Old freedom finds young supporters
Question: As use of the social media grows among young people in America, do these young folks also become more passionate about the need for the First Amendment?
(You remember: the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees that the nation will have a free press system. The media can pretty much report what it wants without fear of prior restraint.)
Answer: a study released Sept. 16 by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation concludes that the use of the social media is a pretty good thing for that First Amendment.
The Constitution and the American flag just seem to go hand in hand, and regular users of the social media have been introduced to the law's First Amendment and the need for its protection, according to a new study by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The giant flag above was painted onto the 150,000 square-foot roof of the Lamons Gasket Co. in Houston in July, 2010. (AP Photo/David J. Phillip)
Win-Win Scenario
“Students using their multimedia devices to text, blog, tweet, or post on Facebook are simultaneously finding out more about the world – and freedom of expression,” writes Kaila Ward, editor-in-chief of The Clause, the student newspaper of California’s Azusa Pacific University.
The Knight study discovered that 9 out of 10 students who use the social media to obtain news and information on a daily basis express strong support for guarantees of the news media in general. They think folks should be allowed to express unpopular opinions, along with the popular ones.
On the other hand …
In contrast, only 77 percent of students who don’t use the social media express agreement with the idea of allowing unpopular opinions to be aired or posted.
As the study’s researcher Ken Dautrich puts it: “There is a clear, positive relationship between student usage of social media to get news and information and greater support for free expression rights.”
Chalk up another plus of the not-so-new new media.
Power realized
One college sophomore put his feelings this way: “I think people are slowly beginning to realize the power (of social media). And because we’re so addicted to it, its absence is making people wake up and realize it’s quite a tool to be able to express ourselves and have an audience of that magnitude.”
The Knight study was unveiled to the public in conjunction with Constitution Day, on Sept. 17. The day commemorates the founding and signing of the Constitution of the United States on Sept. 17, 1787.
Another finding of the study: The percentage of students who think the First Amendment gives too much of a blank check to free speech has dropped from 45 percent in 2006, to 24 percent in 2011.
Media use up
Additionally, the study shows that students’ use of digital media for news and information is up the upswing. In fact, that usage has doubled over the past five years. Today, 75 percent of all students get their news from the social media several times a week.
Ward notes, “Many organizations have increasingly utilized social media as a way to gain popularity. Geenration Opportunity, a non-profit, nonpartisan organization, used the hype of Constitution day to present its latest effort, “The Constitution,” on Facebook.”
The organization’s web site built a platform for users to debate contemporary issues or offer their own expertise. The site has already surpassed half a million active users, according to a press release by Generation Opportunity.
Light from a new source
It may seem ironic, but it has taken a media platform that is less than a decade old to convince 20-somethings that a document more than 200 years old still needs protecting.
Write on.
Thank you for joining our conversation on A Virtual Unknown. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
The greatest negative impact of online social media is the anonymity with which it is able to conceal. I believe I would classify myself in the 24% who still feel the 1st Amendment is too much of a blank check.
My feeling is that if you are going to continue to sponsor FCC regulations on television and radio there must be at least some form of monitoring device in place for people spouting off on a broad range of topics. If an individual is brazen enough to critique another they should have no problem identifying their identity.
Amanda Mikulski
Journ 601
Dr. Jim Willis
Blog Post 4
October 5, 2011
My Response to:
Old freedom finds young supporters
I do agree with Casey that it is not really fair for there not to be monitoring of the anonymous writers on the internet, yet the FCC can pull the plug on some programming on the radio. If the first amendment were really being upheld, everyone would be able to voice their opinions. As for those who start a blog and have no professional experience or organization backing, they are not really the press, so they should be able to post their opinions. But, when the writer is representing an organization and writing a professional piece, I think there needs to be some sort of monitoring.
I do believe that social media has led to people, especially younger people, wanting free press to be upheld. I do not want to read a blog that is withholding or twisting the truth in order to help the company they work for. I like to go online to find things quickly, and this often takes no work other than a scroll down on my mouse when checking status updates on facebook. Our local radio station posts information on news a few times a day actually. Because so much information, with different story angle and spins on the same information is out there, today’s mass media allows people to really take a look at different opinions and facts to make up their mind on how they feel about things.
The government and the media in the since of giving information out, mesh very well. A lot of people get their information from TV and the newspaper. However, people my age are connected through information and news through social media. I can believe that 75% of all students get their news from social media.
I do think that social media is a good the for the First Amendment. Social Media allows for people to exercise their right for the first amendment. Social Media allows for us to express ourselves. However, I think some people take it too far. Just because you can say something, doesn’t mean that you should say it.
The fact that we get our information about the government and we are able to exercise our rights issued by the government, shows that the media and the government do mesh.
It is interesting that so many students and Americans have a distinct dependency on social media for news. It has become the “informant” for current events and opinions for those that do not necessarily seek the news. The right of the First Amendment that social media stands for is a true representation of our evolution as a country and culture; our access to the media represents our freedom abroad and is truly important to the foundation of our country.
While our First Amendment rights are crucial to our amazing country, we can only hope that those who utilize social media hold enough media literacy to interpret ideas and opinions in a filtered manner. There is a case for the blank check theory, realizing that power, even media power, can bought sometimes even by those with alterior motives (intentional or unintentional). Freedom of the Press is part of who we are and who we are to become, but logical and educated interpretations are up to us to control and sustain.
The effect of news being housed on social media sites is both positive and negative. On a positive note, we now have another place to get our news, instead of only through television, radio, and newspaper. It also gets young people into the habit of keeping apprised of pertinent news by putting the news in a place they frequent often – social media.
On a negative side, there can be some news outlets that are fraudulent or biased and thus their “news” is compromised. Since we are in the age of the internet, nearly anyone can purchase a web address and call their content news. This can lead to false information being reported and a detriment to true journalism.
The way we find out what is going on around us has changed. Now instead of tunning to the news channel we tend to go on Facebook to see what is happening. This can be good in what way because we are able to know what is going on quicker than watching the news for a full hour. At the same time this can be bad because sometimes the news that are shared on the media are not true. I remeber last week people started posting that a rapper died. Int he end it was just a scam he never died. In my opinion we must watch the news ot search for the real news online instead of believing the news that are post by others.
I believe that the social media has pros and cons. At times it is so great that it reaches so many people and can be impactful. On the other hand, if people are receiving information from the media but are otherwise ill informed, it can be bad. I believe in the freedom of speech and of the press. However, I also believe that it should be fair. If one news outlet can be biased, then it should be fine for another to be opinionated also. The main thing is that the people are well informed on their own, and not too heavily swayed by the media.
I think that social media has had a tremendous effect on the First Amendment. In my opinion, it is an amazing ool to have. I think that people should be able to speak their minds about their elites and passions. That doesn’t mean that everything they say is laid and meaningful, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to express themselves. If people are allowed to speak freely where others can see and hear it, then I think it should be the public’s responsibility to be aware of what is out there. You should know what’s out there in order to protect yourself and in order to understand things better.
I think that social networking does help to make sure that the first amendment is being upheld. However, there are some times when that comes into compromise. When people use social network to bring down other people and to be completely negative, it is hard to support that fact that peole should not be censored online.