In the Digital Age Americans Choose Their News Sources Based on Their Own Political Alignment

• Research finds that people choose news outlets based on political alignment
• Professor Spivey acknowledges this phenomenon and thinks that it has been around forever
• He also does not think that there will ever been unbiased news sources
• UMD student's main sources of news mostly match their political alignment

Many news outlets are attached with a label of a political alignment. Fox News is seen as right wing Republican while CNN and NBC are seen as left wing Democrat. But, how true is the idea that people choose their outlets of news based on how they identify politically? Research shows that the American public does in fact get their news from sources they believe aligns closely with their own political views.

Pew Research Supports The Idea That People Choose News Based on Political Alignment

The Pew Research Center did a study to look at how different political alignments get their information about government and politics. Overall, the study finds that liberals and conservatives get their information very differently from each other. The most compelling piece of evidence about consistent conservatives is that 47% get their news about politics from Fox News. The percentage decreased for Fox News as moving left on the political spectrum, supporting the idea that Americans choose their outlet based on political likeness. Consistent conservatives are also more likely to hear political opinions that are in line with their own on social media.

Consistent liberals have more of a range for main source of news about government and politics. 15% choose CNN followed by NPR at 13%. They trust more news sources than consistent conservatives do. Additionally, the study finds that they are more willing than conservatives to hear differing opinions with their own on social media.

An Expert Weighs in and Agrees that News Outlets Are Affiliated with Political Alignments
Professor Spivey from the Government and Politics Department at the University of Maryland discusses this idea of news sources swaying a certain way. When asked why different outlets are labeled with an alignment, he argues that this phenomenon is not new and has in fact been around for a very long time.


A Study Shows the Negative Consequences of News Selection for Our Future
Shanto Iyengar and Kyu S. Hahn did a study with selective exposure to examine how conservatives and liberals differ in news selection. Participants were given stories to choose from, each labeled with either Fox News, CNN, NPR, or no label. The study finds that conservatives dominantly choose Fox News even when the news is not politically based. Oppositely, liberals choose CNN and NPR but avoid Fox. The study concludes that to keep up with competition, news outlets are catering to the biases of their viewers.

Iyengar and Hahn discuss what the future will look like in terms of news choices. They say that technology is limiting people's political horizons since they can now customize the news they see. Additionally, they acknowledge that people will continue to go to their preferred source of news resulting in a less informed public.

Spivey Does Not Think We Can Have Unbiased News Sources
This research begs the question: what can be done to keep bias out of news sources and to keep people informed? When asked if it is possible to have unbiased and non-ideological news, Spivey says simply no it is not. He refers back to his first response and says since news has always been ideologically based, it will never not be.


University of Maryland Students Answer a Survey About Their News Habits
To see how my theory about news sources and political alignment effected our campus, I conducted a survey inquiring about student's news habits. My findings mostly supports the theory and the research studies that were previously mentioned.

I asked people to choose their main news source from a list or to write in their own answer. The last question asked his or her political alignment in order to compare the results. My research upholds the theory for Democrats, who were the majority of responders. The main source of news for Democrats ranged from CNN, NBC, and many others. Not a single Democrat chose Fox News as their main source of news.

Republicans on the other hand swayed from the theory and other research findings. While a few Republicans did choose Fox News as their main source, many also chose CNN, a typically Democratic source. However, since my survey did not get a very large response pool and most weren't Republican, this finding does not completely discredit the theory.

Conclusion is that Americans Choose News Sources with Their Own Views in Mind
The research findings along with survey results and expert responses shows that there is a clear trend in our public with news choices. People will choose a news outlet that they think aligns with their own views. It seems that with new technology, the correlation will only strengthen. This could have bad, negative impacts on our public and government. As Iyengar and Hahn say, people will be less informed. Additionally, they will be less willing to accept a differing opinion.

Although this tendency can be a problem, it is not an all encompassing trend. Some people do not fall into the categories the research discussed and will choose a news outlet that does not align with their views. This is evident in my survey results in which a few Republicans said CNN and not Fox News as their main source of news. Additionally, this is a trend that occurs most in distinct left wing and right wing people. Those in between and not so clearly on a side at all are less likely to stick to outlets only aligning with their views.

Overall, it is clear that the labels attached to news sources are accurate. Republicans feel comfortable sticking to Fox News while Democrats trust CNN and NPR. Research supports that this theory is a reality and that Americans will continue to choose their news based on their political alignment. 

Intellectual Property Infringement Penalties Are Too Severe for a Technologically Advanced United States

Discussion Question Number Two

• The severity of intellectual property charges can lead to tragedies Aaron Swartz
• This does not mean the government is responsible however 
• Intellectual property laws are not obeyed by most people
• Intellectual property is ideas that have commercial value

In January of 2011 Aaron Swartz, an Internet activist and technological guru, was arrested for downloading online journals from a database. Acting on his beliefs of open access, he chose to log on as a guest in MIT's network and download many journals from JSTOR. This act meant that Swartz faced felony charges. However, he was never convicted because he took his own life just two years after being arrested. This tragedy poses the dilemma of intellectual property penalties and if they are too severe for the crime.

The US government should not be held responsible for Swartz's suicide
Although Swartz took his own life while awaiting trial, it cannot be known for sure what led him to do this. He did not leave behind a note specifically blaming the government for his death or saying that he felt bullied by them. Even though it was likely the stress of his impending trial that eventually became too much for Swartz to handle, the government technically did not do anything wrong. They were properly following the law by arresting Swartz and pressing charges.

To many, it may seem that the government was too hard on Swartz and that the punishment they sought for him was too great compared to the crime. However, it is the government's job to deter the public from committing crime. They were probably making an example out of Swartz since he was so well known in the technology field. The government is not to blame in this case, but the punishment was still too severe.

Penalties for intellectual property infringement in the US are too severe 
For his crimes, Swartz faced thirty-five years in prison and a fine of one million dollars. This punishment was for a seemingly minuscule crime. In this day and age, technology has allowed people to easily violate current intellectual property laws. Considering that so many people do not obey the laws, the penalty should be less severe.

Current penalties for violating intellectual properties demonstrate how severe the punishments really are. A report done by Brian Yeh lays out different violations and their penalties. For example, bootleg recording of a live musical can result in a criminal conviction of imprisonment for up to five years for the first offense. The same punishment can be given for copyright infringement for profit. Most likely, these are acts that many people commit on a regular basis along with the other violations in the report. It seems harsh that people can be imprisoned for filming a performance. Many people would agree that the punishment for violating intellectual property does not fit the crime.

Experts believe most people don't follow intellectual property laws 

A well renowned psychologist Tom Tyler discusses the psychology behind intellectual property laws and why most people do not follow them in his article "Compliance with Intellectual Property Laws: A Psychological Perspective". He mentions that people do not obey by the laws not only in the United States but around the world. He cites a study done by Solomon and O'Brien which found that over half of students in college use illegally downloaded software. Another study done by Taylor and Shim found the same thing to be true in business faculties and executives. Actions that are so widely disobeyed should not be punished as harshly as they currently are.

What is intellectual property and what is it's purpose?

To understand the overall dilemma here, one needs to understand what intellectual property is. According to our book, intellectual property is "ideas that have commercial value, such as literary or artistic works, patents, business methods, and industrial processes". It includes copyrights, patents, and trademarks all which aim to protect creativity and innovation. 

The idea behind intellectual property laws is to protect the creations of people while promoting an economically fair system. However, technology has changed and downloading illegal music or software and things of the sort is much more simple. Additionally, tracking intellectual property can be very difficult, so often times, people will not get caught doing the illegal activities. To continue to protect intellectual property, a new type of system needs to be implemented.

How to change the system behind intellectual property

Lawrence Lessig, referred to as "the Net's most celebrated lawyer"gave a Ted talk on intellectual property and how to handle it in current times. He proposes that the system of intellectual property needs to be changed. Lessig proposes two ways to improve the system. The first is for artists and creators to let their work be used freely and embrace it. The second is for businesses to also embrace the idea of a free market for intellectual property. He discusses his ideas and solutions for intellectual property in this video.

Aaron Swartz's case demonstrates that what seems like a simple breaking of the law can result in disastrous circumstances. Swartz was a well known figurehead in the technological world, but was still not immune from the law. He is an example that the penalties for intellectual property infringement are too strict. The world has changed and technology has advanced. Intellectual property laws need to change to catch up with current times.

The American Public Does In Fact Choose Their News Source Based on Their Own Political Alignment

Research has shown that people will choose a news source that aligns with their own political alignment. Data charts and photographs can be used to help prove this theory. This data chart would be the most explanatory visual to include in my final e-portfolio. It shows what people choose as their mains source of news on a scale from liberals to conservatives. The chart shows that 47% of consistent conservatives choose Fox News as their main source. On the other end, the most consistent liberals chose CNN as their source of news. This chart is the most explanatory because of how it presents the research findings. The percent is put underneath the news source so it is easy to see how many people chose the source as their response. It also coordinates the size of the box to the percent so it can be seen visually as well. The scale from liberal to conservative is clear and it is easy to tell what the research has found. Overall, this would be the most explanatory visual.

This bar graph is very explanatory as well. It shows the selection rate of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans based on the label of the story. Again, the theory that people will choose a source based on their alignment was upheld. Republicans had the highest selection rate for Fox News while Democrats had the highest selection rate for CNN/NPR. This graph is explanatory because it clearly shows which bars go with which alignment and also which news label each one represents. It would have been more explanatory however if it showed the selection rate above each bar graph. But, it is still a good visual to include to show how research has backed up my theory.

Finally, this picture is from a Fox News broadcast and is showing a polling about President Obama. This would be the least explanatory visual out of the three. It shows that a typically Republican news station is reporting negatively about Obama who is a Democrat. However, this is all just inferred from the screenshot of the newscast. Looking at the picture, it is not clear what they were saying or how they were reporting on the poll. I think that this photo can add an example to the theory but does not explain it enough on its own. After looking at these three visuals, it is clear that data charts of research findings are much more explanatory than a photograph that cannot tell the reader much information.

Practice All About Me

I am a sophomore government and politics major at the University of Maryland. I am from Baltimore, Maryland and have lived there my whole life. My goal is to go to law school and become a successful lawyer. I am taking Journalism 150 as a gened but am looking forward to learning something new!