refers to the Sandra Fluke and Rush
Limbaugh contraceptive argument of early February 2012, in which talk-radio
host Rush Limbaugh uses “fighting words” and offensive language towards his
opponent, Sandra Fluke, upsetting the public, and taking the focus off of the
issue at hand. However, there were a few aspects in that article that I did not agree with.
Carlson suggests that advancements in
technology and social media have led to this decline in public discussion practices
and the culture of argument. Although I agree with this main claim, I believe
that he should have added more pieces to his article that would further reveal
and impact his argument, such as an example of what he believes an effective
argument would look like and a more complex counterargument than the fact that
social media can be positive in some cases.
Lastly, Carlson seems to aim his argument towards people in
the public eye of America. Even though I agree with getting public figures
involved in this renewal of argument culture, I believe that everyone in the
world should be "focusing on concrete issues and ways to solve them",
as Carlson suggests for public figures in America.
Overall, ignoring his missing elements, I see the potential
that Carlson's article had to effect and persuade readers. Nevertheless, I
believe that Carlson's article inspires individuals, including myself, to reflect
on their social media habits. It also allows for readers to wonder if public
discussion is in "shambles" as Carlson discusses, and if they are
causing its possible decline.
No comments:
Post a Comment