When I read this article that last sentence sort of blew me away. For four years I’ve studied the effects of media on individual, societal and global levels, but never did I think that the (western) media is creating “additional national and global instability”. I was astounded that it could have such extreme negative effects. Looking for modern examples to support this theory touted by Schiller I first considered looking at how the West influenced the recent political upheaval in the Middle East. However, I quickly expelled the idea that the Arab Spring was a result of western media influence, a true “Twitter Revolution”, due to a number of factors (outlined to some degree here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/09/iran-twitter-revolution-protests ) but most importantly, I rejected this idea because social media did not spawn the ideas which birthed a revolution, it just helped spread them.
Schiller might disagree with me. His belief that media (in this case social media) has a “direct, though immeasurable impact on human consciousness” (Schiller 5) might cause him to contend that these revolutions were indeed a result of western media influence, even if he does not solely blame social media but rather implicates the whole western media economy.
Do the global and local civil society have their activities enhanced by the internet? (Schiller 5) OR has the internet let to more “national and global instability”?
Schillers feelings about the homogenization of culture through media are mirrored by McLuhan’s ideas about the “global village”. McLuhan believes that “a new form of social organization would emerge as instantaneous electronic media tied the entire world into one great social, political, and cultural system.” (Baran 231)
Do you share Schiller’s skepticism about the west’s place in global media?
Or do you understand and agree with McLuhan’s “optimism” regarding the emerging media landscape?
Perhaps some of Schiller’s fears about the future of globalization are rooted in his belief that “the internet itself is all too likely to be transformed into a commercial and pay for use system in the near future.” (Schiller 6) More than ten years later, we have seen this happen to some degree as many websites are run solely by advertisements and have their messages dictated by the corporate interests that fund them. Also, we have seen many ISP’s begin charging users based on how much data (measured in Megabytes) they consume.
Does this mean that a “commercial” internet is a bad thing when considering that it is more or less controlled by western industry?Before you answer, consider the other alternative. A internet controlled and regulated by a Western Government. Recently, this hypothetical almost recently became a reality. The SOPA and PIPA bills which sent the internet community into an uproar (and cause many of the highest trafficking sites to “blackout” for 24 hours in protest) would have made it “harder for sites — especially those located outside the United States — to sell or distribute pirated copyrighted material such as movies and music as well as physical goods such as counterfeit purses and watches.” (Magid) Although these bills had seemingly “good”, or at the very least safe, intentions, the actual implications of this legislation would have drastically changed the way we use the web.
The fears of many internet users were echoed in a statement made by the Obama administration:
“Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small.
The administration also echoed concerns raised by a number of security experts, including some anti-malware companies that the bill could disrupt the underlying architecture of the Internet.” (Magid)”Given this information, what are some more problems that arise from governmental and corporate internet control?
Would this issue be better suited to be studied by a Cultural Studies Theorist or a Political Economist?
Works Cited
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Magid, Larry. "What Are SOPA and PIPA And Why All The Fuss?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
Schiller, Herbert. "American Pop Culture Sweeps the World." Societies, Masses, and Publics (1996): 2-13. Print.
Weaver, Matthew. "Iran's 'Twitter Revolution' Was Exaggerated, Says Editor." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 09 June 2010. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.
The United States is definitely a power player in the global media industry. I might even go as far as saying it in fact does have the most influence on the world, as “people everywhere are consumers of (mostly) American images, sounds, ideas, products, and services” (Schiller 4). In regards to the topic that Schiller brings up, stating that western media influence creates “additional national and global instability,” (Schiller 3) I can see both sides. However, when I think of this, sure, I do think of the Internet, but I mostly think of the content that is in our films and our television shows.
ReplyDeleteWith racy topics and images portrayed in our media, many other cultures reject that and see it as sinful, distasteful, and against our beliefs. Even something as we see innocent, such as Baywatch, someone in another culture may look at that and be appalled, automatically assuming everyone in the United States is a sex driven pig. This is the case especially in extremist groups, who totally reject United States media for its content. Many people can gain perceptions from what they see in the media, and if they are watching women with large breasts running around on the beach, that is what they are going to think of the United States. Although media texts can be viewed as “vehicles of political enlightenment [that stress] their potential for political persuasion (e.g. abandoning communism for democracy) over their potential for cultural dislocation (e.g. emphasizing individualism over collectivism,” (Ferguson 246) in this case, the cultural aspect is the most significant. Politics are always in the forefront, but no one stops to think of the cultural impact that our media has as well. Therefore, I would say that depending on the situation and those outside of the U.S. consuming our television programs and films, western media could cause global instability, because it can taint the reputation of the United States due to misconceptions. In my experiences, it is rare for me to look at foreign media and be offended, however, I have heard of plenty of cases in my studies that deal with groups being offended by the media created by those in the United States.
On the other hand, there are those who really do appreciate the pop culture society of our country, thus bringing the reputation of the United States up in their eyes. Those who love U.S. pop culture, who are not from here, fully delve into it and absolutely love it, or at least portions of it. Ultimately, the issue goes both ways, but even if we changed the content, there would still be those that had their negative opinions. I do believe though, that other more significant concepts and situations are causing global instability, rather than the media.
One instance that Kris does bring up in his blog that almost potentially caused global instability was the SOPA and PIPA acts. With these two acts, websites from across the world could have potentially been shut down if they had been linked to a website in the United States doing something “illegal” even if they haven’t been, and vice versa. By censoring and policing all of this information, the western government had the potential to ruin, for instance, small businesses in the United States as well as small businesses across the globe, thus causing global chaos. This situation did prove that the western media does have influence over the world. It can be argued, however, whether or not it has a positive or negative global influence.
In response to Kris’s final question, a Cultural Studies Theorist should definitely take a look at these issues. As previously mentioned, the interpretation and understanding of content differs across cultures, as messages can be mixed, misconstrued, etc. They could study interpretations of western media in other cultures, see if it affects our reputation, and discover what we can do to change it.
I thought Kris’ post this week was extremely interesting, given how dependent we are on social media. Personally, I don’t think that the way the Internet is structured currently (i.e. a “commercial Internet”) is all that bad. Yes, websites thrive on advertisements, and I do admit it is pretty creepy to see banner ads start popping up for a shoe you happened to look at yesterday, but the alternative is much more frightening. To think that the government, with the inaction of the SOPA or PIPA bill, could rule the Internet is daunting, because it is then our freedom of speech at stake.
ReplyDeleteI equate the current structure of the Internet to a major metropolitan city – yes you are there to socialize and consume, but half of the attraction is that anything is possible in a major city. You can get pizza at four in the morning, or find pretty much any clothing item you can imagine. The same principle applies to the Internet; yes it has seedy areas, some of which are illegal, but mostly you use the Internet because of its endless possibilities. While there are certainly exceptions, I think for the most part, the Internet should remain as is – to try to govern it will only inspire more backlash, and probably loopholes that will undermine the new rules anyway.
I think that without political economy theorists, the SOPA or PIPA bills might have passed, without any complaint. It is because our society has theorists who “take pride in remaining true to the mission of critical theory by remaining politically active and seeking to shape social policy” (Baran & Davis 224) that we remain informed about what our rights are, and what the consequences would be with an Internet governed by a western industry.
Baran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
The power that the United States has over the global media industry is unlike any other nation, as it has the most influence on the world. The United States, for as long as mankind, has been known as the land of freedom, as a nation that acts as a role model for other industrialized and developing nations, and the media is just one aspect of that freedom. The “American lifestyle”, for lack of better words, is broadcasted around the world full of images, products, and services (Schiller 4), where the ideals and notions of productive industrial, military, and scientific power that the US holds has influence over other nations, where “global notions of what constitutes freedom, individual choice, a good life, and a desirable future come largely from these sources.” (Schiller 4) So much so that nations try to imitate and adapt the power structure of the US, so as a result, the US stands as a leader of cultural enterprise.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when it comes to media, it’s a different story. The American media industry is filled with images and storylines regarding behavior that other cultures are not accustomed to, and judge it to be sinful actions. I think the media doesn’t take into account that they are being watched by the entire globe, where there are other cultures and societies that have completely different beliefs and norms, so they attach a negative attitude around America in the cultural aspect. Yes, I’m sure that other nations laugh at our political struggles, but the media portrayals leave less to the imagination, with images from shows such as the Jersey Shore, Teen Mom, and various film and television programs that have attempted to portray “the American lifestyle”
The internet, at least in the US, is a symbol of freedom, as we are allowed to broadcast whatever the hell we want on the internet. However, such a notion has become limited as not only is our government trying to hold control over the internet, but many of the websites we use (ahem, Facebook, Twitter, Google) are taking control over the information we put out without our knowledge…and we, as a nation, seem to be okay with it. I think the internet is in fact leading to more national and global instability, where the culture of or media is being protected, controlled, as well as analyzed into a new form of social organization. We are being manipulated by the internet, and government, without even knowing it. I think a large factor in this is due to the way our news is gathered and outputted to the mass audiences, where the media plays as gate-keepers to what news we, as Americans as well as global citizens, are aware of. (Rosengren)
I can’t saw that the emerging media landscape will be seen as optismistic, as we are wary of any change to the media that will have an effect on our lives. With the emergence of such acts as SOPA, the government is threatening us with such an extreme change in our lifestyles in order to match up with other nation’s media control. Obviously, the SOPA act garnered such extreme negativity among Americans, and such negativity actually had the power to stop an act. Using this as a template, it’s hard for me to imagine the emerging media landscape to be seen as a positive, optimistic change that Americans will voluntarily agree to.
It is clear that corporate interests determine what gets published in the media. The owners of media conglomerates such as News Corp, Time Warner and Disney are given all of the authority without much effort involved. In my opinion, the problem with media today is that no one holds these people accountable for acting irresponsibly in terms of objective journalism. While most reporters and editors keep a standard of ethics (save for the lazy journalists), these corporations do whatever is going to generate profit, regardless of the end result-usually shoddy reporting or biased takes on an issue.
ReplyDeleteMost corporations have public or media relations departments for this exact reason. They foster “good faith” relationships with the media in order to promote their interests. After all, a PR professional’s main goal is to earn media for his or her company, meaning that the potential coverage is free. I would argue otherwise. While it is true that a reporter can choose whether to follow up on a pitch or not, once the seed is planted, this “good faith” relationship becomes free publicity, which in turn drives sales and ultimately, makes money. News cannot possibly remain unbiased under these circumstances.
Another way corporations make decisions for the media is through advertising. The conglomerates I mentioned earlier continue to get larger and wealthier by buying up smaller companies, which must be supported through advertising dollars. The several niche channels on television illustrate this perfectly. These channels cater to a certain audience, with specific advertising geared toward marketing products that have a stake in these larger conglomerates.
To answer Kris’ final question, I think that this issue would best be analyzed by a political economist, because they “study elite control of economic institutions…and then try to show how this control affects many other social institutions, including the mass media” (Baran & Davis 223). The economic institution in this case is the corporation, which undoubtedly influences the media. Also, a political economist might better understand some of the motivations behind these corporations, as opposed to a cultural studies theorist.
Dear Kris, you pointed out some great points, one point I came to after I read your blog is that social media has caused western influence in the global community in positive and negative ways. I believe that the internet, especially social media, can lead to more global instability because it encourages democracy and capitalism which is not always the case in many countries. For instance last year in Egypt there were fights caused by citizens who didn’t want their social networks or their web access to be taken away. The problems started there and escalated leading all the way up to the murder of President Gaddafi. Another issue with social media’s western influence in the global community, and just globalization in general, is that people get distorted pictures of who we really are in are part of the world due to misrepresentation in the media. In the McQuail reading there’s an article called, “International Communication at the mass media level”, by Karl Erik Rosengren, he states, “Indeed, we may get a lopsided and distorted picture not only about what human life looks like in other parts of the world, but also about what the world itself looks like. What have been called our ‘mental maps’ are clearly affected by our media habits, and not always positively so” (Rosengren pg. 232). The media puts images and thoughts in our mind that may get distorted, but because it’s all we consume it’s usually all we know. One thing we shouldn’t want people from other parts of the world to pick up are the bad ways in which we are perceived in the media, and I’m sure it’s likewise for people in their parts of the world as well. Many Americans believe that people in certain parts of the world behave a certain way or have certain cultural beliefs that may or may not be true mainly because that’s the only thing the media is showing about those certain types of people.
DeleteSocial Media’s influence in the global community isn’t always negative; some positives may include closer unity of the entire world. Social Media allows us to not feel so far apart from each other; whether were from NY or New Zealand we can constantly stay in contact and share with one another parts of our life from websites like YouTube. The interactions that come from social media help bring about corporate global industries. According to the article, “American Pop Culture Sweeps the world” by Herbert I. Schiller, it states, “The new information and communication technologies are indeed at the centre of the current changes, providing the technological means for world businesses to conduct their operations. Equally important, they supply the cultural industries with the instrumentation for reaching global markets with their media-cultural product” (Schiller pg.1). New technologies from western society are helping to provide easier ways to invest internationally for businesses around the world. The new technologies, like digital media, supply these cultural industries with different ways to reach their global markets.
It is a known fact that America’s media influences many markets across the world. “People everywhere are consumers of (mostly) American images, sounds, ideas, products and services” (Schiller 4). Countless countries have American media seen throughout their culture. When I spent time in Italy there were many American movies and shows shown on TV there, just all dubbed in Italian. Watching Jersey shore with an Italian voice over was interesting. Yet I was surprised to see Jersey Shore airing in Italy because there was so much backlash when the show came out from Italians saying that the show depicted them in a negative way. So are these cultures enjoying this media that is presented to them? MTV defiantly uses Neilson ratings to determine if the show is doing well over there so I’m sure if people weren’t watching it wouldn’t be airing. So I don’t think that America is just “dumping” this media into other countries to make a profit. I am sure that there must be some kind of demand for it. Other countries are defiantly being influence by American media. However there is many other aspects of their culture. “People in modern societies may watch a lot of television but they do many other things besides, and to overemphasize the representational aspects of cultural action and experience is, perhaps to end up with a rather narrow view of culture” (Tomlinson 226). Media is not the only thing that influences a culture so how much of an impact does America really have over other countries? Aren’t we being influenced by other countries in our media as well? One influence besides movies and televisions that we see in other countries is music. So much music goes to other countries to be enjoyed. However we often forget how much music here in the United States comes from other countries. Look back to the British invasion and when all of those bands from England were coming over. One of America’s all time favorite bands; the Beatles were first popular in Europe and then came over to the US. In my opinion we are even having a second British invasion now with so much music coming over to us from the UK. With artists like Adele and The Wanted to name a few being so popular right now and all first starting their fame in a different country. One Direction is extremely popular right now and they were also first popular overseas. It is clear that although America is always seen as the most dominant country and constantly presenting media in other countries, we are still influenced by other countries in our own media. I think that more powerful countries defiantly have more of an impact on trending media but we all have an influence on each other. I think more powerful countries just have more resources so they are able to produce better quality of media and therefore better media really sets the precedent for other countries to be influenced by. The best produced media will be the most popular and that will therefore reach the most people globally. America is not the only country that influences others in media forms.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the internet there is no doubt that it has taken over many people’s lives and helped in revolutionizing our country or world. It is like any new form or area found whether it be in technology, medicine, or just research these areas have shaped the ways we live. While I do believe with many people who raise the question as the whether or not the media has taken over our generation and have the ability to persuade us so to say, I believe that it was also us in the beginning that led us to this. With the internet it is the same because think about all the areas in which we trust on the internet that could eventually and for many people have hurt them. Putting personal information on website or giving out personal information when online shopping is I would say the main reason why we have to deal with identity theft now. John Tomlinson states in his article, the discourse of cultural imperialism “We must consider quite carefully what is at stake in attributing this massive central significance. On the other hand, it is clear that the mass media are constantly and rapidly expanding in terms of technical power and penetration, coverage and representation of both public and private life in the West.” (225). Now even though we have seen a lot of the negatives of the internet and the problems it has cause we also have to step back and look at the positives. It has allowed countries to expand out to reach other countries instantaneously. It will allow individuals to connect across seas with one another if they are studying abroad, traveling, or moved. So while the internet has begun to revolutionize itself it begins to revolutionize us and allow us to keep in touch with friends and or family around the world. With these advancements though comes more criticism. Karl Erik Rosengren states in his article, International communication at the mass media level, “Sadly, there is little hope for the mental maps cultivated by the television contents that are available to youngsters around the globe today will be any better than they were in the late 1980s. Indeed, it is pretty safe to guess that they are not better at all but rather the reverse.” (234). Here is the other dreaded area that comes up because of the internet. Children are not getting the necessary educational information from books but rather from the internet now. Personally I think that teachers and books do aid in teaching and having children learn about certain subject but ultimately it is that child who needs to distinguish between what is true and what is false. Everything a child reads online they should have enough educational background to know that not everything is true and I feel as if a lot of people have forgotten that. Nevertheless the internet has revolutionized not only our country but also the world for the better, and also for the worse. Ultimately though in the end it comes down to the person using it, are they going to use it for good and benefit from it, or are they going to use it as a way to waste time or connect with friends and or family.
ReplyDeleteI would agree that corporate interests pervade every aspect of society, at least in the United States. Because the United States has the ability to turn out so many medium, and capitalism is at the very root of it all, then profits are going to be sought for our products on a global level. Thus our culture will intertwine with the culture of whoever may be viewing the media. It is no surprise that western industries often control cultural products distributed to non-western cultures; there is money to be made in cultures outside our own. The question: is this leading to weakened influence of local leaderships and national and global instability? Many believe so, that our culture is disrupting cultural patterns around the world; others view this as a step towards a global culture and market. “Most Americans accepted the cultural commodities emerging from New York and Hollywood as somehow their own. But these same commodities aroused considerable controversy when U.S. media entrepreneurs exported them to other nations. The power of these commodities to reshape daily life was more obvious in most Third World nations, and even more disruptive.” (Baran 348) I remember in one of my readings from QU, how people in countries, particularly in Africa, would place higher value on the sale of used t-shirts from America, if the t-shirt included a logo from an American brand, a sports team, or an American cartoon character. This is an example of the media affecting other cultures, but it seems fairly innocent rather than disruptive. Of course this is only one example focusing on a particular aspect of the daily lives from one nation. Many of the ideas from the modern world are shaping the lives of other countries that hold a more sacred traditional way of living. “Thus the drift towards a sort of global cultural homogeneity is seen in this discourse to derive from the dominance of a particular –‘modern’- way of life that has multiple determinants. These include capitalism (seen as a set of productive and consumerist practices), but also urbanism, mass communications, a technical-scientific-rationalist dominant ideology, a system of (mainly secular) nation-states, a particular way of organizing social space and experience and a certain subjective-existential mode of individual self-awareness.”(Tomlinson 229) Modernity is reaching the far corners of the world through the media. This may be disruptive to the daily lives of some people, but the change into a more modern world is inevitable. As the world becomes more connected through media and technology, it in a sense becomes smaller, with information traveling thousands of miles in seconds. The idea of globalization is not new, cultures have been clashing for thousands of years, but with new technology and media representations of modernity popping up all over the world, this process of globalization has drastically increased in recent years. Cultures will be affected by our media, but these same cultures will also be conforming to a global culture which will eventually become the dominant culture. There is no escaping the western world at this point, whether or not it does harm or benefit particular cultures.
ReplyDeleteBaran, Stanley J., and Dennis K. Davis. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment, and Future. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.