Jake Matthews: An Online Profile

 

    Like most Gen Z'ers, I have a large and well connected online presence. For me, each platform provides a unique look at my life in the moment. Facebook is how I connect with my family as they spread from North Carolina to Wisconsin to Texas to Nevada. Instagram, for me, is like Facebook but for my friends who I went to high school with and who I consider colleagues now at High Point University. Twitter is my political channel where I follow the news and my favorite politicians. LinkedIn is my professional portfolio where I connect with people in my intended career field and current colleagues at High Point University. Snapchat is so I can see the beautiful faces of my friends while we catch up and TikTok is my escape from reality where I can just chill and focus on watching other people. For me, social media and the internet is more than just about connections, it is about memorializing my life in the moment so no matter what happens, it will be documented somewhere.

    Facebook is for my family and occasionally political activity. While I maintain my Facebook activity for my grandparents, great grandparents, and family members spread across the United States, I also use it to flex my political opinions in my hometown. As someone who will go into politics, as long as I do not participate in particularly divisive rhetoric, this will not negatively impact my life. My home county is home to only 19,000 people spread across thousands of square miles. For us, Facebook is the main form of communication about our county's problems and solutions. Sure some post upset people, but more times than not, Facebook posts have led to seemingly positive change in my community. Facebook is also the main way political campaigns in my county operate since we are so spread out with so few people.

    Instagram is my Facebook for friends. Of my 1,111 followers, a majority are college friends and old high school classmates. Sure my family is active on Instagram, but for me, it is a platform to express my college life more freely. My posts are pictures of me and my friends without the inappropriate content that plagues so many people my age. Every once in a while I will post a set of pictures from an outing or hanging around with my friends. Not a political platform for me, Instagram is where I can freely express myself about things outside the realm of political issues. 

    Twitter, the black sheep of social media. For me, Twitter is a political avenue where I can keep up with breaking news, political drama, the occasional meme and sometimes I will give my 2 cents. Twitter has cause trouble for most people in the political world. Thus, I am more careful about my Twitter content than I am on other platforms. My followers include friends, politicians, political campaigns, and some spam accounts. I keep my Twitter clean and it should honestly be a model for my other social media accounts. 

    LinkedIn is my personal baby, my pride and joy. I have spent countless hours polishing my LinkedIn, growing my connections, and expanding my personal brand. Solely used for professional and academic updates, my LinkedIn has prepared me for a job in the world of politics and branding. My network spans from High Point University to the White House and everywhere in between. I am most proud of my LinkedIn and I take pride in the way that it looks and the message it portrays about me.

    For most, social media can be a toxic relationship. For me, it is the opposite. When you do not compare yourself to others and simply be yourself and post content that you are confident in, it can be a great stress reliever. While for me social media is seen as a positive, I can understand and am aware of the impact that social media has on society. In 2019, Brett Kavanaugh underwent the most disgusting Supreme Court confirmation process in American history over allegations with no proof and over yearbook writings. Today, every individual aged 25 and young has an internet and social media presence that can be exploited for profit or political grain.

Smith-Mundt Act: Government Sanctioned Propaganda

 

    First introduced in 1945- ironically after defeating the Nazi propaganda machine in WWII- the Smith-Mundt Act was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Republican congressman Karl Mundt of South Dakota. It was not until 1948 that the act was signed into law by Democrat president Harry S. Truman. The Smith-Mundt Act would later be modernized in 2012 by Republican congressman Mac Thornberry of Texas. 

    The original intent of the legislation was to allow for the United States government to sanction pro-America propaganda abroad. Initially a weapon used to combat the spread of Communism and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the impact of the Smith-Mundt Act is still being felt throughout the world. The act commissioned the 'Voice of America' radio broadcast abroad. Commonly referred to as the 'VOA,' this broadcast is still commissioned abroad in foreign territories. 

    The original Smith-Mundt Act called for 'the creation of an information service to disseminate abroad information about the United States, its people, and policies." This legislation essentially introduced American propaganda to people in countries that were unaware of American values and ways of life. It has escaped the controversy that most legislation experiences and has not faced backlash from opponents; it is not mainstream enough a problem to cause trouble.

    

    In 2012, the Smith-Mundt Act, like most legislation, underwent a modernization. Republican congressman Mac Thornberry of Texas introduced the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act. Formally known as 'United States Information and Educational Exchange Act' this modernization called for an amendment to the original legislation to allow for the dissemination of pro-America propaganda within the borders of the United States.

    Signed in 2012 by Democrat president Barack Obama, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act passed through the House of Representatives with little opposition. Proponents of the modernization act claim that allowing for domestic broadcast allows for a more efficient way to disseminate propaganda abroad. Opponent to the legislation claim that the Voice of America will be used as a fourth arm of the United States government to push pro-America propaganda against its own people.

 

    The Smith-Mundt Act, and its subsequent modernization act, are not well known to the majority of American citizens. The Voice of America is not a mainstream news source known by people. Despite being a political science major, this is the first I have ever heard of this legislation and the Voice of America.

    Many feared, during the Trump years, that President Donald Trump would use the Voice of America broadcast (both foreign and domestic) as a pro-Trump broadcast rather than pro-America. Though not used by the president himself, the Voice of America has been used by presidents of the past to push policy agenda's abroad. 

    This legislation does not have any noticeable impacts on the average American. Not known to most, the Smith-Mundt Act has not led to controversial media coverage or criticism by regular people. The VOA is a radio broadcast meant to spew pro-American information in foreign countries mainly targeting pro-Communist regimes. Most people are not even aware this is a thing as the passage of the amendment did not make top news headlines- this being said, most people are unaware of these changes so it is nearly impossible to measure positive, or negative, impacts on Americans.

Critics Fret About Smith-Mundt Modernization Act | CSC Center for Strategic Communication

Smith-Mundt reform: In with a whimper?

Smith-Mundt Act – USAGM

HR5736 - 112th Congress (2011-2012): Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
 

Privacy: Online and Offline

 

    Privacy, it is a right so sacred that it is the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Since the conception of social media platforms and big tech, our privacy has been harvested and sold to the highest bidder. When users log into social media platforms- like Facebook, TikTok, Twitter, and others- they sign a virtual contract where the one party holds all of the power. This contract is called an Adhesion Contract. 

    Online companies have composed a digital dossier about each and every one of us. They have sensitive information ranging as private as sexual orientation to as public as your favorite music group. They use this information to cater advertising to you and sometimes sell it to the highest bidder. This is known as the Third Party Doctrine; this is when the first party voluntarily gives information to the second party, the first party relinquishes all control to the use of that information by a third party. 

    

    Even our offline privacy is being tarnished by social media. People will take pictures of someone with odd clothes- their personal choice on what to wear- and target them and make fun of them online. The things that we do in our home is being advertised by people with a camera and super computer all in one. While the circumstances are different and our private information is not being sold, our privacy is being invaded by this modern necessity of technology.

    Our privacy is constantly being tracked, even when we don't realize it. When we login to websites or simply walk outside of our home, we enter in to legally binding contracts that essentially sell away our entire souls. From social media online to our at home Alexa speakers, everything we do, every move we make, we are being tracked, manipulated, and sold to the highest bidder for quick advertising and a quick buck.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/06/22/social-media-killed-our-offline-privacy-too/?sh=6f6e55b63b96

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/when-it-comes-to-internet-privacy-be-very-afraid-analyst-suggests/

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/

The Diffusion of TikTok

 

    In the early fall of 2017, two companies merged to create one mega social media service: TikTok. The viral video streaming app has soared to popularity among the world's youth while at the same time giving hell to the American government. Because of the company's origins in China, many in the United States' government believe that the app can be used to track, spy, and censor American voices. 

    TikTok would eventually buy the American video sharing company Musicl.ly to create a mega worldwide video streaming service. The early innovators saw a void in the market as the popular video sharing app Vine ceased operations in the United States. Today, TikTok has nearly 100 million users in the United States and anticipates on hiring nearly 10,000 American employees by the year 2023. 

    Rogers' Diffusion of Ideas Theory highlights the very thing we are seeing with the widespread use of TikTok. In 2017, the innovators saw a gap in the market and pounced. Early adopters began appearing throughout the world and by 2018 TikTok had reached an early majority of the world. The late majority would appear in 2018 when TikTok would enter the American market. The laggards are those who will never get the app. That is easy to identify here in the United States. Many of the country's older population refuses to even get smart phones. Laggards are also going to be some of the 74 million loyal followers of former President Donald Trump who spent the last few months of his campaign for president fighting against big tech companies with Chinese ties like TikTok.

    In minute long videos, users are able to respond to other users, create original content, and simply identify their creative identities. What makes the app so popular with young people is it allows them to connect with people all over the world. Even in my time scrolling through the apps For You Page (an algorithm to give you tailored media) I have found content from creators all over the world that makes me laugh, think, happy, and sad. It is a whirlwind of emotions.

    

    The early adopters were spread throughout the world before coming to America. TikTok moved into the early majority when the Coronavirus pandemic hit the world and the app soared in popularity. The world haunted and billions of people around the world suddenly found themselves at home with nothing but free time on their hands. While TikTok may have reached its climax point according to Rogers' Diffusion of Ideas, it does not appear that it will be on the downward trend for a long time. 

    As it begins to move into the late majority stage, it is important to remember that TikTok is still the dominant and most popular app available on both iPhones and Androids. The late adopters are going to be the older generations who, while still not the most tech savvy, are beginning to download the app and become viral. In the fall of 2020, a group of dancing moms who were at the bar and bad at lip syncing took the world by storm. Millions of users worldwide tuned in to their page, followed for more content and made them international stars. They are not outliers, many of the platforms most influential stars are average Joe middle aged people- and their numbers keep growing.

    Of course, there are people in the world that will never download or use the app. Those people are the laggards. They are the people who believe that the Chinese will steal their information, that do no have iPhones, or just people who don't want to us the app. Many of the apps current users thought themselves to be laggards saying that they would never download the app- myself included. Eventually many of them came around and downloaded the app. That being said, millions of people around the world still do not have the app and do not intend on keeping the app. 

    The future of the app, while it appears to be strong, may face other challenges. In late 2020, former US president Donald Trump began to fight the app calling it a spy for the Chinese government. While it does not appear that the app's downfall will be natural, outside forces like the United States government may influence the demise of the app. Like any and all social media apps, TikTok data mines and sells the information to the highest bidder. That is normal and we all know it when we sign up for it. The downsides to this app are the same to every social media app that we all have.

    As an avid user of the app, I see the positives outweighing the negatives. For me, this is instant entertainment; a tool for a brief distraction, TikTok offers its users content specifically for them and meant for intermittent use. While I am concerned about the mining of my private information, I have become used to the idea. Yes what they do should be illegal, but it is a contract that we all enter into for almost anything we do. From buying a new cellphone, to logging into Facebook, we sign away our identities at the expense of cheap entertainment. Unfortunately I have been using social media since I was 10 years old (currently 21) and I have already signed my soul away to big tech. So why not sign it away one more time?

https://www.businessinsider.com/tiktok-app-online-website-video-sharing-2019-7#less-than-a-year-later-in-august-2018-bytedance-announced-it-would-shut-down-musically-and-merge-it-into-tiktok-all-musically-profiles-were-automatically-moved-over-to-the-tiktok-platform-10

https://medium.com/swlh/a-look-into-tiktoks-origins-controversy-future-6cca94c1d2ff

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/style/what-is-tik-tok.html

https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/sb/behavioralchangetheories/behavioralchangetheories4.html

The Personal Computer

     Before computers or typewriter, man has always sought better ways to gather information and put that information to paper. Post war America in 1946 ushered in an era of unprecedented economic growth, technological innovation, and child births. The first personal computer, or PC, was released in 1946 but used only by government agencies and universities. They were basically big calculators the size of a bedroom.

    Not much innovation happened between 1946 and the late 1970s. The microchip was invented which allowed the PC to be more compact and more useful for the regular Joe. It was not until the late 1970s that two young bucks would revolutionize the PC and take America and our pocketbooks siege. Those men were Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs.

    In 1977, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs invented the Apple PC. They revolutionized the way we use computers. By adding a unique operating system and screen to their product, they ushered in the era of technology that would eventually consume every aspect of our lives from leisure to work. Today, the Apple PC, renamed the MacBook, is one of the best selling personal computers on the market and continue to be the laptop of choice for college students worldwide.

    Since 1977, the personal computer has seen many more advancements. From the personal laptop to the touch screen computers, in just 40 short years, the personal computer has become one of the most widely used pieces of technology in world history. With hybrid tablets to the personal cellphone, will the personal computer become obsolete?

    Today, even as we look at our own classroom, the personal computer has taken hostage of our lives. Whether we are doing homework, taking notes, texting during class, or watching Netflix when we should be writing a paper, the personal computer has become the centerpiece of our lives. The computer has become so advanced, it is hard to imagine what it will look like 10, 20, 30 years from now. 

https://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-pc 

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-12/productivity-inequality-and-the-profound-impact-of-the-personal-computer

VCR: The Latest Media Casualty

 

    The video cassette recorder (VCR) forever changed the way the world consumed media and would eventually pave the way for technological advancements like the DVD player, blu-ray, and even cultural giants like Netflix and Blockbuster. Originally for the ultra rich with a price tag of $50,000 ($400,000+ with today's inflation), the VCR quickly became a household staple that would eventually become another casualty to the ever changing media world. In the 1980's the VCR ranged from $600-$1,200 making it one of the most affordable pieces of technology for its era.

    Invented in Japan, the VCR was originally priced at $50,000 and about the size of a small European car. In just under 10 years, the VCR would be mass produced by Sony Corporation and just ten years after that would be made widely available to the average citizen. It was not until the 1980s that the VCR would become so mainstream that its influence on American culture would be truly understood. 

    The 1980's was a decade of pomp and circumstance where to be rich was to be expected. Television series such as "Dallas" and "Dynasty" took America by storm as the ultra rich became normal people. This led to the VCR's prime era where television recording was introduced to the world. People of all demographics would record these shows to rewatch at a later time. The VCR was the DVR of the 1980s. 

    The 1990s ushered in a new era of media consumption in the United States and the VCR was at the center. Companies like Blockbuster and Netflix began mass renting VHS movies and television shows to Americans. Television shows like "Seinfeld" and "Friends" normalized VCR rentals with episodes centered around movie rental stores where characters would find love partners or run into an enemy from the past as part of the plot line. 

    The mid-1990s brought forth a worthy competitor to the VCR that would eventually lead to the technology's death. The DVD player ushered in a new era for video consumption and led to new innovations such as blu-ray. The United States also saw the introduction of video gaming systems that were a 2-in-1 console that would play video games and DVDs. The VCR tried to adapt by introducing the VCR/DVD combination but the tech industry was just evolving too quickly. Soon video cameras would take DVDs or memory cards making the VHS and VCR obsolete for home video production.

    In 2016, the world saw the last VCR sold. In its final year on the market, the VCR still sold 750,000 units around the world. The market finally sealed the coffin to one of the most influential pieces of technology to ever be produced. The influence of the VCR may be forgotten the impact of them will forever be a part of our cultural evolution. The VCR ushered in an era of technological evolution that forever changed American society. 

    

    Though many Gen Z and millennials do not remember much about the VCR, it helped transform us and make us into the people that we are today. Dreamworks, Pixar, and Disney transformed the media market and utilized the mass popularity and accessibility of the VCR to change the market and influence American culture for nearly half a century. With inventions like the DVD player, Blu-ray player, and gaming consoles, the VCR gave birth to the idea of at home media consumption that would later produce some of the world's most innovative and competitive forms of technology.

https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/22/technology/vcr-funai-last/index.html

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/technology/the-long-final-goodbye-of-the-vcr.html

    

Protect Dissent, Protect Democracy

 

       "Dissent should be promoted because it lies at the heart of a core American value: speech." -Steven Shiffrin. A founding principle of American democracy, dissent is one that promotes expression, different ideas, and even tolerance. Without it, the other 'Eight Values of Free Expression' would be irrelevant. Without dissent, democracy would die on the heels of mobs. 

    In the ever changing social media landscape, dissenting opinions are beginning to be censored, scrubbed, and cancelled. Our political institutions are enacting dissent limiting regulations as senate Democrats seek to strip the right to filibuster; an institutional obstacle for censorship. The mainstream media is becoming progressively partisan while rarely including dissenting opinions. At the very fabric, dissent is being shut down across our country and across platforms. American democracy is at risk of losing a bedrock principle that without, crumbles the institutions that vowed to protect it.

    Best suited to protect minority opinions, one would imagine, would be American political institutions. But, by today's standards, that is not necessarily the case. With a split senate and deciding vote being cast by the Vice President of the United States, the minority opinions of Republicans will likely be censored as senate Democrats push through their agenda and nominees using the infamous 'nuclear option.' Today's debates, however, are not about the nuclear option. Rather, it is about the filibuster. 

    Infamously portrayed in the hit movie of yesterday 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' and more recently dramatically reprised by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY), the filibuster is an institutional protection to defend minority dissent. A senator is given an unlimited amount of time to protest legislation- as long as they are speaking, the senate cannot move forward with voting on the legislation. This definitely is just a political maneuver to most, but the filibuster is much more than a measly means to prolong the inevitable passage. Without the filibuster, the opinion of the minority is not heard, respected, or even promoted in the media. Washington DC is a circus, and sometimes it takes a circus act to get the attention of the average American so they understand what the legislation means for them.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-democrats-cant-do-as-long-as-the-filibuster-remains-in-place-and-what-they-can/

    Outside of the DC swamp and institutions, dissent protections for Americans get trickier. The images of the government interfering in the early stages of Black Lives Matter protests stick in the minds of so many Americans. Their speech, while it might be a minority opinion, needs to be protected... for the sake of American democracy. Dissenting opinions are vital to the livelihood of a healthy America, not just in Washington but also on Main Street. 

    Other countries have much more repressive policies for dissenting political opinions. In the United States, dissenting opinions are often met with media backlash or the occasional counterprotest. In so called "democracies" like Iran, political dissidents are jailed and often times murdered. The United States is not as drastic as Iran in political persecution, but the 'Shining City on a Hill' should be a beacon for political dissent, not a country that caves to cancel culture.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/01/13/iran-relentless-repression-dissent

    Dissenting political opinions are key to a successful democracy. Without dissenting opinions, we become a mob that is so khaki that divisions are eminent. When people disagree it will most often lead to compromise which is good for democracy. Without dissent, the American political system collapses as the politically correct mob rejects criticism. Without dissent we live in a society that rejects morality. If people cannot stand up for what they believe in, no matter how minority their opinion may be, then they lose the very ethics and morals that make them who they are.

    They say that opposites attract. That without love one cannot know what they hate. Without dissenting voices, people will simply exist. They will nothing to stand for, nothing to fight for, and nothing to live for Our already mundane lives would be steamrolled by the majority opinion, no matter how harmful that opinion may be on our lives. 

    Without dissent life goes on without democracy.

    

War, What is it Good For?

 

    The mighty American military is known around the world for its weaponry, skills, dedicated men and women who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and for its ability to meddle in foreign politics. The United States of America was established through war so it makes sense our nation's constant intervention in foreign entanglements.

    The mainstream media in the United States has long supported wars over diplomacy; with the exception of Vietnam and the later years of the Iraq war. The days and years immediately following 9/11 was an exceptionally strong relationship between the news media and military interference. For many, their perception and support for the war stemmed from media and government manipulation. It was not until the end of the Bush presidency and the beginning of the Obama presidency that the media began to question the legitimacy of the ongoing war and its necessity for national security. 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com || https://www.antiwar.com

    Publications like The American Conservative and Antiwar.com are not mainstream enough to manipulate large swaths of gullible Americans. Both major political parties and all major news organizations in the United States staunchly supported the invasion of Iraq and the insurrection of Afghanistan. Without a reputable source, such as the mainstream media outlets, anti-war voices were left deplatformed and portrayed as traitors and anti-American.

    Antiwar.com and The American Conservative are host to many anti-war and anti-intervention opinions; both foreign and domestic. Their articles range from war and general international relations to the GameStop drama on Wall Street. Though their opinions are not mainstream, they do host significant cultural impacts. Anti-war voices are not rare and they are often very loud, but their prominence is not typically with the average American. These websites do not attract the average Jane or Joe because to be anti-war is to be perceived as anti-American. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-two-non-interventionists_b_594f1cdde4b0326c0a8d0918

    Today's political climate and the post 9/11 climate are vastly different. President Donald Trump is the first president in many decades that did not plunge the UnitedStates into an unnecessary war. Ronald Reagan's 'peace through strength' mantra was finally manifested by an American president. Neocon voices like Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton are no longer mainstream and anti-war isolationist voices like Rand Paul (R-KY) and Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) are becoming more prominent. 

        The ability to hear anti-war voices is getting progressively easier and more mainstream, especially as the United States enters into a time of global peace. The sense of patriotism surrounding war is one that is hard to combat. Perhaps these voices are not supported because they are perceived to be weak in the eyes of the average American? Or perhaps these anti-war voices are not supported because they do not fit the right political agenda? That is left to be speculated. 

Censorship & The First Amendment

 

    The 1st Amendment has recently become a hot topic for discussion in the United States as media organizations have begun to censor individuals who disagree with them politically. Though this form of censorship does not fall to one of the six unique freedoms ensured in the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, Freedom to Petition, Freedom to Assemble, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom From Religion), it does bring forth a unique argument about the validity behind the censorship of private citizens and the, now former, President of the United States. The most egregious case of censorship comes with Twitter removing former President Donald Trump from their platform while he was still the President of the United States. This silencing of the a world leader that started with Twitter began a domino effect with other social media platforms following suit and banning the former president and even some of his supporters; the average Joe. This is not a 1st Amendment issue though. Since the government is not censoring or silencing individuals, a breach of 1st Amendment liberties cannot be argued. Rather, this is a dangerous attempt by big tech to silence individuals they perceives as a threat to their liberal agenda. 

    The censorship of President Donald Trump should scare everyone from every political identity. While this censorship is not relevant to 1st Amendment arguments, I think Manny of the concepts taught about the 1st Amendment should be considered when evaluating this type of blatant censorship. The State-Action Doctrine perfectly dissects the 1st Amendment from tech censorship as big tech is not the state, therefore, a claim that constitutional rights were violated cannot be made. One could argue though that public accommodation rights could have been violated. Twitter is a private company that has opened their platform to private individuals. With that, individuals are to be afforded the same rights across the board regardless of identities such as race, sex, ethnicity, and yes political beliefs. By bringing in this claim that Twitter, a public company, that gives access to private citizens, like Donald Trump, then Donald Trump is afforded the same protections as the billions of other Twitter users. 

    Another egregious example of censorship is the removal of Parler from the Amazon Cloud Services. With Amazon's removal of Parler from their cloud services, millions of Americans-  mostly those on the political right- were silenced. This once again is not directly correlated with the 1st Amendment as Amazon is not a government entity. BUT it can be argued, like with Twitter, that public accommodation was violated as a private company discriminated against private citizens. The censorship of the political right is one more step by the elite to silence political "dissidents." 

    Many of Donald Trump's political opponents argue that his speech to the protestors on January 6th incited the violence that occurred at the United States Capital that eventually led to President Trump's permanent censorship from social media companies. Incitement is a tricky concept and one that is very hard to prove. Incitement is speech that imminent lawless actions where lawless actions must occur. To prove this is very tricky but President Trump's opponents believe it occurred and this is why Donald Trump is going through a second impeachment trial despite being a private citizen. 

    Recently, because of the actions by big tech companies, state legislatures are beginning to take actions to protect individuals from social media censorship. Like the continuous passing of shield laws at the state level to protect confidential sources, state legislatures are beginning to take steps to protect private citizens from censorship. Two legislators in Kentucky are proposing this legislation. Opponents to this say that this is more of a constitutional violation than censorship. Whatever the arguments may be, the issue of the 1st Amendment is one that has been relevant since the foundation of this country and it is clearly one that will be here for.a long time. 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2021/01/19/stop-social-media-censorship-act-co-sponsored-robby-mills-phillip-wheeler/4215693001/

The Supreme Court

        The Supreme Court is one of the United States' three branches of government serving as a check and balance for both the legislative and executive branch of government. The bedrock of the Supreme Court is preserving the union, safeguarding American liberty, and upholding the rule of law. Dating back to its conception, the Supreme Court has ruled on many bedrock cases that permanently shifted American discourse. Handing down decisions on key issues such as race Dred Scott and Brown even as recently as 2015 with the decisions to grant marriage rights to individuals of the LGTBQ+ community. The Supreme Court is not perfect, no institution or body of government is. Cases like Dred Scott are considered "stains" on the reputation of the Supreme Court as they echo prejudices of the American majority rather their supposed commitment to the United States Constitution. 

       Established in Article III of the 1789 draft of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court is like the middle child of the American government; often ignored, neglected, and overlooked despite their unique role in protecting the American republic. With just more than 110 justices having the ability to serve lifetime appointments, the Supreme Court has transformed itself from an undesirable branch of government to being one of the most influential and transformational institutions in the world. The man responsible for this transformation is the 4th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall. Justice Marshall brought the case Marbury v. Madison to the court's docket which brought the stature and influence of the court at equal level to the legislative and executive branches. 

        Recently politicized with accusations of being "advocate" justices who make decisions based on political persuasions, today's court is tainted with the idea that our justices are no longer an independent check on the legislative and executive branch, but rather the court is submissive to the other branches wants and desires. These accusations are thrown around by both political parties and can be seen in the two most recent confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh. The Supreme Court is still an institution of prestige and justice. The line between republicanism and tyranny. The power of the Supreme Court rests not upon elections or the will of the people, but rather the power of the Supreme Court rests upon the faith of the people, not the power of the people.

Five Top Sources of News and Information

 As a political science major, understanding current events is something that is necessary for my future career and my academic pursuits. Every morning while I workout, I peruse these different sources for my daily dose of news and events.

1. The Wall Street Journal

    This my favorite news and information source. Though it requires a hefty subscription fee, I find The Wall Street Journal to provide the most benefits and most insightful look at politics, the Stockmarket, and opinion pieces. Each morning I get an email with the day's top stories with brief summaries of each article and it allows for me to understand what is happening inn the world while not be inundated with thousands of stories that are not relatively important. I recommend the journal because it is a moderately conservative news source that provides an unbiased- in comparison to other media outlets- look into news. The Wall Street Journal reports news stories while highlighting the occasional opinion piece. 

https://www.wsj.com 

2. The New York Times

    The New York Times is my liberal counterbalance to The Wall Street Journal. For me, The New York Times offers more opinionated articles that will allow me to understand the way of thinking of the American left. Like The Wall Street Journal, each morning I get an email with the editor's picks that summarizes the day's top news stories. This allows me to sift through the news and pick out stories that most interest me. I like The New York Times because of how universal it is. I can read a story in the morning and by the afternoon, odds are, I will have talked to a friend who read the same story and walked away with a different perspective than I did. To me, this is what media is about; presenting information, often times new information, and allowing people to walk away with their own interpretations.

https://www.nytimes.com

3. Fox News

    Fox News is my nightly news source. Yes, I understand many of Fox News' broadcasts are opinions shows (think Sean Hannity) but they also have 'Special Report' with Bret Baier and 'Fox News Tonight' with Shannon Bream provide a look at the day's breaking news. Many of Fox News' opinion shows are leading cable news ratings because they offer a conservative look on policy and news compared to their more liberal competition at organizations like ABC and CNN. I watch Fox News at night because, as a conservative political science major, it helps me articulate my own arguments while allowing for me to get new perspectives as well. 

https://www.foxnews.com

4. Twitter

    I know, I know, social media is not the best place to get your news because it creates echo chambers and one sided rhetoric. I don't use Facebook that much so for me, Twitter is where I find all of my news. They are going down a very dangerous road by censuring the President of the United States, but they do allow for news organizations from around the world the ability to broadcast their stories. For me, Twitter is the melting pot that brings me news stories that I normally would not see or even think I would find interesting. Their trending topics often times include many sources spread across news platforms which allows for the ability to broaden my scope for news. I don't use Twitter as a source of news stories, per se  but I use Twitter as a source for news sources.

https://www.twitter.com

5. Newsweek Magazine

    Newsweek, for me, is what my parents read. When I am at home during breaks, my father references articles from Newsweek. This magazine is catered to older generations and is a more conservative source of opinion articles and information. While Newsweek tends to align more conservative politically, Newsweek published research articles and opinion pieces from individuals on both sides of the aisle. A more research based source, Newsweek tends to be for individuals with a hobby of politics, not simply a passion for certain issues. I use this source as a bond between my parents and I because they prefer intellectual conservations on political issues rather than opinionated rhetoric- as do I.

https://www.newsweek.com

As a political science major, I look for news sources that will broaden my perspective while at the same time allowing me to sharpen my own arguments. Unlike journalism or strat. comm. majors, I am looking for politically driven and motivated sources. This is not necessarily the best way to understand pressing political issues, but this has allowed me to articulate my point of view in a way that many people may find convincing.