Moral Justification Of Social Media

1. There are many reasons why people believe media has an effect on them. The media as we know it is everywhere, and in many forms. We see it on the internet, on television commercials and through the ads we see on buses and newspapers. These are some reasons to believe that we can't escape the media due to the fact that it’s in front of us. In actuality, we all consume media the way that we want to see it. This is true as we pick and chose what we want to watch, and listen to which makes us susceptible to media that we want.
Media has limited effects on us which means that we are limited to what we want to see based on our personal and social experiences. A great example of this would be the uses and gratifications theory. This theory says …show more content…
The difference between inhibitory effects and disinhibitory effects are that inhibitory effect causes people to refrain from antisocial behaviors. An example of inhibitory effect would be someone who puts themselves out there and makes an effort to get to know others, to interact with other people. Disinhibitory effect lifts restraints from antisocial people. This means someone who wants to be antisocial. Moral justification is one way in which people justify some of their anti-social behavior. The definition of moral justification is people believing that their otherwise deplorable actions are justifiable because they serve a higher purpose. An example of this would be taking someone's homework that they did and use it for yourself. You're doing this because you feel that the work is hard and you don't need to ask for help so you take it from another person to show the teacher as your own work. An exonerative comparison is the second way people may justify anti-social behavior. The exonerative comparison sees ones own bad actions serving the greater good of society. An example of that would be if I decided that I wanted to become some type of supervillain and killing someone for what I believe is the greater good of the world. Although it may sound good it is not, just like in the movies or in television shows people get hurt. This would be real life and I would be killing people who probably shouldn't die and I would be arrested for those actions. Even though I would …show more content…
Agenda setting is defined as media importance that is mainly focused on the news and issues that go on in the public. Framing is different viewpoints that are tailored for us to see different ads from unique vantage points so that we have our own understanding of it. An example of agenda setting is when you're on twitter and the main topic trending is a news story. This would be the media setting up different stories for you to know that there is a huge story that relates to the world. An example of framing would be showing you a breaking news story and the anchors would talk about the story but would just give you the video feed so that you can speculate what’s going on. What this is doing is allowing the viewers to gain their own type of understanding of the news story without them having the full story. The difference between agenda setting and framing is that agenda setting is setting the viewers up for certain information that the media wants you to see, and framing is giving you the image and having you try to understand the image in front of you. Agenda setting and framing can affect the political process because both are giving you the news in two different ways. It's the way that the news is presented by media, through these settings it allows you to interpret the news in different ways. If agenda setting and framing do a poor job in helping the viewer understand what's going on then we will have a misunderstanding of news being told in front of us. This would