The Fourth Quarter

Blog

  • Media and Hope: Finding My Own Story Through Media

    Before taking this class, I honestly looked at media as something that was mostly there to entertain me. I spent more time watching sports, YouTube videos, or scrolling through TikTok than actually thinking about who created the message or why it was being shown to me. It didn’t completely change how I see everything, but it definitely gave me a new perspective. I’m starting to realize media isn’t just something we consume. It shapes how we understand people, history, and even ourselves. As someone who’s African American, Hispanic, and Japanese, I’ve also realized how important it is to see stories that don’t erase people or reduce them to stereotypes. When media is used the right way, it gives people a voice that history books and traditional news don’t always make room for.

    Watching 13th honestly sat with me for a while after it ended. One quote that really stayed with me was, “Slavery was not abolished. It was reinvented.” At first I had to stop and think about what that actually meant. The documentary explains how the exception clause in the 13th Amendment allowed forced labor to continue through the prison system, and it completely changed how I looked at that part of history. Growing up, I knew racism was real, but I never really understood how connected the past still is to the systems we have today. It made me realize history isn’t something you just learn for a test and forget. People are still living with the effects of it every day, and that was something I honestly hadn’t thought about enough before watching it.

    Another part that stuck with me was how the documentary showed that fear has been used over and over again to justify taking away rights from certain communities. Instead of fixing problems, people in power create someone to blame. That connected with a lot of what we’ve talked about this semester. It made me think about who gets to control the story and how easy it is for people to believe whatever narrative gets pushed the hardest without ever questioning it. That’s one of the biggest things I’ve taken away from this class. Media isn’t just reporting what’s happening. It also influences what people think is happening.

    The Pew Research report backed that idea up too. One thing that stood out to me was when it said “Social media help give a voice to underrepresented groups.” I think #BlackLivesMatter is one of the strongest examples of that. Without social media, a lot of videos, stories, and experiences would’ve never reached millions of people. Another line from the report says that “Social media highlight important issues that might not get a lot of attention otherwise.” I think that’s exactly why the movement became so impactful. It wasn’t just a hashtag people posted because it was trending. It gave people a place to organize, educate each other, and make sure certain stories couldn’t just be ignored anymore. That’s something I respect because I’ve realized that the people actually living through these issues usually understand them better than anyone else.

    I also liked learning about The Yes Men because they showed that activism doesn’t have to look one specific way. Instead of standing on a stage and giving another speech, they use satire, fake press conferences, and media stunts to expose how corporations and people in power sometimes put profits ahead of people. At first I thought some of what they did was ridiculous, but the more I thought about it, the more I understood why it works. It forces people to stop, laugh for a second, and then realize they’re laughing at something that’s actually a real problem. I feel like that’s something my generation responds to. We’re surrounded by ads, influencers, AI, and algorithms every single day. Sometimes another lecture isn’t what’s going to get someone’s attention. Sometimes it’s something unexpected that makes them pause and ask why.

    This class also made me think about my own life more than I expected. Growing up around different cultures, I’ve seen how fast people make assumptions based on what someone looks like, where they’re from, or even how they talk. I never really connected that to media before. Now I can see how the stories we watch and the things we constantly scroll past shape those assumptions, even when we don’t notice it. That’s why media literacy actually matters. It’s not just about spotting fake news. It’s about learning to slow down, ask questions, and think for yourself before accepting whatever ends up on your screen.

    Looking back on this class, I think that’s probably the biggest thing I’ll take away from it. Media can spread misinformation, but it can also spread understanding if people are willing to use it that way. 13th, #BlackLivesMatter, and The Yes Men all showed that in different ways. They reminded me that media isn’t just entertainment. It can challenge people, start conversations, and sometimes even change the way someone sees the world. I don’t think media alone fixes everything, but I do think it gives people a place to start. Right now, especially with how much of life happens online, that’s something that actually gives me hope.

  • AI and the Future of Media: Helpful Tool or Dangerous Shortcut?


    Artificial intelligence has become impossible to ignore. It seems like every week there’s a new AI model that promises to change the way we work, learn, and communicate. Before this assignment, I mostly thought of AI as something people used to help with homework or create funny pictures online. After looking through Yumi Wilson’s presentation and watching The AI Takeover: Who Controls Our Future? and The Thinking Game, I realized AI is changing journalism and media much faster than I expected. It’s exciting, but it also raises a lot of questions about trust, jobs, and who actually controls this technology.

    One thing that stood out to me from Yumi Wilson’s presentation was how common AI has become in newsrooms. She explains that 82% of journalists now use AI tools, while 93% are concerned about AI’s impact on journalism integrity. That surprised me because it shows journalists are relying on AI while also worrying about what it could do to their profession. The presentation also emphasized that AI is best at handling large amounts of information, while journalists are still responsible for judgment, ethics, and accountability. I think that’s an important distinction because AI can organize information, but it can’t replace real-life experience or human decision-making.

    The AI Takeover: Who Controls Our Future? focused less on using AI as a tool and more on where AI is headed if companies continue developing it without strong regulations. The documentary showed how major tech companies are spending billions of dollars to build increasingly powerful AI systems while governments struggle to keep up. Something that really stuck with me was seeing workers describe how AI has already changed their jobs and hearing concerns about massive data centers that require huge amounts of electricity and water. Before watching it, I honestly never thought about the environmental cost of AI. We usually only hear about how smart the technology is, not what it takes to keep it running.

    The documentary also made me think about who benefits the most from AI. Tech companies often advertise AI as something that will cure diseases, improve education, and make everyone’s lives easier. Those possibilities are exciting, but the film also questioned whether companies are moving faster than society can safely handle. If only a handful of corporations control the most advanced AI systems, they also gain enormous influence over information, business, and even democracy. That feels like something everyone—not just computer scientists—should care about.

    The Thinking Game gave me a different perspective. Instead of focusing on fear, it showed how researchers at DeepMind spent years trying to solve difficult scientific problems. I thought it was fascinating to learn about AlphaFold and how AI helped solve the protein-folding problem, something scientists had been working on for decades. That showed me AI isn’t automatically harmful. When it’s developed responsibly, it can help make discoveries that improve medicine and scientific research. At the same time, the documentary made it clear that breakthroughs like these don’t happen overnight. They require years of research, testing, and human collaboration.

    After going through all of this material, I think the biggest lesson is that AI should remain a tool instead of becoming the person making important decisions. Journalists still need to verify facts, interview real people, and make ethical decisions before publishing stories. If media companies rely too heavily on AI without human oversight, mistakes and misinformation could spread much faster than they already do. Trust is one of the most valuable things journalism has, and once it’s lost, it’s difficult to rebuild.

    Personally, I think AI is here to stay, and trying to ban it completely isn’t realistic. I already use AI to help me understand difficult topics or organize my thoughts. The difference is knowing where to draw the line. AI can help people become more productive, but it shouldn’t replace critical thinking or creativity. After this week’s readings and documentaries, I left with more questions than answers, but maybe that’s the point. The future of media won’t depend only on how powerful AI becomes—it will depend on whether people use it responsibly and whether society is willing to hold companies accountable for the technology they create.

  • Who Controls the Message?

    Who Controls the Message? Media Ownership and Democracy

    Before this week, I knew that a few large companies owned a lot of media, but I did not realize just how much influence those corporations have over the information people see every day. After watching the John Oliver segment on Sinclair Broadcasting and learning more about media ownership, I realized that media consolidation is a much bigger issue than I thought. When only a handful of corporations control news, entertainment, and social media platforms, it becomes easier for those companies to shape public opinion.

    One thing that stood out to me was Sinclair’s requirement that local news anchors read the exact same script. In the video, dozens of anchors repeated the phrase, “This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.” Seeing so many different stations delivering the same message showed how little independence some local news organizations actually have. It made me question how often viewers assume they are getting local reporting when the message is really coming from corporate leadership.

    Another quote that stood out was when John Oliver explained that “Sinclair is not your typical media company.” The company presents itself as supporting local journalism, but the video showed how corporate executives can influence what stories are covered and how they are framed. That kind of control can have a major impact on how communities understand political issues and current events.

    The Democracy Now discussion about Stephen Colbert’s cancellation also made me think about the relationship between media corporations and political power. Colbert criticized Paramount shortly before his show was canceled, raising concerns about whether business interests influence programming decisions. As Democracy Now noted, “The concentration of media ownership threatens independent journalism.” Whether intentional or not, corporate pressure can make it harder for journalists and entertainers to challenge powerful people and institutions.

    What I learned this week is that media ownership matters just as much as the content itself. A representative democracy depends on citizens having access to a variety of viewpoints. If a small number of corporations own most major news outlets, those viewpoints can become limited. Even when companies claim to be objective, their financial and political interests can affect what information reaches the public.

    To balance my own media consumption, I think it is important to use a mix of sources. Independent outlets like Democracy Now, NPR, ProPublica, and local nonprofit news organizations can provide perspectives that are different from major corporate networks. I also think people should compare coverage from multiple sources before forming opinions. No source is completely free from bias, but exposing ourselves to different viewpoints can help us become more informed citizens.

    Overall, this week’s material showed me that media ownership is not just a business issue—it is a democracy issue. The more concentrated media becomes, the more important it is for people to seek out independent voices and think critically about the information they consume.

  • MASS MEDIA WITH SHAWN

    Two Halftime Shows,Two Different Americas

    When I sat down to watch Super Bowl LX, I expected football, commercials, and maybe a few viral moments. What I did not expect was to see two completely different halftime shows that seemed to represent two completely different versions of America. On one side was Bad Bunny’s official halftime performance, which celebrated Latino culture and diversity. On the other was Kid Rock’s online All-American Halftime Show, which focused on patriotism, traditional American values, and conservative audiences. Watching both performances made me realize that halftime entertainment is about much more than music. It is about culture, identity, and who gets represented on one of the biggest stages in the world.

    Before halftime even started, Green Day performed songs that carried political messages. During “American Idiot,” thousands of fans sang along to lyrics that have been controversial for years. The decision to feature Green Day showed that the Super Bowl was not avoiding politics or cultural conversations. Instead, it seemed willing to embrace them. That made me pay closer attention to the halftime performances and the messages they were trying to communicate.

    Bad Bunny’s show felt like a celebration of Latino identity and culture. The performance included Spanish-language music, Puerto Rican imagery, and messages about community and belonging. For millions of viewers, seeing a Latino artist headline the biggest entertainment event in the country was significant. It reflected the reality that Latino communities are an important part of American culture. According to coverage of the performance, Bad Bunny used the stage to celebrate Puerto Rican pride and cultural representation. To me, the performance felt energetic, inclusive, and designed to show audiences that America is becoming more diverse and multicultural.

    Not everyone saw the performance the same way. Former President Donald Trump criticized the show and called it “absolutely terrible, one of the worst, EVER.” That reaction highlights something important about media. People often interpret the same performance in completely different ways depending on their values and experiences. For some viewers, Bad Bunny represented progress and representation. For others, he represented a version of America they did not identify with. The performance became part of a larger conversation about culture and identity rather than simply music.

    Kid Rock’s All-American Halftime Show delivered a very different message. The show emphasized patriotism, traditional values, and national pride. It was promoted as a celebration of “faith, family and freedom.” While Bad Bunny’s performance focused on cultural diversity, Kid Rock’s show seemed to focus on preserving a more traditional image of America. The intended audience felt very clear. It appeared designed for viewers who feel disconnected from mainstream entertainment and believe their values are not represented by major media companies.

    What I found most interesting was that both performances were trying to represent America, but they were representing very different versions of it. Neither show was neutral. Both were carefully designed to connect with specific audiences and communicate specific beliefs. One celebrated multiculturalism and cultural change. The other celebrated tradition and patriotism. The contrast between the two performances showed how divided American culture can sometimes feel.

    This made me think about representation in media. The UCLA scholar who studies Super Bowl halftime performances argues that these shows often become cultural battlegrounds because they combine entertainment, politics, race, and identity in front of massive audiences. I think that description fits perfectly here. The performances reflected larger debates happening throughout the country about immigration, representation, race, patriotism, and who gets to define American culture.

    Talking with friends about the halftime shows was interesting because everyone seemed to have a different opinion. Some loved Bad Bunny’s performance because they felt represented by it. Others preferred Kid Rock because they connected more with the patriotic themes. A few people simply wanted to watch football and avoid the politics altogether. Those different reactions reminded me that media is powerful because it shapes conversations even after the performance ends.

    At the end of the day, I do not think the most important question is which halftime show was better. The more interesting question is what each performance was trying to say and who it was trying to reach. Both shows demonstrated how entertainment can communicate powerful cultural messages. Whether audiences agreed with those messages or not, millions of people were exposed to them. That is why media literacy matters. It helps us recognize that popular media is never just entertainment. It influences how we think about ourselves, our communities, and the society we live in. The two halftime shows may have looked very different, but together they revealed just how powerful media can be in shaping the ongoing conversation about what America is and what it should become.