We live in the Information Age. Knowledge is more accessible than ever before, but it’s not just search engines that provide this access. Social media platforms have allowed for people across the globe to take a glimpse into each other’s lives. People can know what is taking place in another part of the world just by opening Instagram Reels or TikTok. In this way, social media acts as a vehicle for globalization, increasing visibility, and interconnectedness around the world. Of course, this has its benefits, but is it a good thing to be exposed to so much content constantly? The digital world is now heavily integrated into our lives, there is no doubt about it. In a time where so much of our day is taken up by scrolling on our phones, it’s important to be cognizant of what media we are consuming, what its effects are, and who is benefitting from it. The speed at which information spreads online has fundamentally changed how people interact with current events, entertainment, and even one another. Rather than actively searching for information, users are often passively presented with endless streams of content curated specifically for them. This personalization can create the illusion that people have more control over what they consume than they actually do. In reality, much of what appears on social media feeds is the result of algorithmic decisions designed to maximize engagement. This distinction matters because users are not choosing content independently; they are interacting within systems that constantly adapt to their behavior and encourage repeated use. Additionally, social media algorithms are built to boost the content that is the most engaging; whether it is positive or negative engagement does not matter. Because of this, users are bombarded with the content that garners the most reactions, whether those be likes and shares or angry comments. Regardless of the nature of these reactions, both the makers of the respective video and social media corporations themselves benefit from them. Economic incentives explain why emotionally intense content tends to dominate online spaces. Social media companies operate within an attention economy, where user engagement directly translates into profit. Every click, comment, share, or additional minute spent scrolling creates value for platforms because it generates advertising revenue and produces more user data. In this environment, content creators are similarly rewarded for producing material that captures attention as quickly as possible. This creates a feedback loop where users consume reactionary content, creators continue producing it because it performs well, and algorithms further promote it because it keeps people engaged. The result is a system where sensationalism is not accidental, but structurally ideal. While many users recognize that algorithms influence what they see, fewer consider how strongly financial incentives shape the type of information that becomes visible in the first place. In some cases, this means that viewers are repeatedly shown graphic, intense, or violent photos and videos, because of how reactionary this kind of content is. As a result, people, especially those who are on social media frequently, can easily become desensitized to otherwise upsetting material. It’s similar to how many experts suggest that exposure to violent video games can desensitize children to the violence these games depict – a marketed and user-based version of tragedy. The more you are exposed to something, the more comfortable with it you become. I don’t mean that social media is turning everyone into a sociopath, but we have to recognize the harm of information overload, especially when it comes to interacting with intense content. Constant exposure to large amounts of content makes it difficult to distinguish between events and their respective levels of gravity. A person may encounter videos about wars, natural disasters, celebrity scandals, local politics, advertisements, and personal updates from friends within the span of only a few minutes. This rapid switching between topics compresses serious issues into the same format as “GRWMs” or “Glow-up Tips,” making all content compete equally for attention regardless of importance. Over time, the sheer volume of information can create emotional fatigue, where users feel overwhelmed or powerless rather than informed. Instead of motivating action, this excessive exposure may lead individuals to disengage entirely because the amount of content becomes impossible to meaningfully process. As a social media user, you are meant to be upset with the content you consume because any reaction you have is profitable. Arguably, negative reactions are actually more beneficial than positive ones. This kind of political outrage is ideal. Not only do hate comments boost a video or photo’s popularity – your anger is redirected– away from real life and contained in a form that is beneficial to large corporations and elites, who are often the targets of this anger. Corporate elites have designed a way to profit off of backlash. Yes, social media can be an avenue for political mobilization. However, these movements often take the shape of trends rather than successful routes for change. Sharing posts, changing profile pictures, or reposting information can create a feeling of involvement without necessarily producing long-term political engagement. Sustained political movements generally require organization, resources, leadership, and continued public attention, which are qualities that are difficult to maintain within platforms designed around constant novelty. Not to say that there are no examples of effective social media political campaigns, but these movements often have a relatively short shelf life on social media before the next “big thing” cycles in. This does not mean online activism is meaningless, since social media has undeniably increased awareness around many issues and facilitated large-scale organizing efforts. However, awareness alone does not automatically translate into institutional change. Social media itself is not inherently harmful, nor is globalization through digital spaces inherently negative. However, if platforms continue to prioritize attention above all else, users must become more conscious of how algorithms shape not only what they consume, but also how they think, react, and participate in society. In an era where information is everywhere, the real challenge may no longer be gaining access to
By Madeleine Harp
‘The question is’, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ – Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass For decades, politicians alike have done what Alice discussed above: making words mean different things to different people. In other words, utilizing dogwhistling to attract specific voters while keeping others confused rather than angry. In politics, dogwhistling refers to the use of suggestive, subtle messaging to convey an often-controversial message to a particular audience. Politicians do this all while appearing innocuous to the masses, maintaining plausible deniability if called out. The figurative definition of dog-whistling has its roots in a more literal definition. A literal dog whistle is a device that emits a sound at ultra-high frequency. Humans are unable to hear this sound, but dogs can. Dog-whistling is, simply put, an evasion of accountability, and that corrodes the foundation of American democracy. A flourishing democracy rests on efficient communication between citizens and the government: voters must be able to understand what their leaders mean, and leaders must be willing to stand by what they say. The late strategist Lee Atwater, adviser to President Ronald Reagan, put it frankly in a 1981 interview, explaining the evolution of the Republican “Southern Strategy”: You start out in 1954 by saying, [n-word] [n-word] [n-word]’. By 1968, you can’t say ‘[n-word]’ – that hurts you. Backfires. So, you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights . . . cutting taxes. And all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a by-product of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites . . . ‘We want to cut this’, is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘[n-word].’ Here, overtly racist appeals were systematically replaced by tamer language to achieve the same political and economic goals without an extreme wave of backlash. Case Study: “Law and Order” On the surface, Law and Order sounds harmless: who opposes safety and peace? While it calls for protecting its citizens, the usage of this term is linked to conservatives who tried to downplay change. By using the term “law and order,” politicians were able to sideline and target communities of color, as well as radicals, by claiming that they were responsible for violent uprisings and crime. The phrase gained political traction in the late 1960s, when politicians like Richard Nixon utilized it in their campaigns. Nixon, according to Leonidas K Cheliotis, “capitalized on fear.” Nixon’s campaign did not need to mention race explicitly. Instead, images of urban protests and danger, combined with the phrase “law and order,” activated white suburban anxieties without a single overtly racial word. “Law and order” was also used to undermine Martin Luther King Jr’s demonstrations in Birmingham. Eight Alabama clergymen published an open statement in The Birmingham News on April 12, 1963. In it, they critiqued King’s nonviolent protests, calling them “unwise and untimely.” The clergymen also called for issues to be settled only in the courts rather than on the streets. In doing so, the clergymen were protecting the American status quo, that is, the racial hierarchy. Thereby, their appeal to “law and order” was (whether intended or not) a dog whistle to white moderates who preferred peace over justice. Furthermore, President Ronald Reagan, in his campaign, “restored” the slogan, Law and Order, in the wake of violence: the Watts Riots and Berkeley campus riots. Reagan assured white voters that he would restore a social order they felt was slipping away. This “social order” was essentially a desire to return to traditionalist and conservative American values – one that was threatened by a rise of Black power, youth counterculture, and anti-war activism. “Law and Order”, to Reagan, was never just about fighting crime and violence. In a healthy democracy, language would serve as a bridge between leader and citizen. But how possible is this with the prevalence of dog-whistling? As Alice stated, “the question is whether you can make words mean so many different things.” But another question is whether you should. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole
By Angela Song
It’s no secret that American public schools are in dire need of improvement. In the past decade, the vast majority of public schools have seen declines in student test scores across core subjects which have only accelerated since the pandemic despite a massive increase in school budgets per student in the 21st century, as well as in employee headcounts. But a closer analysis of these trends hints that it’s not how much funding or hiring that determines student success, but rather who gets hired at the taxpayer’s expense. And with a stagnant public school student population, why are more staff needed at all? It turns out, virtually all of the increased hiring in American public schools has been driven by an expanded school administration. Although teacher hiring has mostly continued proportionally to student population growth, administrator hiring has grown at a rate approximately ten times faster than both from 2000 to 2019, including professionals from principals to school board members. In many states, these administrators earn far more than teachers despite not interacting with students for nearly as long during the average school day. Much of this growth has aligned with increasingly bloated federal and state regulations on education, which has sent compliance costs through the roof out of fear of lawsuits at every corner. And with a heavily decentralized school system that spans thousands of districts across fifty states, this only further multiplies the number of required administrators nationwide to comply with the Department of Education’s one-size-fits-all mandates. Eliminating the DOE alone would save billions of dollars from the deficit each year, and return education to the states as it is constitutionally delegated in the 10th amendment. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act and Obama’s Common Core Standards failed to take into account the diversity of needs across fifty states and the thousands of districts, and were just as unsuccessful at improving student outcomes in the 21st century. But inefficiency in teaching staff hiring is a similarly plaguing issue. Instead of collecting massive union dues for the improvement in child education or even pay raises to resolve the ongoing teacher shortage, teachers unions have spent them on exercising increased political power and control over education policy. They have also eliminated accountability in the classroom by obstructing firings of teachers whose students fail to meet educational subject standards year after year. Furthermore, these unions regularly lobby against measures that would force schools to improve by making the market for education more competitive, such as authorization of charter schools and school choice vouchers. To improve America’s education system, competition must be enabled by eliminating government overreach and union monopolies on hiring practices to ensure that students receive the most qualified educators.
By Edward Kim
Follow Us