Rhonda Fitzgerald-Hunter

Communications, Marketing & Creative Works

Tag: Media Literacy

  • Facebook memories will humble you. 😂

    Facebook memories will humble you. 😂

    This popped up from 14 years ago, and I sat here looking at it thinking about how much my thinking has changed.

    At the time, I had no problem with drug testing people who received public assistance. My reasoning was pretty simple: people get drug tested for jobs, so why shouldn’t someone receiving taxpayer-funded assistance be tested too?

    And no, I didn’t believe everyone receiving assistance was using drugs. It just seemed like a reasonable requirement.

    But here’s what I wasn’t asking:

    How much does all that drug testing cost taxpayers?

    How many recipients actually test positive?

    How much money are we supposedly saving after paying to administer an entire testing program?

    And most importantly, even if somebody IS struggling with drug addiction, when did that mean they no longer deserve to eat?

    That’s the part that hits me differently today.

    We’re talking about people receiving a relatively small amount of assistance to buy FOOD. Not cash for a vacation. Not some luxurious lifestyle. Food.

    Addiction doesn’t eliminate hunger. Poverty doesn’t eliminate someone’s humanity. And children certainly shouldn’t go hungry because of something their parent may or may not have done.

    What’s interesting to me about this memory isn’t that I suddenly became smarter sometime during the last 14 years. It’s that I learned to ask more questions.

    The meme gave me a very simple fairness argument:

    “If workers have to take drug tests, welfare recipients should too.”

    And I accepted the premise without examining everything underneath it.

    Who created that framing?

    What does the actual data say?

    What does the policy cost?

    Does it accomplish what we’re being told it accomplishes?

    Who benefits from convincing us that another struggling person is the problem?

    That’s what media literacy does. It doesn’t tell you what political opinion you’re supposed to have. It teaches you to stop accepting somebody else’s premise before you’ve examined it.

    Sometimes growth is being able to look at something you posted 14 years ago and say:

    I understand exactly why that argument made sense to me then. I also understand why it doesn’t anymore.

  • The Reflecting Pool and the Reflection of Modern Media

    The Reflecting Pool and the Reflection of Modern Media

    Sometimes the most interesting story isn’t the event itself.

    It’s what people choose to believe about it.

    Over the past week, a simple maintenance problem at one of America’s most recognizable landmarks became something much larger. What began as reports of algae growth and peeling paint at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool quickly transformed into a full-blown online narrative war.

    Within hours, social media users were claiming sabotage.

    Some insisted activists had dumped chemicals into the water. Others claimed organized political groups were responsible. Posts spread rapidly, often accompanied by dramatic language, accusations, and certainty unsupported by evidence.

    At the same time, reporters from multiple news organizations were documenting something far less sensational: algae growth, peeling coating material, workers applying treatments to the water, and maintenance crews attempting to address the problem.

    The contrast was striking.

    One side of the internet was watching videos of people pulling large sheets of blue material from the pool and asking questions about construction quality, environmental conditions, and project management.

    The other side was constructing elaborate theories involving vandals, conspiracies, and political enemies.

    What happened next was even more interesting.

    The public began pushing back.

    Comment sections filled with questions that should have been asked from the beginning:

    Where is the evidence?

    Who was arrested?

    What chemicals were used?

    What proof exists that anyone intentionally damaged the pool?

    Why are we assuming sabotage before investigating ordinary explanations?

    Eventually, many conversations shifted from outrage to humor.

    The jokes became relentless.

    Photosynthesis was accused of being the real culprit.

    Algae became a suspect.

    Commenters joked that chemistry itself was being investigated.

    The humor revealed something important: people often recognize when a narrative is stretching beyond the available facts.

    The Reflecting Pool story illustrates a growing problem in modern media consumption. Too often, people begin with a conclusion and then search for evidence that supports it. Facts become secondary. Evidence becomes optional. Speculation becomes certainty.

    The result is a cycle where every event is immediately assigned a villain before anyone understands what actually happened.

    Sometimes vandalism is real.

    Sometimes corruption is real.

    Sometimes sabotage is real.

    But sometimes algae is simply algae.

    And sometimes a maintenance failure is just a maintenance failure.

    The lesson isn’t about a reflecting pool.

    It’s about how quickly stories evolve online and how easily assumptions can outrun evidence.

    In an era where information travels faster than facts, the most valuable question remains the simplest one:

    “What’s the evidence?”

  • The Age of Spectacle: Why Everything Has Become a Stunt

    The Age of Spectacle: Why Everything Has Become a Stunt

    A giant inflatable depicting Elon Musk appeared in Times Square ahead of SpaceX’s IPO. Some people laughed. Others were outraged. News outlets covered it. Social media amplified it. Millions of people who otherwise would have ignored the debate suddenly had an opinion.

    Whether you agreed with the message is almost beside the point.

    The inflatable did exactly what it was designed to do: capture attention.

    We live in an age where attention has become one of the most valuable commodities in the world. Politicians know it. Corporations know it. Activists know it. Media outlets know it.

    The modern battle is no longer simply over policy. It is over visibility.

    A century ago, governments relied on newspapers, radio broadcasts, and public rallies to shape public opinion. Today, the tools are different, but the objective remains the same. Viral clips replace newsreels. Algorithms replace newspaper editors. Giant inflatables replace political posters.

    The people protesting Elon Musk understand the same lesson that Elon Musk himself understands: if you want to influence public conversation, you must first command public attention.

    This is why modern politics increasingly resembles entertainment.

    Presidential campaigns become reality television. Billionaires become celebrities. Activists become influencers. News becomes content. Outrage becomes engagement.

    The result is a society where symbolism often travels farther than substance.

    A giant inflatable can generate more discussion than a thousand-page policy proposal. A meme can reach more people than a congressional hearing. A viral video can shape public opinion faster than a detailed investigative report.

    None of this means the underlying issues are unimportant. Questions about artificial intelligence, corporate responsibility, taxation, wealth concentration, government spending, and public accountability deserve serious discussion.

    But serious discussion rarely goes viral.

    Spectacle does.

    The inflatable in Times Square is not the story. It is a symptom.

    The real story is that we now live in a culture where every side—politicians, corporations, activists, media personalities, and ordinary citizens—is competing in the same attention economy.

    The winners are not always those with the strongest arguments.

    Often, they are simply the ones who create the most memorable image.

    Conditioning Through Headlines: How We Learn to Fear Entire Groups