Dad on his latest trip to Italy.
Idolizing Fathers
Why Dreaming, Engineering, and Goals are Important
“A girl’s father is the first man in her life and probably the most influential.” I decided to interview my father because of the great importance and influence he has had on my life. Ron McRae grew up in a small town in Indiana where having big dreams were just that—dreams. Most people from that town of Indiana cannot pursue their dreams because of money, location, or education. My father has always been a ‘go-getter’ and he definitely did not let down after high school. He was valedictorian of his high school and from there received a full ride to study engineering at the University of Evansville about an hour away from his home.
“I chose engineering in high school when I was in all of my science and math classes. I really enjoyed physics and chemistry,” said my father who identified his dream from the beginning. “I knew I wanted to do something with applied science, and that is engineering. I have always been interested in how things work and fit together.” Engineering lingo has always floated around the house because of his profession—which therefore influenced the family and my college choices.
Engineering can be described as the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures. This is exactly what he wanted in high school, which led him to study mechanical engineering at UE. When asked if he wanted mechanical engineering from the beginning, his response was “Of course. I enjoy the physical world and the physics that explain how things work. I also like to see the structural and mechanical designs of things.”
With a job in corporate America right out of college, things seemed a little daunting. But with ambition instilled in him from an early age, he took it head on. Robin S Sharma said, “Dreamers are mocked as impractical. The truth is they are the most practical, as their innovations lead to progress and a better way of life for all of us.” Dreamers like my dad think of things like airplanes and engines as beautiful things. They are a creation from man’s brain, and it is absolutely amazing to think such complex machines can travel 500+ miles per hour. Dreamers may be mocked about their impractical ideas or their insane dreams, but that is how innovation and discovery occurs, which is why engineering is such an important and growing field.
When dreams were turning into reality, my father kept making new goals and looking for more difficult tasks. His first job at General Electric aviation inspired him to keep thinking outside of the box. He was part of many teams and groups which led to inventions, patents, and an overall better product. He laughed, “Sometimes I am amazed at what I get to do for pay.” That is how he knew he was in the right spot—he actually enjoyed going to work every day. However, work is not always a fun time. When asked what the worst thing about work is, he said “The worst things about my job are all the regulations and rules that have to be followed to the exact letter and number because we do government work. Therefore, we have to follow all those rules.” The government red tape hinders those dreams occasionally, but then when he thinks about designing airplanes or flying around the world to visit his employees, he puts those government frustrations aside. Dreams are stronger and bigger than the government’s restrictions because the innovation that engineers do is inherent to the progression of science and technology.
Why Dreaming, Engineering, and Goals are Important
“A girl’s father is the first man in her life and probably the most influential.” I decided to interview my father because of the great importance and influence he has had on my life. Ron McRae grew up in a small town in Indiana where having big dreams were just that—dreams. Most people from that town of Indiana cannot pursue their dreams because of money, location, or education. My father has always been a ‘go-getter’ and he definitely did not let down after high school. He was valedictorian of his high school and from there received a full ride to study engineering at the University of Evansville about an hour away from his home.
“I chose engineering in high school when I was in all of my science and math classes. I really enjoyed physics and chemistry,” said my father who identified his dream from the beginning. “I knew I wanted to do something with applied science, and that is engineering. I have always been interested in how things work and fit together.” Engineering lingo has always floated around the house because of his profession—which therefore influenced the family and my college choices.
Engineering can be described as the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures. This is exactly what he wanted in high school, which led him to study mechanical engineering at UE. When asked if he wanted mechanical engineering from the beginning, his response was “Of course. I enjoy the physical world and the physics that explain how things work. I also like to see the structural and mechanical designs of things.”
With a job in corporate America right out of college, things seemed a little daunting. But with ambition instilled in him from an early age, he took it head on. Robin S Sharma said, “Dreamers are mocked as impractical. The truth is they are the most practical, as their innovations lead to progress and a better way of life for all of us.” Dreamers like my dad think of things like airplanes and engines as beautiful things. They are a creation from man’s brain, and it is absolutely amazing to think such complex machines can travel 500+ miles per hour. Dreamers may be mocked about their impractical ideas or their insane dreams, but that is how innovation and discovery occurs, which is why engineering is such an important and growing field.
When dreams were turning into reality, my father kept making new goals and looking for more difficult tasks. His first job at General Electric aviation inspired him to keep thinking outside of the box. He was part of many teams and groups which led to inventions, patents, and an overall better product. He laughed, “Sometimes I am amazed at what I get to do for pay.” That is how he knew he was in the right spot—he actually enjoyed going to work every day. However, work is not always a fun time. When asked what the worst thing about work is, he said “The worst things about my job are all the regulations and rules that have to be followed to the exact letter and number because we do government work. Therefore, we have to follow all those rules.” The government red tape hinders those dreams occasionally, but then when he thinks about designing airplanes or flying around the world to visit his employees, he puts those government frustrations aside. Dreams are stronger and bigger than the government’s restrictions because the innovation that engineers do is inherent to the progression of science and technology.
In front of some of the fastest airplanes in the world.
When asked about the biggest difference in his career since his college graduation, my father replied “The biggest changes are in the technology of design and analysis with the graphical and analytical tools. The amazing thing is that the physics never change.” He then continued, “Bulk stress is and always will be P/A and Mc/I. Forever and without change. The K(t) of a hole in a plate is and always will be about 3, depending on how many holes, width of the plate and diameter of the hole.” His passion for his work overflows and is truly admirable. After talking about physics for a while, he gave a suggestion on a book to read: Peterson’s Stress Concentration Book.
After gearing the conversation back to the question he kept explaining the differences between GE now and GE thirty years ago. “The world has become amazingly connected. When I started, all the engineering and manufacturing was done mostly in Cincinnati. Now it is done all over the world, which offers travel opportunities in places I never even dreamed of in high school. The things I get to see and people I get to meet are like in a fictional novel. Who knew I would live in Italy for 6 weeks! In the same year I visited China, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Poland....the list goes on and on.” He recently returned from that six week trip to Italy where he was helping with the GE manufacturing branch and merging of another company—things he never dreamed of in high school or even five years ago.
When dreams come true, work is truly a great experience and is an engineer’s paradise. “The best thing about my job is that I get to work alongside world class engineers and scientists on one of the highest technology products in the world. Every day we are inventing solutions to problems.” When my father was asked if he could go back to school for anything, his response was “I would go back for a language now in addition to more engineering.” He would also search for a co-op or internship so he could gain more experience before entering the field. My father has the desire to communicate better with his employees who do not speak English as a first language. Picking up on little pieces of multiple languages would help him set his goals even higher and keep achieving his dream of being a world class engineer.
Dreaming is not possible unless there is a person to look up to and idolize. When asked about his role model, my father answered after a minute of deep thinking, “My role model? For my work I have a couple people I look up to and respect greatly. Some of them are retiring now, so it is getting tougher. One day not too long ago one of the ladies I work with said to me, ‘you know that we are becoming the grey beards now’. The grey beards are the people at work who are supposed to know all the answers and be the role models.” After getting nostalgic and realizing his answer was not yet complete he concluded, “For everything outside of work, my dad was my role model growing up. And he still is today.”
Idolizing important people is the first step to dreaming. Goal-setting begins from a young age and having an influential father makes it easy to dream and set high goals. Orison Swett Marden said it perfectly, “all men who achieve great things have been great dreamers.” The dreams are bigger than the government restrictions, or the language barriers between employees. As impractical and absurd as some of those dreams are, when they become reality, the hard work is worth it. My father, who idolizes his own father, is now the role model for many people around the world, helping them to set their dreams high and continuing to redefine their passions.
After gearing the conversation back to the question he kept explaining the differences between GE now and GE thirty years ago. “The world has become amazingly connected. When I started, all the engineering and manufacturing was done mostly in Cincinnati. Now it is done all over the world, which offers travel opportunities in places I never even dreamed of in high school. The things I get to see and people I get to meet are like in a fictional novel. Who knew I would live in Italy for 6 weeks! In the same year I visited China, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Poland....the list goes on and on.” He recently returned from that six week trip to Italy where he was helping with the GE manufacturing branch and merging of another company—things he never dreamed of in high school or even five years ago.
When dreams come true, work is truly a great experience and is an engineer’s paradise. “The best thing about my job is that I get to work alongside world class engineers and scientists on one of the highest technology products in the world. Every day we are inventing solutions to problems.” When my father was asked if he could go back to school for anything, his response was “I would go back for a language now in addition to more engineering.” He would also search for a co-op or internship so he could gain more experience before entering the field. My father has the desire to communicate better with his employees who do not speak English as a first language. Picking up on little pieces of multiple languages would help him set his goals even higher and keep achieving his dream of being a world class engineer.
Dreaming is not possible unless there is a person to look up to and idolize. When asked about his role model, my father answered after a minute of deep thinking, “My role model? For my work I have a couple people I look up to and respect greatly. Some of them are retiring now, so it is getting tougher. One day not too long ago one of the ladies I work with said to me, ‘you know that we are becoming the grey beards now’. The grey beards are the people at work who are supposed to know all the answers and be the role models.” After getting nostalgic and realizing his answer was not yet complete he concluded, “For everything outside of work, my dad was my role model growing up. And he still is today.”
Idolizing important people is the first step to dreaming. Goal-setting begins from a young age and having an influential father makes it easy to dream and set high goals. Orison Swett Marden said it perfectly, “all men who achieve great things have been great dreamers.” The dreams are bigger than the government restrictions, or the language barriers between employees. As impractical and absurd as some of those dreams are, when they become reality, the hard work is worth it. My father, who idolizes his own father, is now the role model for many people around the world, helping them to set their dreams high and continuing to redefine their passions.
Changing the Nation 140 Characters at a Time
How Social Media has impacted Political Debates
Updated from earlier blog
Political candidates are taking advantage of the pathways social media has provided, making it easier to criticize their opponents, getting the attention of the public, and also giving many opportunities to make mistakes. Social media has made it too easy for candidates to bad-mouth each other, and display their dislike for other candidates and parties. Twitter allows candidates to live-tweet a Republican debate (like Bernie Sanders did recently), letting them express their not-so-positive opinion of the opposite party. Social networking platforms, like Twitter and Facebook, are changing the general nature of debates by trying to appeal to the younger voting audience. The real debate now is whether or not social media’s involvement is negatively affecting the political debate process.
Recently, many uses of social media were displayed during the second Republican debate at the Reagan Library. Bernie Sanders ‘live-tweeted’ the Republican debate to all of his Twitter followers, enabling him to clearly voice his opinion quickly. Live-tweeting, according to the Oxford dictionary, is posting comments about (an event) on Twitter while the event is taking place. Once the news caught hold of the story, the rest of the non-twitter world found a new way to connect with a candidate. Not only was social media used to live-tweet the debate, but it was also used by the moderators and the American public to submit questions and ‘hot topic’ discussions. “We received a lot of questions from social media about climate change” (Time). Social media was also used to keep the audience interested in the debate. The younger generation of voters continuously hs a low voter turnout, as shown in the graphic to the left. Politicians have been searching for a way to appeal to the younger audience, and social media seems to be the answer. Many of these young American voters believe the debates are boring and too long. In an attempt to keep their attention, television networks have turned to social media. Many people would have wanted to turn off the back and forth discussion of the Republican candidates, but the fact that the American public had the opportunity to involve themselves in the debate increased viewers and viewer interest.
According to cnn.com, social media has greatly affected political debates in the last few years. The picture at the left shows the Republican polls before and after the 2nd debate. This demonstrates the importance of these debates and their overall approval of Americans young and old. Cnn goes into detail about how social media has taken over political debates.
How Social Media has impacted Political Debates
Updated from earlier blog
Political candidates are taking advantage of the pathways social media has provided, making it easier to criticize their opponents, getting the attention of the public, and also giving many opportunities to make mistakes. Social media has made it too easy for candidates to bad-mouth each other, and display their dislike for other candidates and parties. Twitter allows candidates to live-tweet a Republican debate (like Bernie Sanders did recently), letting them express their not-so-positive opinion of the opposite party. Social networking platforms, like Twitter and Facebook, are changing the general nature of debates by trying to appeal to the younger voting audience. The real debate now is whether or not social media’s involvement is negatively affecting the political debate process.
Recently, many uses of social media were displayed during the second Republican debate at the Reagan Library. Bernie Sanders ‘live-tweeted’ the Republican debate to all of his Twitter followers, enabling him to clearly voice his opinion quickly. Live-tweeting, according to the Oxford dictionary, is posting comments about (an event) on Twitter while the event is taking place. Once the news caught hold of the story, the rest of the non-twitter world found a new way to connect with a candidate. Not only was social media used to live-tweet the debate, but it was also used by the moderators and the American public to submit questions and ‘hot topic’ discussions. “We received a lot of questions from social media about climate change” (Time). Social media was also used to keep the audience interested in the debate. The younger generation of voters continuously hs a low voter turnout, as shown in the graphic to the left. Politicians have been searching for a way to appeal to the younger audience, and social media seems to be the answer. Many of these young American voters believe the debates are boring and too long. In an attempt to keep their attention, television networks have turned to social media. Many people would have wanted to turn off the back and forth discussion of the Republican candidates, but the fact that the American public had the opportunity to involve themselves in the debate increased viewers and viewer interest.
According to cnn.com, social media has greatly affected political debates in the last few years. The picture at the left shows the Republican polls before and after the 2nd debate. This demonstrates the importance of these debates and their overall approval of Americans young and old. Cnn goes into detail about how social media has taken over political debates.
Social media makes the debate a communal experience. A lot of television programs are implementing social media to help viewers interact. This can be seen in programs such as the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and the Ellen Show. Their results have been astounding. Because social media provides successful interactive experiences for younger viewers, the producers of political debates decided to give it a try.
It's about the moments. “Campaigns aren't just thinking about how the press will respond, but how the internet will respond -- how can they go viral?” Everything about this technology-addicted world is about moments: sharing them, getting the most likes, coming up with a cute/clever caption. Now that includes political debates. If candidates are not on the ‘most-talked about list’ or the trending tweets, then they did something wrong and they have to work using social media to gain popularity. Candidates want to be talked about and want to be tweeted about in order to ‘move the needle’ in the polls.
Twitter is the new spin room. “You need your surrogates tweeting during the debate, not spinning afterward. Reporters are now analyzing and critiquing the debate as it happens, so campaigns need to be responding, spinning and sharing on Twitter in real time; it is the only way to shape the perception.” Twitter is the new place for the media to form their instant opinions (negative and positive), and therefore affecting the candidates as they are talking. Social media is making the candidates have to make decisions even faster, which is affecting the overall nature of the debates.
The first 20 minutes matter most. “A candidate who doesn't make an impression early will be left out of the all-important social media conversation.” The social media conversation is what drives the polls and political candidates’ successful or not successful campaigns. Just like social media, political candidates and debates are most effective if the comments are short and sweet. What is said in the first 20 minutes is the most important because that is when the most people are watching, and when the most people care.
Social media has affected political debates in many ways: good and bad. Candidates have been forced into a faster moving environment causing their time to think to diminish. Therefore, their time to fix mistakes has also decreased. Every negative comment about other candidates is brought up in debates and every uncomfortable topic is displayed to the public after these debates. The negative effects of social media can destroy a political campaign. This starts with the mistakes made in the political debates.
It's about the moments. “Campaigns aren't just thinking about how the press will respond, but how the internet will respond -- how can they go viral?” Everything about this technology-addicted world is about moments: sharing them, getting the most likes, coming up with a cute/clever caption. Now that includes political debates. If candidates are not on the ‘most-talked about list’ or the trending tweets, then they did something wrong and they have to work using social media to gain popularity. Candidates want to be talked about and want to be tweeted about in order to ‘move the needle’ in the polls.
Twitter is the new spin room. “You need your surrogates tweeting during the debate, not spinning afterward. Reporters are now analyzing and critiquing the debate as it happens, so campaigns need to be responding, spinning and sharing on Twitter in real time; it is the only way to shape the perception.” Twitter is the new place for the media to form their instant opinions (negative and positive), and therefore affecting the candidates as they are talking. Social media is making the candidates have to make decisions even faster, which is affecting the overall nature of the debates.
The first 20 minutes matter most. “A candidate who doesn't make an impression early will be left out of the all-important social media conversation.” The social media conversation is what drives the polls and political candidates’ successful or not successful campaigns. Just like social media, political candidates and debates are most effective if the comments are short and sweet. What is said in the first 20 minutes is the most important because that is when the most people are watching, and when the most people care.
Social media has affected political debates in many ways: good and bad. Candidates have been forced into a faster moving environment causing their time to think to diminish. Therefore, their time to fix mistakes has also decreased. Every negative comment about other candidates is brought up in debates and every uncomfortable topic is displayed to the public after these debates. The negative effects of social media can destroy a political campaign. This starts with the mistakes made in the political debates.
Poll numbers before and after the second Republican debate.
In the second Republican debate, Bernie Sanders took advantage of the mistakes his Republican counterparts were making during the debate. He used social media (Twitter to be specific) to express his opinions about the opposite party. Sanders live-tweeted the debate, which means as he watched the candidates talking, he tweeted his opinions every couple minutes. The public, specifically the younger voting class, loved it because they got to see a more real side of Sanders. According to National Public Radio (NPR), Bernie Sanders was very popular on social media the moment he decided to live-tweet the debate. “It all seemed to be a hit with his fans. His tweets got tens of thousands of re-tweets and favorites.” Using social media’s positive effects, Sanders was able to express his opinion about subject matter and the other candidates who could be his future opponents.
Bernie Sanders started as an independent candidate and made the switch to the Democratic ballot due to his popularity. Sanders and Trump have seen the same type of popularity increase over the past few months; however, their success is coming from two different places. Donald Trump’s popularity is coming from being an entertainer and saying what America wants to hear. He is being extremely controversial, but he has gotten his point across, allowing him to gain popularity. Sanders has gained popularity because he is more liberal than the other Democratic candidates and says exactly what some Americans have been thinking for decades. He has verbalized new ideas that seem like what some Democrats want. His success has been outstanding, considering that he is now competing closely with Hillary Clinton in the polls, as seen in the graphic to the right. Clinton started as the front runner for the Democratic Party, but now she is falling behind due to Sanders’ popularity.
Social media, over the past few years, has impacted almost every aspect of life for the younger generations. Its effects are seeping into political debates and greatly changing the face of these discussions. Debates no longer mean dressing nicely, knowing the answers to every possible question, and knowing how to jab at other candidates and platforms without hurting candidate’s own campaigns. On top of those things, candidates have to add the intensity of the social media scrutiny. The social media conversation is quite possibly the most influential thing about being a candidate or really anyone in the public eye. The effects of social media are endless, which means candidates have to focus more on how to react when they receive negative comments on Facebook or Twitter. It is not just the magazines and news anchors prompting candidates for questions trying to see where the hiccups and mistakes are. It is the social media users of America and they want to know more about the candidates, at a quicker pace than ever before. But only 140 characters at a time.
Works Cited
Beckwith, Ryan. "Transcript: Read the Full Text of the Second Republican Debate." Time.com. Time Inc., 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 31 Oct. 2015.
Keith, Tamara. "Bernie Sanders Live Tweets GOP Debate, Gets Bored, Goes Home Early." NPR. NPR, 17 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
Pfeiffer, Dan. "How Social Media Is Revolutionizing Debates." Cnn.com. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
"Wednesday’s GOP Debate Transcript, Annotated." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
This chart clearly depicts the problem The United States is facing with mass shootings occurring at a frequent rate.
Mass Media: an Accomplice to Murder
Why Media Coverage of Mass Shootings Needs to Change
October 19, 2015
In the aftermath of the 45th school shooting this year, it is time to ask: what needs to change to force this number down? A recent school shooting at an Oregon community college has once again engrossed the nation with fear, but each time this happens the country becomes a little more numb to the idea that these mass shootings are happening everywhere. Why does America have more mass shootings than any other country in the world? The contagious acts are killing more people this year than any other, and it needs to stop. Media plays an enormous role when it comes to these mass shootings and how the information is delivered to the public—especially blameworthy is how the information is presented. Thinking back to the major mass shootings of the past few years, only the shooter’s face comes to mind—no information about the victims, their images, or the heroes who stopped the shooter. The media focuses too heavily on the negative side of everything. More recently, the media has changed
Why Media Coverage of Mass Shootings Needs to Change
October 19, 2015
In the aftermath of the 45th school shooting this year, it is time to ask: what needs to change to force this number down? A recent school shooting at an Oregon community college has once again engrossed the nation with fear, but each time this happens the country becomes a little more numb to the idea that these mass shootings are happening everywhere. Why does America have more mass shootings than any other country in the world? The contagious acts are killing more people this year than any other, and it needs to stop. Media plays an enormous role when it comes to these mass shootings and how the information is delivered to the public—especially blameworthy is how the information is presented. Thinking back to the major mass shootings of the past few years, only the shooter’s face comes to mind—no information about the victims, their images, or the heroes who stopped the shooter. The media focuses too heavily on the negative side of everything. More recently, the media has changed
The chart depicts the popularity of mass shootings since 2011. The days in between each shooting are decreasing as a result of media obsession.
More recently, the media has changed their focus. For example, after the shooting in Oregon, the police chief explicitly did not release the information of the shooter, and instead released the information of the victims. He is quoted, “I will not give him the credit he probably sought, prior to this horrific and cowardly act.” In a mass shooting almost everything is negative and they are difficult to report. However, it seems as if they are now cookie-cutter stories to deliver, running through the motions, not paying attention to how and what we can do to stop them from happening 45-plus times in one year.
The FBI defines mass shooting as when three or more people are killed in a single incident. Due to the media’s way of delivering these tragic stories, the definition of mass shooting seems to be changing. It does not matter if the shooter kills at least three people. Now, the media reports anything with a high impact story, which is revealing the true difficulties America is having with guns and the people buying them. These high drama stories are what need to change. Yes, the American public deserves to know about the tragic events, but responsible reporting needs to start, and it needs to start now. The lack of responsible reporting is causing the public to only hear about the shooter. Ideally, the shooter’s information would never be released (unless they are not captured). The aspects of the story that matter are the victims’ information, their stories, and the hero’s story. Focusing too much on the negatives is sending America into a downward spiral that is seemingly impossible to escape.
Media outlets need to take responsibility for how they are presenting the information about the mass killings to the public. The method in which the stories are delivered needs to change. In a recent BBC article, many resources explain why it is important to alter the media coverage regarding mass killings. One of the resources, Tufekci, a college sociology professor says this is not a call for censorship, but instead a call for de-sensationalization of media coverage. According to Webster’s dictionary, the definition of sensationalize is: to describe or show something in a way that makes it seem more shocking than it really is. This is exactly what is happening, and the media is falling into a trap. The more the media plays into the trap, the less likely America is to see a drop in mass shootings. Tufekci also makes a point of not giving the killer the publicity they desired in the first place. The killers have a psychological tendency to play ‘copy-cat’, making these mass shootings more likely to occur directly after one has just taken place. Because the media is sensationalizing the image of shooters, the more vulnerable and estranged adolescents feel the need to achieve the fame their predecessors received. In a recent article published by cnn, the contagious effects of mass shootings were studied. “The contagion period lasts about 13 days and 20% to 30% of such killings appear to be the result of ‘infection.’” This is a direct result of the media sensationalizing the shooter which causes other troubled teenagers and young adults to follow in the shooter’s footsteps. In the cnn article, Katherine Newman, the provost at University of Massachusetts, says “While there's a spike in shootings following an incident, there's an even bigger spike in reported plots." This statement furthers the point that media needs to stop dramatizing the news because it is encouraging killers who seek fame. The media is spreading a disease they have created and it is beginning to kill many innocent Americans one terrible shooting at a time.
How can the media help to prevent the killers from ‘one-upping’ each other? A huge start would be to stop giving the name of the shooter in every report and to stop putting their face on every television screen across America. The helpfulness of reporting the shooters name in every story is quite low. After their name is announced once there is seemingly no point to continue with the coverage of the shooter.
After the school shooting in Oregon, the police chief took responsibility and specifically did not release the name of the killer. Improving responsible reporting begins with how the information is given to the media outlets, with Oregon as a perfect example. Leading by example is a wonderful way to teach and demonstrate to the rest of the country. The police chief recognized he could make a difference in the method of reporting, and instead of only picturing the shooter, now the hero’s face comes to mind. This is an indication of improvement in responsible reporting; however, American news outlets still have a long way to go.
After the media’s shooter sensationalization has stopped, the next aspect of these events to fix is the desensitization of the American public to tragedy. The more these mass shootings occur, the more numb the public becomes. This is a terrible sign which points to the need for change. The reason the American public is becoming emotionless to these stories is because (once again) the way they are reported. If the media varied the method of coverage of the stories, the public would care more. People are obviously still horrified by mass shootings, but compared to Columbine and mass murders of the past, Americans are becoming unaffected. Americans are inundated with stories every week about mass shootings, and when each story is the same, they are less likely to pay attention.
There are two major culprits to mass murder: the killer(s) and the media. May people blame these mass shootings on the lack of gun control—which yes, may be a cause. However, it is easier to change the way media covers a story than to change a 224 year old amendment. The likelihood of passing gun control laws is incredibly low; therefore, Americans should focus their attention to the media coverage. This could even have a greater effect on mass shootings than new legislation. It would certainly be a quicker route to a problem that definitely needs to change. Once the media has changed its coverage and stopped sensationalizing the shooter, the public will hopefully see a decrease in the number of innocent people killed each year by these terrible actions.
Works Cited
Brown, Taylor K. "Oregon Shooting: The Mass Killing 'contagion Effect' - BBC News." BBC News. BBC News, Washington, 3 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.
Smart, Ben. "Study: School Shootings, Mass Killings Are 'contagious' - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 2 Oct. 2015. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
"A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013." Fbi.gov. Washington Navy Yard, 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.
The FBI defines mass shooting as when three or more people are killed in a single incident. Due to the media’s way of delivering these tragic stories, the definition of mass shooting seems to be changing. It does not matter if the shooter kills at least three people. Now, the media reports anything with a high impact story, which is revealing the true difficulties America is having with guns and the people buying them. These high drama stories are what need to change. Yes, the American public deserves to know about the tragic events, but responsible reporting needs to start, and it needs to start now. The lack of responsible reporting is causing the public to only hear about the shooter. Ideally, the shooter’s information would never be released (unless they are not captured). The aspects of the story that matter are the victims’ information, their stories, and the hero’s story. Focusing too much on the negatives is sending America into a downward spiral that is seemingly impossible to escape.
Media outlets need to take responsibility for how they are presenting the information about the mass killings to the public. The method in which the stories are delivered needs to change. In a recent BBC article, many resources explain why it is important to alter the media coverage regarding mass killings. One of the resources, Tufekci, a college sociology professor says this is not a call for censorship, but instead a call for de-sensationalization of media coverage. According to Webster’s dictionary, the definition of sensationalize is: to describe or show something in a way that makes it seem more shocking than it really is. This is exactly what is happening, and the media is falling into a trap. The more the media plays into the trap, the less likely America is to see a drop in mass shootings. Tufekci also makes a point of not giving the killer the publicity they desired in the first place. The killers have a psychological tendency to play ‘copy-cat’, making these mass shootings more likely to occur directly after one has just taken place. Because the media is sensationalizing the image of shooters, the more vulnerable and estranged adolescents feel the need to achieve the fame their predecessors received. In a recent article published by cnn, the contagious effects of mass shootings were studied. “The contagion period lasts about 13 days and 20% to 30% of such killings appear to be the result of ‘infection.’” This is a direct result of the media sensationalizing the shooter which causes other troubled teenagers and young adults to follow in the shooter’s footsteps. In the cnn article, Katherine Newman, the provost at University of Massachusetts, says “While there's a spike in shootings following an incident, there's an even bigger spike in reported plots." This statement furthers the point that media needs to stop dramatizing the news because it is encouraging killers who seek fame. The media is spreading a disease they have created and it is beginning to kill many innocent Americans one terrible shooting at a time.
How can the media help to prevent the killers from ‘one-upping’ each other? A huge start would be to stop giving the name of the shooter in every report and to stop putting their face on every television screen across America. The helpfulness of reporting the shooters name in every story is quite low. After their name is announced once there is seemingly no point to continue with the coverage of the shooter.
After the school shooting in Oregon, the police chief took responsibility and specifically did not release the name of the killer. Improving responsible reporting begins with how the information is given to the media outlets, with Oregon as a perfect example. Leading by example is a wonderful way to teach and demonstrate to the rest of the country. The police chief recognized he could make a difference in the method of reporting, and instead of only picturing the shooter, now the hero’s face comes to mind. This is an indication of improvement in responsible reporting; however, American news outlets still have a long way to go.
After the media’s shooter sensationalization has stopped, the next aspect of these events to fix is the desensitization of the American public to tragedy. The more these mass shootings occur, the more numb the public becomes. This is a terrible sign which points to the need for change. The reason the American public is becoming emotionless to these stories is because (once again) the way they are reported. If the media varied the method of coverage of the stories, the public would care more. People are obviously still horrified by mass shootings, but compared to Columbine and mass murders of the past, Americans are becoming unaffected. Americans are inundated with stories every week about mass shootings, and when each story is the same, they are less likely to pay attention.
There are two major culprits to mass murder: the killer(s) and the media. May people blame these mass shootings on the lack of gun control—which yes, may be a cause. However, it is easier to change the way media covers a story than to change a 224 year old amendment. The likelihood of passing gun control laws is incredibly low; therefore, Americans should focus their attention to the media coverage. This could even have a greater effect on mass shootings than new legislation. It would certainly be a quicker route to a problem that definitely needs to change. Once the media has changed its coverage and stopped sensationalizing the shooter, the public will hopefully see a decrease in the number of innocent people killed each year by these terrible actions.
Works Cited
Brown, Taylor K. "Oregon Shooting: The Mass Killing 'contagion Effect' - BBC News." BBC News. BBC News, Washington, 3 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.
Smart, Ben. "Study: School Shootings, Mass Killings Are 'contagious' - CNN.com." CNN. Cable News Network, 2 Oct. 2015. Web. 19 Oct. 2015.
"A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013." Fbi.gov. Washington Navy Yard, 16 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2015.
The polls Pre and Post the 2nd Republican Debate.
Photo from http://www.270towin.com/news/#.VgTGVctViko
Changing the Nation 140 Characters at a Time
How Social Media has impacted Political Debates
September 28, 2015
Political candidates have taken advantage of the pathways social media has provided; making it easier to criticize their opponents, getting the attention of the public, and also giving many opportunities to make mistakes. Social media has made it too easy for candidates to bad-mouth each other, and display their dislike for other candidates and parties. Twitter allows candidates (like Bernie Sanders) to live-tweet the Republican debate, letting them express their not-so-positive opinion of the opposite party. This would not have been possible a few years ago when Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking platforms did not exist. Is this negatively affecting political debates? Or is it simply providing a way for candidates to express their opinions faster, and at the fingertips of the American public?
Recently, during the second Republican debate at the Reagan Library, many uses of social media were displayed. Bernie Sanders ‘live-tweeted’ the Republican debate, voicing his opinion loud and clear, to all of his followers and the rest of the non-twitter world once the news caught ahold of the story. Not only was social media used to live-tweet the debate, but it was also used by the moderator and the American public to submit questions and ‘hot topics’. “Coming up, one of the hottest questions that you have been asking us via social media…marijuana legalization.” Social media was also used to keep the audience interested in the debate. Many people would have wanted to turn off the back and forth jabbering of the Republican candidates, but the fact that the American public had the opportunity to involve themselves in the debate increased viewers and viewer interest.
According to cnn.com, social media has greatly affected political debates in the last few years. The picture at the left shows the Republican polls before and after the 2nd debate.
1. Social media makes the debate a communal experience. This goes along with what was mentioned above. Social media provides interactive experiences in most every television program, including political debates.
2. It's about the moments. “Campaigns aren't just thinking about how the press will respond, but how the Internet will respond -- how can they go viral?” Everything about this technology-addicted world is about moments: sharing them, getting the most likes, coming up with a cute/clever caption. Now, that includes political debates. If candidates are not on the ‘most-talked about list’ or the trending tweets, then they did something wrong. Candidates want to be talked about and be tweeted about in order to ‘move the needle’ in the polls.
3. Twitter is the new spin room. “You need your surrogates tweeting during the debate, not spinning afterward. Reporters are now analyzing and critiquing the debate as it happens, so campaigns need to be responding, spinning and sharing on Twitter in real time; it is the only way to shape the perception.” Twitter is the new place for the media to form their instant opinions (negative and positive), and therefore affecting the candidates as they are talking.
4. The first 20 minutes matter most. “A candidate who doesn't make an impression early will be left out of the all-important social media conversation.” The social media conversation is what drives the polls and political candidates’ successful or not successful campaigns.
Social media has affected political debates in many ways: good and bad. Candidates have been forced into a faster moving environment causing their time to think and fix mistakes to diminish. Every bashing comment is brought up in debates and every awkward or uncomfortable topic is displayed to the public after these debates. The negative effects of social media can destroy a political campaign which starts with the mistakes made in the political debates.
Now, on to the Bernie Sanders topic of live-tweeting the Republican debate. Bernie Sanders used social media (Twitter to be specific) to express his opinions about the opposite party. He live-tweeted the debate, which means as he watched the candidates talking, he tweeted his opinions every couple minutes. The public loved it because they got to see a more real side of Sanders, an up and coming candidate whose recent success came out of the blue. According to National Public Radio (NPR), Bernie Sanders was very popular on social media the moment he decided to live-tweet the debate. “It all seemed to be a hit with his fans. His tweets got tens of thousands of re-tweets and favorites.” Sanders was able to express his opinion about subject matter and the other candidates who could be his future opponents.
How Social Media has impacted Political Debates
September 28, 2015
Political candidates have taken advantage of the pathways social media has provided; making it easier to criticize their opponents, getting the attention of the public, and also giving many opportunities to make mistakes. Social media has made it too easy for candidates to bad-mouth each other, and display their dislike for other candidates and parties. Twitter allows candidates (like Bernie Sanders) to live-tweet the Republican debate, letting them express their not-so-positive opinion of the opposite party. This would not have been possible a few years ago when Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking platforms did not exist. Is this negatively affecting political debates? Or is it simply providing a way for candidates to express their opinions faster, and at the fingertips of the American public?
Recently, during the second Republican debate at the Reagan Library, many uses of social media were displayed. Bernie Sanders ‘live-tweeted’ the Republican debate, voicing his opinion loud and clear, to all of his followers and the rest of the non-twitter world once the news caught ahold of the story. Not only was social media used to live-tweet the debate, but it was also used by the moderator and the American public to submit questions and ‘hot topics’. “Coming up, one of the hottest questions that you have been asking us via social media…marijuana legalization.” Social media was also used to keep the audience interested in the debate. Many people would have wanted to turn off the back and forth jabbering of the Republican candidates, but the fact that the American public had the opportunity to involve themselves in the debate increased viewers and viewer interest.
According to cnn.com, social media has greatly affected political debates in the last few years. The picture at the left shows the Republican polls before and after the 2nd debate.
1. Social media makes the debate a communal experience. This goes along with what was mentioned above. Social media provides interactive experiences in most every television program, including political debates.
2. It's about the moments. “Campaigns aren't just thinking about how the press will respond, but how the Internet will respond -- how can they go viral?” Everything about this technology-addicted world is about moments: sharing them, getting the most likes, coming up with a cute/clever caption. Now, that includes political debates. If candidates are not on the ‘most-talked about list’ or the trending tweets, then they did something wrong. Candidates want to be talked about and be tweeted about in order to ‘move the needle’ in the polls.
3. Twitter is the new spin room. “You need your surrogates tweeting during the debate, not spinning afterward. Reporters are now analyzing and critiquing the debate as it happens, so campaigns need to be responding, spinning and sharing on Twitter in real time; it is the only way to shape the perception.” Twitter is the new place for the media to form their instant opinions (negative and positive), and therefore affecting the candidates as they are talking.
4. The first 20 minutes matter most. “A candidate who doesn't make an impression early will be left out of the all-important social media conversation.” The social media conversation is what drives the polls and political candidates’ successful or not successful campaigns.
Social media has affected political debates in many ways: good and bad. Candidates have been forced into a faster moving environment causing their time to think and fix mistakes to diminish. Every bashing comment is brought up in debates and every awkward or uncomfortable topic is displayed to the public after these debates. The negative effects of social media can destroy a political campaign which starts with the mistakes made in the political debates.
Now, on to the Bernie Sanders topic of live-tweeting the Republican debate. Bernie Sanders used social media (Twitter to be specific) to express his opinions about the opposite party. He live-tweeted the debate, which means as he watched the candidates talking, he tweeted his opinions every couple minutes. The public loved it because they got to see a more real side of Sanders, an up and coming candidate whose recent success came out of the blue. According to National Public Radio (NPR), Bernie Sanders was very popular on social media the moment he decided to live-tweet the debate. “It all seemed to be a hit with his fans. His tweets got tens of thousands of re-tweets and favorites.” Sanders was able to express his opinion about subject matter and the other candidates who could be his future opponents.
This chart shows the popularity of Clinton decreasing while Sanders' is increasing. Picture from Des Moines Register
Bernie Sanders started as an independent candidate and made the switch to a Democratic candidate due to his popularity. Sanders and Trump have seen the same type of popularity increase over the past few months; however, they are coming from two different places. Donald Trump’s popularity is coming from being an entertainer and saying what America wants to hear. He is being extremely controversial, but he has gotten his point across, allowing him to gain popularity. Sanders has gained popularity because he is more liberal as the other Democratic candidates and says exactly what some Americans want to hear. He has new ideas that seem like what some democrats want. His success has been outstanding, considering that he is now beating Hillary Clinton in the polls. Clinton started as the front runner for the Democratic Party, but now she is falling behind due to Sanders’ popularity.
Social media, over the past few years, has impacted almost every aspect of life. Its effects are seeping into political debates and greatly changing the face of these discussions. Debates no longer mean dressing nicely, knowing the answers to every possible question, and knowing how to jab at other candidates and platforms without hurting your own. Now on top of those things, candidates have to add the intensity of the social media scrutiny. The social media conversation is quite possibly the most influential thing about being a candidate or really anyone in the public eye. The effects of social media are endless, which means candidates have to focus more on how to react when they are not talked about so highly on Facebook or Twitter. Now it is not just the magazines and news anchors prompting candidates for questions trying to see where the gaps are. It is all 318 million Americans who have access to social media and are wanting to know more about the candidates at a quicker pace than ever before, but only 140 characters at a time.
Works Cited
Keith, Tamara. "Bernie Sanders Live Tweets GOP Debate, Gets Bored, Goes Home Early." NPR. NPR, 17 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
Pfeiffer, Dan. "How Social Media Is Revolutionizing Debates." Cnn.com. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
"Wednesday’s GOP Debate Transcript, Annotated." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
Social media, over the past few years, has impacted almost every aspect of life. Its effects are seeping into political debates and greatly changing the face of these discussions. Debates no longer mean dressing nicely, knowing the answers to every possible question, and knowing how to jab at other candidates and platforms without hurting your own. Now on top of those things, candidates have to add the intensity of the social media scrutiny. The social media conversation is quite possibly the most influential thing about being a candidate or really anyone in the public eye. The effects of social media are endless, which means candidates have to focus more on how to react when they are not talked about so highly on Facebook or Twitter. Now it is not just the magazines and news anchors prompting candidates for questions trying to see where the gaps are. It is all 318 million Americans who have access to social media and are wanting to know more about the candidates at a quicker pace than ever before, but only 140 characters at a time.
Works Cited
Keith, Tamara. "Bernie Sanders Live Tweets GOP Debate, Gets Bored, Goes Home Early." NPR. NPR, 17 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
Pfeiffer, Dan. "How Social Media Is Revolutionizing Debates." Cnn.com. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
"Wednesday’s GOP Debate Transcript, Annotated." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 24 Sept. 2015.
