We haven’t had class yet, but I’m reading Castells and finding him much more interesting now. His article for this week brings up a lot of interesting power play dynamics between technology and social class and the state. The People Power II movement in the Philippines is a great, positive example of, “power of the Internet and mobile communications technology – not to mention broadcast media - not only to shape public opinion but also to mobilize civil society when push came to a shove." But for some reason I always think back to Rwanda and the horrible ways in which radio communication technology was used to facilitate genocide. The startling differences between People Power II, which was an overall peaceful movement in comparison with the first Philippine People Power movement and Rwanda, serve to demonstrate the importance of societal framing when using technology.
Castells is clear to point out that the glowing reviews of the progressiveness of People Power II come from the middle class. In Rwanda it was the oppressed Hutu's that were uprising… Technology in the hands of socioeconomic classes means something different. Even in the Philippines, the reaction to People Power II, “Poor People Power” was classified by violence.
In Korea, Roh and the youth movement draws a lot of similarities to Obama and his ascent to the presidency. Both were based on a sort of disenfranchised youth uprising, taking back the polls and effecting peaceful political change. But the train bombings in Spain are another example where the powers of mobile technology were used for evil. And it had some drastic political consequences, not only for Spain, with the election of a new political party but also for the international community and the US with the withdrawal of the Spanish coalition from Iraq. But something missing from all the case studies is exactly why mobile communications had the effects they did. Castells sees it. “…the particular usage of wireless technologies is shaped within the social context and political structures of a given society.”
Is it really still about social class? The use of mobile technology obviously can have revolutionary effects but only in weaker states? In the US, protests coordinated by mobile technology had much lesser effect because the state had the same, if not better tech capabilities to monitor the protestor’s efforts. In China, the state had such control over media as so almost erase news of early outbreaks of SARS. I can’t make out exactly what it is that determines the effect of mobile technology in inciting political change, but is it going to change as the state catches up to the population, or will the fact that there will always be a poor population balance against that?
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wiki Whaaat?
Before the last couple of weeks I had no idea what Wiki leaks was, and after our discussion/ mini debate on media framing I’m still pretty ignorant about the whole scope of it, but I don’t know how much I like it. A lot of the readings and discussion have dealt with the deliverance of media and the bias that is thrown in during production, delivery and digestion of media content. Wiki leaks is supposedly all about the triumph of freedom of speech and press and delivering information of the public that they would be unable to receive from other media outlets. I understand that framing of a new story can greatly impact the outcome of a situation, especially in terms of national disasters and tragedies, but I don’t think wiki leaks or their purpose escapes media framing as much as they might wish.
Kumar’s article dealt with the sovereignty tension between nation states and media sources and the Iraq/Iran wiki leak controversy brings this issue strongly into the forefront, maybe more so than Google. The question will always be where to draw the line, between personal freedom and nation state security. Except now the issue is not a matter of what pictures a Chinese citizen and an American citizen will see when they both “Google” Tiananmen Square, the line may actually have people’s lives on it.
My general impression is that these media orgs, Google, Wiki and the like aren’t putting forth the same efforts as nation states in terms of negotiating and giving Kumar’s supra-national governing sphere some real power. Wiki leaks releasing of soo many documents obviously did its job in a way in reporting some pretty shady state sanctioned actions but I wonder what the human consequences will end up being and if wiki served the public well in that sense. Nation states attempts to regulate media might come from a place of self preservation, but sometimes these new media’s complete resistance to regulation might do more harm than good. Not that their resistance is another kind of framing, but similarly, the controversy they generate going to toe to toe with government attracts a whole new following. When does that start to change the way you produce, package and deliver? I obviously have no conclusions drawn about the matter, but I just don’t feel that the release of this kind of information was without framing, or that more information = more good.
Kumar’s article dealt with the sovereignty tension between nation states and media sources and the Iraq/Iran wiki leak controversy brings this issue strongly into the forefront, maybe more so than Google. The question will always be where to draw the line, between personal freedom and nation state security. Except now the issue is not a matter of what pictures a Chinese citizen and an American citizen will see when they both “Google” Tiananmen Square, the line may actually have people’s lives on it.
My general impression is that these media orgs, Google, Wiki and the like aren’t putting forth the same efforts as nation states in terms of negotiating and giving Kumar’s supra-national governing sphere some real power. Wiki leaks releasing of soo many documents obviously did its job in a way in reporting some pretty shady state sanctioned actions but I wonder what the human consequences will end up being and if wiki served the public well in that sense. Nation states attempts to regulate media might come from a place of self preservation, but sometimes these new media’s complete resistance to regulation might do more harm than good. Not that their resistance is another kind of framing, but similarly, the controversy they generate going to toe to toe with government attracts a whole new following. When does that start to change the way you produce, package and deliver? I obviously have no conclusions drawn about the matter, but I just don’t feel that the release of this kind of information was without framing, or that more information = more good.
The unintended audience still watches
When the movie Bowling for Columbine came out, I was living in London. As my friends there would watch it, they would start to ask me questions. Did I carry a gun back home? How was I not afraid to leave my house? At least a knife, right? You know, for protection. Little did they know that I don’t know hardly anyone who owns a gun. Maybe a couple people in Maine. Then I saw the movie. It was completely obvious to me that this was a film made for US audiences to learn something about their own culture, but people abroad could not know that this it was not everyday life for Americans.
In “The symbolic power of transnational media,” Chouliaraki is making the case for how transnational news affects its particular audience by the way they frame the news. We are either distanced from far away panoramic suffering or brought to sympathize with close personal accounts. The first story is about “them” and the second is about “us”, and the bias is the “hierarchy of domestic relevance”. My question is, what happens when a story is not viewed by the intended audience but by someone else? While close us suffering on 9/11 made some sympathize, it made others rejoice. While a distant Iraq war made us feel farther away, it enraged others. A story about one crazy guy with a forty person following who wants to burn a Koran will reach an unintended audience, and it is no longer a sensational story that we all here know does not represent reality, but others perceive as typically American.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that there is no such thing as global news. And I only mean that in the sense that there is no “global” audience.
Thinking back to Chouliaraki, it seems that the distant panoramic “spectacle to watch rather than…as a political act to take sides on” is a much safer bet for “global news” (338). If more personal news is meant to incite, you can bet that you will incite your unintended, audience too, and that seems to only serve to perpetuate conflict.
In “The symbolic power of transnational media,” Chouliaraki is making the case for how transnational news affects its particular audience by the way they frame the news. We are either distanced from far away panoramic suffering or brought to sympathize with close personal accounts. The first story is about “them” and the second is about “us”, and the bias is the “hierarchy of domestic relevance”. My question is, what happens when a story is not viewed by the intended audience but by someone else? While close us suffering on 9/11 made some sympathize, it made others rejoice. While a distant Iraq war made us feel farther away, it enraged others. A story about one crazy guy with a forty person following who wants to burn a Koran will reach an unintended audience, and it is no longer a sensational story that we all here know does not represent reality, but others perceive as typically American.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that there is no such thing as global news. And I only mean that in the sense that there is no “global” audience.
Thinking back to Chouliaraki, it seems that the distant panoramic “spectacle to watch rather than…as a political act to take sides on” is a much safer bet for “global news” (338). If more personal news is meant to incite, you can bet that you will incite your unintended, audience too, and that seems to only serve to perpetuate conflict.
Imagine a world...
“We should not think of the news as a genre of information but also as a genre of imagination” (Chouliaraki 333).
I keep wavering on my stance regarding this passage. Though I appreciate that Chouliaraki believes that we are not autopilot consumers, and that we have the ability to choose our own reactions to the media, I think he is taking it a bit far. I think this is perhaps because the word imagination connotes—at least to me—that one has to stretch boundaries and is left to creative devices. Generally a positive thing. However, if we have to morph the news, I am a bit worried about how different individuals will interpret the message the media feeds us.
For example, just this morning on my way to work I was approached by a seemingly homeless man—or at least a well-motivated collectionist as this was before 7:00am. As many commuters use IPods, or some other listening device, on their way to work his message had to be loud and succinct: “Obama is a traitor! Terrorist! Lived overseas and plays in sandboxes. Big man child”. I understand that not everyone voted for Obama—the polls reflected that—but this man used his imagination well (and even some fun literary tools too). My point is not that I am an avid Obama supporter, but the fact that this man is not. He had consumed the news and interpreted it in his own manner. I know that there are far better examples to use to voice my skepticism on having consumers interpret the news, but this one was fresh in my mind (and stains fresh on my jackets from his coffee spray).
Do you see why I am torn? The teacher side of me encourages and endorses imagination, but the observing humanity side of me remains a bit skeptical. Essentially, and I think that this is also Chouliaraki’s point; I think that the news should not necessitate imagination, but leave room for it. So those that want to make connections, please do. But for those who want to simply be receivers, allow them that passive right.
I keep wavering on my stance regarding this passage. Though I appreciate that Chouliaraki believes that we are not autopilot consumers, and that we have the ability to choose our own reactions to the media, I think he is taking it a bit far. I think this is perhaps because the word imagination connotes—at least to me—that one has to stretch boundaries and is left to creative devices. Generally a positive thing. However, if we have to morph the news, I am a bit worried about how different individuals will interpret the message the media feeds us.
For example, just this morning on my way to work I was approached by a seemingly homeless man—or at least a well-motivated collectionist as this was before 7:00am. As many commuters use IPods, or some other listening device, on their way to work his message had to be loud and succinct: “Obama is a traitor! Terrorist! Lived overseas and plays in sandboxes. Big man child”. I understand that not everyone voted for Obama—the polls reflected that—but this man used his imagination well (and even some fun literary tools too). My point is not that I am an avid Obama supporter, but the fact that this man is not. He had consumed the news and interpreted it in his own manner. I know that there are far better examples to use to voice my skepticism on having consumers interpret the news, but this one was fresh in my mind (and stains fresh on my jackets from his coffee spray).
Do you see why I am torn? The teacher side of me encourages and endorses imagination, but the observing humanity side of me remains a bit skeptical. Essentially, and I think that this is also Chouliaraki’s point; I think that the news should not necessitate imagination, but leave room for it. So those that want to make connections, please do. But for those who want to simply be receivers, allow them that passive right.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Learning about Networks the hardway
I have dealt with many issues in my life but never as many as I have upon entering this university. I always considered networks as the interaction between two or more human entities in dealing with specific issues. Reading Franda's Launching into Cyberspace and I was more in the mindset that networks could also include the action of a nation in the creation of industrial policies, culture norm enforcement and creation by way of contra-flows and self-regulation. But upon reading Amelia Arsenault's "Networks emerging frameworks for analysis, I have learned of a new form of networks, were the actors aren't always human.
Hence back to my person experience were I learned first hand how to interlocking nodes function and just how interlocked I am with the device known as the computer. I have learned that I use it as a mediary, not an intermediary, to display or transmit my meaning to the rest of my network including my professors and fellow classmates. By having two computers crash on me with thirty minutes of one another. I learned right then and there the "principle of generalized symmetry"that my computer as an inanimate object functionally exhibits as much agency as I (the human) do.
Upon the break down I was left scrambling to deduct a way to contact professors and other human relations in my network only to realize that my "power" or ability to affectively induce a message was severally hampered by this primary facilitator going down and that my next alternative was to call upon more inanimate objects such as the cellphone and USBs along with the physical act of dropping by the offices of the people I direly need to contact.
Thus, the Network through my experience of it is as Arsenault put it, a "mercenary", especially in its ability to exclude an individual that fails to adapt to a situation but also if that individual is unable to connect in one or more ways. So moral of this story, be wary of ones reliance on a particular inanimate object in ones network, it may opt personally or unintentionally to exclude you from the living part of your network that you are connected to.
Hence back to my person experience were I learned first hand how to interlocking nodes function and just how interlocked I am with the device known as the computer. I have learned that I use it as a mediary, not an intermediary, to display or transmit my meaning to the rest of my network including my professors and fellow classmates. By having two computers crash on me with thirty minutes of one another. I learned right then and there the "principle of generalized symmetry"that my computer as an inanimate object functionally exhibits as much agency as I (the human) do.
Upon the break down I was left scrambling to deduct a way to contact professors and other human relations in my network only to realize that my "power" or ability to affectively induce a message was severally hampered by this primary facilitator going down and that my next alternative was to call upon more inanimate objects such as the cellphone and USBs along with the physical act of dropping by the offices of the people I direly need to contact.
Thus, the Network through my experience of it is as Arsenault put it, a "mercenary", especially in its ability to exclude an individual that fails to adapt to a situation but also if that individual is unable to connect in one or more ways. So moral of this story, be wary of ones reliance on a particular inanimate object in ones network, it may opt personally or unintentionally to exclude you from the living part of your network that you are connected to.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Networks as Society
I feel that it is such an important question to ask, where is the basis of our network age? Does the power lie in the Agency of the individuals who make up the network, or in the network itself, how societies are structured. Sometimes I feel that people make these choices everyday, how they choose to participate, what they choose to empower themselves with. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of us give up our freedom just by being unaware of the influence that networks have on us. But them, maybe if we don’t really care, we are free to make that choice, too. Go with the flow. But I am stumped by the question if we are victims of our place in the networks. Are you placed in a community without wanting to be, or are you a voluntary participant? If we have a choice, then we can’t be victims, but do we have a choice? You know, we talk about networks as if it is something totally new that was born with the internet, but I think of networks as society. And we still blame society for a bunch of things, like anorexia, workaholism (not a word, I see) and teenage bullying. Maybe saying we have no agency within networks is like saying we have no will to resist being bullies.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Double Chai Latte and the NYTimes for Free Please
For all of you who avoid Bender like the plague and find alternative venues to study in, you might now be motivated to head over to Starbucks (if you weren't a convert before). Evidently, Starbucks is opening up a digital network by the end of the month. The objective is to become the best choice for customers: "What it comes down is a matter of choice. Coffee and tea drinkers have a myriad of options, so for Starbucks it's about motivating the customer to choose its stores, and its digital network content partners by association" (CNN article Starbucks Digital Network is here 10.20.10). What this new digital network will offer is access to the NYTimes's Reader 2.0 subscription only news, as well as access to the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. But it’s not only news that are the nodes in this network.
Starbucks has six channels: News, Entertainment, Wellness, Business and Careers, My Neighborhood and the customer-personalized Starbucks channel. Starbucks believes that these are the areas of most interest to their clientele and they want to ensure that their customers have access. But one of the interesting facets of this network is that those companies who are partnering with Starbuck's on this (NYTimes, Yahoo, Men's Health) are not receiving payment. Simply airtime. Though this is not a new concept, this is a large corporation adopting it--so perhaps this will become viral and food and beverage franchises around the world will begin developing their own networks.
Starbucks has six channels: News, Entertainment, Wellness, Business and Careers, My Neighborhood and the customer-personalized Starbucks channel. Starbucks believes that these are the areas of most interest to their clientele and they want to ensure that their customers have access. But one of the interesting facets of this network is that those companies who are partnering with Starbuck's on this (NYTimes, Yahoo, Men's Health) are not receiving payment. Simply airtime. Though this is not a new concept, this is a large corporation adopting it--so perhaps this will become viral and food and beverage franchises around the world will begin developing their own networks.
One Shot Deal?
The conversation about memes yesterday in class threw me off--not because I didn't know what I mean was, but evidently I don't know what the most common ones are--RickRoll for example. Clueless. But it made me begin think about the value of memes. The extrinsic value I can see--you are doing it for the sake of others, because you know that your best friend is going to be irritated when he asks you about that YouTube link he showed you that you never watched
But what is the intrinsic value of a meme? Granted, the content of the meme would be highly dependent upon what intrinsic value you place upon it. So let's take those most common meme examples. NumaNuma--probably my favorite of the common memes previously listed in the link--is hilarious, sure, but only once or twice. After that I begin to question why it’s so funny and start feeling guilty. Not really amping up that intrinsic value for me. So this leads me to ask, are memes--as viral as they are--intended for multiple viewings by the consumer? Or are they a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'm one shot kind of deal?
But what is the intrinsic value of a meme? Granted, the content of the meme would be highly dependent upon what intrinsic value you place upon it. So let's take those most common meme examples. NumaNuma--probably my favorite of the common memes previously listed in the link--is hilarious, sure, but only once or twice. After that I begin to question why it’s so funny and start feeling guilty. Not really amping up that intrinsic value for me. So this leads me to ask, are memes--as viral as they are--intended for multiple viewings by the consumer? Or are they a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'm one shot kind of deal?
Friday, October 8, 2010
Apathy Fatigue
I was very struck with this week’s discussion about problems with today’s media configuration and the responses it provokes in the American public. A lot of people seemed to hold very strong opinions about the apathy of the American people. I brought up compassion fatigue as maybe an alternative to apathy, because inundation in the media can be overwhelming. But really I think we are sometimes too self critical. Media monopolies and media illiteracy pose some serious roadblocks to the flow and reception of information but I like to think that the American people are pretty well informed… maybe just not about what the vice president’s name is… Washington DC can be such a bubble, especially in terms of communication. Current events communication is the currency of power in this town. What is easy to forget in a community like Washington and especially at AU, is that Middle America still exists. We may way underdeveloped compared to Europe in our international political conscious, but just the fact that my grandfather in Valentine, Nebraska knows where Darfur is, knows that Burma exists, speaks to the effectiveness of modern communication. Apathy to some is baby steps to me I guess.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Japan you will not be America cause I said so.
It seems according to Iwabuchi that Japan's ability to create various globally successful "oderless" commodities such as consumer technologies, comics and cartoons and computer/ video games that we have consumed for decades are not to be considered even viable against the America "soft co-optic power"(pg416). That even though Japan has been able to change global perception of its culture from an "odor" to a "fragrance" that its economics will always overshadow its culture presence. If this is true, then what exactly is the value of Japan's contribution to the global market?
From Iwabuchi's stance it seems, that its Japan's place to be the globalizing force is only in Asia, with "its power-free perception of culture similarity and local intimacy" to its neigboring nations (pg 426-7). That it is only able to be a global force by buying into the American distribution channels and making stakes in American companies such as Hollywood studios and Manga Entertainment. But if that is true, then aren't we as America being used for a means to a economic end? And aren't we forgetting the huge amount of "odorless" goods we've consumed to no end?
Hence, if simply being covert is the issue then yes, Japan you lose the global influence power struggle. But what if being in the most economically lucrative industries without having to have the consumer recognize you or even relate to you or your country then what are you losing? Profits? Absolutely not, but recognition, yes. Iwabuchi's biggest strife seems to be that the culture of Japan, the Japanese "way of life" is not being promoted globally, and when it is abroad its consumption is artificial and only embodies the consumer culture (pg 417-8). Thus, Japan can not be America in Iwabuchi's eyes because it has not made its own culture the driving force in its global presence, and until it does Japanization can not be Americanization.
From Iwabuchi's stance it seems, that its Japan's place to be the globalizing force is only in Asia, with "its power-free perception of culture similarity and local intimacy" to its neigboring nations (pg 426-7). That it is only able to be a global force by buying into the American distribution channels and making stakes in American companies such as Hollywood studios and Manga Entertainment. But if that is true, then aren't we as America being used for a means to a economic end? And aren't we forgetting the huge amount of "odorless" goods we've consumed to no end?
Hence, if simply being covert is the issue then yes, Japan you lose the global influence power struggle. But what if being in the most economically lucrative industries without having to have the consumer recognize you or even relate to you or your country then what are you losing? Profits? Absolutely not, but recognition, yes. Iwabuchi's biggest strife seems to be that the culture of Japan, the Japanese "way of life" is not being promoted globally, and when it is abroad its consumption is artificial and only embodies the consumer culture (pg 417-8). Thus, Japan can not be America in Iwabuchi's eyes because it has not made its own culture the driving force in its global presence, and until it does Japanization can not be Americanization.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
I Like It on the....
While minding my own business, working in the library this morning, I overheard two males talking about some girl's Facebook status. "Dude, she even likes it on the floor depending on her mood. That's AWESOME". At this point I tuned out of their conversation, but quickly pulled up my own Facebook page. I had remembered that last week one of my friends in Greece had a status similar to this over the weekend, but I just chalked it up to being a TV show clip that I was unaware of. So I proceeded to do some research. I pulled up the status updates feature of Facebook to find her update, but quickly discovered that lots of people had some rendition of this "I like it on..." quote. Here are some of the examples that my friends have used:
"I like it where you like it"
"I like it on the backseat, until I remember to bring it into the house. Then it is all about the counter"
"i like it hanging from my bed post"
"I like it on the washing machine, when I first walk in"
Intriguing, eh? Well for those of you who are unaware as I was, the "I like it..." is this year's Breast Cancer Awareness campaign. Remember last year on Facebook when females simply had a color as their status, indicating what color bra they liked most, or were wearing that day? Well, this campaign is something like that. Except, I am struggling to find out how the "I like it..." relates to Breast Cancer Awareness, when the "it" refers to a purse. But hey, apparently the campaign is spreading quickly, and I'm not one to knock the Awareness campaign, so I'll continue talking about the spread of the campaign across Facebook.
What I found most interesting in my status search, was location. Out of my friends, the first one to have this posting was one of my friends from Greece, but shortly followed by friends in Turkey, Spain, Bulgaria, Kenya, Dominican Rep., and Argentina. It wasn't until Sunday that any of my friends from America jumped on this recent fad. This surprised me. How does something so viral spread and initially skip America? I would have attributed it to time zones, but looking at the geographic location of my friends, that theory failed quickly. I also consider Breast Cancer Awareness, and most things racy, a fairly hot topic for females in America, so I doubt that it would be through lack of interest. So what gives? How was America skipped in the first 24 hours of this campaign? Or is it that my friends just hadn't jumped on board yet? Also, how is it that the females all know about this, while the guys leave ??? comments on their statuses?
"I like it where you like it"
"I like it on the backseat, until I remember to bring it into the house. Then it is all about the counter"
"i like it hanging from my bed post"
"I like it on the washing machine, when I first walk in"
Intriguing, eh? Well for those of you who are unaware as I was, the "I like it..." is this year's Breast Cancer Awareness campaign. Remember last year on Facebook when females simply had a color as their status, indicating what color bra they liked most, or were wearing that day? Well, this campaign is something like that. Except, I am struggling to find out how the "I like it..." relates to Breast Cancer Awareness, when the "it" refers to a purse. But hey, apparently the campaign is spreading quickly, and I'm not one to knock the Awareness campaign, so I'll continue talking about the spread of the campaign across Facebook.
What I found most interesting in my status search, was location. Out of my friends, the first one to have this posting was one of my friends from Greece, but shortly followed by friends in Turkey, Spain, Bulgaria, Kenya, Dominican Rep., and Argentina. It wasn't until Sunday that any of my friends from America jumped on this recent fad. This surprised me. How does something so viral spread and initially skip America? I would have attributed it to time zones, but looking at the geographic location of my friends, that theory failed quickly. I also consider Breast Cancer Awareness, and most things racy, a fairly hot topic for females in America, so I doubt that it would be through lack of interest. So what gives? How was America skipped in the first 24 hours of this campaign? Or is it that my friends just hadn't jumped on board yet? Also, how is it that the females all know about this, while the guys leave ??? comments on their statuses?
Monday, October 4, 2010
Not All Pirates Are Bad
Mattelart’s article on Audio-Visual Piracy placed me in a time warp and brought me back to Greece. This past year I spent 14 months teaching abroad, 10 of them being in Greece. I was also a dorm mom for the high schoolers, so I got to know the kids pretty well. Let’s travel back to late May. I’m having a conversation with my boss about how excited she is for the May 27th Premier of Sex and the City 2. She even boasts that this is the same day that it’s released in America—“THAT is how important Greece is”. One of my Bulgarian students, who will always take the opportunity to take a jab at Greece, pips up: “well if you wanted to watch it, you just should have asked. I downloaded in last week. Here you can have it” as she fumbles through her backpack looking for her jump-drive.
Now, in this topic about Audio-Visual Piracy, let’s allow McChensey to chime in with some statistics: US film firms generate 50-60% of their revenue outside of the country and US music firms generate 70% of their revenue out of the country. That’s a heaping amount. Now, I fully understand the dangers and consequences of illegal downloads, for the industries and consumers alike. But Mattelart has a point that it isn’t all that bad. Piracy creates a demand for more production. The more a product is circulated, the more it, or things like it, are demanded. Now how does this help the film industry if something is being circulated that was never purchased to begin with?
Here’s my take on it. I correlate the effects of piracy to the way that I do my Christmas shopping. When I go Christmas shopping, I don’t go with a list, but I do go with the notion of knowing what I will not deem appropriate for all those who have made it onto my stingy list of present receivers. Now, here’s how it relates to the film industry. If piracy prompts demand, that’s a good thing. Consumers of movies rarely have a wish list of movies that they want created, but once they see something advertised, they know that it’s the perfect fit. I know that the details are a bit loose, but it helped comfort me in knowing that there could indeed be some positive affects to me students’ downloading behavior.
Now, in this topic about Audio-Visual Piracy, let’s allow McChensey to chime in with some statistics: US film firms generate 50-60% of their revenue outside of the country and US music firms generate 70% of their revenue out of the country. That’s a heaping amount. Now, I fully understand the dangers and consequences of illegal downloads, for the industries and consumers alike. But Mattelart has a point that it isn’t all that bad. Piracy creates a demand for more production. The more a product is circulated, the more it, or things like it, are demanded. Now how does this help the film industry if something is being circulated that was never purchased to begin with?
Here’s my take on it. I correlate the effects of piracy to the way that I do my Christmas shopping. When I go Christmas shopping, I don’t go with a list, but I do go with the notion of knowing what I will not deem appropriate for all those who have made it onto my stingy list of present receivers. Now, here’s how it relates to the film industry. If piracy prompts demand, that’s a good thing. Consumers of movies rarely have a wish list of movies that they want created, but once they see something advertised, they know that it’s the perfect fit. I know that the details are a bit loose, but it helped comfort me in knowing that there could indeed be some positive affects to me students’ downloading behavior.
McDisney
I hadn't realized how old the McChseney article was until I read that Murdoch's bid for Manchester United was still pending. For those of you interested, it never passed. Now, old isn't bad, so long as one read's it with an appropriate distance and perspective. Another insight to the date of this article was the blurb about the McDonald's/Disney affiliation.
Disney and McDonald's did indeed have a ten year agreement in which they promoted each other across 109 nations. Disney provided all those nifty little figurines with the choking hazard warnings on them. McDonald's provided food for millions of Disney customers. However, come 2004, the alliance, or partnership, dissolved. Why? Well, aside from the bad rap that McDonald's had at the time for not properly educating its clientele? That we can only speculate on, as representatives from both parties were fairly close-lipped about the situation. So now, if you want to grab food at Downtown Disney, you'll be welcomed in by Pollo Campero a Latin Chicken Fast-Food restaurant. Not quite sure that follows Disney's objectives though:
The Walt Disney Company's objective is to be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products. The company's primary financial goals are to maximize earnings and cash flow, and to allocate capital toward growth initiatives that will drive long-term shareholder value.
McDonalnd's has 47 million customers a day. Pollo Campero has just over double that in a year. I would say that reputation is what they were after, but then, they own E! Entertainment.
Disney and McDonald's did indeed have a ten year agreement in which they promoted each other across 109 nations. Disney provided all those nifty little figurines with the choking hazard warnings on them. McDonald's provided food for millions of Disney customers. However, come 2004, the alliance, or partnership, dissolved. Why? Well, aside from the bad rap that McDonald's had at the time for not properly educating its clientele? That we can only speculate on, as representatives from both parties were fairly close-lipped about the situation. So now, if you want to grab food at Downtown Disney, you'll be welcomed in by Pollo Campero a Latin Chicken Fast-Food restaurant. Not quite sure that follows Disney's objectives though:
The Walt Disney Company's objective is to be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information, using its portfolio of brands to differentiate its content, services and consumer products. The company's primary financial goals are to maximize earnings and cash flow, and to allocate capital toward growth initiatives that will drive long-term shareholder value.
McDonalnd's has 47 million customers a day. Pollo Campero has just over double that in a year. I would say that reputation is what they were after, but then, they own E! Entertainment.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Huge changes in the UK law on internet privacy
Internet and privacy laws are some of the main topics in the United Kingdom
This week, the EU commission stated that if the UK
"The user's consent is required for any interception of e-mails or internet surfing, the Commission says, objecting to the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), which allows a person to intercept communications if he or she has "reasonable grounds for believing" that consent has been given.” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11443734)
Sanctions??
Under the EU, there should be sanctions for any and all unlawful interceptions. So where does the UK UK UK
Disneyland makes a step towards glocalization???
As the world becomes closer and more cultures are being subjected to the leverage of other “dominant” cultures, many turn to the concept of globalization as the many key factor of these influences. John Sinclair illustrates that individuals identities are not constant and that they consist of multiple and mixed layers of influence and it is this variety of levels that allows them to be able to connect with others without abandoning their own sense of self and culture. He also goes on to say that “cultural affiliations at various levels” are “no longer obliged to assimilate themselves to a national culture.”
Untitled
We spent a lot of time in class taking Sparks down, but in terms of O’Neil’s article on media literacy, something he says strikes a nerve. Spark’s final jab at the theory of global media domination: “A quarter of the world’s population, more than one and a quarter billion people, are today without any access to electricity, and that number will rise over the next 25 years (World Energy Outlook, 2002). No electricity, no internet. A theory that is blind to such facts is blind to reality.”
When O’Neil talks about the campaign for media literacy he frames access to communications as a human right. Put this together with Sparks… are one and a quarter billion people being denied an essential right? If having no internet access equates to denial of the right to communications access who is there to blame? Drag to the ICC?
O’Neil’s article really just gave me the impression that media literacy is a “First World” right. Protecting those who already have communications access but not bringing it to anyone new. The two authors conflicted me a little bit, because I do believe in increasing media literacy especially in children, and in communications access as a human right. But Sparks’s closing argument really stuck with me. Global communications is supposed to unite the world community, not become the new polarizer between the developed and the unfortunates. But how do you bring internet to people who can’t even access clean water?
When O’Neil talks about the campaign for media literacy he frames access to communications as a human right. Put this together with Sparks… are one and a quarter billion people being denied an essential right? If having no internet access equates to denial of the right to communications access who is there to blame? Drag to the ICC?
O’Neil’s article really just gave me the impression that media literacy is a “First World” right. Protecting those who already have communications access but not bringing it to anyone new. The two authors conflicted me a little bit, because I do believe in increasing media literacy especially in children, and in communications access as a human right. But Sparks’s closing argument really stuck with me. Global communications is supposed to unite the world community, not become the new polarizer between the developed and the unfortunates. But how do you bring internet to people who can’t even access clean water?
Rated for Everyone
Disclaimer: This internet content is strictly opinion-based. While it may be based on some fact, it should not be taken at face value as any sort of journalistic news gathering. There is no explicit material. I don’t have a record of reporting fabricated material as fact, but I do tend to come from a more left/liberal perspective.
I got so excited when we started talking about rating systems in class. Maybe it is silly, but I have always wondered if there should be some sort of rating system for where people are getting their information. Not censorship. Not some kind of overreaching, controlling system, just a measure of content as compared to other content. Today, parents use existing measurements to help guide them what to let their children watch, youporn warns you explicitly that you are about to enter a page with material meant for adults only, you are warned before surgery shows that material may be graphic and not suitable for everyone, and even blogs are flagged these days as having strong content.
Should there be s system on labeling shows and websites with rating? Should we know something about their reputation on legitimacy, fact-checking, whether or not they are opinion based, and so forth? I do not want to get into the logistics of it, but maybe it can be done, and in an unimposing, non censoring, non dictatorial way. Is it is feasible? Ethical? Is it out responsibility, or the individual’s?
I got so excited when we started talking about rating systems in class. Maybe it is silly, but I have always wondered if there should be some sort of rating system for where people are getting their information. Not censorship. Not some kind of overreaching, controlling system, just a measure of content as compared to other content. Today, parents use existing measurements to help guide them what to let their children watch, youporn warns you explicitly that you are about to enter a page with material meant for adults only, you are warned before surgery shows that material may be graphic and not suitable for everyone, and even blogs are flagged these days as having strong content.
Should there be s system on labeling shows and websites with rating? Should we know something about their reputation on legitimacy, fact-checking, whether or not they are opinion based, and so forth? I do not want to get into the logistics of it, but maybe it can be done, and in an unimposing, non censoring, non dictatorial way. Is it is feasible? Ethical? Is it out responsibility, or the individual’s?
A double edge sword.
Both Visual piracy and the ability of subaltern contra-flows have the ability to disrupt the flow of influence and wealth to the few but reigning TNCs. Revealing that globalization and even glocalisation are more then one way flows from Western powers to the rest of the world. That the same cultural, social and political influences that are embedded into a media product can be turned around and sent back to its originators with a similar imposing force. Bring about a small but growing feeling to the originators of the dominant flow of insecurity and national insecurity.
In Daya Kishan Thussu's "Mapping Global Media Flow and Contra-flow", subaltern contra-flows are characterized as a flow of material from the South (Non-western) to the North (western/mostly US). He gives examples of telenovelas and Bollywood as small but growing influential subaltern contra-flows. While these examples are not a major presence yet there are others that are, such as Japanese animation (which Thussu kindly shoves to the side) and other pop-culture risings (Korean drama, music (of all varieties) and fashion design (where do you think your new concept of layering and leggings came from?)) in influence with regional distinction. Companies are being forced to start carrying products from abroad and recognize the ability of these entities to capture local interest. Thus find themselves having to adjust their own programing to replicate in one form or another this intrusive new media, not to say that this is a bad thing but it is something a little more noticeable then Thussu gives credit to. For example fashion institutes like FIT in New York are now turning their attention to the East for the newest trends, TV programmers are grappling with the concept of multilingual programing, while Walmart is carrying more Latin American and Asian foods in its Super stores.
Much of this is in the face of TNC's who "will respect no tradition or custom, on balance, if it stands in the way of profits" when abroad, as Robert McChesney has mentioned in "The Media System Goes Global" (pg 202). Yet, when faced with things such as piracy, are more the willing to assert their American right to their media content and that suddenly their entire industry is on the verge of collapse because they're influence isn't turning a profitable figure they hold in their minds.
Also it is interesting that in Tristan Mattelart's "Audio-visual piracy" that the threat of subaltern contra-flow isn't talked about. Yet, its been occurring since the 1980's with the boom of pirated regional goods flowing into the U.S. from abroad through those traveling on business trips, loading their briefcases full to sell at a locally "authentic" shops. Or the fact that there has been such a flood of piracy in comic material from Japan (w/ content unchanged), that American companies have just began taking legal action fearing loss of their niche on resealing the same item but with a culturally corrected addition. Its seems only recently that people and companies have began to notice and even question how much of a foreign good is being consumed but in truth the concepts of subaltern contra-flow and piracy have been a large part of American lives for sometime.
Hence, its not that piracy and subaltern contra-flows are one and the same but that they do compliment each other and perhaps even state that its not that something is wrong with globalization but that something is wrong with the players involved. That these players especially TNCs need to be more sensitive to the areas they bombard with media because they can now turn around and have similar media thrown back at them.
In Daya Kishan Thussu's "Mapping Global Media Flow and Contra-flow", subaltern contra-flows are characterized as a flow of material from the South (Non-western) to the North (western/mostly US). He gives examples of telenovelas and Bollywood as small but growing influential subaltern contra-flows. While these examples are not a major presence yet there are others that are, such as Japanese animation (which Thussu kindly shoves to the side) and other pop-culture risings (Korean drama, music (of all varieties) and fashion design (where do you think your new concept of layering and leggings came from?)) in influence with regional distinction. Companies are being forced to start carrying products from abroad and recognize the ability of these entities to capture local interest. Thus find themselves having to adjust their own programing to replicate in one form or another this intrusive new media, not to say that this is a bad thing but it is something a little more noticeable then Thussu gives credit to. For example fashion institutes like FIT in New York are now turning their attention to the East for the newest trends, TV programmers are grappling with the concept of multilingual programing, while Walmart is carrying more Latin American and Asian foods in its Super stores.
Much of this is in the face of TNC's who "will respect no tradition or custom, on balance, if it stands in the way of profits" when abroad, as Robert McChesney has mentioned in "The Media System Goes Global" (pg 202). Yet, when faced with things such as piracy, are more the willing to assert their American right to their media content and that suddenly their entire industry is on the verge of collapse because they're influence isn't turning a profitable figure they hold in their minds.
Also it is interesting that in Tristan Mattelart's "Audio-visual piracy" that the threat of subaltern contra-flow isn't talked about. Yet, its been occurring since the 1980's with the boom of pirated regional goods flowing into the U.S. from abroad through those traveling on business trips, loading their briefcases full to sell at a locally "authentic" shops. Or the fact that there has been such a flood of piracy in comic material from Japan (w/ content unchanged), that American companies have just began taking legal action fearing loss of their niche on resealing the same item but with a culturally corrected addition. Its seems only recently that people and companies have began to notice and even question how much of a foreign good is being consumed but in truth the concepts of subaltern contra-flow and piracy have been a large part of American lives for sometime.
Hence, its not that piracy and subaltern contra-flows are one and the same but that they do compliment each other and perhaps even state that its not that something is wrong with globalization but that something is wrong with the players involved. That these players especially TNCs need to be more sensitive to the areas they bombard with media because they can now turn around and have similar media thrown back at them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)