The television

 

    Today, it is hard to imagine life without television. News, sports, movies, educational programs, and even major world events can be viewed from the comfort of home. Yet television is a relatively recent invention, and its development required decades of innovation from multiple inventors.

Unlike many inventions, television does not have one single founder. Instead, modern television emerged through the contributions of several inventors working to solve the same problem, which is: How can people see events happening far away without being physically present?

By the early twentieth century, technologies such as the telephone and radio had already made it possible to transmit sound quickly over long distances. Inventors began asking a new question: if sound could travel electronically, could moving images be transmitted as well?

One of the first major breakthroughs came from Scottish inventor John Logie Baird, who demonstrated the world's first working mechanical television system in 1926. His invention used spinning disks and mechanical scanning technology to transmit simple moving images. While limited in quality, it proved that television was possible. 

Just one year later, American inventor Philo Farnsworth successfully transmitted the first image using a fully electronic television system. Unlike Baird's mechanical design, Farnsworth's system used electronic components to scan and reproduce images. This approach became the foundation of modern television technology.

One of Biards early patented models

Some of the earliest televisions looked very different from the flat-screen displays found in homes today. Early mechanical televisions produced small, blurry images and often displayed pictures on screens only a few inches across. By the late 1930s and 1940s, electronic televisions with cathode-ray tube screens became more common, providing clearer pictures and laying the groundwork for widespread television adoption.

Early color television set

Television technology continued to improve throughout the twentieth century. Another major milestone came with the introduction of color television. Although experiments with color broadcasting began earlier, color television became commercially practical during the 1950s and gradually replaced black-and-white viewing. Color broadcasts made television more realistic and engaging, helping the medium become even more popular with audiences around the world. According to information about Baird's work, he also demonstrated an early color television system years before color broadcasting became widespread.

The invention of television solved several important problems.

First, it made visual information readily available and accessible to ordinary people. Before television, news was delivered primarily through newspapers and radio broadcasts. Television allowed audiences to both hear and see the events being reported.

Second, television made visual learning possible at home. Educational programs could demonstrate concepts, places, and events in ways that radio never could.

Third, television connected people to national and global events without requiring travel. Historical moments could be witnessed by millions of viewers simultaneously, creating shared experiences across entire countries.

Streaming services and news channels

The impact of television on society was enormous. It transformed entertainment by bringing movies, sports, and live performances directly into people's living rooms. It expanded access to information by allowing viewers to watch events as they unfolded. It also fundamentally influenced society by shaping culture, politics, education, and public opinion. 

Television also changed communication itself. Before television, information was primarily delivered through written newspapers or audio-only radio broadcasts. Television combined sound, visuals, and live broadcasting into a single device. This made information more engaging and easier to understand, including for people with limited literacy skills.

Despite its benefits, television has also had negative effects. Critics point to excessive screen time, which can reduce physical activity and contribute to more sedentary lifestyles. Television can also spread misinformation when inaccurate information reaches large audiences. In addition, some television programming has been criticized for reinforcing stereotypes and creating unrealistic expectations about society.

More than a century after its invention, television remains one of the most influential communication technologies ever created. From John Logie Baird's mechanical television to Philo Farnsworth's electronic system and the later development of color broadcasting, television transformed how people learn, communicate, and experience the world around them.

AI DISCLOSURE: This post was a collaboration using Microsoft Copilot. I chose a historically significant piece of technology to study. I then asked Copilot to help me with research for the history of television. After finishing the research portion, I then asked it to write me a blog post using the questions given on the assignment appropriately. I then asked it to add links to related resources, keep the structure, and  examples to help drive the project forward.

Antiwar voices

 

Iran War protests 

War is a word that's thrown around a lot all the time obviously there are wars but the threat of them as well like just the other day ww3 was brought up again. When we see a headline about war we jump to conclusions and some of us decide to do more research.. When you do research you look at the news for where, who, and why that specific conflict is happening and you most likely start to follow it for a little bit. In the U.S. it's always if we are involved or not and which side were taking. 

 After looking through Antiwar.com, I noticed It actually has a lot of information that's useful if you want to know more about these wars that you would never ever see on mainstream news platforms easily. Antiwar.com especially is very direct about opposing U.S. involvement and even tallies different statistics so one can see the truth about what's going on.

 It also shows how other countries are involved for example Israel and Ukraine. I also want to point out how the website looks because I find that important, it looks like it was made by like 10 people 15 years ago which shows how little coverage the truth gets. 

I think one reason strong antiwar voices can be harder to find in mainstream news is
because major news organizations mostly rely on government sources, military sources, and other established sources when covering wars. These options have direct access to the information, but relying on them to much can also mean that the government's perspective receives a lot of attention which can create some bias especially when it's a U.S. involved war. 

The American Conservative was also interesting to look at because it shows that being antiwar isn't necessarily something that belongs to one political side. Usually when I hear the word conservative I think of a certain set of political beliefs, but the website has writers who are very critical of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts. A lot of what I saw questioned why the U.S. needs to continue getting involved in conflicts overseas and whether that involvement is actually benefiting Americans.

I think this really shows why these antiwar opinions can be so hard to find in the first place. It's not like these opinions don't exist because clearly there are plenty of people writing and talking about them. The problem is you almost have to go out of your way to find them. If you're just watching the news or scrolling through headlines, you're probably not going to see the same kind of stuff that you would on these websites.

WW1 protests in front of the Whitehouse

I think that's also why the First Amendment is so important when it comes to war. People need to be able to question what the government is doing, especially when it involves something as serious as sending people to war. We already saw what happened during WWI when people speaking against the war were punished and even put in jail. Obviously things are different today, but the whole point is that people should still be able to speak against what the government is doing without being silenced. Even if you don't agree with everything on these websites, they at least give you another perspective and let you decide for yourself what you actually believe.

Our privacy

Government Surveillance and Personal Privacy 

    One of the first things mentioned in the TED Talk was military-grade weapons being given to local police departments. She then discusses surveillance footage and location tracking, which allows the government to see information about you, like where you go and what you do. There are radar readers on cars and poles that can keep records of everyone and every license plate seen on the road, whether that person did anything wrong or not. 

This stood out to me because I never really thought about how much information could be collected just from someone driving around normally. She gave an example where the government had hundreds of photos saved of her friend just going about his normal life. I think it is strange that this much information can be collected on someone who hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Flock Camera

We also aren't the only country doing this, as similar surveillance happens in England. Cell phone tower dumps can help police find hundreds of thousands of connections and locations along with phone pings. I understand how this could be useful for actually solving crimes, but I also think there is a point where it becomes too much. The problem is that this type of information can always be abused, whether through blackmail, false accusations, or other uses.

Another important idea is the state action doctrine, which deals with situations without government involvement. A company like Palantir is private and is not technically the government, but private companies can sell data to the government. Companies selling your data is basically part of the business model. 

This also connects to contracts of adhesion, where one party holds all the power. I think Terms of Service are a good example because most people, including myself, accept them without actually reading everything that is in them.

The third-party doctrine also connects directly to the internet. When the first party voluntarily gives information to a second party, like Facebook, the first party gives up control over how that information can be used by third parties downstream. I think most people don't realize how much control they are giving up when they give their information to a company.

Juan Enriquez's TED Talk connects these issues to Greek gods and Greek mythology and how you find yourself on the internet. What I found interesting is the idea that what we put online can create a lasting version of ourselves that becomes difficult to control. Together, these talks made me think more about how much information about me exists online and how little control I may actually have over where it goes.

AI DISCLOSURE: This post was a collaboration using ChatGPT. I took detailed notes while watching two TED Talks about government surveillance. In addition to the facts that I learned, I emphasized my own reactions and opinions while watching. I then asked ChatGPT to help me improve the text by correcting grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I then asked ChatGPT to help me shape the text into a blog post format. After reviewing the text, I added appropriate images and captions. 

Top 5 news sources

My Top 5 News Sources

1. TikTok

While not the most credible, TikTok is where people tend to post the most about the government, and where I see updates most frequently. I am able to see information about the economy, the government, law enforcement officers, and the president all in one unique place of short but informative videos. There are credible news sources that can be seen but also some news sources are simply wrong; the exposure helps form my opinion. It's not an app that I would necessarily quote but it is important to get frequent mixed opinions/ information.

2. Google 

Like many other people, Google is my most-used browser where it's looking up research or questions about something I have, or even when doing work. Google always has so much readily available, but you do have to check where your sources come from and whether they're legitimate. I always recommend Googling something instead of opening your mouth and being wrong because Google is just so good for anything you want to know. 

3. YouTube 

I use YouTube the most out of any social platform in a web browser or even on a phone. I don't necessarily watch politics all the time on YouTube, but it's just so damn good at looking into things and researching. I am always able to see my interests, but also see interviews, clips, essays, and much more relating to what interests me. It's also good for learning something cause it's auditory and visual, which is super helpful for someone like me who has an easier time retaining information visually. Now I don't always take whatever I see seriously, but there are credible sources and lots of ability to cross-examine different sources. 

4. Instagram

Now you have to be careful with this one because Meta isn't very good at regulating this app, whether it's their choice or not. All of it comes down to the posts you interact with and the feed that you make for yourself. An example is: I love F1 and racing, and it's THE place for me to see updates about stuff like that because I've cultivated that feed myself. I've also followed politics, memes, etc on the app that can expose me to different information, credible or not. It's a good place to see updates about what's going on in the world as well, since most news Instagram accounts are very active, but you should have backups since a lot of the information is biased, so you have to decide for yourself what you think about what you see. 

5. X (Twitter)

I don't use X as frequently, but when it comes to real-world topics and interests, it does a pretty good job. Since it's so easy to use the app, anyone can make a whole journalism account and post about what they think or see. I don't try to use it as much for politics because it's almost like a rabbit hole, but for interests like space exploration, gaming, etc it's really cool and credible. Because almost every journalist and politician has an account, it's so easy to stay informed and see opinions on whatever topic you want to interact with. 

Eight values of free expression

 

A place where the First Amendment can be tested

    I'm deciding to look at the fifth value of free expression: checking on governmental power or the function of the First Amendment.  This one resonates and is important to me because I see it frequently on my social media of someone testing their limits of the First Amendment. Whether it's a police officer, a politician, or just some regular person, everyone has a phone that they can record with at any time and of anything in a public space. This also extends to people using their phone to go into the Capitol and film whatever is happening or interacting in public spaces like hallways or conference rooms. 

    This is related to Balsi's idea of checking the value of the First Amendment. In his journal, he states, "The value that free speech, a free press, and free assembly can serve in checking the abuse of power by public officials.(p. 527)" This is important to say because now more than ever we are able to check government power, and it isn't only through news channels or professional journalists. Anyone who simply has a phone can record any government official in public that no one has seen and post it, which can potentially show millions of people. A good example of this is during ICE raids or stops where someone in the distance can record the interaction and post it online, which provides a new angle the public can see. 

ICE stop where agents recorded on a civilian's phone

    A specific example is the Minnesota ICE shooting, where civilian bystanders started filming the interaction and caught valuable insight into the situation that people didn't see before. In a lot of ways, nothing can be done by the government other than censorship of the post, which has happened to people commenting on ICE situations, but not only ICE or police, but also criticism of Trump.

    This does bring up another issue and that is that sometimes people don't know they are in trouble when they film; for example, there was this content creator on TikTok who would film inside the Capitol Building, filming congresspeople and senators. He would ask them questions about government decisions relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict, with legal borderline harassment. 

    Even though it was funny, he would get into trouble because there were certain places he couldn't film, and those are the ones that he tried to stay away from. He would wait in hallways and common areas before meetings, which are public spaces in the Capitol, but he couldn't go into or film in offices or meeting spaces. I can't provide a link because I believe he got banned for his content, which most likely violates some sort of TOS, but maybe it's also censorship from the government because he would catch some nasty interactions. 

`Even though he was seen as annoying, the fact that he was able to post stuff at the time and get millions of views was really valuable because the average person can't go to the Capitol to see these decisions being made.

 It also shows that public officials can be seen and criticized at any time by anyone, which is really important for the value of the First Amendment.

     Balsi's theory highlights something important, and that is that someone like this journalist could be an asshole, wrong, or annoying in some people's eyes, but it doesn't make it unimportant to the general use of the Amendment. The value of having the ability to criticize government officials, I believe, is super important because you can't always trust news organizations, but I also think it's better for the public to see these videos and decide for themselves what they think instead of having nothing at all.

     In the end, being able to check governmental power stands out to me because technology, which I'm around a lot, has made information about the government easily accessible to me almost every day, which is important for our democracy. It's also become more relevant as it has added another check to the government by the governed. 

Supreme Court Reflection

Our Supreme Court is the most powerful on earth

Inside the U.S. Supreme Court: What I Learned

Before watching this video, I mostly thought about the Supreme Court in terms of individual justices and their public reputations. After learning more about how the Court actually works, I came away with a much deeper appreciation for the institution as a whole and the role it plays in the United States.

One of the first things that stood out to me was just how much work the Court receives each year. Thousands of petitions arrive annually, yet only about 100 cases are fully reviewed. I was surprised by that number because I assumed it would be much higher. It really shows how selective the Court has to be when deciding which cases deserve its attention.

I also learned that the cases reaching the Supreme Court have already been decided by lower courts. The justices then meet to determine which cases they will hear. The process seems highly structured, with different levels of influence and authority shaping decisions as a case moves through the system.

Current Supreme Court Justices

The video highlighted the Court's unique position in American government. Everything it does is based on interpreting the Constitution, making it one of the most powerful judicial bodies in the world. The justices are appointed by the president, and those appointments can have a major impact on the direction of the Court for years to come.

Another interesting topic was the Court's history. I learned about John Marshall and the famous case Marbury v. Madison, which helped establish the Court's authority. The video also discussed significant moments in the Court's past, including the Dred Scott decision and later developments involving voting rights and due process.

The most surprising fact for me was that the Supreme Court originally operated in the basement of the Capitol rather than in its own building. That was something I had never heard before.

My biggest takeaway is that the Supreme Court follows a detailed process designed to handle cases as fairly as possible. More importantly, the video changed the way I think about the Court. Instead of focusing only on individual justices, I now see it as a larger institution with a long history, a complex process, and a significant responsibility in shaping the nation.