Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting our Culture?

The main question that Giroux, Weatherby, and Scoggins are trying to answer is does the media really propose hate speech directly to people? Some argue that is does and some argue it doesn't. This is because of the first amendment. This allows anyone the freedom of speech to the press and in general. But hate speech is directly exempted from the first amendment. Hate speech simply demonstrates a level of contempt towards other people, but really the term is meant to convey the deliberate bias towards and discrimination against any person at the time. This would be the way it is approached to the person and is incited. So both of these authors talk about the way they disguise the different forms of hate speech in different forms of media.

Scholar Henry Giroux questions why our culture has changed dramatically; becoming so mean spirited people. Girouz analyzes the politics of 'pedagogy of hate.' He concluded that this is an exercise to others for the power that ultimately has created 'culture of cruelty.' He analyzed this by addressing the media content in news and popular fare. He becomes critical of the media that covers the politics of hate in the culture. he identified how information and entertainment media normalizes the rude culture. This is taught by showing the meanness. Thereby; the creating culture shows what they think is right, so others of course are going to follow since the 'media' says is okay. But in reality, it isn't and they know that. Media just leads to one thing to another.

On the other hand, Georgie Ann Weatherby and Brian Scoggins both check out the web pages of the top four web extremist, and talk about how they persuade people. From their findings they find that the top four sites dram from traditional tactics in a soft and generous way. This emphasizes recruiting others to come. This then plays down the message of hate, so no one barely notices thinking they are not bad people. And simply good, because the media said so. From the main stream top four sites, they attempt to gain compliance from people who can be recruited to the extremist groups side. This only happens because the internet allows people to access any information that they desire and want. This then allows organizations to get their message out what they want to get across to the followers.

Either way, when the media says something is okay, people and followers are already going to assume that it is okay. But it really isn't. They just want people to be on their side. Hate speech is almost always evaluated based upon their context and the way it is presented. People may find it a way to show hatred and some may find themselves agreeing. But the first amendment states 'freedom of speech' to everyone, but it's just directly implying to the people who actually have information to share with the public and is considered important. Either way, no one will ever agree on what hate speech is really called. There will always be controversy's, and situations.