The arrival of social media, also termed as the new media, has generated an unparalleled plurality of source to take information from. More responsibility is down poured on the consumer to decide for themselves which news is right and which is not.
This plurality entails that 1) Militant groups are also now in the position of running their own news channels and radio stations. 2) On the other side, state sponsorship of Media itself has issues.
3) Even the non partisan sources run on the agenda of producing click-worthy news that paints the television red!
"Declines in confidence in much traditional media and expert knowledge have created fertile grounds for alternative, and often obscure sources of information to appear as authoritative and credible. This ultimately leaves users confused about basic facts" (Barthel, Michael, Amy Mitchell, and Jesse Holcomb. 2016).
Social media platforms have added more to the problem: The reason I argue so is that even the electronic media should be consumed by media literate people. However, with the avalanche of social media resources ready to give you news like no other platform can so quickly, media literacy is more crucial than ever before. The question this blog raises is that how can an effective media literacy movement be initiated? We studied the Syrian videos in class (the staged ones) and how they were used to call for external help. While their message might be true, this might be termed as a mal-practice as such media manipulation was initiated by one of the parties in the conflict.
Further, how can we curb the access militant groups have to media for spreading fear? Mullah Radio would openly use radio station to announce whatever he wanted to and people would have to listen. When preparing for any such emergency situation at the policy level, can media literacy campaigns prove to be useful? What should the policy look like for media in conflict zones? What are your experiences with increasing media plurality?