The Implications of Voice- Good and Bad- Within the Global Civil Society

The two chapters, one by Daya Thussu called “Creating a Global Information Infrastructure” and the other by Marc Raboy called “The WSIS as a Political Space in Global Media Governance”, highlight the global media and communication infrastructure. Historically, so much about governance has been about these ominous global institutions that have no direct connection to the people they govern. While global governance gets a bad reputation for its inability to maintain legitimacy in its endeavors, it too is changing, as it must. As global governance is transitioning into recognizing that it is not just about the governances of governments and more about the governance of many stakeholders (including the global civil society), it is imperative that creations like the Civil Society Bureau are established. Granted, the effectiveness of the Bureau might not be seen blatantly, but the mere fact that there is a space being made in the international community to hear the voices of individuals is refreshing. If people do not have a voice to address issues, how can global governance institutions help them? They can’t. The next step to worry about is having the global civil society’s voice be heard and legitimized.

As I was reading for this week, I was particularly intrigued by Sean O’ Siochru and Brusce Girard’s chapter entitled, “Introduction to National Media Regulation”. Yesterday, one of the top news stories was about a Facebook survey posted on Facebook about whether or not President Obama should be assassinated. It has since been taken down off of the site and Facebook released a statement that one individual using an add-on application created the survey. The Secret Service is investigating the person. Girard and Siochru note that media is not just about reading, listening, and watching anymore. They say it also includes interacting- blogging, using social networking sites, twittering, and emailing media sources for answers to questions in the media. Regulating national media, especially with the onset of social networking media, is a tremendous task, which is why self-regulation is of the up-most importance (just as the authors argue). I don’t know if the founder of Facebook ever had any idea that his social networking site would become so powerful. It started small, first at Harvard, and expanded fast. Now it’s an international networking site that has created vast implications (both positive and negative) in 21^st century international politics.

Modern Communications Infrastructure

Both the Thussu and Siochru and Girard’s readings assigned for the week address the changing structure of the media and how it has moved towards the process of privatization, liberalization, convergence, and globalization. Siochru and Girard’s chapters were important because they covered different forms of media regulation which include both societal and industry regulation. Thussu mentions that the liberalization and privatization of the communications industry has benefited transnational corporations the most and as a result of the privatization of the media there has been a surge in both poverty and unemployment in developing nations.
Raboy’s chapter on the World Summit on the Information Society deals with the development of the WSIS in 1998, but also mentions some of the weaknesses of it which above all includes its lack of funding mechanisms. An interesting point Raboy mentions surrounds the meaning of the word governance and how its definition alters depending on the organization that is using it and of course its objectives. Nevertheless, what is most important about the WSIS is that it is the first United Nations summit in which civil society was actively involved which of course is incredibly vital towards the strengthening of the communications industry.

The WSIS Welcomes Civil Society to the Governance Table

Marc Raboy's article regarding the WSIS and its role in the progression of a global communication structure gives an informed perspective on the development of international communication from NWICO until present day.  His approach to the WSIS is intriguing in that he begins with the shortcomings of its first summit, notably the lack of voice given civil society, but turns around and goes on to put things in perspective which shines a more positive light on the achievements of the WSIS.  

I think that Raboy is attempting to highlight some of the progress made within international communication and its newfound focus on the inclusion of civil society as an entity of governance.  The WSIS fell short in some areas but proves to be useful in creating a transitional model that takes the global communication rubric from a mode of intergovernmental oversight to a more collaborative inclusion-based model.  I feel that this is critical based on the shortcomings of the recent history of global media flow and its lack of respect for all actors in the international governance framework.

The WSIS sets up a new infrastructure of assessment within the international communication community and takes us from the failures of NWICO to a more open and engaging dialogue.  The community can now deal with information more accurately and openly as the global issues of information systems and communication develop.  Civil society's inclusion is imperative to give credence to any international organization and the WSIS has set an important precedent for the progress of international communication in the 21st century.    

“A Space for Confrontation between Opposing Communication Paradigms”

Although the definition of governance has been debated on the world stage since the birth of the Universal Postal Union in 1974, due to globalization, interaction between international governing systems and the inclusion of civil society in such relationships are increasingly key to the industrial and societal regulations essential to modern development. Through the definitions of governance offered by Siochru and Girard, Thussu and Raboy, the reader can deduce that the liberalization of telecommunications has resulted in the growth of the free market and regulatory challenges involving the global public sphere.

Global Governance, The WSIS as a Political Space, and Creating a Global Communication Infrastructure describe governance through the eyes of several governing bodies and organizations but share the same multifaceted view of modern regulation of telecommunications. Global governance is portrayed as the convergence of international state and non-state actors, specifically those considered representatives of global civil society, where participants neutrally manage countries’ political, economic and cultural affairs. Media regulations in industry and society are changing to reflect these values as technologies unite, deregulation occurs, globalization increases and the ownership over flows of communication are consolidated. While groups including the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) have failed to meet the funding or regulatory demands resulting from contemporary consumer culture and digital and conceptual divides, civil society has experienced increased participation in governance forums. Civil society is rightly gaining the voice necessary to express social needs in an international arena separate from greedy governments and profit-driven commercial institutions.

Reflecting on the writings of Siochru and Girard, Thussu and Raboy, I believe Raboy captures the essence of media governance best in his assertion that the failures of WSIS and other international forums to concretely regulate communication should not be seen as discouraging, but, on the other hand, as a victory for modern civil society in the creation of “a space for confrontation between opposing communication paradigms” on a global plane.

Civility steps up -- but will it sell?

Two images occurred to me during this week’s readings: the mannered discourse of the civil society representatives at the 2003 WSIS conference, as described by Marc Raboy, contrasted with the spirited/vitriolic (choose whichever you prefer) debates on Fox staples like the O’Reilly Factor. Granted, Thussu doesn’t go into explicit detail on how Rupert Murdoch’s networks shape public debate, but does mention that “Fox News has redefined broadcast journalism in the USA, changing the way television news is presented and framed,” that is, as entertainment.

Another grab from the Thussu piece that caught my eye was the comment that Murdoch’s popular British newspaper The Sun maintains notoriety and high sales by promoting “sex, soccer and scandal” – an observation that will shock nobody who’s been in London when the evening papers come out. What caught my eye was the word “scandal,” because it’s central to Manuel Castells’ argument in Communication Power. While I agree with Professor H that the drier passages might go down easier with a glass of eggnog, Castells does have a lot of interesting points about the relationships between media controls and power, and he argues 1) that major political changes around the world are increasingly related to scandals and 2) their prevalence is changing the global political landscape. (That’s on page 253 and 254 of the book, for those who are curious.)

What struck me about the two images was their obvious contrast. On the one hand, we’ve got an enormous, elaborate, influential network under one individual. On the other, we’ve got an enormous, elaborate, increasingly influential network composed of many individuals and groups. The first influences the public sphere by selecting and framing issues and repackaging them in emotional, infotaining units. The second influences the public sphere via multistakeholder collaboration, networking and lobbying.

Having spent a large chunk of my week slogging through the open consultations of the Internet Governance Forum (the media governance body established by the WSIS at the Tunis meeting Raboy mentions) and having more familiarity with the TV network news format than I’d like, I’d be hard pressed to say which I’d rather participate in. One has flair, but little room for open debate; the other has plenty of room for discourse, and all the flair of a bureaucratic board meeting. Are these the only options for the future of the public sphere?

ICTs: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Recently, I had a conversation with a person cynical of the positivist/optimist hype that ICTs receive within the discipline of International Communication. I have a unique interest in ICTs so I was rather intrigued as to why someone would think of them in a pessimistic or even neutral light. Inspired by my conversation and Elizabeth Hanson’s chapter entitled “The Globalization of Communication”, I started to think of the pros and cons of ICTs. This following is what I have so far…

The Good: ICTs have allowed us to connect internationally in real time, anytime. Aside from the Western world using cell phones, ipod touches, computers, the internet, etc. to connect at the individual level, ICTs are increasingly being incorporated to development plans to link peoples to foster grassroots level participation in development. One example of this is in India, where there is an E-Choupal program that consists of internet kiosks for farmer to communicate to learn of the demand for specific agricultural goods. Granted, the E-Choupal example is growing and considerably more complex now, but it started out small. Another example of the ICTs is the use of cell phones in the diaspora. They allow people to call their families in their homeland to reconnect and reaffirm with their culture. ICTs have allowed the whole world to be more efficient. As Thomas Friedman argues, ICTs have democratized information. The possibilities are boundless, or are they??

The Bad: Some might argue that ICTs have made communication less personable or at least dehumanizes it to some extent. Instead of going to see a family member, friend, or a professor, our society is constructing the norms to send someone an email or facebook message or tweet. Children growing up now are being cultured with the expectation of having information with the click of a button. What happens if and when they are not able to obtain information they need? Clearly applies mostly to the West, but if globalization or “westernization” or “Americanization” is vastly occurring, does this mean that we are commodifying our world to be less reliant on classical forms of communication? There is something special about being able to read someone’s facial expression and body language in face-to-face interactions. Face-to-face interaction is certainly not always possible, especially when two people are communicating internationally, but it is necessary to think about the ramifications of the widgets we use to obtain our information and communication as time passes.

The Ugly: ICTs have led to exacerbating a digital divide between the Global North and the Global South. How do we cope with the fact that as the world’s rich get wealthier, as the poor are getting poor? New ICTs are being produced all the time and the globalized civil society is leaving the people making western widgets less likely to ever own them.

In presenting these viewpoints of the implications of ICTs, I am simply trying to acknowledge conflicting views of ICTs and sometimes the reasons for and how we communicate is just as important as what we are communicating. ICTs have done a lot of good where they have been employed internationally. One thing is for sure, now that we have ICTs we are not going back, and I’m not suggesting that. I am suggesting, however, that “we”, as a global community, acknowledge the consequences of ICTs more transparently and address them more actively as the revolution of globalization and communication continues.

ICT and Fostering Development

One similar point that both Hanson and Sinclair stressed in the readings was the fact that although there is a convergence amongst nations and globalization has greatly increased communication between them, audiences will always tend to prefer television programs from their own country that represent their own values and beliefs or at least those that are culturally and linguistically similar (Sinclair 76). As Hanson mentions, “as the world becomes more global, more people want their own culture.” I do believe that this is undoubtedly true and as she points out, MTV has even modified their content in order to appeal to the country in which their programs are being viewed.




This also reminded me of my last trip to El Salvador a few months ago; when I saw how excited my cousins were about a new show named “Bailando por un sueno” (Dancing for a Dream) which really seemed to be a knock off to me of the show Dancing with the Stars. I quickly realized that the show was incredibly similar, but nevertheless, was tailored towards the local culture which tends to be incredibly family oriented and religious. Although the show was an immense hit in El Salvador, I did wonder whether it would be as popular here in the United States.



I also found that Hanson finishes Chapter 5 on both a positive and negative viewpoint towards ICT and its use towards development. She mentions that one cannot ignore the fact that at least some have benefited from ICT access and that the internet has been able to provide both a medium for communication and also more educational opportunities for many who were once marginalized. Nevertheless, she does find that there is still unequal access and highlights this point using India as a case-study and finds that government policy must make some modifications in order to improve ICT access to those in rural areas.