Health Communication and so on...

When it comes to health communication in connection to technology I think it is extremely important to consider local contexts. In the case study of entertainment education in India I think the format was good and in many ways I would consider the format to be a success. Although what I think that they failed with in this study was to really choose the right focus group. The way they choose their focus group was by having viewers sending a letter to the producers of the show, by doing that they miss out on what could have been the most important group to study – those people that are illiterate. Another thing that was highlighted in the study was that of the different views of the men and the women something that I think came through very well.

Although what is important when working not only with health communication but also with gender issues, environmental and human rights issues is not only to provide information but also how it should be followed up. I would say that entertainment communication is a great way to work with for example health although I would not say that it is very efficient when it stands alone without any supporting programs.

Throughout the semester we have seen how different technologies has got a role in changing power relations, pushing for policy changes and giving individuals a voice when it comes to international politics to mention a few. On the other hand there have not been one single case where technology alone had brought any change by itself. I think it is important to remember when it comes to communication there are many different sectors and levels to consider and all of them are and needs to be interconnected. I have said it before and I will end my final blog with saying it one more time, the main reason for the change we have on the international arena today (in all different sectors and on all different levels) have to do with globalization. We will find different ways of communication in each and every part of the process of globalization.

The Last Blog: Television and Advertising

The group presentations in class this week were rather impressive, and a few things from them/the ensuing discussions have definitely stuck with me as things to discuss is my last blog post.

One thing that's on my mind that I wish I had asked about, and I'm interested in, is how various versions of television shows, based on country/region, can unite people across cultures and borders. The contestants/cast may be different, but the themes and general structure of shows may be the same, and I'm interested to know if having forms of entertainment in common can bridge cultural understanding - maybe even just by having a favorite tv show in common.

Another thing discussed in the presentations was advertising, particularly product placement. I'm generally not a fan of advertising, and less so of product placement when it's as blatant as it is on, say, The Biggest Loser. I think it works better when it's subtle, like the Verizon phones that appear everywhere on Gossip Girl. I like to think I'm immune to advertising, that what I see on tv, hear on the radio, or read in newspapers or magazines doesn't affect me. But I know I'm not. Granted, I usually fall prey to advertising schemes that use cute animals, but I think that maybe, just maybe, if I recognize when advertising affects my purchasing choices that I'm overall less vulnerable.

Product placement tries to skirt that concept of being immune to traditional advertising. People tend to identify more with characters or contestants on existing shows than the hyper-cheerful, always grinning commercial actors and actresses, who ultimately tend to grate on one's nerves (or at least mine). Product placement/embedded advertising, subtle or not, sends the message (or at least tries to) that consumers can shape their lives in some way similar to those they follow for an hour a week.

The more I think about it...the more similarities (albeit superficial) advertising has to public diplomacy: encouraging people to buy into an image or a product. Obviously they manifest themselves differently, but the idea of having something to sell, whether a product or idea, is fundamental to communications.

Health Campaigns and Entertainment Education Programs… Not So Simple

So this is my last blog of the semester. .. and it’s also the largest amount of material for one blog thus far. Thanksgiving definitely gets in the way of things. Fortunately enough, however, one of my favorite topics of the semester was covered in our most recent readings for this week: health communication and entertainment education. Although we didn’t have time to discuss these readings in class, I’m going to do my best to discuss some of the points in our readings that stand out to me as essential in the success of such campaigns and endeavors. I will not discuss all of the factors that are brought up, but I will highlight those that I personally think are especially critical.

First, I think it’s important to note that a common theme in both the Vijay and Singhal/ Rogers readings was the need to focus on contextual, communal, and cultural needs in such efforts. Simply focusing on the individual, or, as I discussed in my previous blog post, formulating a message and sending it out without considering the receiver(s) or their environment and viewpoint(s), is naïve. It’s critical to understand that that a person is part of a community, a culture, and a worldview that will influence their opinions, openness, and overall reception to messages and ideas. There are implications for, as discussed in our readings, discussing sexual content or specific diseases. You must include an audience in the formation, development, and use of a message. Some cultures are family-focused, others have development needs, and some are individualistic and some collectivistic… these are just a few of the multitude of complex layers a target-group can possess.

An additional focus that can be taken from this first theme of community and cultural differences and needs is the need to choose proper mediums to reach a population. Some populations respond best to radio dramas while others like watching reality tv. Groups differ based on their access to medias and their favoritism of specific forms of media based on cultural and social preferences, among others. It takes an educated, aware, and knowledgeable group of individuals to form a successful campaign or program.

Another important factor that I think is definitely worth mentioning, is Singhal/ Rogers’ discussion of the different types of behavior change. There are many levels of behavior changes that should be considered when forming a message. What do you want the outcome to be? What and who do you want to target? What do you need to do to accomplish these goals overall? I think that the theoretical framework as discussed by Vijay is especially crucial when looking at this focus since, as shown by various theories such as the Theory of Reasoned Action, Theory of Planned Behavior, etc. that there are specific factors such as subjective norms, perceived self-efficacy, perception of threat severity, etc. that need to be considered.

Although there are other topics breached such as the types of research that should be conducted (both qualitatively and quantitatively), more in depth discussions of resistance to entertainment-education, competition to be heard in a world of endless competing messages, among others, I think that these topics I highlighted, community/ culture, media used to spread a message, and types of behavior change, are the most important factors future health campaigns, entertainment education programs, and researchers should focus on.

I’m definitely excited to continue exploring these topics beyond the conclusion of this class!

Who is Doing the Public Diplomacy and Creating Soft-Power for the Nation-State

Throughout the readings and discussions we have had these past months I have started to think more and more how these terms we use have an impact on the political discourse. I have to say that when it comes to international relations this is a problem because as we know international relations are not fixed, not the politics, its relations or even the actors.

When we look at soft power as is explained by Joseph Nye “The soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority)”. This related back to the previous power play in the world when there main international players were the nation states and their ability to build lasting and strong relationships were crucial for their hard power relations. With other words historically soft power at times was crucial for nation-states to keep its position and be able to have a say in anything regarding the international agenda.

As we have moved forward in time and more players has got a place on the international arena and also since hard power is not as critical as before since wars between nation-states has diminished during the last decade.

So what can we talk from all this and maybe more so who is doing the public diplomacy in the 21st century? Is it really the advocates chosen by the nation-state or should we even consider the deeds of the civil society to have a role producing soft power for the nation-state and if so how does that change the role for those people that actually hold a position within the field of public diplomacy.

What I wanted to do with this post is not only to raise the question who is producing the soft power from the nation-state and also how we should consider these “fixed” terms like – soft-power. Maybe international scholars need to be more on top on the fact that these terms might be regarded more like a process then a fixed term in by doing so also be able to see the change.

Public Diplomacy

I think this week's blog is going to be pretty short, considering I spent most of the past few days immersed in my case study. What I'm going to do instead of an in-depth analysis is just discuss the concept of public diplomacy.

Until relatively recently I didn't know there was an actual name for public diplomacy - I deemed the concept "how to make friends and influence people abroad." How effective is it really, in this day and age where people can glean information from so many sources? I think back to the documentary last week on media in the Middle East, and how few people watch the American news outlet in Lebanon. The days of Cold War-style propaganda are gone - I think.

Since I'm not subject to it, I don't really have a good perspective on the US's public diplomacy efforts at this time. But spreading international goodwill and promoting the US as the heart of freedom in the world will do nothing without solid actions to back such claims up, and while still acting in a manner contrary to the image that is being sold.

My other thought is whether or not I'm subject to public diplomacy by other states. If I am, as an American, it's certainly not overt. But I'm curious...I think that's something I'll have to keep an eye out for.

Call it public diplomacy, propaganda, promoting influence/soft power...but no matter the moniker, it's a necessary tool in today's increasingly globalized society. It's up to the producers of such information to target the intended audience in a way that works with a multitude of information sources, so it can't just be turned off and discarded - but also in a manner that complements the audience's existing attitudes and beliefs, not launching a campaign in direct opposition.

Anyways, I'm going to keep this short because it's been a long weak, and I'm ready for Thanksgiving.

The Public Diplomacy Dilemma – Clashing Perspectives to Message Transfer

There are many occasions in this class where we spoke about the false search of many to find a message to serve as a magic bullet to convince the masses. We first heard about this idea in Weaver’s speech in Japan about the history of cross-cultural communication. He said that initially theorists and governments held similar beliefs – that there is a simple transfer of a message from the sender to the receiver, and that if the message is received in full by the receiver, then they will believe what they hear. Many other authors debated over whether or not people are simple minded in this way and are “cultural dupes.” Weaver showed that presently, cross-cultural communication has evolved to share many different factors that affect message success. Many authors have overcome this misconception that people are cultural dupes as well.

This week in Corman, Trethewey, and Goodall’s reading, we rehashed this discussion in a new light. Corman et al discussed the flood of information in a competitive present day world wherein constant fights for message-transfer success exist. They discussed how, unfortunately, the United States bases its public diplomacy strategy on an outdated Message Influence Model that uses the telephone as a framework. This model is littered with problems, some of which include the lack of acknowledgement that just simplifying a message and spreading it amongst a population as deeply as possible will prove to be successful. They fail to realize that there are flaws not just with their ignoring basic cultural differences and the role of the individual in message reception, but also that message consistency and coordination is another problem that needs to be tended to.

Corman et al propose a new model, the Pragmatic Complexity Model, which emphasizes a double contingency and mutual interdependence. They encourage the US government to break out of traditional narratives and to focus on the long term impact of a message over short term struggles.

The Pragmatic Complexity Model, to Corman et al and to myself, is a much more realistic model and one that should be applied. I don’t agree with, say, the CNAS's suggestion to consider abandoning public diplomacy all together, but on the contrary, I think that the US should have a public diplomacy reality check. I think that the overall answer can be pulled from the video we watched in class on Al Jazeera English. In it, two US soldiers made a statement about how people in the West need to understand that there are other world views and that there is not one correct way to govern and live. If, in this situation, the government would be more willing to understand that they need to do a lot more homework in understanding a local foreign population, that they need to avoid judgment and a superiority complex, and that PD should be a dialogue, then public diplomacy will be much more successful overall. The Pragmatic Complexity Model would be a great start.

Biased Audiences

I knew I was forgetting to do something, I just thought it was something along the lines of not paying my cable bill or forgetting to feed my fish. I don't have a fish anymore, but that's beside the point.

But the idea I've had stewing in my mind since Thursday has to do with the Powers and el-Nawawy article - how they note that audiences who turn to Al-Jazeera English for their news tend to be less dogmatic in their political views and analyses. What this assumes is a Western audience, particularly one that is American-based. My question is, for an audience in, say, the Middle East, does watching the BBC or CNN in addition or in place of Al-Jazeera make their views less dogmatic? That is, if dogmatism comes from paying attention to media organizations that reinforce one's worldview. While Al-Jazeera is an excellent news organization, like all others one cannot say that no bias nor slant exists.

Getting people to change their viewing patterns is hard, to change opinions even harder. I wouldn't watch Fox News without being compensated a tidy sum, and even if I did I know it would not cause a shift in my opinion. But I may be the atypical news consumer, as the average audience likely doesn't analyze the source of their news and what the organization's aims and biases may be. In my opinion, anyone who buys that Fox News is indeed "fair and balanced" likely doesn't do too much thinking about what they're learning on the news and accepts most things at face value. I realize how arrogant I'm about to sound, but I'm fully aware that NBC, which is my primary news source, has a liberal bias. Which, fulfilling one of Powers and el-Nawawy's theories, goes hand in hand with my liberalism. I follow a news outlet that reinforces my world view, I admit it. But NBC and its affiliates aren't my only sources - I also get my news and analysis from the BBC, the Guardian, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe, the Economist, and Al-Jazeera English. Before Rupert Murdoch got greedy and decide to put up a paywall on The Times of London, I read it too. Obviously, I don't have time to comb all these sources every day. If I did, I'd never get anything else done. But I diversify where I get my information, and I like to think that I'm not dogmatic in my views. But I acknowledge my biases, and filter my information. I don't take something at face value just because it comes from a source in line with my political views. It's not an easy thing to do, but necessary.

Another thing on my mind is the unavailability of Al-Jazeera English in the United States. I find it absurd that they have a bureau here in DC, but I can't access it with my basic Comcast setup (hmm, maybe I do need to pay the cable bill...). Yet I can get all the Fox News I want. Unfortunately I think if I called Comcast and asked for them to remove Fox News from my available channels and replace it with AJE I'd get laughed off the phone. I'm with what the military analysts making the rounds to news outlets in the Middle East said - there's nothing wrong with exposing people to ideas. Ideas themselves are not dangerous, alternate views are not dangerous. Just because a news organization doesn't constantly laud the United States and its actions seems to be enough for cable and satellite providers to band together to keep it off the air in North America. Censorship, it seems, is alive and well.

Now for that cable bill...

Media and the Individual

In class this week we discussed the news. We talked about their choices in story selection and reporting, about the conflict that is presented and whether the news itself can lead to conflict and policy change, among other topics.

What I’m curious about is how people tend to view programming that is aligned with their own worldview. Powers and el-Nawawy discussed in their study of Al Jazeera English, CNN, and BBC viewership, that viewers want reaffirmation of their opinions from their media. They said that people don’t want to be “informed” of what their opinions should be.

I think that people want to be right. It makes sense to me why people would not want to see the other side of a situation. News is already stressful because of the controversy in the stories that are shown. By adding on alternative viewpoints, people might become more agitated – the opposite of what I personally would want at the end of a long day at work. In addition, people look to social cues to develop their values, ideas, beliefs, and cultures. It makes perfect sense that people would want consistent approval and, sometimes guidance, to continue feeling secure in their existence and choices. People like to have a path and to be part of a community.

I think though, that there are other factors influencing these choices. I think there is more to consider than just the viewpoint being presented in a program. There is also the factor of why these controversial stories are chosen in the first place.

There are many authors that we read who discuss the decline of good journalism. Hafez presents many features of the structure of foreign reporting and the way in which irrelevant news is emphasized along with a “failure to examine significant developments and problems.” Cottle discusses types of staging of global and how we live in a very “negatively globalized planet.”

I think that the fact that 24 hour news coverage is extremely difficult to keep up with plays a large role. With so many sources for news in the present day, I could see how people would tend to tune out happy stories about, say, a cat being saved from a tree. This is not controversial, and will apply to many worldviews (there are very few cultures, I would assume, that would not want to see a cat saved), but this story would not captivate people for long; they would not want to watch the news channel for extended periods of time. By showing stories with drama and conflict, regardless how superficial they are, people will get more entangled in the story and be more likely to watch longer or to tune in multiple times. This ups viewership and, therefore, the survival of the channel. We also discussed the decline of foreign correspondents as a result of money issues. This definitely adds to the challenge of keeping interesting stories and viewership.

I am curious how, with the sentiment by many consumers that the media is not as credible as it used to be and with the rampant frustrations of viewers with the media, people will move forward in their search for news and, ultimately, the reaffirmation of their values through information consumption. I think that major media stations are in for a difficult road ahead.

How to Make Global News Global in the 21st Century

What has come to my attention after the reading this week is, what is global news and can we really call the global reporting we have today global? There are a few things that we have to consider when talking about global news. First of all the news presented today are always presented through the lens of our own culture (or someone else’s), second of all we tend to view news that reflect our general world view – something that could be seen as leading to a division of the world instead of a inclusion of the global public sphere, the third concern would be the index hypothesis – which means that the news presented often come from official spokes people, one example would be the Iraqi war where the reporting was dominantly built on public reports, last we have something called contextual objectivity – which means that although the reporting is objective it is still in tune with the audience expectations.

If we look a little bit closer at these concerns raised above we will be able to see the opportunity for change.

As mentioned all media presented, even though it is objective it is presented from a specific cultural lens. We highlight, frame and use symbols so that our audience will take the news seriously – although that can affect the content and the actual meaning can get lost on the way.

As we have learned in previous readings the framing of the news is crucial for how people identify themselves with the news, is it ordinary news, extraordinary news or is it emergency news? Are we seeing something that is happening far away that is just the “others” or does it feel like we are witnessing the crimes in our living room? Many scholars tend to think that global news only fuel the division of the world instead of bringing it together – due to the framing of the news.

Another problem that could be tied to international relations is that of the index hypothesis, if the nation-state is the main source of information the news will definitely be presented in a way that will strengthen the view of the national interests.

To meet the audience expectations also somewhat reflect our international relations today where multinational corporations can set the agenda for its consumers and its audience, the views get what they want. Many times people do not question what they see and in what extent it is objective.

The opportunity as I see it when I read between the lines is to create a global organization/institution that will have reporters from around the world that will be presenting the news from their cultural lens when it is something concerning that country. One of the problems is that global news often focuses on issues that do not go against the sovereignty of that country. What we see today is reporting about wars and natural disasters, very seldom do we see local obstacles that people are facing within their nation-state. Since this is something that does not affect “us” on the other side of the world we do not care about it. If media has such a big effect as suggested in many readings and if it is able to push for certain decisions there is a need to consider a new form of reporting. To have an independent institution for reporting free from state-control and corporation interest maybe global news could actually be called global news.

The Dictator's Dilemma

I did a lot of thinking about my group's case study on Iran and its (failed) "Twitter Revolution" this week, as it was extremely relevant to both the readings and class discussion. But it was Elizabeth Hanson's discussion of the "dictator's dilemma" that has me contemplating Internet usage in authoritarian states, and state vs. citizen power.

China has a massive censorship system, blocking access to websites with dissenting views or anything that could reveal negative opinions of the government - particularly many western-based news and social networking sites. At the same time, China is one of the world's largest Internet users as a country, and yet it falls under such severe restrictions. Granted, much of the censorshiop is done via self-policing, and Internet users wishing to access blocked sites have found ways to get around the system, such as proxy sites.

The dictator's dilemma is about how much governments should control the Internet in authoritarian states, regarding citizen access, but at the same time the Internet can be a valuable tool for governments to disseminate their messages/propaganda. If Internet is restricted completely, then the government lacks that easy propaganda outlet. The dilemma is...have restricted Internet access, with the goal of keeping away opposition views but also be able to spread government-sanctioned information...or no Internet at all?

People will always find a way to get the information they want, censorship be damned. The question is whether or not the government should make it easier or more difficult, and whether authoritarian governments should use the Internet to their own advantage...and to what degree?

Global Activism in the 21st Century

This week’s readings got me thinking about the different results you get from pressuring different actors. In the readings we have seen various examples of successes and also failures to organize and make change. The 21st centuries way of activism differs a lot from the traditional way of activism and one of the reasons is because of the tools we use to spread information and organize around certain issues.

Both Bennett and Juris highlights that the new for of activism and especially global activism has come as a result of the economic globalization and as a response to the neo-liberal capitalist market where the multinational and transnational corporations has got much more influence today.

One of the successes mentioned is the protest against corporate globalization at the World Trade Organization in Seattle where 50,000 people attended on November 30th 1999. The diverse coalition of environmental, labor and economic justice activists came together and succeeded to shut down the meetings. This was the start of the new form of global activism and quickly after the “battle of Seattle” people started to create decentralized all-channel forums. These mechanisms was to generate physical and virtual communication and communication in real time among diverse movements, groups and collectives. If we move a little bit ahead we will see where we stand today when it comes to global activism especially in regards to the internet and what makes it so unique. First of all the organization is decentralized which means that anyone can join and that the information exchange is relatively open.

In contrast to the success in the case mentioned there has been a social movement in Iran called the “Green revolution” where the public sphere got together and used twitter to form actions and spread knowledge and information on what happened during and after the election in 2009. People in Iran used twitter to try to organize the civil society for different protests and actions. What happened here was that the totalitarian government reacted to this movement in different ways, they put up fake websites with misinformation and the also monitored the planned protests and in that way scared people to take action. In other words, they let the people vent what they want and then they crack them down. But what happened was that the United States picked up on all of these tweets and the external attention made the “twitter-movement” become much bigger than it actually was. There were news coverage and the civil society in the US lobbied Twitter to keep it open so that the people in Iran were not troubled in any way. So in conclusion there was a movement that was closely monitored by the government and therefore it did not get the same effects as the “battle of Seattle” and another problem was that the connection/flow between the different nodes was not transmitting the same information.

What we can take from this is that global activism even though it works in the same way even though the matter is different it depends a lot on who you are direction it to and also the information flow between the different nodes.

What Influences the Tools that Influence You?

Does viral marketing work on YOU? Does any marketing work on you, for that matter? The idea of the “Third Person Effect” is so amusing to me, yet it is so true. The effect states that if someone asks an individual, “does this type of marketing work on you?,” then that individual is likely to answer that, “oh no that definitely doesn’t work on me… but it could certainly work on other people.” Ironically, I think that most people would deny reacting in this way, but there is no doubt that we all do.

In class we discussed this topic as a leeway into the Padovani article. Padovani was a local citizen, participant, and observer in the L’Aquila social movements. After a devastating earthquake struck the city, the government decided to choose that location for the G8 summit to highlight the town’s solidarity. Critics argued that the location was chosen to showcase their reconstruction efforts to the global media while simultaneously keeping closer surveillance on the G8 protesters. Nevertheless, the town, despite its history of political control (versus the Italian North’s history of democracy and citizen participation), rose up together in a movement that incorporated not just ICT tools, but, as Padovani highlights, individual and peer-to-peer connection and mobilization techniques. There were various types of tactics that were chosen, all nonviolent (although conflict arose between militant and non-militant protesters), which included a silent march, signage, various other social forums, etc.. One main focus was on the MediaLab.

One of Padovani’s main points is in the need for interpersonal connections and ideas behind the use of media itself. Media is just a tool, and as in the Third Person Effect implies, media and ICTs are used to influence people and are not effective by themselves. Padovani argues that the traumatic event mobilized the citizens and promoted democratization from below through their use of public spaces and various communication tactics.

I think that other examples exist in our readings too as various authors discussed the topics of social movements and the need for the motivation behind a movement and technology use. Those who argue that technology is the answer for a grand utopia and change in the way in which citizens mobilize and express themselves are generalizing and are overlooking the fact that these are just new and modern tools.

We covered a range of topics this week… but I personally keep coming back to this idea of how people can influence others with the assistance of tools, and how people may not necessarily realize that they are being influenced. Whether through interpersonal connection and the MediaLab in the case of L’Aquila, or through the momentum of a social movement and the ideas that drive it, people really are affected by the messages they receive, and I would argue that it is the people and the ideas that are behind them, regardless of the technology that they are presented through.

Disastrous Disaster Coverage

Back again so soon!

This week I'm going to focus on the Chouliakari article, as I found it pretty fascinating. Ordinary news vs. extraordinary news, citizen-generated imagery, humanization (or lack thereof)...all great twenty-first century media buzzwords. But beneath that, there's an excellent point in the article that, while not being revolutionary, clearly delineates why we care about some events and not others.

I remember the 2004 tsunami vividly, and all of the video footage, first-hand accounts, and photos of the carnage afterwards. I was a senior in high school then, and when I returned from Christmas break there was a school-wide fundraising effort for tsunami relief. Yet the cyclone that hit Myanmar recently, a disaster that Chouliakari mentions as being "ordinary" news (vs. the tsunami as "extraordinary") rated very little news coverage in the United States, and on my socially-conscious (well, in some ways) college campus, there were no clothing drives or fundraisers to assist those victims. Partially that may have had to do with the junta that rules Myanmar, but the lack of attention to the disaster in general reflects up on mass media's priorities. Since citizen journalism is becoming increasingly popular, particularly for large global media outlets, the lack of inside information from Myanmar because of its authoritarian government may have also played a role in the lack of coverage.

I guess I don't have too much to say analytically on this subject since it's one of those things that everybody knows about, but doesn't get changed. The media is aware of the lack of coverage of global events that don't have mass appeal to the western populace, but it would be less profitable to expend money and resources on reporting events that won't bring in an equal return. Citizen journalism is a means to remedy part of this problem, but in states that are more authoritarian/on the less-developed side of the digital divide, the means for reporting may not exist. However, journalists have a responsibility to report on events that may not be dubbed "extraordinary, as not just western or "extroradinary" events in which developing states have vested interests. With the increasing corporate nature of mass media, I'm not sure if this will ever actually happen. One can hope though.

A Small Step for the Media but a Huge Step for Human Lives

After readings on the nation-state, globalization and the role of the media we are now moving ahead to look at the connection between these different things. We are talking about networks and one thing that is important to remember is that the network society is not limited to media and the internet. It could be viewed as the connection between different nodes with a focus on the exchange (either information or something else). But this week we are actually looking at media and its symbolic power. I have chosen to comment on the Chouliarki article that highlights how the media representation can either bring people together because the distance to suffering are closer. We can not say that “we did not know” on the other hand broadcasting can be portray a fragmented picture of the world.

The article focus on three different ways of broadcasting news:

• Ordinary News
• Extra Ordinary News
• Emergency News

Chouliarki explains that ordinary news often has a minimal narrative of suffering, refuse to humanize the sufferers and there is interruption of emotions. This kind of news coverage does not evoke any emotions and the news segment usually just show a map as a symbol of the distant. Also the picture is often a panorama picture and the narrative does not invite the viewer, instead it delivers the message that the harm is already done and there is nothing you can do about it.

On the other hand we have got the Extraordinary News that is usually captured “here and now”, the camera is rolling combined with the human voice and it is not groundbreaking news but it is being portrayed as history. One example would be 9/11. I still get the chills every time I see the planes crashing into the world trade center and at the time when it happened I was about 15 years old. Some news articles had the headlines “we are all Americans” and that was actually what I felt at that time, maybe not that we are all Americans but that we are all humans, we are all the same.

Some examples of Emergency News would be the demonstrations by the Monks in Myamar in 2007 and also the Tsunami that hit Indonesia in 2004. These stories are cosmopolitan, they are highlighting the collective responsibility we have to react on it, and there is something we have to do. They are often citizen generated which makes us think that they are not bias and the stories are more personal and are not represented as a news story. We are no longer consumers of the news; all of a sudden we have become witnesses. Another factor that makes it seems more real is the transmedia aspect of it, we are not only watching the story on our TV but there is a cloud of images in other forums for example on blogs, facebook groups etc etc.

So what does this mean, could we say that Emergency news are moving in the direction of cosmopolitanism or is this just a way that media represent certain stories that has been selectively chosen because of the Western interests?
I would say that it is moving in both directions, consumers push for another from of representation and at the same time media are using symbols in a way that frame the story. I know that one of the reasons that the Swedish media had such a huge coverage of the Tsunami was because Thailand is a popular tourist destination for many Swedes. I have to say that if it would have happened today and even though no Swedes would have been there I think the coverage had been huge anyways because of the fact that many people can identify – Thailand is no longer just a dot on a map. I think it is important to recognize that media is only one tool within the process of globalization and we have to take into account all of the other sectors that also play a role internationally. I am sure that just as discussed in class the tremendous floods in Pakistan did not get the coverage that I think it should have because of the US and Pakistan relations and also because the demand for the news by the consumers were not that big.

I would like to say that since the network society play an important role internationally I have hope for the future that we will be able to cover more stories worldwide and also come together for the global good because of the fact that we are all human beings no matter where we are located.

Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?

It’s really intriguing to me to think about a statement that was mentioned today in class. Are the media’s focuses chosen by our society’s interests and cares, or are our society’s interests and cares chosen by the media and their choices on which stories to present? Why don’t we cover stories on devastating floods in Pakistan when we have streaming news coverage presenting up to date developments on a flood in Thailand? Why don’t we show the stories on the deadly earthquake in Chile when we provided the same coverage and active support in relief efforts of an earthquake recently in Haiti? My personal belief is that the media chooses our interests, but I think that the media’s choices come from already predetermined societal traits and biases.

Lilie Chouliaraki discussed the way in which symbolic power is influential in people’s reactions to media representations of world suffering. She argues that there are different types of media responses to tragic world events, and that these influence the connectedness viewers feel to that hardship as well as their active or nonactive responses to assist. She outlines that there are generally two opinions on whether or not people will reach beyond their Western world and media coverage. The optimistic viewpoint/response believes that viewing suffering will encourage sentiments of responsibility simply by viewing this footage. The skeptical viewpoint/ response believes that people turn to media simply for commercial and entertainment desires and that they will not feel any more connected and willing to help after viewing this footage. This does not provide a systematic evaluation, however. Chouliaraki argues that the type of footage needs to be looked at for its symbolic properties. There is footage that is ordinary that plays out as a simple news bulletin and does little to evoke connection and activism, extraordinary footage that plays out as rolling footage and engages people’s connectedness and breaks down global barriers which generally discourage people from helping out, and emergency news that is citizen generated and encourages sentiments of witness participation and connectedness as well.

This plays into my argument about media representation encouraging our beliefs in that this is a clear demonstration of the power the media holds over us. If the media shows an image that is a simple map or discusses an event briefly and moves on, (or doesn’t cover it at all), interests won’t be peaked. Connection will not be established, differences will be emphasized, and people will be unlikely to help in the disaster relief. If, however, there is rolling footage and people see individual cases of human suffering, there is a connection that they will come to feel. They will be much more likely to want to help, especially since they will not be thinking about their global distance and differences. The media plays a huge role not just politically and economically as we discussed previously in the course, but also, as we continue to examine, socially.

How does the media choose their stories and influence us? I think that a lot has to do with what stories already are commonplace in a society. I think that behind these stories are the world’s divisions. Thailand has many Western tourists, and Haiti is close to the United States. I think more importantly though that in both those instances there was extensive footage that was presented and captured society’s attention. There’s clearly a lot that is left to be explored in this topic, but there is no question that the media influences us in more ways than we note on the surface.

Networking: Informal and Informational, Serious and Humorous

Oops, so, I got caught up in midterms and forgot to blog last week, so I'll do two this week. This entry I'm going to take a different approach than I have been and instead of offering my own insight on readings and class discussions, I'm going to apply the discussion of networks and exchange of information to my own life, as a form of social coordination.

When living in Boston, and even now, my favorite news resource was Universal Hub. News that's locally produced and reported by the site owner and a whole network of bloggers. I was able to learn about events going on locally that the Boston Globe or the television news didn't cover, and all in one spot. UHub is one of the best examples of a grassroots information network that I can think of, and I wish that more cities had this sort of independent news outlet/blog aggregator.

Everyone talks about Facebook, Twitter, and circa-2004, Myspace as social media networks through which information and news spreads rapidly. Since my group's case study focuses on Twitter and Iran, I've been thinking a lot about the micro-blogging site and how I use it, and its network structure. The trending topics on the sidebar are often filled with inane hashtags such as #wheniruletheworld and others, but also valuable news topics...or so we'd like to think. If a celebrity's name pops up as a trending topic for no apparent reason, the "Twitterverse" tends to think that they've died. Case in point: a few months ago "Uncle Phil" was trending, and rumors flew about the death of the actor who played Uncle Phil on the classic 90s sitcom, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Luckily, Uncle Phil (aka actor James Avery) is still alive and kicking, but it took longer for that rumor to calm down than it did for news of his "death" to spread. My point is, networks spread information so quickly nowadays, and when news is widespread, people are more likely to believe it. I think there is a greater social responsibility to watch the information that anyone can produce - because interpersonal networks are now so vast, and so fast-moving, that a joke can become a massive hoax in a matter of minutes.

Of course, my favorite example of modern networking is the meme. In 2008, I was rick-rolled (also known as being misdirected to this video instead of a link's intended destination) countless times. I could go on and on about my favorite memes and viral videos that have provided countless...er, minutes of entertainment, and while these things aren't exactly news, their spread proves just how powerful networks can be. I presume that most people with Internet access have heard about sad Keanu Reeves - but if they haven't, someone on their Facebook friends page, or an acquaintance who is overly fond of the "forward" button in their email will fill them in on the joke soon.

So, I'll wrap up my overdue post here, by noting that the network is a social phenomenon, and that more and more people are getting their information - serious and humorous - from other individuals in their social or professional networks, and traditional forms of media are working hard to integrate themselves in this newer (in terms of ease and speed of use) networking form.

The Interconnectedness of Humankind - A Look at Telenovelas for Added Insight

The Interconnectedness of Human Kind - A Look at Telenovelas for Added Insight
I think that it is common knowledge that the telenovela industry has gone global. Telenovelas have had a huge impact not only within the Spanish-speaking world of the Southern Hemisphere, but also within other societies in the Northern Hemisphere (both Spanish-speaking and non). Miller’s article, Ugly Betty Goes Global, is an excellent overview of the universally appealing elements that telenovelas possess as well as an incredible example of the various multidirectional flows of telenovelas. I think that Miller’s article is a great addition and expansion of common telenovela knowledge. It is also a great example of how commonalities reach across humanity, and also how the globe is increasingly networked.

Regarding the universally appealing elements of telenovelas, it is assumed that telenovelas appeal to a variety of cultures and regions, but why? Miller explains how the short run and frequent 5-6 night a week format, the cost competitiveness, as well as the timeless narrative elements are universally appreciated. The narrative elements particularly interested me in that, in the way we discussed in class how there are basic story-lines that have been discussed for generations across cultures (such as in our personal example of Disney), telenovelas are no different in their use of a common formula. The social, economic, and romantic success, as described on p.205, are popular across immigrant migrant populations and across nations. Around the world there is an ongoing industrialization, and many people are facing challenges as a result. These telenovela story-lines appeal to their needs. The fairy tale is a story that can be customized to specific groups, but that has a hopeful and relatable message for all.

Regarding the multi-directional flows of telenovelas, I was surprised to learn that beyond the inter-regional flows and South to North flows, there are also North to South flows as well. There is a growing telenovela industry in Miami in the United States where telenovelas are being produced by the local Spanish-speaking population for their own communities, but that these series are growing in popularity throughout the North and within the Southern Hemisphere. It is amazing to me how globalization does not take one direction, but multiple. This is a perfect example of the current flows of international media productions. This shows how there are growing counter-directional flows, and that this is a trend that is continuing to flourish.

I personally don’t watch telenovelas, but I have watched the re-shot Ugly Betty series within the United States. It’s great. These themes do appeal to me, as expected. I think that people would agree that this type of globalization isn’t necessarily such a scary thing at all, but rather a pretty neat representation of the global commonalities amongst humankind, and of the increasing interconnectedness of the world.

Everyone Goes Global, in one way or another.

With an undergraduate degree within the fields of International Relations I think it is very interesting to look at both power relations and structure when communication is thrown into the global picture. What are the affects and just because something happened in one way before, does that mean it will happen again somewhere else.

This week we will turn to Koichi Iwabuchi and his article “Taking ‘Japanization’ seriously: cultural globalization reconsidered” and also to Jade Miller and the article "Ugly Betty Goes Global: global networks of localized content in telenovela industry". Both of these article touch upon what we have talked about before, the flow of information and its affect on the world.

Iwabuchi is focusing on the possibility for a potential “Japanization” and if that could be compared to the “Americanization” of the world. He argues that many of the products that Japan produce are “odorless” which means that they do not scream Japanese culture and that is why they are more appealing to many countries, such as the US.

Miller are also highlighting the fact that a lot of production actually goes South – North and raises the example of the telenovela industry with a case study of Ugly Betty that has been a success worldwide. This success have a few different ingredients, first that it has a Cinderella Story, second, that many people could feel a connection to the character/characters struggle/success/joy/sadness, third, the combination of the local and global and of course that it is easy to distribute and to consume (of often airs numerous times in one week).

So, what can we make out of these two articles? First I would say that this shows that things have changed, as mentioned in previous posts, the US might still be the major exporter of movies, music, sitcom/pop culture, although we have influence from many parts of the world. Japanese companies have bought some major studios in Hollywood and the US has bought a lot of telenovela from South America. Does this mean that these countries are taking over and changing the industry, well in one way it does, but I would say that it is changing to a more global/neutral production of these goods, something that could be digested all over the world.

This takes us back to the power relations; we can clearly see that this is not ruled by nation-states, they players here are the companies and also the consumers. As much as I hate to say it but the companies are there to make a profit and the profit will increase if the have more consumers, that is basic math. Again, globalization, technology and communication has a lot to do with this, we are no longer passive consumers, instead we are creating out own story, our own reality. To go back to the discussion we had in class, this is the new way of storytelling that has existed for centuries and now we are taking back that power.

Before I end this we should take a closer look at the international arena. Well, it is time to let the nation-states come into the discussion again, even though their role has changed it does not mean that they are not an important player. They are doing everything they can to keep their power and by doing so they are looking for threats for any other state. (This is especially in relations to the dominant players). Lets take a look at China and the US; the US view China as a threat not just because of their growing economy but because their growing economy does not come from “odorless” products. This is a big factor to take into consideration, China is different from the US and sometimes different is attractive and that is what the US is afraid of. Japan is also different from the US but different in a good way (according to the US) and Japan are not in the position to jeopardize the American hegemony, at least not yet. If that would be the case we would definitely have a different story.

Media Corporations and Politics

It's no secret that people use media in vastly different ways today compared to even twenty years ago. Not only is media use different, so is production and ownership. With globalization has come more condensed ownership of media outlets, with three companies controlling the majority of traditional communications methods. In this week's readings, I was particularly intrigued by McChesney's claim that communications companies dictate content with the goal of preserving the established political systems in the countries in which they are headquartered and operate - to further their own business interests.

While the corporate media is conservative as far as preserving the status quo for business purposes, I hardly think McChesney is correct when he says it inspires political apathy. If anything, I think the growing niche markets inspire more conversation and action amongst the populace. One can hardly attribute a lack of total social/economic/political revolution to a conspiring media conglomerate executive sitting behind his desk evilly plotting (then again, NewsCorp and Rupert Murdoch could be the potential exception with the evil plotting) to prevent political change for the purpose of profit.

Time Warner, Disney, and News Corporation dominate the global media scene, and that's unlikely to change any time soon. As long as the market and regulations (or lack thereof) allow for oligopoly in the media industry, it will exist. Over time the trend has run towards corporate media consolidation, and while having so few yet powerful organizations in charge of the media industry may not be in the best interest of the global population, I've had to just sigh and say, "it is what is."

Part of the reason I'm not more personally bothered by the corporate media structure is the ways in which people circumvent their influence. People no longer rely on content "from above" for news, they make their own. A theme I keep coming back to while blogging is the ability of people around the world to use the Internet to generate their own news, and have a space to debate information which is provided by the major media outlets. Media corporations may set the information agenda, but consumers ultimately determine what's done with their new knowledge.

Piracy, from one corner of the world to another and back again

In this weeks blog I would like to make some connections between the piracy and our previous discussions on the change of power, Americanization and the culture. For this weeks readings I will be concentration mainly on the Tristan Mattelart article.

As Mattelart suggest, piracy is the backside of globalization, which I in some extent would agree upon, although he is also highlighting the importance of the exchange in information and communication, as he puts it, to the South and the East. Further on I will refer to it as the developing world. That brings us to the point that we previously discussed in class, that the rest on the world (mainly the developing world) are only receivers of the dominant West/USA. I would argue that even though a lot of information, music, videos, movies etc. is coming from the West, and a lot of it is Hollywood produced, I would strongly argue that the receivers are looking at it from through their cultural shades.

Piracy is not a new phenomenon, and the distribution and copying of music-tapes, CDs, VCRs, DVDs etc has existed for a long time. What has changed today is that the music and film industry is losing more money than before. Today a private person could be hold accountable for downloading one single U2 album while the big bucks are still lost to the hard copies of music and DVDs in the developing world.

To be a little cynical, which I am usually not, I would not say that the money the music and film industry lose to the piracy is not of that big concern, since it is not a new phenomenon. The reason why the commercialized industry has started to react to piracy is because they are starting to lose money from their previous consumers, the people in the West. This also takes us back to the power-relations, both nationally and internationally. One single individual can actually make a change, good or bad but still, the individual in today’s society is one of the key players. To be noted this is not true worldwide.

So can we really call it the backside of globalization when more people are able to enjoy information!? As long as there are totalitarian governments with restrictions of what can and cannot be shown or heard on TV or the radio I would not say that piracy is the backside of globalization. Although I strongly agree that it is something that should be controlled in some way. More so to protect individuals and especially children from content that might not be appropriate and even harmful.

From a musicians or and artist point of view I would say that it is time to be creative, copyright might not be the only way to make money and is the only purpose or aim for an artist or is it to spread the music and joy that it brings!?

If someone in Nigeria would enjoy my music that they bought from the guy on the corner I would not get upset, I would be flattered (to mention is that I am not a musician, I am what you would call tone-deaf, so I might not be the right person to ask).

Now I would like to make the connection to Americanization, so what happens when people all around the world get to enjoy Pretty Woman, Eminem and Jersey Shore (if that is something people enjoy), are we being affected and changed into a cosmopolitan world with one culture. As far as I know this has not happened. I would say that the flow is coming from the West but what we call Hollywood production is now represented by a spectrum of different views and voices from around the world. The push for something different something new might not come direct from those people in Thailand or Malaysia who are engaging in piracy but it might come from the interaction among people. If it is someone you meet when you are traveling, engaging in second-life or someone in a certain facebook group, it does not matter, the interaction is there, constantly, due to globalization.

Apathetic and Cynical Viewers?

I would like to approach this blog in a bit of a more casual manner. I think that the closer we get to focusing on ideas that we actively see affecting our lives (like the role of Disney or the issue of piracy), the importance of relating to these issues from personal experience increases.

To start, I would like to pose a few overarching questions that are raised in the critique of McChesney’s article, “The Media System Goes Global.” Are we apathetic to the political process? Are we simply passive viewers of the media? Do we only view the media for entertainment? I’m not so sure, but McChesney definitely is.

McChesney firmly believes in the close interconnectedness between the media and the political system. I think that most people would agree. The media is used as a critical public sphere by which we discuss our democracy and the politicians in it. It is through the media that debates take place, and where we get a large amount of our information. McChesney furthers this argument by looking at organizations such as Disney, News Corp, and Time Warner, to show the dominance of their vertical and horizontal integration worldwide. He shows how this affects the economy, and therefore the commercialization of the media. This also affects the public sphere and politics as they push for their own interests.

There is no doubt in my mind that McChesney is right in these statements regarding commercialization, but what about his conclusions that as a result people possess increased apathy and cynicism?

There is no doubt that we can’t get away from media and advertisements – they are embedded in our society in countless ways. People are constantly talking about various media outlets for various reasons, and every time you listen to the radio, watch a tv show, watch the news, watch a movie, or walk down the street there are advertisements. There are even advertisements embedded in the programming we watch in the form of product placement. The media is also increasingly a jumble of repetitious news stories that simply show thin surface discussions of critical issues, as Cottle and Rai research in their article, Global 24/7 news providers: Emissaries of global dominance or global public sphere?”

I think the question is though, why do we watch media in the first place? Of course media is largely used for entertainment. Even politics can be viewed as a form of entertainment (a large concern for McChesney, I’m sure).

To do some research, I wanted to first cover a pressing question left opened in my mind from class: I wanted to know what a meme is. According to wordlnetweb.princeton.edu, a meme is “a cultural unit (an idea or value or pattern of behavior) that is passed from one person to another by non-genetic means (as by imitation).” At knowyourmeme.com there are countless Youtube links, posters, and other cultural images. There are clips from television shows, funny videos people uploaded individually, and commercials such as this: the never say no to panda. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/never-say-no-to-panda. I think though, that if you sift through these images, and really take a good look at what is represented, there is more there than people thoughtlessly joking around (although the panda is fairly amusing, and yes, at this site it is actually largely a joke). I would argue that youtube videos, images, and other technologies are a tool that shows how our culture is responding to the world that we live in.

I think my overarching point is that, as we discussed in class, people are finding their own new and innovative ways to use what does exist to speak out and to actively express themselves, such as in the example of social movements worldwide. There are even examples, such as John Stewart’s The Daily Show, where I believe we are simply using entertainment as a lighter way to actually face what is really going on in our world.

I don’t think that people’s minds are shut off. I don’t think that people are apathetic and uncaring about the world and the politicians and states that govern them. I do believe though, that people are up against a tough reality that is the large corporations and their impact on the media messages that reach consumers and on politics. I think that because of the large amount of media perpetration in our society, people have to look for entertainment to ease the harshness, even if it is through knowyourmeme.com, or through a funny political satire show. People are definitely expressing their opinions.

Education and Media Literacy

Reading about the EU and other countries' dedication to media literacy this week made me realize how inadequate my own education was on the subject. In elementary school the news and the Internet were never issues; not until middle school did I ever use the Internet, and not even on a regular basis until high school. I grew up watching the television news and having magazines and newspapers around the house, but I don't ever recall actually learning about media literacy beyond the ethical individualism dimension.

While there is an ever-expanding smorgasbord of information sources today, from news websites to satellite television to user-generated content/social media, people pick and choose their favorites, their preferred sources of information. Too often, this leads to a lack of variety of sources, which ultimately leaves information consumers with a bias in their news consumption. People who don't diversify the outlets from which they get their news may be less likely to question what they hear, and may not fully grasp necessary analytical skills if their information sources are all in line with their personal beliefs. If anything, no matter the source, people need to learn how to act more as information filters. I wish that media literacy education would focus more on critical thinking and importance of not accepting everything at face value.

As O'Neill says, much of media literacy's emphasis on information over regulation "assumes knowledge and competence on the part of the individual and what they need to know to play their role in the new media environment." I applaud the European Union in particular for establishing goals to make sure that its citizens will be equipped with that knowledge and competence, but at the same time I can't help but be concerned about those who won't ever wholly possess those skills.

I don't think further regulation is the answer, I believe that individuals are competent to make decisions about what content they feel is appropriate for themselves. But what I do worry about is that despite the ever-expanding world of modern media, people will still limit themselves to the information that fits with their world and their views, and forget to question or expand their news horizon.

Internet, Global Governance and Human Rights

This weeks readings got me thinking about the connection between, internet, global governance and human right. O’Neill’s reading focuses on the subject of Media Literacy and Communication Rights: Ethical Individualism in the New Media Environment and the Siochru and Girard article has a chapter on Global Governance Institutions, it got me thinking of the possibility to govern the internet internationally, what policies, regulations and laws that could be applied.

As O’Neill points out media literacy has become very important, first and foremost in Europe and are now finding its way to the United States. In the Western world many of us do have access to the internet and as a result, I would argue that media literacy and ethical individualism has become more important. Since a lot of people are moving more and more from the other channels that the media is distributed, the internet is playing a significant role when it comes to news, information and knowledge. I would definitely be in agreement with those emphasizing media literacy, although there are other aspects that we need to consider when it comes to the internet.

For example, media literacy’s need could be seen as a Western phenomenon, not only because of the individualistic approach but also because the internet is something we take for granted. Even though everyone might not have their own computer or access to the internet there are public places where one might be able to get online. On the other hand, access to the internet might not be the only obstacle to overcome. As we all know there are many restrictions made by totalitarian governments around the world to (according to them) protect their citizens from certain information. One of the main reasons is that they are afraid that it will overthrow and weaken the power of the state.

That leads us to the question of how we will globally govern the internet when, 1) Some people especially in the developing world do not have access to the internet 2) When some people do have access to the internet but not the information 3) That the people with full-access, are responsible enough to make ethical and moral decisions.

I would definitely call for some global regulations, policies or laws when it comes to the internet. It might seem impossible since different parts of the world have different focuses and aims when it comes to internet use. That takes us to the fact that the internet should only be regulated in regards of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is divided into two “sections” the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The main reason for this divide is because of the need of both these sights that the different actors had after the Cold War. This is how I think we would be able to cope with the differences between the Western need and the developing worlds need of regulating the internet.

Media Literacy in Education

What sparked my interest most out of today’s class was the idea of media literacy as a potential part of pre-collegiate education. Our class and our O’Neill reading, Media Literacy and Communication Rights: Ethical Individualism in the New Media Environment, both mentioned how the United States is the world’s largest producer of media, one of the largest consumers of media, and yet we have nothing worked into our public education system to teach our citizens to be media literate. This is not just an education issue, but a human rights issue. The EU, unlike the US, has raised media literacy as a public policy concern and has required that children and educators are informed in making personal critical evaluations of media content. This is intended to ultimately better prepare children to be active citizens and to simultaneously protect them against the growing dangers the digital environment harbors.

O’Neill sets up this debate by emphasizing that both the US and EU promote the idea of ethical individualism, meaning that individuals are increasingly given responsibility to make their own decisions on responsible behavior, opinions from media, and choices regarding what interactions they choose to have in the digital world. He expands to say that with new media becoming increasingly prevalent, these responsibilities become an increasingly important human rights issue. With less support and guidance, people are being left to determine their own acceptable standards. This is great in theory and is part of the foundations of our democracy, but it greatly endangers children. Both adults and children have communication rights, but, according to O’Neill, it is society’s responsibility to provide education to protect their best interests and to support them in this undertaking.

I would definitely agree with O’Neill and with the EU that children need this support. I think that media literacy is something that we should be concerned about both from a sociological and from a public policy standpoint. Over the past generations media and technology have exponentially grown and infiltrated our personal lives inside our homes. There is no escape from advertisements, a barrage of opinions, and greater threats on the internet and on social networking sights. While our class has been educated to critically approach all of these messages and opportunities, we have done so more gradually than the children of today’s age. Our generation brought about the creation and popularity of computer games, emails, and (dare I bring us back to the ever-popular) Facebook. We had time to establish social norms, to see the dangers slowly emerge, and to adjust our media literacy throughout our lives. Children in today’s age do not have such a luxury. They are brought into the digital world with no prior experience, a need for greater guidance, and facing greater threats.

I would argue that media literacy education is something that the US should seriously consider, if not for the sake of children's safety or for their basic human rights, but for the future of our society.

Thoughts on Sparks and Globalization

**First off, apologies everyone for the late post, had a bit of a migraine last night that kept me off the computer**

Globalization was something I was first introduced to as a formal concept in my first international affairs class years and years ago. Obviously it was a phenomenon I'd been familiar with - I think it's impossible to grow up in the United States these days without acknowledging the corporations, NGOs, and supranational organizations that have major cross-border influences.

In my past blog posts I've focused generally on the trends about which we've been reading or discussing in class, but this week I want to focus on Colin Sparks's article. Sparks approaches globalization from a perspective that neither champions globalization nor is 100% cynical about it. Sparks harshly critiques globalization as it's studied - throwing all existing paradigms out the window, noting that the intricacies of a massive issue cannot be narrowly categorized. He thinks that the US isn't the current hegemonic power, and that it is just a node amongst other actors in the world as far as media production, though it still reaps most of the profits. While it is true that local media is on the rise, particularly in the area of television, the US has the largest film industry which does have heavy global influence in terms of pop culture.

Controversial as some of his statements may be, I fully agree with Sparks when he says the the report of the nation-state's death has been greatly exaggerated. If anything, I think globalization has the potential to enhance the experience as being part of a nation - it can make someone feel more connected to their group, and make those experiences even more special and important to preserve and promote. Media globalization makes it even easier for nations to spread their culture and ties to diasporas, and unite nations in ways previously unheard of.

Globalization is good until it's not. A universal consensus on when "enough is enough" is unlikely, and different scholars, different leaders, and different average civilians have their own opinions on whether or not they feel an increasingly globalized world is beneficial or not. To the person who lost his manufacturing job due to outsourcing, globalization has more likely than not served a damaging role in his life. To the children living in an impoverished village, the arrival of an NGO that's established itself as an educational organization can completely change their futures in a positive way. I can't say whether globalization is good or bad, to me it's an entirely subjective matter.

Globalization, Good or Bad, Black or White

What struck me the most in this weeks reading was the article by Colin Sparks ”What’s wrong with globalization.” Therefore I would take the opportunity to show where I think Sparks is failing in his arguments and show my view of the globalization concept.

In the article, Sparks criticizes five of the main elements that usually are seen as consensus among different globalization scholars.

The overall problem I think this article is facing is that Sparks is trying to look at globalization from a rather narrow prospective, he is not considering the change of the world structure and the role of all international actors. Throughout the article he is arguing that the only driving factor is the American imperialism over the rest of the world. According to Sparks globalization is not a new phenomena, instead he choose to call it ‘capitalist development.’

Even though he recognize the different aspects of globalization he is constantly coming back to the economic impact that the US has, if it is over the media, the global institutions like the IMF, World Bank or the WTO, he is also arguing that culture is being commercialized.

In some aspects he is raising some interesting and points, although at times it feels like Sparks is comparing apples to oranges. He is talking about the frame of the globalization but he is forgetting to look at the actual process, what is really happening within these different sectors that we are analyzing. Not to forget is that most globalization scholars are sociologists and anthropologists. Therefore it is even more crucial to look at the impact of the individual while studying the process of globalization.

I view globalization as a process that not necessarily a straightforward process, it can take many turns since globalization is build-up by and contains many different sectors, for example, economy, politics, culture, media, communication etc. This view would be in lines with Appadurai. That means that the process of globalization does not have affect us in the same way all over the world. Many critics argue that we are moving in the same direction and that the whole world is going to be dominated by the evil West/US.

I would say that due to globalization we have the opportunity to pick and choose and many times the local and national get a more significant role. Many times called ‘glocalization,’ it could either be something local being lifted to a global level or something global being adopted by the local. That brings us to another point regarding ‘contra-flow’ that Castell is mentioning, which means that it is not just the US that pick and choose and make it their own (if it is a TV show, movie, product, newspaper, etc). Instead the influence in coming from all over, from many different directions and angles which make the end product something that could be globally looked upon instead of ‘Americanized’.

At the same time as I do agree with Appadurai and his argument of the importance of the culture and the process flow but I have to combine this concept with what Ronald Robertson says, ‘that globalization makes us aware of ourselves as being a part of the world.’ To take it a step further is to connect it to the concept of cosmopolitanism. With the notion of us being a part of the world we could also work for and change the world as a whole. As stated in previous posts I would say that being a global citizen is to take it too far, although since the individual has got a more powerful role within the international system today, we are able to embrace our subcultures and form new structures that are not state-bound. I would like to argue that in the lines of cosmopolitanism I think that human rights and environmental rights have got itself a new forum on the international arena and this might be an embryo of cosmopolitanism.

Globalization and its Implications on Cultural Awareness

In class today we began discussing the implications for globalization on our future careers, particularly for those who seek a career with the Foreign Service or who seek to influence local populations by global means. What I took out of the discussion was the need to be aware of the way that globalization has changed international interactions, its complexity, and how it applies to global diversity. Globalization has created new challenges.

As I have previously expressed in my posts, I don’t see the nation state as dissolving. I don’t see globalization as a force that will completely unravel the nation-filled world that we live in today. I do however, see the world as shifting. There are new players such as international and national corporations, NGOs, and the individual, among others, that now have an increasingly larger influence and say in governance.

Sinclair, in his article Globalization, Supranational Institutions, and Media, explains this phenomenon in terms of levels of cultural identity. This is something that aligns itself smoothly with my own personal beliefs since I tend to view the world from a more cultural perspective (versus an economic or political one, as other globalization scholars do). He explains how the individuals and the world face different levels of cultural identity. These include a local level, a micro-regional level, a regional level, a macro-regional level, and an international level. Globalization, in his mind, simply adds a new greater level/ lens through which we view and interact with the world. I think that this is very important because this idea doesn’t approach globalization as an occurrence that will overwrite the world as we know it, but simply as an addition that will add a new level of complexity and understanding.

I think that, taking this idea, it is easier to approach the question posed in class about the implications for globalization on our future careers. Personally, I think that globalization, in adding a new level of understanding, provides us with a greater knowledge of existing differences amongst cultures. It gives us an understanding that there is in fact another approach to life, (something that someone living in a remote village with no access to the outside would may not even consider), and then gives us the abilities to go and find out what those distinctions are and furthermore the ability to apply them. There are of course cultural and personal differences we find in our daily lives on the smaller local and regional scales, and the international level of cultural identity introduces us to more nations and groups, but globalization, in my opinion, takes all of these ideas and overlaps them in various ways. With globalization we see what happens when, for instance, an American movie is created to appeal to global audiences and is played in the East. We see how this compares to the Eastern country’s preference versus their own country-made movies.

I really believe that globalization, as controversial as it might be, has allowed people to form a more open mind and an innate better understanding of the world’s diversity. People don’t really have a choice to ignore it if they want to be successful on a global scale. I think if anything, it creates more potential for international interactions, campaigns, and progress.

Thoughts on Modern Nationalism

From an academic perspective I've always found nationalism fascinating, mostly because it's not been something I've been able to understand that well on a personal level - at least not nationalism in terms of "hyper-patriotism." Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities was the first academic reading I ever undertook, though being in high school at the time I missed the significance and meaning behind the "imagined" concept. A couple years ago I did a short study abroad session to some countries in central Europe, and the trip's focus was on late 19th and early 20th century nationalism in those states. The strength of nationalism's force from a psychological perspective - what it can make people do - is unbelievable. But I've never felt that sense of hyper-patriotism, and while I understand what it does, I still am learning how it can develop.

I really don't want to give the Tea Party credit as a "nation," but it is a group of people who share similar political interests and goals. That is what unites them, though they also tend to have language, socioeconomic background, and a religion in common. Nations aren't centralized organizations, and neither is the Tea Party. As a group the media has been critical in bringing together tea partiers, through blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and larger outlets such as Fox News. The Tea Party movement has its spokespeople, i.e. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, who use their television shows and writings to unite the Tea Party Nation, as other members of the group share their messages as well. Whether or not the Tea Party can actually be considered a nation (and I really don't want to give them that much credit), the way people have united under it and use the media to bring themselves together under this banner of an imaginary community of which they are members is a contemporary example of media influence on nation development.

As for cosmopolitanism, I think the concept is admirable. Yet I wonder if the very idea of "global ties" defeats the purpose of people having the common bonds that the nation (or nation-state) provides. I'm reminded of one of the reasons why people join sororities and fraternities in college - "to make a large community feel smaller." Cosmopolitanism seems to defeat the purpose of nationalism: people feel less connected to one another on a personal level when part of a larger group, even if they are more connected on a technical level. Waisbord references Calhoun when he mentions that cosmopolitanism lacks an "emotional grip." Nationalism is about connections that people feel, not just ones that exist. One can be part of a nation but not feel nationalism. Therefore, cosmopolitanism is not a strong alternative or heir to nationalism.

I like feeling a part of something, having something culturally in common with other people. But part of what makes being a member of a nation (in the interest of full disclosure: I consider myself part of what New Englanders call "Red Sox Nation") is not just the ability to be connected by technology: it's language or jargon, religion, culture, background, or location. Nationalism will never change - it will always exist in one form or another. It's an emotion turned theory that cannot be replaced, but can be studied further from multiple dimensions.

The Nation-State vs. Cosmopolitanism

This weeks reading has raised a lot of questions about the role of the nation-stat and the difference between a nation-state and the nation. I would like to argue that there is a distinctive difference between the two and at the same time they are very interconnected.

I view the nation-state as the framework of the nation or the spine of it, the nation-state has obligations to its citizens, to provide them their rights, at the same time the citizens within the states has obligations to the state, to follow the laws and so on. The nation-state is a geopolitical entity, in contrast to the nation. I would also like to mention that even today there are many nations around the world that are not nation-states.

So what could be classified as a nation; culture, religion, ethnicity, language, history!? As we move into a more unified world do we really need to classify a nation by all of these attributes?

Sometimes I wonder what happened to the time when I was little and played hide and seek with my friends, or the first time I went to a disco or the fact that I all of a sudden had my own apartment on the other side of the globe. Life is a process and so is everything else in the world. At one point in time we had to call our friends to schedule a meeting, today we can reach almost everyone either on their cell, by text, on twitter, facebook, you name it.

So where do I want to go with this, well, time is something that we really cannot control and even understand, I would say that it is the same with a process. As I have stated in previous posts I think that due to these tools of communication the world is changing. It is hard to predict the future since this process can take many turns, what we do know is that it is changing the way we communicate.

Due to this change within communication I think that the notion of the nation will change. In our everyday life we tend to identify with one/many groups or to a specific sub-culture. Today it is possible to find these groups or cultures beyond the nation-states borders. Of course this will have an affect on our view of the nation.

Does this mean that we are moving towards a cosmopolitan world, maybe, maybe not. I believe that due to this international exchange of information we have opened up to an international discussion about human rights and the rights of all people. Does that mean that all humans one day would become global citizens? It is a beautiful vision and dream of many, unfortunately that might just be it. But does it really have to be black or white; I would say that the shade of gray might be where we need to focus.

There are so many times that I have been wearing Sweden’s national colors, screamed and cried, both out of joy and sadness. Why? Because of a game of soccer. Does this mean that I am a hard-core patriot? Well I have chosen to live my life in the United States and I wish to spend the rest of my life here.

This might be something I will discuss further in some of my coming posts, for now I will just say. Try to look for the shades of grey in the everyday life…

The Future of Nation States

Questions concerning the future of the nation state and of nationalism filled our readings this week. I personally disagree with those who say that the nation state will dissolve, and certainly disagree with the idea that populations will form under a large global government or into a cosmopolitan reality. I would also disagree with those who hold opposite opinions that the nation state will continue to exist as is, even in the face of globalization and media expansion. I think that, instead, we must look for a middle ground that views the nation state as a shifting being that is adapting in the new age to hold its control.

As Castells explains in his article on the new public sphere, the nation-state is undergoing a series of crises. These include, as he defines them, a Crisis of Efficiency, Crisis of Legitimacy, Crisis of Identity, and Crisis of Equity. Waisbord explains in his article “Media and the Reinvention of the Nation”, that the nation has been challenged “from outside” through globalization and “from inside” by multiculturalism. Media and globalization have allows for public actors and civil society to increasingly gain a larger voice and ability to push for political and social change. Similarly cultures have been able to thrive and gain international strength and unity, especially, as Karim explains in his article on international communication and diasporas, in the cases of diasporas and formation of “imaginary nations.” Control is a powerful desire, however, and the nation-states have needed to and will continue to use media to their advantage and adapt in order to maintain their influence and authority.

The solution for nations, according to Castells, has been to become a network-state. In the same way that civil society has networked across the globe to create a new global public sphere, nation-states have also had to create network-state organizations that link multiple countries and international institutions that address cross-national and global issues. Karim explains how some nations, such as India and Israel, have worked with their diasporas through governmental positions as a result of their own national self-reassessments. While some nation-states, such as China, have banned media uses and tools in order to maintain their control and fight against current trends, other nation-states have embraced media and tried to work with new NGOs, grassroots organizations, diaspora populations and the like.

The common threads between Castell’s, Waisbord, and Karim’s arguments, in my opinion, are that nations are challenged as they are becoming more imagined, interconnected, and complex as a result of media’s influence. As Hayden said I don’t believe that society is ready for or interested in an international government, but I do believe that slowly civil society is gaining increasing control and that nation states must learn to incorporate civil society into their decision making to keep their overall legitimate existence. I think that more than anything, nation-states must increasingly look beyond borders as they redefine the concept of nationhood; as people become more globally interconnected, they are being exposed to increasingly more complex histories and cultural stories that appeal to their desire for belonging. People are assimilating and moving around the world completely differently than they were decades ago because of their ability to use media to determine their own senses of nationhood. Nations must take all of this into consideration as they too transform.

Active consumption, passive participation?

All theories of international communications rely to some extent on the idea of an active or passive consumer.

Consumers of media aren't given enough credit by theorists, particularly the Frankfurt School. People can be products of their own environment, but in an age where there are more outlets for news and information - and more opportunities for individuals to shape the news themselves - the passive media consumer becomes more of an anomaly.

Bias always plays a role in media consumption, regardless of whether it is "left" or "right," or bias by the consumer or producer. An active consumer of media can opt to only watch Fox News, and only read papers run by Rupert Murdoch - but they still have their own bias in the balance of what information they choose to digest. That person is "active" in that they choose where to get their information, but their passivity is also indicated by a lack of variation in sources. To be fair, the same thing could be said of someone who exclusively gets their information from CNN.

Our society - for this purpose, I will define it as the developed world - has access to so much information, that choosing to participate is indicative of being an active consumer. The opportunities for editorializing, however, are a danger to critical thinking and passivity. Political commentators and pundits are constant features of 24 hour news networks, and often bring in a large segment of an audience. What I wonder, though, is how willing those audiences are to criticize and question what they hear.

With so much information and so many forms of media available for consumption and participation, one would assume that the idea of a passive audience found in the dependency theory and the propaganda models of communications would be outdated. But with the ease of obtaining such information, and the variation of channels through which it comes, analyzing the news and other forms of media may not be a consumer's priority. Since there are outlets for different ideologies and world views, people can actively choose what to consume, but consume it passively.

The more choice there is, the less critical thinking consumers do. But having decisions on what media to follow indicates active consumers with the ability to be critical in their choices - the hope is that at some point, they will be just as critical in processing information.

International Communication Theory -- Often Selling People Short

I definitely think that much of international communication theory sells short the human mind’s ability to make personal and active decisions. In his book, International Communication, Continuity and Change, Thussu devotes his second chapter, “Approaches to Theorizing International Communication,” to providing the historical framework for looking at communication theory (2006).

A common theme throughout Thussu’s chapter was the idea of humans as being “passive receivers” or “cultural dupes.” Even the earliest ideas in international communication theory assumed that people are easily persuaded. In the 20th century Walter Lippmann expressed his ideas on public opinion manipulation by governments (p.41). He saw communication, as Professor Hayden says, as a “magic bullet” for unquestioningly influencing opinion. Karl Marx also questioned the role of power and its ability to control the public.

Thussu continues to show how, around WWII, fears of Hitler’s ability to use propaganda and create the Holocaust fostered the negative view of communication and its power. The Cold War further reinforced to pessimists that communication could be used to create the enemy Soviet power. It was also used by the Soviets to influence new populations and nation states to change course and follow, as they thought blindly, behind their ideals.

Theories throughout these decades mirrored cynical thoughts. When culture and development studies began in the late 20th century, communication was still seen from a top-down and linear approach and influenced Modernization Theorists. This itself was not a negative view of communication and was merely a reaction to the pressures of the Cold War and desire by the West to aid developing countries. Western countries simply saw their ways as superior. The Dependency and Structural Imperialism theories, however, stated otherwise. They argued that because of this Westernization, peripheral developing countries were dependent on the core, more economically successful, countries in the West (p. 42-50). A theory for why this is sustained, Hegemony, further expressed that people tacitly give the power to control their lives to others (p.52-53). The Frankfurt School’s Critical Theorists also theoretically undermined peoples’ ability to make choices and gave that power instead to mass media (53-54).

I personally believe that theorists need to gain faith in the population’s ability to make decisions for themselves. There are numerous examples of how people are not simply "duped" by mass media without question. Two examples from our class and from the Thussu reading are that of Cultivation Research which shows how people will change their attitudes over time and not from one viewing of a program, and of the Two Step Flow Hypothesis which shows that people are influenced not directly from media but by their opinion leaders.

I think that people are most influenced by their choices that they make on their societal affiliations. People choose which paths and groups they want to relate to most, and it is this desire to fit into their paths’/groups’ common behaviors, opinions, and social norms that allows them to be affected by messages. It is an individual’s choice to decide values they hold closest and which opinion leaders they will take their lead from.

This is not to say that humans should be given too much credit such as in the cultural studies perspective of international communication discussed by Thussu which assumes that people are extremely active and frequent players in their interpretation of messages. It is unrealistic to assume that people will seek out and hold with them all knowledge on particular subjects. In an election, for example, people turn to their party leaders to guide them in what to think and to fill them in on their party’s interpretation of a subject. That person though, as previously stated, has chosen to follow that person. There is an active decision making process that previously took place, and they are therefore making their own decisions and are not “cultural dupes” as much of theoretical history concludes.