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.