Blog 2- There Must be Two Sides to Every Theory

There Must be Two Sides to Every Theory

Although I agree with Baym on a lot of her points, I can’t seem to get past the fact that she seemed very biased in her writing. I agree that humans have the ability to choose what media sources to engage in, how to use them for our benefits, and how to improve them in the future, but I didn’t see deep discussion that media has not negatively affected our lives. Unfortunately, she decided to briefly touch on those topics instead of evaluating them.

Throughout the book, Baym would briefly discuss the negatives of her believes instead of fully engaging in those theories. For example, the belief that digital media has improved our lives by being able to be a part of online communities. Yes, I also believe that we have the ability to be a part of new communities and to engage in broader areas, but that doesn’t mean that people actually do. She skimmed over the idea that people are not more engaged simply because they have access to online resources, and went on to discuss how digital media has improved our lives and broadened our reach to other communities. Just because people have the ability to do something, doesn’t mean they will actually do it. Her inability to further develop the ideas of expansion in our communities lead me to believe she is selectively picking her research instead of cultivating both sides of the theory.

I know researchers are going to choose from other scholarly writings that benefit their theories, but throughout the reading it seemed as if we were never going to get two sides to the story. Another example was her explanation that individuals are engaging with each other just as much as they use to, if not more. She discussed the research in New York City park where she stated, “…people are more likely to be with others in public than they used to be and, when they aren’t, a small percentage of them look at their phones.” How many times have you gone to a restaurant and seen an entire family sitting together without speaking because they are all on their phones? What high school child does not have their phone on them at all times? When do you not have your phone on you? These are questions that should have been asked, not an outdated and biased survey from 2010. (Although I understand you can’t use completely up to date material because it is not available). This point just further explains that Baym was biased in her development and that she was not taking into account all research, specifically the points that did not agree with her believes.

 This book had so many great points and I believe that her intentions were true, but I can only take what she is saying with a grain of salt because she was not able to articulate both sides of her theory. The book was explained from a single individual’s eyes, not a researchers’ development of a theory. The inability to express a full scope behind her theory has been the downfall to this research and has left me wanting to learn more about the topic.