Global governing bodies and the increased participation of civil society are crucial to concerns of media ownership in this current historical moment. Although the global financial crisis of 2007 to today is defined by the market dominance of transnational corporations (TNCs) and nation states working to advance their interests, the regulation of monopolies and subsequent increase in multidirectional flows of media could encourage a more “free free market” system if commissioned by an international regulatory body with the representation of the public sphere.
As many global monopolies have gone bankrupt, reorganized and become property of multiple countries, global governance of media is necessary to guarantee consumers the best products, prices, access to technology and freedom of use. This unique economic environment lends itself to a form of pure, never before seen global governance with the representation of global civil society. International state and non-state actors should manage media regulations in industry and society and reflect the values of their nation-states. Siochru and Girard theorize that while members would remain sovereign, the implementation of international relation principles would allow for greater transparency among participants and may help protect from the development of neoliberal democracies.
If I currently represented the public sphere in an assembly concerning global governance, I would promote increased multidirectional flows of media. In order to globally pluralize media offerings, competition against TNC monopolies should be encouraged through the regulation of technology and program prices on an international scale. Rai and Cottle describe the success of this approach when discussing the pluralization of media in the non-Western world due to cheaply priced locally and internationally syndicated programming. In modern society, global citizens should not pay exorbitant prices for either media produced locally or non-locally as disparities in price, often a result of “oligopological” control, limit global access to media and have lead to Western media dominance.
In contemporary globalized society, an international approach to media governance is necessary just as today’s network society, says Castelles, calls for the inclusion of civil society in addressing the concerns of conglomerated media ownership. With these advances, market dominance by TNCs and affiliated nation states may dissolve at increased low-cost competition and international plurality.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Local vs Global Media
Almost all of the readings touched upon the influence of local media versus global media. As Tunstall clearly points out, local, national, and regional media tend to have a stronger influence than international media. Thussu states that the localization of the global media’s main objective is to merely make a profit. Even with the emergence of satellite television and an increase in the number of channels, the majority are merely at the national and regional levels with only those dominated by the West ever reaching the international level. Mcchesney relates the structure of the current global media system to a neoliberal democracy which has resulted in a populace that is passive and apathetic concerned more with consumption than any kind of actual understanding.
Wan-Ying Lin’s piece was the one that interested me the most which spoke upon the importance of geo-ethnic media and the role it plays in both integrating minorities into society and also helping preserve their own culture. Its storytelling role also helps to bring the community together and became active participants within the host societies. I do think that Lin brings up an important point though that ethnic media’s role can be taken to the extreme where immigrant populations are more concerned with home news coverage than with what is actually taking place within the local community. I believe that geo-ethnic media has truly reached its goal once it has been able to provide citizens with both information on their home countries and local news and opportunities in order for them to become more incorporated into the community.
Wan-Ying Lin’s piece was the one that interested me the most which spoke upon the importance of geo-ethnic media and the role it plays in both integrating minorities into society and also helping preserve their own culture. Its storytelling role also helps to bring the community together and became active participants within the host societies. I do think that Lin brings up an important point though that ethnic media’s role can be taken to the extreme where immigrant populations are more concerned with home news coverage than with what is actually taking place within the local community. I believe that geo-ethnic media has truly reached its goal once it has been able to provide citizens with both information on their home countries and local news and opportunities in order for them to become more incorporated into the community.
Global Media Perspectives: Mogul Strategies to Consumer Ideology
The readings for this week comprise a number of related notions regarding the spread of media from an international perspective. Beginning at the top with the media giants and their ability to distribute across the global frontier and ending with ten person geo-ethnic "daily" publications, ours is a day and age of ubiquitous communication. But to what end? In an attempt to synthesize the material in my own mind, I will briefly reflect on the areas that caught my eye.
McChesney, in his article regarding a global media system, points out the "increasingly intertwined" nature of media and global capitalism and illustrates this in a number of ways. His continual references to Rupert Murdoch's strategies (and reputations) around the world show the complex nature of the media industry that Murdoch has indeed fostered. The evolution of the media industry from a "West to the Rest" philosophy is still in the development stages but it becomes clear with Murdoch's international strategies in India that the media giants recognize the importance of local interests. As opposed to the notion of "Americanization" it is instead a notion of commercialism that surrounds the media progression and the quote from the head of Norway's largest media firm puts things in perspective, "We want to position ourselves so if Kirch or Murdoch want to sell in Scandinavia, they'll come to us first."
Tunstall provides an interesting perspective using population as a metric to argue that the term "globalization" may not be the most apt term for the current international media situation. The four distinct and self-sufficient media regions of the world provide a framework for international media to access but, as Tunstall point out, the biggest competitor for national media is not international but rather a more local perspective- regional media. As 74% of the world's population falls into these four media regions, it becomes increasingly important for a media firm to establish strong distribution ties within each region in order to be successful. As McChesney had pointed out, Murdoch needed distribution ties in India in order to have an opportunity to be successful, and this notion carries as the rule in global media strategy today.
Turning the reflection to a much more street-level view, what about the notion of geo-ethnic storytelling and its role within a local ethnic community within the larger perspective of media in the area? My mind focuses on the importance of print media at this time for these daily geo-ethnic stories to have relevance. Although many of the stories are simply borrowed from internet sources, the print media remains an important avenue for an immigrant to stay connected with the homeland. It remains important, however, for a balance to exist between stories from home and stories from the neighborhood. There is value in feeling connected to home but it is equally important that the immigrants connect with the community around them.
All in all, the readings provide a plethora of viewpoints from which to contemplate global media structure both from the mindset of a mogul like Rupert Murdoch and on the level of a local citizen with a non-Western perspective. It remains to be seen how successful the implementation of some international media strategies will prove to be but it is certainly an issue to follow as we move further into the 21st century.
McChesney, in his article regarding a global media system, points out the "increasingly intertwined" nature of media and global capitalism and illustrates this in a number of ways. His continual references to Rupert Murdoch's strategies (and reputations) around the world show the complex nature of the media industry that Murdoch has indeed fostered. The evolution of the media industry from a "West to the Rest" philosophy is still in the development stages but it becomes clear with Murdoch's international strategies in India that the media giants recognize the importance of local interests. As opposed to the notion of "Americanization" it is instead a notion of commercialism that surrounds the media progression and the quote from the head of Norway's largest media firm puts things in perspective, "We want to position ourselves so if Kirch or Murdoch want to sell in Scandinavia, they'll come to us first."
Tunstall provides an interesting perspective using population as a metric to argue that the term "globalization" may not be the most apt term for the current international media situation. The four distinct and self-sufficient media regions of the world provide a framework for international media to access but, as Tunstall point out, the biggest competitor for national media is not international but rather a more local perspective- regional media. As 74% of the world's population falls into these four media regions, it becomes increasingly important for a media firm to establish strong distribution ties within each region in order to be successful. As McChesney had pointed out, Murdoch needed distribution ties in India in order to have an opportunity to be successful, and this notion carries as the rule in global media strategy today.
Turning the reflection to a much more street-level view, what about the notion of geo-ethnic storytelling and its role within a local ethnic community within the larger perspective of media in the area? My mind focuses on the importance of print media at this time for these daily geo-ethnic stories to have relevance. Although many of the stories are simply borrowed from internet sources, the print media remains an important avenue for an immigrant to stay connected with the homeland. It remains important, however, for a balance to exist between stories from home and stories from the neighborhood. There is value in feeling connected to home but it is equally important that the immigrants connect with the community around them.
All in all, the readings provide a plethora of viewpoints from which to contemplate global media structure both from the mindset of a mogul like Rupert Murdoch and on the level of a local citizen with a non-Western perspective. It remains to be seen how successful the implementation of some international media strategies will prove to be but it is certainly an issue to follow as we move further into the 21st century.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Notions of Power
All four sets of authors from this week’s readings- McChesney, Thussu, Tunstall, and Rai and Cottle- would agree that there is global media system that is constantly refashioning its global flows of information. I also believe that they would probably all agree that knowledge (or in other words, information) is power- power that is being used to shape the ‘global public sphere’.
McChesney, in his article, “The Media System Goes Global”, discusses the rise of the global media system and how just a few U.S. media firms have driven its emergence. Within his analysis, he examines the global commercial media system that McChesney holds will respect no tradition or customs (McChesney 202). This section of his article made me reflect on my on my trip to Spain this past summer. I spent a significant amount of time visiting with my cousins while I was there who are in their late teens and early twenties. They were talking up a storm about Grey’s Anatomy, Ugly Betty, and ER. As I was reading this week, I remember thinking to myself as we conversed about American television, that it was incredible that as foreign as our surroundings may have been, our conversation allowed us to connect about something we could all understand but also that could transfix them with such excitement. They continued to say that they really did not enjoy watching too many Spanish television shows because the American ones are better (even though they are dubbed). I am sure if the owners behind the top TNC’s were in the room, they would have been quite pleased with what they would deem a success. I, however, was slightly disappointed that we could not engage in a conversation about, what Rai and Cottle call, a ‘contraflow’ or even something within pop Spanish culture that was just as distinct as something within pop American culture.
McChesney also contends that with the depoliticized environment, there is more room for economic liberalization (within the context of neoliberal democracy) to expand the global commercial media system’s reach and the extent to which it is embedded. With the information in the hands of a limited group of rich corporations, they have control (or power) over what and how information is disseminated and to whom. Within McChesney’s examination of the global commercial media system, he cites Disney as part of the holy trinity of the global media system because it is “the ultimate global consumer goods company”. I believe that since this article was written, Disney has expanded into the adventure tourism market by offering family tours to Machu Picchu in Peru. This demonstrates the extensive power of what economic liberalization can do within the global commercial media system.
Thussu concludes that ‘soft’ media power is firmly underpinned by ‘hard’ political and economic power (Thussu 236). We do have to be conscious that even though over time global capitalism has emerged, is expanding, and becoming more deeply embedded in the concept of the ‘global public sphere’, that it is not the only form of political and economic power that exists in the world. With the power of dominating ‘soft’ media power comes some responsibility to beware that how news and information is presented could greatly affect the stability of the world system. This is especially true given that today, there are so many information flows internationally which are contribute to global, regional, national, and local cultures.
Tunstall also makes some interesting points about power within his article, “Anglo-American, Global, and Euro-American Media Versus Media Nationalism”, that I would like to highlight. First, he says that the term globalization is of U.S. origin. This term is thrown around so much, that sometimes it is very easy to lose sight of that. The word globalization is associated with power not because of what it means, but because of the power behind its origin. Second, within Tunstall’s argument, it is evident that population size must be considered within the three global media systems he identifies- national, local, and neighboring nation-state. Third, he argues that there direct and indirect media exports and extrapolates how indirect media exports are latent with power from where the media is exported, translated and/or edited. Third, Tunstall’s point is that nationalism is still relevant even as a the global media system takes off strong because people want to get their local news in their local languages from journalists with their distinctive cultural history. India and China are the most populous countries in the world. Imagine if they dominate or play a key role in the global media system. If this ever happens, the global public sphere would be forced to dramatically change.
Rai and Cottle also discuss notions of power within their article, “Global Mediations: On the changing ecology of satellite television news”. They argue that the media is becoming more localized and is contributing to the greater ‘global public sphere’ of 24/7 satellite news. Rai and Cottle allude to the ‘regionalized colonization’ of the media in certain places as a result of 24/7 satellite news. Beyond the power of the West over the East within the media, it is also important to note that there are notions of inequality of the reach and/or access to media in poorer countries.
Ideally, the ‘global media system’ should be fair for all. However, I am not sure that will ever be the case as long as global capitalism remains the dominant international economic and social system. In conclusion, I am very intrigued to watch as the ‘global public sphere’ and the ‘global media system’ plays out as varying degrees and notions of power challenges them.
Modern Oligopoly and the Decline of Eglatarian Democracy
The concept I found to be the most intriguing in this week’s readings was not provided by Thussu, McChesney or Tunstall but, however, by George Orwell in his assertion that neoliberal democracy is a setting in which “unpopular ideas can be silenced and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for an official ban.” Prior to uncovering this proposal in McChesney’s article, The Media System Goes Global, I did not recognize the danger associated with modern oligopoly and the subsequent decline of egalitarian democracy.
McChesney asserts that political pessimism is needed to maintain electoral democracy and economic order. Contemporary society has seen the emergence of a system that offers services based on profitability and not founded on consumers’ wants. Media literacy and political awareness are crucial in preventing wealthy dominant conglomerations from wielding absolute political and economic power gained from global consumer reliance.
Although I traditionally viewed the emergence of globalised society and the continuance of institutional democracy as measures of progress, I found Orwell’s unpublished introduction to Animal Farm to be an eerie premonition for ungoverned free market media. While Thussu’s discussion on “glocalization” reveals culturally specific media as potentially beneficial to the consumer and profitable for the producers, I am weary of the lack of media literacy and political voice granted to civil society as transnational corporations (TNC) become increasingly powerful, greedy and faceless.
Like Orwell and McChesney, I fear that neoliberal democracy, if not monitored, will become an opiate to the people in which the ability to vote secures nothing but TNCs' ability to act, unencumbered, in their own commercial interests.
McChesney asserts that political pessimism is needed to maintain electoral democracy and economic order. Contemporary society has seen the emergence of a system that offers services based on profitability and not founded on consumers’ wants. Media literacy and political awareness are crucial in preventing wealthy dominant conglomerations from wielding absolute political and economic power gained from global consumer reliance.
Although I traditionally viewed the emergence of globalised society and the continuance of institutional democracy as measures of progress, I found Orwell’s unpublished introduction to Animal Farm to be an eerie premonition for ungoverned free market media. While Thussu’s discussion on “glocalization” reveals culturally specific media as potentially beneficial to the consumer and profitable for the producers, I am weary of the lack of media literacy and political voice granted to civil society as transnational corporations (TNC) become increasingly powerful, greedy and faceless.
Like Orwell and McChesney, I fear that neoliberal democracy, if not monitored, will become an opiate to the people in which the ability to vote secures nothing but TNCs' ability to act, unencumbered, in their own commercial interests.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Pipe dreams and the future of global journalism
Whether nation-states ought to consider revising the global governance of media systems could fill an entire thesis at least, but I'll try to condense my opinions into a few pithy paragraphs. There are three essential factors to consider here:
1) Economic pressures are rapidly changing the face of domestic and global journalism, and it seems likely that following a twentieth century model will lead to the demise of journalism as we know it.
2) Global media and journalism are increasingly dominated by a handful of transnational conglomerates.
3) Media have been documented to influence culture and conflict within and between nation-states.
Economically, it seems clear that media must change. Print journalism is an economically unsustainable model, and in the West at least, media giants seem to prioritize commercial appeal above civic and educational value. If we accept that communication and power are closely connected, we must be wary of any policies that empower an already influential corporate oligarchy. But is it possible, or even desirable, to break up the existing media powerhouses? Perhaps the solution lies in the creation of a publicly funded international competitor, a sort of global public broadcasting hydra to battle the existing media behemoths.
The corporation would produce news and cultural materials with a cosmopolitan flavor. Each nation on Earth would contribute to the funding by paying dues proportional to its GDP, and it would be staffed by a cosmopolitan collection of journalists and entertainers and governed by an omnilateral board in which every nation would have one representative and equal voting power. No doubt such a corporation would struggle to compete with the existing media giants, and it would feel the same pressure to privatize that many public news sources have felt in recent years and it would certainly be subject to all the problems that plague international bureaucracies. But perhaps its governance structure and mandate on promoting transnational issues would enable it to avoid some of the disadvantages of the existing system, in which Rupert Murdoch and his counterparts have such a disturbing degree of power in the global public sphere.
1) Economic pressures are rapidly changing the face of domestic and global journalism, and it seems likely that following a twentieth century model will lead to the demise of journalism as we know it.
2) Global media and journalism are increasingly dominated by a handful of transnational conglomerates.
3) Media have been documented to influence culture and conflict within and between nation-states.
Economically, it seems clear that media must change. Print journalism is an economically unsustainable model, and in the West at least, media giants seem to prioritize commercial appeal above civic and educational value. If we accept that communication and power are closely connected, we must be wary of any policies that empower an already influential corporate oligarchy. But is it possible, or even desirable, to break up the existing media powerhouses? Perhaps the solution lies in the creation of a publicly funded international competitor, a sort of global public broadcasting hydra to battle the existing media behemoths.
The corporation would produce news and cultural materials with a cosmopolitan flavor. Each nation on Earth would contribute to the funding by paying dues proportional to its GDP, and it would be staffed by a cosmopolitan collection of journalists and entertainers and governed by an omnilateral board in which every nation would have one representative and equal voting power. No doubt such a corporation would struggle to compete with the existing media giants, and it would feel the same pressure to privatize that many public news sources have felt in recent years and it would certainly be subject to all the problems that plague international bureaucracies. But perhaps its governance structure and mandate on promoting transnational issues would enable it to avoid some of the disadvantages of the existing system, in which Rupert Murdoch and his counterparts have such a disturbing degree of power in the global public sphere.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Hegemony isn't everything
Somewhere, deep within a secret lair carved into a live volcano, a gang of Western-bred cultural imperialists is no doubt muttering in dismay at this week's readings. How disappointing to learn that pushing out billions of dollars worth of cultural media products can't ensure omnipresence and omnipotence.
I think all of the writers would agree that global media markets are growing, and that open economic policies favor their continued growth. I think they'd also agree that a "global" media market doesn't mean that all points of the world import to and export from all other points of the world. Western producers, and the U.S. specifically, dominate global media production and export markets. And I think they'd agree that, with a few exceptions, national and regional media tend to exert more influence than global media.
McChesney follows the globalization of media culture to a rather bleak destination: a politically apathetic nation of contented consumers more concerned with market freedoms than social activism. It's not an inevitability so much as an ideal environment, but I think a lot of the symptoms of media globalization that McChesney describes--the consolidation of power, a compliant consumerist populace, the increase of escapist entertainment--have an Orwellian tinge about them.
Fortunately, there seems to be a consensus among the writers that Western cultural imperialism isn't a forgone conclusion, since the technology that's enabling Western media giants to extend their reach around the globe is also empowering national and regional media producers. Ultimately, the global media landscape is far too complicated to meet traditional assumptions of core-periphery or modernization paradigms. As Cottle and Rai assert, Understanding what "global media" means and what its social, cultural and economic impact will be requires a more empirical analysis of information flows.
***
OK, here's my post-class update as of October 7: Perhaps I've underestimated those cultural imperialists. No doubt my naivete would inspire some crescendo-ing villanous laughter from the lot of them. On my first reading of this week's texts, I think I overestimated the strength of the media contraflows, but after talking about it in class last night, I feel like they're not really strong enough to counterbalance the effects of cultural hegemony. It's sort of like shining a flashlight in a lighthouse window. Sure, you're casting a feeble little beam in the opposite direction, and maybe you can even illuminate a few pockets that the beacon doesn't reach, but in terms of strength, distance and influence, there's really no contest.
I think all of the writers would agree that global media markets are growing, and that open economic policies favor their continued growth. I think they'd also agree that a "global" media market doesn't mean that all points of the world import to and export from all other points of the world. Western producers, and the U.S. specifically, dominate global media production and export markets. And I think they'd agree that, with a few exceptions, national and regional media tend to exert more influence than global media.
McChesney follows the globalization of media culture to a rather bleak destination: a politically apathetic nation of contented consumers more concerned with market freedoms than social activism. It's not an inevitability so much as an ideal environment, but I think a lot of the symptoms of media globalization that McChesney describes--the consolidation of power, a compliant consumerist populace, the increase of escapist entertainment--have an Orwellian tinge about them.
Fortunately, there seems to be a consensus among the writers that Western cultural imperialism isn't a forgone conclusion, since the technology that's enabling Western media giants to extend their reach around the globe is also empowering national and regional media producers. Ultimately, the global media landscape is far too complicated to meet traditional assumptions of core-periphery or modernization paradigms. As Cottle and Rai assert, Understanding what "global media" means and what its social, cultural and economic impact will be requires a more empirical analysis of information flows.
***
OK, here's my post-class update as of October 7: Perhaps I've underestimated those cultural imperialists. No doubt my naivete would inspire some crescendo-ing villanous laughter from the lot of them. On my first reading of this week's texts, I think I overestimated the strength of the media contraflows, but after talking about it in class last night, I feel like they're not really strong enough to counterbalance the effects of cultural hegemony. It's sort of like shining a flashlight in a lighthouse window. Sure, you're casting a feeble little beam in the opposite direction, and maybe you can even illuminate a few pockets that the beacon doesn't reach, but in terms of strength, distance and influence, there's really no contest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)