If there is one thing that is similar in both the American Republican and Democratic parties it's the fact that both of those support war. To be honest, I never even really thought about anti-war in a way more than just: "not fighting," and honestly I blame the media for that. If you look at news sites people commonly use, there is practically no trace of ANY strong anti-war articles and viewpoints. This is yet another example of the topic I researched for my second presentation, GateKeeping and Agenda Setting. By limiting and intentionally filtering out anti-war media, news sites can shift the very perception of anti-war in the public due to their influence on what people think about it. That is why it was a surprise that the two sites listed in this prompt expressed such strong opinions on anti-war, ones that I have not seen anywhere else. The first site, for example, went a lot more into the harmful effects of war than other sites that I have seen, describing deaths and the support of the government towards the loss of life. Another topic covered heavily by both of these anti-war sites was the benefit of the government versus the benefit of the people when it comes to war. People don't really benefit too much here, meanwhile the government and the people in power only really seem to acquire the opposite. Regardless of whether I agree with these or not, the fact that such strong opinions are ONLY here when pro-war media is so prevalent in virtually all news sites and platforms. Because of the government's gain from it, it is clear that using gatekeeping and agenda-setting they make sure that other people only see it the way they do.
Sources:
https://www.communicationtheory.org/agenda-setting-theory/
No comments:
Post a Comment