课程已结束,不允许加入和购买

第6次开课

开始:2020-02-10

截止:2020-06-23

课程已进行至

20/20周

成绩预发布时间 2020-06-21

期末考试截止时间 2020-06-20 23:55

教学团队

北京外国语大学
副教授

课程特色

视频(34)
讨论(8)
PPT(16)
考试(9)
练习(1)
作业(2)
下载资料(2)

“As long as something happens, you will get news alert right away from social media.”Isn't it too absolute?

By 陈陈陈 2020-05-28 1135次浏览

“As long as something happens, you will get news alert right away from social media.”I think this statement too absolute, isn't it? Not only is there echo chamber which may affect us to recieve some news, but also there is a time difference between something happens and it is made into news.

教师的答案

  • 翟峥 老师 2020-05-29

    Thank you for your question! Well, you may see the statement a little exaggerating, but it is not too far from reality--the precondition, of course, is that you subscribe to news alerts on your cell phone. Let me address your questions in more detail.

    1. In this day and age, the time for "news" production has greatly been reduced because of, in large part, the popularity of smart phones, social networking apps, and portable equipment of all kinds. Indeed, not all stories are "newsworthy" enough to be widely spread. That said, when something important happens, stories are covered "right away" (as opposed to the old days--think of the cycle of news production in the magazine/newspaper era, the radio era, and even the TV era). "Right away" doesn't always mean immediately after an event takes place, although it is possible in some cases. After all, it will take some time for professional reporters to do fact-checking before covering it, but as I suggested, the time for professionals to cover it has been significantly shortened than before. 

    2. When I say "news alert", I am not referring to full-blown news stories/analyses. News alerts are typically one-sentence-long messages that give the reader/subscriber a heads up about something big. In the old days, such snippets of information could not be practically distributed to a wide audience.

    3. You're quite right about the "echo chamber" effect, which could be detrimental to a fair and balanced understanding of the world around us. However, when I make that statement, I am not interested in the particular stance of a story--I don't care whether the story is pro-Trump or anti-Trump, for example. In this context, I'm only interested in the fact that a news alert is automatically pushed to your cell phone shortly after (maybe minutes after or even at the same time when) an event takes place. 

    4. Time difference isn't as important now as it was in the past due to the same reasons above. Events are happening around the world around the clock and "news alerts" are generated around the clock, too. In the past, most people wouldn't be able to have any idea of what was happening in another country when they were sleeping, but today, if you don't turn off your cell phone at night, you will continue to receive "alerts" from news organizations and social networking apps.

    To sum up, the context where I make the statement is that I try to demonstrate the drastic changes that the social media has brought to our lives. Our way of getting news has been changing all along, and the social media has by far brought about the biggest change--on both the producer and the consumer of news.

    回复

1 所有答案

  • 翟峥 老师 2020-05-29

    Thank you for your question! Well, you may see the statement a little exaggerating, but it is not too far from reality--the precondition, of course, is that you subscribe to news alerts on your cell phone. Let me address your questions in more detail.

    1. In this day and age, the time for "news" production has greatly been reduced because of, in large part, the popularity of smart phones, social networking apps, and portable equipment of all kinds. Indeed, not all stories are "newsworthy" enough to be widely spread. That said, when something important happens, stories are covered "right away" (as opposed to the old days--think of the cycle of news production in the magazine/newspaper era, the radio era, and even the TV era). "Right away" doesn't always mean immediately after an event takes place, although it is possible in some cases. After all, it will take some time for professional reporters to do fact-checking before covering it, but as I suggested, the time for professionals to cover it has been significantly shortened than before. 

    2. When I say "news alert", I am not referring to full-blown news stories/analyses. News alerts are typically one-sentence-long messages that give the reader/subscriber a heads up about something big. In the old days, such snippets of information could not be practically distributed to a wide audience.

    3. You're quite right about the "echo chamber" effect, which could be detrimental to a fair and balanced understanding of the world around us. However, when I make that statement, I am not interested in the particular stance of a story--I don't care whether the story is pro-Trump or anti-Trump, for example. In this context, I'm only interested in the fact that a news alert is automatically pushed to your cell phone shortly after (maybe minutes after or even at the same time when) an event takes place. 

    4. Time difference isn't as important now as it was in the past due to the same reasons above. Events are happening around the world around the clock and "news alerts" are generated around the clock, too. In the past, most people wouldn't be able to have any idea of what was happening in another country when they were sleeping, but today, if you don't turn off your cell phone at night, you will continue to receive "alerts" from news organizations and social networking apps.

    To sum up, the context where I make the statement is that I try to demonstrate the drastic changes that the social media has brought to our lives. Our way of getting news has been changing all along, and the social media has by far brought about the biggest change--on both the producer and the consumer of news.

    回复

添加答案