Social media for activism? Yes.

Just because social media hasn’t been around for centuries doesn’t mean it deserves all of Gladwell’s negative attributes. Why can’t we see the new trend of social media activism for something a bit more optimistic: an efficient way to recruit like-minded individuals for a greater purpose and change? Then, once citizens’ ideologies unite towards a strong social concern, those same citizens can willingly decide to individually move forward and either attend smaller face-to-face meetings, sit-ins, protests, etc. They can also simply choose to sit on their bums and watch the latest episode of Real Housewives. The choice is what is important.

I don’t see social media as a road bump to true political and social change; rather, I see the decrease in motivational advocacy among individual members as the true reason for immobility. I know many people feel defeated before they fully learn or engage themselves in any political action, especially among the younger generations, so why blame the lack of action on current technological trends in media? Social media has an opportunity right now to raise public awareness more than ever, facilitating those who normally feel defeated and showing them how to take proper action at the right time and the right place. Social media rapidly educates humans about the inequalities in our world and guides them to make the necessary change needed for tomorrow. This is where social media can be a blessing if information is accurately understood.  

Those who still take Gladwell’s side, can we at least agree that access to social media raises awareness more efficiently than ever before? For instance, look at what happened with the earthquake in Haiti in 2010. Did everyone who used Facebook or Twitter at the time see the impact the earthquake had on the Haitian civilians? I’m willing to guess mostly yes. Did everyone donate to the cause to help those suffering? No, but at least tens of millions of dollars were donated by American citizens. Did the efforts, activist groups, and donations completely reconstruct the villages and save every life? No. Unfortunately, over seven years later close to 90,000 people still live in displacement camps. But a dent was made and people across the world were made aware what Haiti needed at the time. We had a goal, and social media made it accessible.

Is this system of activism flawed? Yes- it’s in a premature state. Some, or arguably most, members of society (as I stated earlier) may use social media daily but are not willing to ask how high when the headline tells them to jump. Gladwell suggested viable activism requires passion, and not everyone has enough to stay committed to a change. However, social media can open minds of people who wouldn’t have come across information without it. And for those who do possess some form of passion, maybe they will be challenged to see the issue in a new light that forges a better path towards mobility.

Op-ed: Excuse me USGA, but are you purposely sabotaging golfers’ mental games?

Golf enthusiasts- have your popcorn and blankets ready as the most recent LPGA and USGA rules debacle unfolds, staring Lexi Thompson’s penalty. The best part is it’s far from over.

Many argue the penalty cost Thompson her second major championship and just under $150,000 in cash earnings, while some continue to observe videos of the teary-eyed Thompson watching 2017 ANA Inspiration champion So Yeon Ryu’s first time leap into Poppies Pond.

Yet, this disheartening dispute should not center on Thompson’s robbed salary nor illustrate her close call in major rankings in the LPGA. This isn’t even about her deprived throne, also known as the annual tradition in women’s golf that awards the annual champ her palatial white robe.

Thompson’s called-in ruling is the eye of the storm that has brewed for over a year now: the USGA and R&A continue to make hazardous decisions regarding the rules of the game, and golfers (ranging from Augusta National champions to local park district connoisseurs) have had enough.

These outlandish rule infractions damage the integrity of the game, the tour players, and the USGA’s very own governing rules committee.

Sue Witters, LPGA tour rules official, approached Thompson on the 13^th tee in Sunday’s final round, but the ball replacement infraction took place an entire day prior to Witter’s ruling. Thompson signed her score card at the end of Saturday’s round and walked off the course to mentally secure the top spot on the leaderboard for Sunday.

Social media and golfers praise Thompson’s answer to the penalty after she made a triple birdie comeback in the last six holes. But it is no wonder Ryu landed the top purse finisher in the head to head playoff- Thompson’s mind defeated itself the second Witters opened her mouth.

2016 majors shared similar ruling catastrophes. The U.S. Women's Open went to a three-hole aggregate playoff between Anna Nordqvist and Brittany Lang at CordeValle, and Nordqvist lost, arguably due to the USGA’s poor timing and lack of moral conduct. 

Both players believed themselves even-par after the first two holes, but as the two walked up the 18^th, FOX broadcast casted a high-def video review of Nordqvist’s penalty for accidently grounding her club in a fairway sand bunker on the 17^th hole, third shot.

Nordqvist would be assessed a two-stroke penalty for violating rule 13-4b, but she was unaware until after she executed a critical third shot (a gap wedge from 112 yards out) into the green on the 18^th and final hole.

FOX announcer and retired PGA tour champion, Paul Azinger, even attempted to flag a USGA rules official to stop play before Nordqvist hit her third shot, but to no avail.

Just when viewers thought they saw it all, the rules committee notified Lang of her opponent’s penalty before she planned her own approach shot, ultimately giving Lang an unfair advantage of green placement and scoring. Lang went on to win the 2016 major.

The USGA’s mission statement claims they “promote and conserve the true spirit of the game as embodied in its ancient and honorable traditions,” and they “serve the game most visibly through the conduct of national championships.”

Where in the history of golf is it ok to give an opponent in a major championship playoff hole an unfair advantage? Add the fact that Nordqvist was only a minutes away from clenching a second major championship, and it is a miracle she didn’t have a mental breakdown before signing the final scorecard.

Don’t forget Dustin Johnson’s ruling fiasco in the final round on the 5^th green at the 2016 U.S. Open at Oakmont, just three weeks before Nordqvist’s tragedy. Johnson’s golf ball moved after his putter grounded the green, causing chaos and confusion for the next several months in the golf world. But Johnson isn’t to blame- the USGA is.

Observing the ball move, Johnson immediately asked an official if he needed to assess himself a penalty. The immediate answer? No. The answer on the 12^th green? Maybe. The final answer once Johnson made a close birdie putt on hole 18 to guarantee his first major championship? Yes, one stroke.

According to Golf Digest, the penalty fortunately did not affect his final score and his first major win, but how did it affect his confidence?

Instead of spending time celebrating his career milestone after sinking the final putt, Johnson spent the first 30 minutes reviewing clips before a final decision was made as to who the new champion was.

On March 1 the USGA released a set of 24 major proposed changes to the rules of golf, which are scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2019. Reduction of ball movement penalties, relaxed bunker rules, and an emphasis on player integrity and judgement all fall into the projected list.

However, what ways has the USGA and R&A planned to prevent strained emotional rulings like Thompson, Johnson or Nordqvist’s until 2019?

Here’s hoping the USGA takes the time to revise their mission statement and check for proper alignment on and off the course. 

Op-ed 40 words or less

I'm calling upon parents to see how failure among the teenage population is stigmatized (and extremely damaging) and am asking for change. I hope to avoid the "mainstream" topic by writing as a concerned high school teacher, coach, and adviser.

Blog #4: Polarization

Some believe those who care most about politics are those who seem to have the most influence in public opinion; additionally, those opinions tend to reflect the deepest partisan divisions. This polarization can cause distrust between parties, but I argue that the "newer forms" of opinions on cable television, such as the Daily Show and Face the Nation, actually benefit a democratic society more than harm it.

I'd say these shows, whether they feature far left or right viewpoints, can enhance the political arena by shedding light on issues that need more of a resolve in today's attempted rhetorical sphere. Take for instance Crossfire and the intensity of the show's debate format. While I don't agree that public discourse needs to involve interruption and a slight raise of the voice to illustrate a point, each segment presents both sides of the political opinion on a topic and it's up to the viewer to take that information and disseminate however he or she feels necessary. I prefer Face the Nation's style over Crossfires or Hannity & Colmes mostly because as Jacobs and Townsley said in The Space of Opinion, the questions of the debate were "shaped by the desire to hear the other's position, in its full complexity and most developed form" (119).

The Daily Show is the only TV show I can honestly claim that I viewed over an extended period of years. It first came out when I was a sophomore in high school, and I remember loving the satirical style used since we were learning satire in our English class. Over the years, my political inquiries emerged as Stewart spat and stirred important questions about the current state of our nation. In the 16 years as a host, and while he considered himself a "leftist," viewers saw Stewart dissect every dot on the political spectrum. Some said he destroyed Obama's 2008 slogan "Yes We Can" when he interviewed him during his first year in office, and again, while he was/is a "leftist,"Stewart shed light upon the needed discourse that America needed at that time. He forced media, politics, and intellects to face realities, not hide behind their political shield. Stewart, like many of these other TV commentators, discussed controversial and emotional issues of the time, such as the Charlie Hebdo killings and the journalistic expression and rights surrounding it.

Overall, do I think these shows are causing polarization and a sense of partisan views among each party? To a degree, yes. It depends what segments the viewer is watching, how informed the viewer is, and in what ways the viewer takes the information and spreads it among other public spheres. Isn't that part of a working democracy?

Blog #3 Intellectual Diversity

Based on our reading from The Space of Opinion: Media Intellectuals and the Public Sphere, it seems mostly politicians, political science theorists and political statisticians represent more than a minor role in media commentary. However, this changes depending on what media and public platform we look at. For instance, news channels that feature talk show hosts or the elite New York Times are documented to use more political agenda and commentary to set the tone, while newspapers like the nationally distributed USA Today have used "less elite" individuals (such as literary members, environmental intellectuals, and historians, etc). I personally don't see as many diverse intellectual opinions from the fields of psychology, sociology, biology, geography, engineering, etc. unless the magazine or newspaper is catered strictly to that particular field (i.e. Discover Magazine, National Geographic, Psychology Today). Maybe I am just not reading enough intellectual commentary though.

The diversity of the intellectual or philosophical perspectives depend on the autonomy in which each is granted. The New York Times uses their editorial board to make decisions regarding the content in which they print, and the decisions may be under scrutiny by the head of the Times and other journalists in the field. Smaller, and sometimes more autonomous, media sources have the ability to represent less politically driven opinions and support other intellectual fields. 

I definitely feel the political perspective, especially in light of Trump's presidential honeymoon period, is over-represented in media discussions. It seems everyone has his or her opinion and needs a way to extend the rhetoric (or debate) through media. As of now I can't think of ones that are particularly stigmatized, but racial inequality and the role of women in the media are two categories that are definitely under-represented. 

Blog #2 Public Intellectuals

I agree with many in class who said Malala is an incredible current public intellectual. I respect and follow her voice because she guides young learners towards educational empowerment.  She stands against the "higher powers" in the world who often silence diverse, intellectual voices, and at the age of 14 she recognized the need for a strong public opinion among her nation, especially for females. She clearly knows what it means to rise above adversity to reach her targeted audience. She speaks with such enthusiasm and tries to connect to her audience with humor and dignity.

I also see Ayaan Hirsi Ali as a current intellectual. She's well known I suppose as a Somali-born women's rights activist, and she stands out because she seeks to change the lens of unpopular ideas, specifically Islamic religion. Ali calls for reformation of the religion that oppresses the female gender, and she now supports reformist Muslims. I see her as sort of representing an enclaved public sphere of her time while demonstrating charisma and grace. She also won the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship.