I agree with this statement. There is a variety of political resources to choose from and a greater opportunity of information could lead to becoming more politically involved (widening the knowledge gap). Like the previous quote said, the “motivation” determines one’s political knowledge. If one slacks and does not take the time to find political information, then they won’t have the efficacy. This could possibly decrease their voter turnout. I believe that people who watch entertainment stories and call themselves politically educated seem to be ignorant. It is important to recognize our political policies and the different standpoints on issues. The article states that “among those who report a strong preference for entertainment content, these media decrease their political knowledge over time.” Even though the options of media choice widens the gap, my question is does entertainment have the ability to overpower the political media and close this opened gap?
If there is more options for political knowledge, then more people may be more intrigued, or energized to learn and listen to what other sources have to say. I believe that this will increase political efficacy. The more options a person has for learning, the more someone will actually want to learn. Although it is important to realize our political policies, I believe that making sure Efficacy is higher is more important than political policies.
That is a matter of perspective; for if one is to have more options than if anything that should narrow the ‘knowledge gap’, because more people have relatively the same baseline of knowledge or are around the same general area. To make this statement less confusing, basically the more choices we have, the more knowledge people should have, so if they’re not equal, their relatively close in terms of political knowledge.
Relating back to the "rich getting richer" notion, I also agree with this statement. Those who are already politically knowledgeable will be self-motivated to seek out politics on different forms of media to expand their existing pool of information and views. Since they have a passion for this topic, they will pursue it. Those that do not have any political interest may have once stumbled upon certain news channels that provided them with information. Prior states that sometimes, although they had not sought politics in the first place, certain viewers remained watching the channel simply because they did not want to change the channel or there was nothing else to view. Now, with the quick click of a button, an appealing show or movie can divert viewers' attentions from the politics they once turned to. Although this may seem like an unusual comparison, I find similarities between political knowledge and the electoral college system. A bit of a stretch, I know. However, I find them similar in the way that in order to win a presidency, a candidate must have substantial support, but this support must be widespread. For example, Hillary Clinton had such overwhelming support in certain states, like New York, that she secured the popular vote but failed to win in the electoral college. Her support was too highly concentrated in one place, with the rest of the nation having less than enough to secure crucial electoral votes. In the same way, the "knowledge gap" is comparable to this situation because while the politically interested group of people gain a substantial amount of knowledge and political expertise (such as Hillary's support in New York), the everyday, not-politically-involved voter (rest of the nation) lacked this same information. In order to win the Electoral College (succeed in obtaining a well-educated electorate), then the focus of knowledge must be on leveling the field and decreasing the gap between those who are extremely knowledgeable and those who still must become aware of the current state of American politics.
I agree. The knowledge gap is between segments of the population that have the initiative to learn about politics and those that only wish to be entertained by other forms of media. As written in a scholarly article, when “...the infusion of mass media information into the social system increases, segments of the population with higher socioeconomic status tend to acquire the information at a faster rate than lower status segments, so that the gap in knowledge between these segments tends to increase rather than decrease” (infoamerica.org). While the political channel is readily available for all voters to watch (with cable), when given more options, the news station will be less prefered by some viewers. In the age of broadcasting, viewers were obligated to watch politics when their pleasurable shows were not playing. However, with cable, only the dedicated political supporters would choose to watch politically informative shows for entertainment. This statement is supported; the knowledge gap among the electorate is widened because political knowledge will only be had by those that choose to watch politics and will now be lost by those that no longer desire to nurture their political ideologies. In the past, viewers were exposed to content that would give them the most basic political knowledge, and the knowledge gap was smaller. Voter efficacy was higher at this time because people always felt somewhat politically informed. However, with the variety of stations available at the click of a button today, viewers are required to make the choice to watch politics. The knowledge gap is widened due to their ability to make this choice (more outlets to divert their attention from politics). Perfectly stated, “Inequality in political knowledge and turnout increases as a result of voluntary, not circumstantial, consumption decisions.”
I agree with this statement. By having more choices of the media it gives the person more information to strengthen their political beliefs. If the electorate likes the information, then they will probably become politically active and will make the electorate have a high efficacy. Which will lead to a higher voter turnout.
I agree with Kyle and Bri. If a politically involved person sees more choices of news they will become more interested and excited about politics. The more choices a person has the more information they can retrieve to strengthen their political knowledge and beliefs. However, like Morgan said below, people who aren't interested will choose not to listen to the news.
I agree with this statement. The more media choices the easier it is to customize the information the viewers are getting. Increasing amounts of media has proven to not increase political knowledge, as it has remained at a constant rate. Also, people have a choice to get media that challenges their viewpoints, but most people will not. This means that people with not have a deep understanding of both sides of the spectrum, therefore narrowing the knowledge gap. Also, politics are constantly competing with entertainment. People do not have the motivation to gain political knowledge because they would rather be entertained than educated. Adding additional channels may grasp a few more people who are interested in politics, but with more media containing knowledge follows more media containing entertainment. And again, politics will compete. Unless the population as a whole shifts or a critical time period occurs, people will not be motivated to increase their political knowledge, and there will be poor voter turn out. Thus, widening the knowledge gap.
This statement is true because the variety of available channels gives audiences more places to view information that could possibly be more interesting than the news. There is not a high chance that “nothing good will be on” the TV these days and that people will resort to putting the news on as background noise (something commonly done in the broadcast era). Especially with newer outlets like Netflix, there are constantly shows available that people can watch instead of the news. Watching the news has become more of a choice than it had been in the past during the broadcast era when it came on at specific times daily. The people that choose to watch the news will have more political knowledge about what is happening in the world than those who solely watch Netflix or entertainment channels. Although most people have access to the news, the knowledge gap is widening as more alternative programs arise and people are drawn to them instead of the news.
I agree with this statement. If a politically interested person is provided with more options, they will feel even more motivated to seek more information with what they are mostly interested in. This will further strengthen their beliefs as well as their efficacy and possibly their participation. And as Morgan mentioned above, those who prefer to be entertained other than educated will likely remain this way.
I agree with this statement because the amount of available media channels and stations gives citizens more places to access information that can be more interesting and amusing than the news. TV now in days has many intriguing options on and people put the news on as a background distraction rather than to actually get information out of it. There are many new media types that are more popular than the news, such as Hulu, Netflix, On Demand and much more that gives people more interesting things to watch rather than the news. Those who watch the news often tend to have more political knowledge and are engaged in what is going on politically. People who watch the news will gain knowledge becoming smarter while those who watch entertainment won't gain anything out of it. That leads to the “knowledge gap” which is widening even though most Americans have access to the news but still tend to choose other programs on TV to watch which will not help them in the near future, but only to stay entertained. It is important in my opinion that we should recognize our standpoint on issues and political policies (agreeing with Norah on this!) because without opinions there is no knowledge of politics, not being challenged by other stances. Therefore, with more and more available media channels, it does widen the “knowledge gap” in society.
I agree with this statement as well. The greater the amount of media sources, the wider the political knowledge gap. In today’s society, politics and entertainment have separated compared to how they used to be. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, it was extremely likely for a family to watch television after dinner, no matter what was on. News was on at certain times of the day, so whatever happened to be on, the people would watch. Television was new and exciting back then, so content did not matter as much compared to the overall aspect of watching television. Now however, people do not watch television if what is on does not interest them. News is on multiple channels, all hours of the day, allowing for easy access to information if the person chooses to participate. There are so many other entertainment and news options that people are not forced to watch one source. Once again, political knowledge leads back to interest. People today who have interest can learn as much as they want, while others are not forced to watch or read something they do not find entertaining, like in the 60’s and 70’s. So, a greater amount of information and multiple media outlets has led to an increased political knowledge gap over time. It is now a matter of choosing to participate in politics and increasing political knowledge, or choosing to not get involved, which widens the gap.
I agree with this statement. If a person is highly motivated to increase their political knowledge, then they will choose to listen to all media sources. However, there are also people who choose not to listen and stick to their own beliefs. People choose whether or not they want to see other sides. Greater choice also increases political efficacy because people are motivated to seek out other information so they can make the right choice when it is time to vote.
I agree with this statement because when the media introduces more choices, the knowledge gap stayed constant or got worse. This is because when there are more media options, only those that want to get political information with search and watch it. Also, the uninformed have an even greater availability now to more entertainment, which will not make them want to watch the news. This is because it is in the public's interest to be entertained rather than watch the news. On the other hand, for the people that have a lot of political knowledge and want to be educated, it gives them greater options to inform themselves on issues and topics that are happening in politics. This shows how the gap gets worse or stays the same because it is the same people searching for political knowledge. Also it may get worse because with more media options comes more distractions for the public that is trying to gain more political knowledge.
I fully agree with this statement. As the media continues to expand everyday, so does the knowledge gap. As Alex said, the gap can only stay the same or grow worse. The entertainment business will only continue to grow and people will continue to be more interested in that than receiving political knowledge. As time goes on, getting political knowledge can start to seem like a chore for people and thus they will make the decision not to care enough and listen.
I agree that a wider range of media choices will cause the knowledge gap to widen. This is due to the fact that there are people that are interested in politics and people that are not. People that are interested are going to increase their political knowledge and efficacy because they will have more sources to get their facts and argument from. But people that are not interested will use the wider range of sources to find better entertainment rather than news/debates. People also choose what they want to see so they might not see the other side and argument. The interested people will learn more and not interested people will learn less or nothing at all.
I also agree that the knowledge gap widens as a result of greater choice of information. Those who are politically interested have access to information provided from both sides of the spectrum. They are able to control what information they see/hear, and can gain this information whenever. For those who are not as interested in politics, they shy away from the news and/or debates. These two types of people create a wider knowledge gap because those who are more informed are also greater involved in politics, while those who care more about entertainment may not be up-to-date on the latest political news.
I agree with this statement because the knowledge gap expands as there are more media sources to take advantage of. As more information is offered, political knowledge increases for some and stays the same for others. For instance, as more channels are shown on TV, the knowledge gap widens because of people with a preference for news and people with a preference for different media sources. People with preferences for entertainment chose certain sources, whereas those with no preferences chose "any type of political information".
I agree with this statement. Many media choices out there are filled with facts and truth that will provide positive knowledge for people to get involved in political activities. However, there are many false websites and stories that appear to be true that could be posing a negative impact on the people who read them.
I agree with this, because while those with the motivation to seek political information will become more informed, those without this motivation will become less informed. This is due to the large amount of choice, as there will inevitably be sources that cater to any segment of the population, from the extremely ideological to the apathetic. Furthermore, those motivated enough to become politically informed, but not enough to become involved, could fall victim to "fake news" that caters to their loosely held ideology with false information, thus widening the knowledge gap by making everyone less informed except the most politically motivated members of the population.
I agree with this statement. Vast choices in the media result in customization of information for people to strengthen their political beliefs. They may also choose to look on the other side of their beliefs but that is very unlikely. Since minimal people want to challenge their ideas with others, the knowledge gap worsens.
I agree with this because a motivated person who is seeking more political knowledge will use all the sources they can access. This will also strengthen ones beliefs and opinions. However, just like Shannon said most people who already have a strong opinion will probably only look at media agreeing with their side.
This quote I could potentially agree with but also disagree with. To begin, I would agree with this because citizens will have the opportunity to find exactly what they want to and need to hear about, which would expand political knowledge, but this could potentially be a bad thing since people would look up bias information as said in previous quotes, leading to a lack of political knowledge.
I agree with this statement because having a variety of available channels given to you, the bigger spectrum will be offered. However because every news cast is either extremely liberal or very conservative, the audience will most likely get one side of the story rather than both. If something extraordinary occurs that affects a lot of individuals it would increase voter turnout and political efficacy. People are going to want to get interested on a topic that affects their daily life and vote on an issue.
I also agree with this statement. Having a wide variety of ways to explore the political environment allows people to educate themselves more. But, the question is if this is good or bad. It could be seen as both. Having a huge outlet to gather information is helpful, especially if you have contrasting opinions. But, these sources can include false information leading people to have false knowledge about politics. Although media widens the knowledge gap, it may widen it too much, letting incorrect content find its way in.
I also agree with this statement. If the number of media options for political information increases, the knowledge gap will do so as well. People with a high intrest in politics will use these sources to find the best information. Having more sources of information makes it easier for these people to access and can make them want to keep learning so they can expand on what they may already know.
I agree with this statement. When there was less media choice, people were sometimes forced to watch the news and gain political knowledge if there was nothing else to choose from. Now with more choices, people can choose to select entertainment rather than news, blocking them from gaining political knowledge (from news at least). With more than just news on TV and the internet, people can choose to have limited political knowledge, which leads to decreased interest in participating in politics. This then creates a gap between those who are not knowledgeable about politics and those who are. Those with less knowledge will then vote less, while those with more knowledge are more likely to vote more.
I disagree with this statement, as the presence of many media forms and outlets allows for more people than ever to be knowledgeable about the actions of their government. While people may have different forms of knowledge due to bias within news sources, biased information is better than no information whatsoever. Prior to the presence of modern media, voters may chose candidates simply by the party they run for and not the beliefs they represent. Even today, media is becoming more accessible for people, allowing them to make more educated choices than people made in the past. While the information presented to us is often corrupted by the interests of the media, as a society we probably know more than ever. Even people with no interest in politics know quite a bit, even if their information comes from ads on Facebook. The average person is able to feel connected to the government by knowing about its functions and actions.
I agree with this statement due to the fact that the knowledge gap certainly does widen when there is more of a variety to choose from. To start with, those who are interested in politics are going to use all the sources they can to gain information and knowledge. They choose to look at both conservative and liberal views on issues in order to gain factual and not biased knowledge. On the other hand, there are those who choose to use media for entertainment and leisure instead of using it to gain knowledge. Thus, a greater 'knowledge gap' is created with all the different options from the media.
I somewhat agree with this statement. The media seems to be covering more and more topics that they deem important. Depending on what interests the public have, they may not want to or feel the need to tune into media if its not covering the topics that they want to hear. However, someone that is interested in the news and everything that the media covers, will become more knowledgeable about not only our world today, but also about the international politics and government situations.
I mostly disagree with this statement. Yes, in a sense, greater knowledge does widen the knowledge gap, but that doesn’t mean that there is no knowledge at all. Most of this knowledge is opinions and information based on media so, in a way, people know more than they view on the media because of how they form opinions with this knowledge.
Going off of what Maya said, I also somewhat agree with the statement. While yes, I see how the greater choice can encourage people to look deeper into politics, the choice can also cause people to only look at what they see important. For example, the topics of abortion and immigration are very different but both are covered in politics. Some people may not care about one or the other and will only look into the topic they see more important to them.
As I said in the previous post, greater choice increases customizability, which increases the knowledge gap. If people block out what they don't want to hear, then they are less informed about the true topics of the opposing side. Their own partisan beliefs are only one point of view, and since the facts discussed by the other party do not align with their own, then they become less interested in learning the whole story.
I disagree with this statement. Wider media choice doesn't cause a knowledge gap, it prevents it. A knowledge gap would be impossible given the number of sources that are out there. There is so much information that political knowledge is kept at a consistent state that will not 'gap'.
I disagree with this statement. The knowledge gap could be as large as people allow it to be so long as their are motivated to get every side. This draws back to the claim that without motivation, high political knowledge cannot be achieved; if people are not motivated to learn the truth, even though they have access to it, then they are unable to be knowledgeable. However, with motivation, they all can be as knowledgeable as possible.
I agree with this statement. As said before in my previous answers there comes a point to where there are too many sources and people begin to access incorrect information as well as different information as everyone else. Dylan disagrees with me by saying the knowledge gap would not be a problem as long as people are motivated to take a look at every side; but that is the problem. As said in another statement, people obtain a lack of motivation and therefore stray away from any other media that doesn't completely interest themselves.
I think that if there are more sources of political knowlagge available it may become more challenging for people to be up to date with all of their opinions as it would become more time consuming to look at multiple sources before making their own opinion. Then only people who are motivated to learn about political issues will be able to sort through the many sources thus over time the margin of people who will be lacking political knowlage will increase
I agree with this statement as well as with Melanie. People who are already interested in politics will have no problems finding information on it. However, if there were more unbiased choices that may interest people to be more educated in politics. Many people don’t trust the current media choices, so if there were more that happened to be unbiased it would cause more people to be interested in politics. But, even with more choices not everyone will choose to listen or to be educated.
I agree with this statement completely. I agree with the statement because since there is so many channels and media coverage. They focus on specific views so there are more people who are specifically choosing extremely left side views or extremely right side views they are not learning about the in between. This creates a huge division and gap on the understanding of each others views. Also the possibilities of the moderate views that they can alter the believes to because they don’t have to hear the other side if they don’t want to by choosing to only listen to their sides views.
I agree because when a broader array of options is displayed it is easier for voters to choose something that more specifically fits their personal opinion. If the media choice was more cut and dry then it would be much more difficult for people to choose something they agree with.
I truly agree with this statement. There is a variety of resources out there for political information, thus expanding the knowledge gap. Agreeing with Sydney, the more options there are for knowledge, the more people become intrigued and interested to learn more on what people have to say. This can increase efficacy. People will become more motivated to obtain more information on what they want to hear. Not only that, there is so much more: people can get a look on the other side of the spectrum and widen the gap.
I partly agree with this statement because the more information available, the larger the possibility that people will go in search of that information will be. However, people stick to what they know and care not about opposing views, correct or not, because they want to hear their views are valid and the right ones. That information may be accessible, but that does not guarantee people will use it.
I agree with this because those that want to be informed and motivated to learn more will do so but the average person who sticks to what they know and what they like to hear wont learn anything more, therefore widening the knowledge gap.
I agree with this statement completely because the more information available, the more information able to be obtained. There are various news channels, websites, social media platforms, etc. that are accessible to the public for their own research. People who are really interested in politics will have news chanels on at all times and will follow candidates on social media. This will expand their political knowledge drastically and allow them to form their own educated opinions based on the things they read. But on the other hand, the wide variest of sources is also obtainable to opinions. This means facts can be altered to target candidates or parties for example. Though, opinions can also be a good thing as you are exposed to other people's political views.
I agree with this statement. People tend to choose to listen to news from the perspective that they agree with, therefore giving them half of the story. Though some people may choose to see both sides, that's an unusual scenario.
While still technically widening the "knowledge gap", having a choice of what media to watch will always pose problems, like biased news sources, or news sources that heavily frame their stories. I still believe that everyone should always read multiple news sources before concluding something about an issue, especially if it's a very controversial one, like tax reforms. Its always good to see two perspectives, and it's easier to form your own viewpoint from that.
I agree with this statement. There is a variety of political resources to choose from and a greater opportunity of information could lead to becoming more politically involved (widening the knowledge gap). Like the previous quote said, the “motivation” determines one’s political knowledge. If one slacks and does not take the time to find political information, then they won’t have the efficacy. This could possibly decrease their voter turnout. I believe that people who watch entertainment stories and call themselves politically educated seem to be ignorant. It is important to recognize our political policies and the different standpoints on issues. The article states that “among those who report a strong preference for entertainment content, these media decrease their political knowledge over time.” Even though the options of media choice widens the gap, my question is does entertainment have the ability to overpower the political media and close this opened gap?
ReplyDeleteIf there is more options for political knowledge, then more people may be more intrigued, or energized to learn and listen to what other sources have to say. I believe that this will increase political efficacy. The more options a person has for learning, the more someone will actually want to learn. Although it is important to realize our political policies, I believe that making sure Efficacy is higher is more important than political policies.
ReplyDeleteThat is a matter of perspective; for if one is to have more options than if anything that should narrow the ‘knowledge gap’, because more people have relatively the same baseline of knowledge or are around the same general area. To make this statement less confusing, basically the more choices we have, the more knowledge people should have, so if they’re not equal, their relatively close in terms of political knowledge.
ReplyDeleteRelating back to the "rich getting richer" notion, I also agree with this statement. Those who are already politically knowledgeable will be self-motivated to seek out politics on different forms of media to expand their existing pool of information and views. Since they have a passion for this topic, they will pursue it. Those that do not have any political interest may have once stumbled upon certain news channels that provided them with information. Prior states that sometimes, although they had not sought politics in the first place, certain viewers remained watching the channel simply because they did not want to change the channel or there was nothing else to view. Now, with the quick click of a button, an appealing show or movie can divert viewers' attentions from the politics they once turned to. Although this may seem like an unusual comparison, I find similarities between political knowledge and the electoral college system. A bit of a stretch, I know. However, I find them similar in the way that in order to win a presidency, a candidate must have substantial support, but this support must be widespread. For example, Hillary Clinton had such overwhelming support in certain states, like New York, that she secured the popular vote but failed to win in the electoral college. Her support was too highly concentrated in one place, with the rest of the nation having less than enough to secure crucial electoral votes. In the same way, the "knowledge gap" is comparable to this situation because while the politically interested group of people gain a substantial amount of knowledge and political expertise (such as Hillary's support in New York), the everyday, not-politically-involved voter (rest of the nation) lacked this same information. In order to win the Electoral College (succeed in obtaining a well-educated electorate), then the focus of knowledge must be on leveling the field and decreasing the gap between those who are extremely knowledgeable and those who still must become aware of the current state of American politics.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The knowledge gap is between segments of the population that have the initiative to learn about politics and those that only wish to be entertained by other forms of media. As written in a scholarly article, when “...the infusion of mass media information into the social system increases, segments of the population with higher socioeconomic status tend to acquire the information at a faster rate than lower status segments, so that the gap in knowledge between these segments tends to increase rather than decrease” (infoamerica.org). While the political channel is readily available for all voters to watch (with cable), when given more options, the news station will be less prefered by some viewers. In the age of broadcasting, viewers were obligated to watch politics when their pleasurable shows were not playing. However, with cable, only the dedicated political supporters would choose to watch politically informative shows for entertainment. This statement is supported; the knowledge gap among the electorate is widened because political knowledge will only be had by those that choose to watch politics and will now be lost by those that no longer desire to nurture their political ideologies. In the past, viewers were exposed to content that would give them the most basic political knowledge, and the knowledge gap was smaller. Voter efficacy was higher at this time because people always felt somewhat politically informed. However, with the variety of stations available at the click of a button today, viewers are required to make the choice to watch politics. The knowledge gap is widened due to their ability to make this choice (more outlets to divert their attention from politics). Perfectly stated, “Inequality in political knowledge and turnout increases as a result of voluntary, not circumstantial, consumption decisions.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. By having more choices of the media it gives the person more information to strengthen their political beliefs. If the electorate likes the information, then they will probably become politically active and will make the electorate have a high efficacy. Which will lead to a higher voter turnout.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kyle and Bri. If a politically involved person sees more choices of news they will become more interested and excited about politics. The more choices a person has the more information they can retrieve to strengthen their political knowledge and beliefs. However, like Morgan said below, people who aren't interested will choose not to listen to the news.
DeleteI agree with this statement. The more media choices the easier it is to customize the information the viewers are getting. Increasing amounts of media has proven to not increase political knowledge, as it has remained at a constant rate. Also, people have a choice to get media that challenges their viewpoints, but most people will not. This means that people with not have a deep understanding of both sides of the spectrum, therefore narrowing the knowledge gap. Also, politics are constantly competing with entertainment. People do not have the motivation to gain political knowledge because they would rather be entertained than educated. Adding additional channels may grasp a few more people who are interested in politics, but with more media containing knowledge follows more media containing entertainment. And again, politics will compete. Unless the population as a whole shifts or a critical time period occurs, people will not be motivated to increase their political knowledge, and there will be poor voter turn out. Thus, widening the knowledge gap.
ReplyDeleteThis statement is true because the variety of available channels gives audiences more places to view information that could possibly be more interesting than the news. There is not a high chance that “nothing good will be on” the TV these days and that people will resort to putting the news on as background noise (something commonly done in the broadcast era). Especially with newer outlets like Netflix, there are constantly shows available that people can watch instead of the news. Watching the news has become more of a choice than it had been in the past during the broadcast era when it came on at specific times daily. The people that choose to watch the news will have more political knowledge about what is happening in the world than those who solely watch Netflix or entertainment channels. Although most people have access to the news, the knowledge gap is widening as more alternative programs arise and people are drawn to them instead of the news.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. If a politically interested person is provided with more options, they will feel even more motivated to seek more information with what they are mostly interested in. This will further strengthen their beliefs as well as their efficacy and possibly their participation. And as Morgan mentioned above, those who prefer to be entertained other than educated will likely remain this way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement because the amount of available media channels and stations gives citizens more places to access information that can be more interesting and amusing than the news. TV now in days has many intriguing options on and people put the news on as a background distraction rather than to actually get information out of it. There are many new media types that are more popular than the news, such as Hulu, Netflix, On Demand and much more that gives people more interesting things to watch rather than the news. Those who watch the news often tend to have more political knowledge and are engaged in what is going on politically. People who watch the news will gain knowledge becoming smarter while those who watch entertainment won't gain anything out of it. That leads to the “knowledge gap” which is widening even though most Americans have access to the news but still tend to choose other programs on TV to watch which will not help them in the near future, but only to stay entertained. It is important in my opinion that we should recognize our standpoint on issues and political policies (agreeing with Norah on this!) because without opinions there is no knowledge of politics, not being challenged by other stances. Therefore, with more and more available media channels, it does widen the “knowledge gap” in society.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement as well. The greater the amount of media sources, the wider the political knowledge gap. In today’s society, politics and entertainment have separated compared to how they used to be. In the 1960’s and 1970’s, it was extremely likely for a family to watch television after dinner, no matter what was on. News was on at certain times of the day, so whatever happened to be on, the people would watch. Television was new and exciting back then, so content did not matter as much compared to the overall aspect of watching television. Now however, people do not watch television if what is on does not interest them. News is on multiple channels, all hours of the day, allowing for easy access to information if the person chooses to participate. There are so many other entertainment and news options that people are not forced to watch one source. Once again, political knowledge leads back to interest. People today who have interest can learn as much as they want, while others are not forced to watch or read something they do not find entertaining, like in the 60’s and 70’s. So, a greater amount of information and multiple media outlets has led to an increased political knowledge gap over time. It is now a matter of choosing to participate in politics and increasing political knowledge, or choosing to not get involved, which widens the gap.
I agree with this statement. If a person is highly motivated to increase their political knowledge, then they will choose to listen to all media sources. However, there are also people who choose not to listen and stick to their own beliefs. People choose whether or not they want to see other sides. Greater choice also increases political efficacy because people are motivated to seek out other information so they can make the right choice when it is time to vote.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement because when the media introduces more choices, the knowledge gap stayed constant or got worse. This is because when there are more media options, only those that want to get political information with search and watch it. Also, the uninformed have an even greater availability now to more entertainment, which will not make them want to watch the news. This is because it is in the public's interest to be entertained rather than watch the news. On the other hand, for the people that have a lot of political knowledge and want to be educated, it gives them greater options to inform themselves on issues and topics that are happening in politics. This shows how the gap gets worse or stays the same because it is the same people searching for political knowledge. Also it may get worse because with more media options comes more distractions for the public that is trying to gain more political knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with this statement. As the media continues to expand everyday, so does the knowledge gap. As Alex said, the gap can only stay the same or grow worse. The entertainment business will only continue to grow and people will continue to be more interested in that than receiving political knowledge. As time goes on, getting political knowledge can start to seem like a chore for people and thus they will make the decision not to care enough and listen.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a wider range of media choices will cause the knowledge gap to widen. This is due to the fact that there are people that are interested in politics and people that are not. People that are interested are going to increase their political knowledge and efficacy because they will have more sources to get their facts and argument from. But people that are not interested will use the wider range of sources to find better entertainment rather than news/debates. People also choose what they want to see so they might not see the other side and argument. The interested people will learn more and not interested people will learn less or nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the knowledge gap widens as a result of greater choice of information. Those who are politically interested have access to information provided from both sides of the spectrum. They are able to control what information they see/hear, and can gain this information whenever. For those who are not as interested in politics, they shy away from the news and/or debates. These two types of people create a wider knowledge gap because those who are more informed are also greater involved in politics, while those who care more about entertainment may not be up-to-date on the latest political news.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement because the knowledge gap expands as there are more media sources to take advantage of. As more information is offered, political knowledge increases for some and stays the same for others. For instance, as more channels are shown on TV, the knowledge gap widens because of people with a preference for news and people with a preference for different media sources. People with preferences for entertainment chose certain sources, whereas those with no preferences chose "any type of political information".
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. Many media choices out there are filled with facts and truth that will provide positive knowledge for people to get involved in political activities. However, there are many false websites and stories that appear to be true that could be posing a negative impact on the people who read them.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, because while those with the motivation to seek political information will become more informed, those without this motivation will become less informed. This is due to the large amount of choice, as there will inevitably be sources that cater to any segment of the population, from the extremely ideological to the apathetic. Furthermore, those motivated enough to become politically informed, but not enough to become involved, could fall victim to "fake news" that caters to their loosely held ideology with false information, thus widening the knowledge gap by making everyone less informed except the most politically motivated members of the population.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. Vast choices in the media result in customization of information for people to strengthen their political beliefs. They may also choose to look on the other side of their beliefs but that is very unlikely. Since minimal people want to challenge their ideas with others, the knowledge gap worsens.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because a motivated person who is seeking more political knowledge will use all the sources they can access. This will also strengthen ones beliefs and opinions. However, just like Shannon said most people who already have a strong opinion will probably only look at media agreeing with their side.
ReplyDeleteThis quote I could potentially agree with but also disagree with. To begin, I would agree with this because citizens will have the opportunity to find exactly what they want to and need to hear about, which would expand political knowledge, but this could potentially be a bad thing since people would look up bias information as said in previous quotes, leading to a lack of political knowledge.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement because having a variety of available channels given to you, the bigger spectrum will be offered. However because every news cast is either extremely liberal or very conservative, the audience will most likely get one side of the story rather than both. If something extraordinary occurs that affects a lot of individuals it would increase voter turnout and political efficacy. People are going to want to get interested on a topic that affects their daily life and vote on an issue.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with this statement. Having a wide variety of ways to explore the political environment allows people to educate themselves more. But, the question is if this is good or bad. It could be seen as both. Having a huge outlet to gather information is helpful, especially if you have contrasting opinions. But, these sources can include false information leading people to have false knowledge about politics. Although media widens the knowledge gap, it may widen it too much, letting incorrect content find its way in.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with this statement. If the number of media options for political information increases, the knowledge gap will do so as well. People with a high intrest in politics will use these sources to find the best information. Having more sources of information makes it easier for these people to access and can make them want to keep learning so they can expand on what they may already know.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. When there was less media choice, people were sometimes forced to watch the news and gain political knowledge if there was nothing else to choose from. Now with more choices, people can choose to select entertainment rather than news, blocking them from gaining political knowledge (from news at least). With more than just news on TV and the internet, people can choose to have limited political knowledge, which leads to decreased interest in participating in politics. This then creates a gap between those who are not knowledgeable about politics and those who are. Those with less knowledge will then vote less, while those with more knowledge are more likely to vote more.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement, as the presence of many media forms and outlets allows for more people than ever to be knowledgeable about the actions of their government. While people may have different forms of knowledge due to bias within news sources, biased information is better than no information whatsoever. Prior to the presence of modern media, voters may chose candidates simply by the party they run for and not the beliefs they represent. Even today, media is becoming more accessible for people, allowing them to make more educated choices than people made in the past. While the information presented to us is often corrupted by the interests of the media, as a society we probably know more than ever. Even people with no interest in politics know quite a bit, even if their information comes from ads on Facebook. The average person is able to feel connected to the government by knowing about its functions and actions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement due to the fact that the knowledge gap certainly does widen when there is more of a variety to choose from. To start with, those who are interested in politics are going to use all the sources they can to gain information and knowledge. They choose to look at both conservative and liberal views on issues in order to gain factual and not biased knowledge. On the other hand, there are those who choose to use media for entertainment and leisure instead of using it to gain knowledge. Thus, a greater 'knowledge gap' is created with all the different options from the media.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with this statement. The media seems to be covering more and more topics that they deem important. Depending on what interests the public have, they may not want to or feel the need to tune into media if its not covering the topics that they want to hear. However, someone that is interested in the news and everything that the media covers, will become more knowledgeable about not only our world today, but also about the international politics and government situations.
ReplyDeleteI mostly disagree with this statement. Yes, in a sense, greater knowledge does widen the knowledge gap, but that doesn’t mean that there is no knowledge at all. Most of this knowledge is opinions and information based on media so, in a way, people know more than they view on the media because of how they form opinions with this knowledge.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of what Maya said, I also somewhat agree with the statement. While yes, I see how the greater choice can encourage people to look deeper into politics, the choice can also cause people to only look at what they see important. For example, the topics of abortion and immigration are very different but both are covered in politics. Some people may not care about one or the other and will only look into the topic they see more important to them.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in the previous post, greater choice increases customizability, which increases the knowledge gap. If people block out what they don't want to hear, then they are less informed about the true topics of the opposing side. Their own partisan beliefs are only one point of view, and since the facts discussed by the other party do not align with their own, then they become less interested in learning the whole story.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement. Wider media choice doesn't cause a knowledge gap, it prevents it. A knowledge gap would be impossible given the number of sources that are out there. There is so much information that political knowledge is kept at a consistent state that will not 'gap'.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement. The knowledge gap could be as large as people allow it to be so long as their are motivated to get every side. This draws back to the claim that without motivation, high political knowledge cannot be achieved; if people are not motivated to learn the truth, even though they have access to it, then they are unable to be knowledgeable. However, with motivation, they all can be as knowledgeable as possible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. As said before in my previous answers there comes a point to where there are too many sources and people begin to access incorrect information as well as different information as everyone else. Dylan disagrees with me by saying the knowledge gap would not be a problem as long as people are motivated to take a look at every side; but that is the problem. As said in another statement, people obtain a lack of motivation and therefore stray away from any other media that doesn't completely interest themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think that if there are more sources of political knowlagge available it may become more challenging for people to be up to date with all of their opinions as it would become more time consuming to look at multiple sources before making their own opinion. Then only people who are motivated to learn about political issues will be able to sort through the many sources thus over time the margin of people who will be lacking political knowlage will increase
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement as well as with Melanie. People who are already interested in politics will have no problems finding information on it. However, if there were more unbiased choices that may interest people to be more educated in politics. Many people don’t trust the current media choices, so if there were more that happened to be unbiased it would cause more people to be interested in politics. But, even with more choices not everyone will choose to listen or to be educated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement completely. I agree with the statement because since there is so many channels and media coverage. They focus on specific views so there are more people who are specifically choosing extremely left side views or extremely right side views they are not learning about the in between. This creates a huge division and gap on the understanding of each others views. Also the possibilities of the moderate views that they can alter the believes to because they don’t have to hear the other side if they don’t want to by choosing to only listen to their sides views.
ReplyDeleteI agree because when a broader array of options is displayed it is easier for voters to choose something that more specifically fits their personal opinion. If the media choice was more cut and dry then it would be much more difficult for people to choose something they agree with.
ReplyDeleteI truly agree with this statement. There is a variety of resources out there for political information, thus expanding the knowledge gap. Agreeing with Sydney, the more options there are for knowledge, the more people become intrigued and interested to learn more on what people have to say. This can increase efficacy. People will become more motivated to obtain more information on what they want to hear. Not only that, there is so much more: people can get a look on the other side of the spectrum and widen the gap.
ReplyDeleteI partly agree with this statement because the more information available, the larger the possibility that people will go in search of that information will be. However, people stick to what they know and care not about opposing views, correct or not, because they want to hear their views are valid and the right ones. That information may be accessible, but that does not guarantee people will use it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because those that want to be informed and motivated to learn more will do so but the average person who sticks to what they know and what they like to hear wont learn anything more, therefore widening the knowledge gap.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement completely because the more information available, the more information able to be obtained. There are various news channels, websites, social media platforms, etc. that are accessible to the public for their own research. People who are really interested in politics will have news chanels on at all times and will follow candidates on social media. This will expand their political knowledge drastically and allow them to form their own educated opinions based on the things they read. But on the other hand, the wide variest of sources is also obtainable to opinions. This means facts can be altered to target candidates or parties for example. Though, opinions can also be a good thing as you are exposed to other people's political views.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. People tend to choose to listen to news from the perspective that they agree with, therefore giving them half of the story. Though some people may choose to see both sides, that's an unusual scenario.
ReplyDeleteWhile still technically widening the "knowledge gap", having a choice of what media to watch will always pose problems, like biased news sources, or news sources that heavily frame their stories. I still believe that everyone should always read multiple news sources before concluding something about an issue, especially if it's a very controversial one, like tax reforms. Its always good to see two perspectives, and it's easier to form your own viewpoint from that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement, because with more options or stuff to view, it’s easier for the voter to get the real knowledge about something.
ReplyDelete