If I was to have to pick two articles to compare, it would not be Sullivan and Jarvis. While reviewing both articles, I found very few connections between them granted, they were both about literature.
Jarvis’ drawings along with the discussions we had in class focused on the way we receive our news today versus the way we did in the 1930’s. Unlike then, now we tend to go out and find our own sources rather than just relying on the media.
The reason I believe it was difficult for me to connect these two articles is that one is about media and its progress or change, and the other is about blogging, which can be considered a subcategory of media. With that said, the only major connection I found while reviewing both of these articles is that blogs “[fail] to provide stable truth or a permanent perspective.” The 1930’s media seemed to, according to my translation of the charts and graphs, take world events, condense them, and directly inform the reader. However, today there are many options from which we can get our news. The ability to use television, newspaper, online blogs, online news sites, video sites, etc does not provide, as Sullivan said “a stable truth of permanent perspective.” This is of course not to mention that all of these sources likely put their own slant on every news story.
The instability of blogs as well as modern news creates confusion in the minds of those who are not willing to dig a little deeper. However, in those who are willing to just read a little more than the front page, it creates the ability to think for oneself. The 1930’s news system, though streamlined, could easily make a person think in a certain way, whereas today in the most classic example, Fox keeps CNN in check and CNN in tun keeps Fox in check. It’s all about accountability.
Perhaps the articles weren't the best for comparing, or were limited in their connections. I can see that. I wonder which articles you think might have been better to compare with Jarvis? Maybe Carr or Hedges or none of the above?
ReplyDelete