The Future, My Boy, is Where the Answers Originate

While everyone seems to be talking about what the past has brought negatively to society, mainly the media and technology, why don't we look to the future and maybe think of some way to solve this problem. We do face the opposition that was set forth by Baudrillard, being that most communication systems are designed for one way interaction. While this may have been the case 40 - 50 years ago, mankind has come a long way in the form of technology. Media however, is still controlled by a select few but the people do seem to have more of a say in what is printed in the news. The two way communication factor is still unpolished as we discussed in class. Many people still want to spew thier own agendas, in videos on YouTube or stories in the news instead of focusing on the topic at hand. This I feel will never cease. This is becasue there are so many people coming from so many different backgrounds that the collective group can't stay focused on one point. Think about any one of your other classes at DU. There is maybe a maximum of 50 students and when it is open for class discussion the group will go off on tangents and some sort of facilitator, in this case a teacher, must bring the class back on track. So if the only way 50 students can stay on track is by a mediator, why don't we apply that concept to open media communication as well.

John Stewart from The Daily Show has argued this point for years. The best way to run a news/media program is to have some sort of facilitator to make sure people stay on track and that the ideas and/or facts being presented are truthful. I think this is great way for people to actively participate in communication. However, they should also have a right no not participate as well. Comment posts on a news story could be monitored by some third party to make sure they are on track and actually contribute the conversation at hand and if not then the comment is removed. Chris King had mentioned earlier that, "Our only choice as an audience is either to accept the ideas presented or to ignore them; to purchase the concept or reject it." I totally disagree with this statement because living in a democratic society we have the power to change or argue what is being presented. With some sort of facilitating practice people will be able to "argue" an idea. Not yell back and forth, but present researched evidence from both sides to help prove a point. This I believe might be what the future holds for Baudrillard and two way communication.