Security? Yes Please

Unfortunately, the idea of inherent or unfettered security is a fleeting concept in the modern digital world. If at any time I let my guard down, an entire fleet of hijackers is seeking to infiltrate my personal information. Some individuals and organizations are looking for access to my financial records while others simply are investigating my personal information and/or spending habits. No matter the rationale, the concepts and strategies themselves are terrifyingly cold and penetrating.

I feel as though my privacy and security standards could use some rethinking. As we learned from the course material, extra steps can help in maintaining defensible security standards. To begin, I have consistently maintained a more complex security passcode for several phones I have owned. I believe that any extra protection that can be levied to a device that is present throughout my daily activities and in several circumstances demands higher security concerns. Additionally, I use more comprehensive passwords for a large portion of my online accounts. As described, utilizing a more complex passcode creates an extra level of security.

Even as I profess my security know-how, I will admit that I have left myself wide open to privacy attacks. But to buttress these concerns, I should work with my wife to step up her security standards. I know that she utilizes the same simple password and passcode throughout almost every one of her digital accounts. In effect, this puts my own security at risk! She is legally tied to almost every portion of my own security apparatus.

Beyond portable defense techniques, the accompanying strategies listed in this module for online protection seem entirely obtainable. For example, I regularly update my operating system on my phone and computer systems, eventually. I have always known that the updates consistently supply my machines with updated software that protects them, but for some reason or another, I don’t always immediately conform. I do not believe that any singular contributing factor causes my malfeasance, but prior news stories like Apple slow down scandal possible leads to my distrust. My wife has not updated her operating system on her phone really, ever!

Where I could really up my game, is the several methods mentioned in this week’s module dealing with the encryption methods and public wi-fi protections that are mostly foreign to me. I spend most of every day at the coffee shop that I work with my phone connected to the unsecured public wi-fi. It’s easier to just leave my network connected to the wifi so my device essentially is left unsecured all day; every day. This seems to me, like the ideal environment where investing in a virtual private network would be advantageous.

So how do I protect myself and my loved ones? What tools do I have that are any kind of effective defensive strategies? Is anything truly effective? Well, maybe not, but this course gave me several methods of self-preservation that may prove to be effective. In addition to myself, I have always desired to protect my friends, my family, and my wife from offensive forces that may attack our personal privacy.

How the Law Affects our Media

The laws that control how the general public interacts within modern media is complex. Some laws attempt to protect our 1st amendment rights, just as other laws control what we can access and how we can interact with it. In some cases, these laws can lead directly to how we obtain and disseminate the information in non-digital environments. In any case, it is almost as if the world of digital media is difficult to understand and that causes mass amounts of confusion and potential legal perils.

We live in a world where our right to privacy on the internet is in a state of constant fluctuation. There are legal attempts to establish our right to privacy and a digital world that seemingly encourages opportunistic individuals that seek to steal that privacy from under our noses.

In the article by Medium, they establish 4 points of privacy relevant to the general public:  Human, Personal, Defensive, and Contextual. Although arbitrary, these categories attempt to define the rights of an individual. The four elements of privacy focus on separating an individual’s personal life from broader exposure and legal protections have been set in place to promote these. False light, appropriation, intrusion and private facts torts are the legal remedies available in theory.

The actual implementation of these laws can vary significantly by degrees of privilege, financial status, and accessibility. I strive to maintain privacy from external pressures, but the laws seem to have gaps that make it difficult to protect myself. For example, our past and current administration fight tooth and nail to limit our only significant lines of digital defense, encryption. As leading technology companies fight to maintain our privacy, (likely for financial interests) the judicial branch of our government looks to craft limitations.

Beyond personal privacy, copyright laws surround almost every portion of every interaction I have with almost every form of media. When these laws are applied to corporate interests, a wildly different world of elitism and special circumstance make me aware of my insignificance. I have encountered and I am aware of a variety of situations where I and smaller producers of media are potentially at a loss for efficient protections.

Copyright law is meant to serve as a protect-all for intellectual content, but the actual application often favors those in charge. I have had a few social media posts be flagged for media I included that are not significant portions of the original works. Many of the YouTubers I watch frequently are flagged unnecessarily. As a result, they fear demonetization and have no resources to defend themselves. The monolithic corporations have virtually no need to be accurate and largely face no repercussions. Authentic art is the loser in this battle, but the laws were originally crafted to protect the same artists.

Unfortunately, I am not currently at a place of effective defiance or organized opposition to the powers that rule. This does not mean I will bough my head and disengage, instead, I will fight to learn my rights, formulate self-preservation techniques, and help to devise content that is in a state of effective compliance albeit formulated resistance.

Wikipedia: A Mob of Success(!?)

I found the idea behind this week’s assignment entertaining as well as enlightening. Although I have always used Wikipedia as a beginning information resource in an informal context, I previously never really thought about who specifically was posting the content. Was it some mythical online Wikipedia fairies, or was it real-life people that found value in sharing and curating easily accessible, educational resources?

I  had no understanding of the processes in making or revising a Wikipedia article, so I refrained from including myself in the mix of a potential Wikipedia aficionado. All it takes is encouragement and access to the right information or tutorials to get started. I found the WikiEdu training modules to be very effective and I immediately felt confident in joining the Wikipedia contributor melee.

The training immediately got me thinking, what kind of article was I confident in editing or adding content to? If an article was a staple of my previous online research, was the article prominent enough to be able to find easily available, trusted resources to cite? And if the answer was YES to both of the aforementioned criteria, was it controversial and/or did it need any revisions I was capable of making?

After playing around with these ideas, I was able to determine that one particular article that garnered enough trusted resources to add information to a particular omission from the article’s timeline. The article was about a band called The Parlor Mob that I have always enjoyed, but as it turns out I only knew surface-level information about. Once the citation resources were developed, it was time to jump in!

Although the Sandbox feature was thoroughly explained, I found myself only using it for this initial project as a means for exploration. I posted to the feed to prove to myself that I understood what this part of the process entailed. Admittedly not a stellar beginning, but it got the party started!

The next step was to Talk about my proposal for article contributions. As suggested, I reviewed existing content within the article’s talk page, then I posted a short explanation of what I intended to contribute. In this case, there wasn’t a ton of recent activity and I did not feel that the community would find anything about my proposal objectionable. I posted and waited for any response.

After a few days of waiting, I did not receive any objections so I found it appropriate to post to the main article. I found the editor fairly similar to any standard text editing tool, so the only real problem lied in deciding how to make the post congruent with Wikipedia and the article’s existing format and style.  Once again the waiting game commenced. Would my contribution be accepted, or would I get booted off Wikipedia in perpetuity? lol 🙂

Success! As of today, my post is still left standing as is, no revisions. I found an immense amount of joy in that I was successful in contributing to the Wikipedia community so effortlessly. I shared this experience with any coevals at work and my wife at home, although they may or may not have been as enthusiastic as I am…

The sandbox

Let’s Talk about it

Success!!

We all have one, a misguided or flatly mistaken relative that insists upon posting an objectionable post on social media. Wait, that’s not accurately framing the situation. It’s not the misguided factor that is loathsome, it’s the easily refutable content that my relative posts regardless of the demonstrably false narrative and/or information that they insist upon sharing with the world that really grinds my gears.

The internet is already a minefield of inaccuracies and falsehoods that this situation feels like a moment where I can be the superhero that swoops in to rectify the situation. The key to this situation is that I must avoid brute superhero strength, and rely instead on understanding and civility.

As was encouraged by my professor in his writings, Dan Gillmor stresses the simple act of civility in online exchanges. He maintains that civility is the key to interaction or persuasion with any online contributor (or villain). In this case, this is my relative so civility is paramount and cannot be overlooked.

I must find a method of demonstrating to my relative that purposeful and deliberate posting of demonstrably false content is negative and detrimental to society. Unfortunately, a large portion of society will not be able to distinguish the falsehood from other truths locked hand in hand with their internet posting. If anyone is to be trusted, attempting to represent themselves truthfully is almost always required.

Outside of civility, this interaction will require copious patience, and above all,  respect for other people’s opinions. It’s not that my opinion is infallible, but appreciation for representing the most current understanding of the facts is required in the messy online world we live in. I find great value in researching and representing the truth in every post I make and they should too. Of course, it is unreasonable to expect my elder relatives to understand this, but this is where otherworldly patience must kick in.

We can only be valued online by the framework of our standards and insistence on representing ourselves with honesty. If effective, it is at this point where I can rid myself of the external label of hero, and rather look within myself as an academic advisor. In the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, “As an educator, it’s my duty to empower you to think. So that you can go forth and think accurate thoughts about how the world is put together.”

The underlying annotated list will demonstrate a few examples of how media reports and/or publishes information regarding healthcare policy in the 2020 democratic primary election. All the democratic candidates have released or alluded to policy positions surrounding how they will implement healthcare reform or convictions about how they will reinforce existing policy opinions. It is and will continue to be a mixed bag of truth and accuracy in how the public will receive this information.

Bernie Sanders on health care: Joe Biden doesn’t know what he’s talking about

youtube.com/watch?v=3MDRFkFT0R4

This YouTube video displays a CNN interview and debate with Bernie Sanders about his disagreement with Joe Biden over proposed Medicare-for-all costs and implementation. Sanders’ defining policy is attacked by his constituent.

Democratic presidential candidate Buttigieg unveils health plan

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-buttigieg/democratic-presidential-candidate-buttigieg-unveils-health-plan-idUSKBN1W417Q

Reuters article examining candidate Pete Buttigieg’s medicare proposal and how it differs from other popular proposals. This is the most recent, and final assertion of any leading candidate’s proposals, effectively putting the politician within a political box.

Buttigieg jabs at Warren for her ‘evasive’ answer on middle-class taxes under Medicare for All

www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/09/19/pete-buttigieg-elizabeth-warren-evasive-taxes-medicare-all/2381313001/

USA Today article explaining the disagreement between candidates Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren in the recent 3rd Democratic Debate. The candidates fight over costs underlying Warren’s healthcare policy including accusations of alleged dishonesty.

Biden ATTACKS Warren: Her Supporters Respond

youtube.com/watch?v=GNYFVugLv-c

Independent news source The Young Turks examines the opinions of likely voters. Further, the station’s Rebel HQ street team seeks public opinion over Biden and Warren’s conflicting healthcare policy and the strained relationship between the candidates.

Democratic Debate Exposes Deep Divides Among Candidates Over Health Care

www.npr.org/2019/09/13/760364830/democratic-debate-exposes-deep-divides-among-candidates-over-health-care

NPR news article investigating the aftermath and fallout of candidate’s opinions surrounding healthcare policies. The article examines public opinion by supplying polling data and showcasing quotes from the 3rd Democratic Debate.

Warren and Sanders vs Army of Darkness

The battle for the viability of presidential candidates in the 2020 election is a slow drip of news. The news will not become less numerous, albeit it is ever-growing in relevance and importance. Media stories will undoubtedly exhibit headlines that will take different approaches to showcase the significance of the multitude of candidate’s policy proposals.

In this example of media analysis, I will endeavor to analyze this news story by Vox media that attempts to explains the details concerning democratic hopefuls Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders’ healthcare proposals. The article does not expand to an overall reflection of the candidates’ platform but focuses directly on the dynamic of the two on healthcare in the 2nd Democratic debate.

As I have previously described in other blog posts, Vox media is a well known, independently operated, largely neutral digital media source. Whether or not you agree with the platform, upon examination, the news source appears to be largely neutral and refrains from egregious insertion of opinion. The viewer’s interest in certain content may contain information, by de facto, that only creates a filter-bubble by uninformed viewership.

Although within an article streamlined in substance and content, the explanation and defense of the proposed Medicare-for-all policy will be a key distinguishing factor for the two progressive candidates. The way this article presents the facts surrounding this portion of the debate will attempt to be an isolating factor in the run-up to the election.

The article was written by and reflects the analysis of policy and politics reporter Tara Golshan. Although described as only being active for Vox since 2016, the article’s content is verifiable in that it was publically broadcast for the consumption of the general public. I am not as concerned about the accuracy of the article surrounding the story, and more concerned with the framing or any potential underlying bias.

Despite framing the article to be critical and/or lenient to the candidates as a mixed bag, the underlying opinion is often unavoidable. As the author explains the candidate’s actions and message in the debate, she tends to paint polarizing narratives of the candidates’ performances. It becomes obvious that the reporter writes largely positively of the candidates’ performances, but she paints Sanders as aggressive and Warren as approachable throughout the article. At various points, she runs counter to her methodology when she slips in softened versions of that narrative.

Overall, Golshan is fair to all candidates in the debate but she portrays a rift in the eager democratic candidates. Painting a picture of Warren and Sanders vs the world (progressive vs moderate candidates) is, in my opinion, often detrimental to the candidates’ messaging. Although intentionally aggressive in nature, there seems to be an underlying knock against the candidates’ largely unified policy platform. Rather than describing an ultimately effective union of two candidates, describing a contemptuous divide is a more effective news reporting method.

It seems evident that the framing of the story in this way creates an opportunity to synthesize interest in the story more so than fairly or accurately describing the content. Like is common and almost obligatory in today’s fast news cycle, the creation of a shocking and eye-catching headline is almost a necessity. Rather than fairly framing a story of cohesion, the article is likely to become more effective to the public’s interest by creating a story of conflict. Similar to the headline I created above in this blog post, the general public is more likely to seek out a story that contains conflict than solidarity. To be fair, this is common practice and this article is not overly guilty of this maneuver.

In a fictional scenario where I would be qualified to give this story a collegiate-like letter grade, I would give it a B+. This article gives all of the predefined appearances of fairness and objectivity, but it fails in that it clearly creates a framework of establishment bias. It is not as though the reporting is inaccurate or unfair, only that it intentionally creates a scenario that will be subconsciously dividing of the two sides of the same party. Please don’t get me wrong, the story is effective but it falls into the popular category of divisive politics. Let’s be fair, my own confirmation bias is likely to be present in my grading procedure.

That’s Like Your Opinion Man

After submitting my proposed blog topic, the media focus of the  2020 Presidential Election, it was suggested that narrowing down this broad topic would be more beneficial to effective composition (than you Agya Aning). Thus, I still intend to frame the blog topic under the same media analysis of the 2020 Presidential Election subject, but I will focus on a specific policy that will likely be presented or discussed by several candidates. In this case, healthcare is a key issue that will be argued about and agreed on by several of the potential candidates throughout the primary and general election process.

Here I will present 4 online news items referencing the aforementioned topic, both as analysis and as opinion. I will attempt to explain the justification for assigning the label to each news piece:

How Digital Media Reports The 2020 Presidential Election

We’re late into the year 2019 and the political world is brewing. The main event is more than a year away, but we’re entering into the thick of the next presidential election. I follow the election build-up and the multitude of candidates as they are reported on by television, internet websites, printed literature, and social media. I don’t spend a lot of time reading physical newspapers, such as those found in my local coffee shop, but I love to scan the headlines and articles for verification.  I do read books that are released by prominent candidates, but the amount and frequency tend to be limited.

The bulk of the presidential election content I digest comes directly from the internet. I spend time on polling sites like FiveThirtyEight where I follow the democratic primary candidates, specifically the day to day fluctuations in their popularity. In addition, I regularly scan the polls to view the current President’s approval rating throughout his term. I follow the presidential election through various forms of television news, primarily garnering information from CNN, Fox, MSNBC, and local news channels. I find televised news sources difficult to follow as they are largely biased and infuriating.

Where I almost exclusively find myself gathering presidential election information is on media channels on YouTube, specifically CNN, MSNBC, and my favorite The Young Turks. Other channels often include the Rational National, Brian Tyler Cohen, The Damage Report, Rebel HQ, and even The Late Show With Stephen Colbert (etc.). Recommendations often refer me to other conflicting news sources and content that include Fox News. I am reluctant to admit that YouTube is a primary source of presidential election news, but the smaller doses of personalized content are more easily digestible, sometimes to a fault.

Hopefully, this course’s learning materials help and enlighten me to a more robust election information-gathering experience.

A Roadmap to My Daily Media Use

• (August 24th – 5:30 PM) I began this aforementioned 24-hour block of data usage categorization directly after I arrived home from work at 5:15 pm. I quickly pulled out my cell phone to check my Social Media apps such as Facebook and Instagram. After a quick scan, and as is usual, revealed no time-sensitive, pertinent, or critical posts that were apparent, I turned on my Television and the connected AppleTV. I navigated myself to the NFL app and waited for the 4th Denver Broncos preseason game to begin.  I watched until the end of the game and called it a day.
• (August 25th – 7:05 AM) I woke up the following morning, before my alarm clock and cell phone had the opportunity to oh-so-rudely awaken me. I checked my e-mail and deleted or surveyed the small amount of mail I had accumulated.
• (7:10 AM) I neurotically checked my Facebook to quickly scan for any relevant posts that I already knew I would not personally respond to this early in the morning. I left the bed and made coffee for myself and my wife.
• (8:00 – 9:22 AM) I turned on the Television to immediately watch our favorite local daily news in Portland, Oregon. Fox News is not my ideal choice of news throughout the day but we had grown accustomed to the local version of it over the years.
• (9:22 AM) I once again checked my phone for any new e-mails that might have arrived in my two personal e-mail accounts and my student e-mail. About this time of day, there are usually a lot of e-mails that I must delete, report as spam, or move to the many mail folders I have previously assigned.
• (9:23 – 10:31 AM) I turned the television to CNN to view news that I am more accustomed to and comfortable with. Although I am aware of the bias that is undoubtedly underlying through financing mandates, I find CNN to generally be the more reliable cable news source and I will use it to gauge my incoming news for each day.
• (12:11 PM) At this point, I quickly and manically checked my e-mail, something I honestly do all throughout the day, but it is difficult to accurately reflect this in this blog exercise.
• (12:15 PM) We left home to complete some errands in the surrounding neighborhood and I used the YouTube Music app on my phone to stream a custom-tailored music playlist to my car stereo via BlueTooth.
• (3:24 PM) After arriving home I turned on my laptop to pull up the Arizona State University website and use Canvas to access my two classes. I scanned for posts and viewed the course calendar.
• (3:30 – 5:30 PM) While addressing related schoolwork, I tuned my AppleTV to YouTube and watched a multitude of videos recommended for me. Most, if not all videos, were either MSNBC or The Young Turks. Although MSNBC is largely comfortable to me, I am hesitant to view it as a final source and I often will seek out other resources to confirm or deny the content. Alternatively, The Young Turks is my favorite news source and I will routinely view it as a trusted (although not infallible) news source. I am fully aware that this comfort level is based around my liberal progressive viewpoint and lifestyle, but I try to be objective as creating a news “tunnel” that potentially blinds my viewpoint is not ideal.

Media Credibility: Scale of 1 (least trusted) – 10 (most trusted):

• (9) The Young Turks
• (7) MSNBC
• (7) CNN
• (5) Fox News – local
• (3) Facebook