By Alexandra V. Maragha
Agenda setting, rhetoric, and bias. These are all examined as the written word is used to report and document events and provide facts based on the event that can stimulate further discussion about that which deems relevance.
Is what is recorded deemed relevant which can interject into the actions of events, or, do events stimulate a discussion that can be relevant supported by a superseding event?
Communicative relevance can be a political schism, determining the tone, direction and allowed ideas and ideals to penetrate a relevance norm in order to promote an idealism. With each word choice, an agenda or outcome is calculated, planned and timed to be released to create reactionary responses through discussion or by acting to further achieve a specific outcome. Likewise, word choice allows for certain perceptions or connotations to be developed and understood through implication (this is further discussed in my previous article, A word is worth 1,000 meanings).
But what has once equated for limited communicative presentation though restricted traditional mediums (such as news wires, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and cable), which are primarily built owned and operated through expensive, intricate and established sources, is no longer seemingly limited.
Anyone can virtually post an article or contribute to the outpouring of information, or discussion that occurs. Even now as I write, the relevancy that may or may not be noted could attribute to the credibility and even plain likeness or relatability that is perceived.
But we have accepted and participate in a social realm where discussions and personal opinion, once saved for after dinner among family and friends are now publically disputed on prime time mediums.
This media norm has penetrated airways and the internet causing relevancy to be determined by those with many times little substance and true awareness of what is and what is not.
As the presidential election season nears its end, society has become accustomed to the rhetoric and tit for tat exchanges all while the relevant question looming of “how will you do that” is never answered directly. Thus, relevancy is again predetermined, bias and only determined by those setting the agenda, while those discussing and questioning after dinner privately are only realized publically -after the fact- when those same questions are no longer relevant.