Archaology takes a stab

Sir, we've found a eminent of what appears to be "global society", composed of a little integration, imperialistic sentiment, and a whole lot of optimism.-myself.

In Armand Mattelart's "An Archaology of the global era": constructing belief," the world of sarcasm against political rhetoric seems to have a home. Mattelart sees globalization as nothing more than a new label for the concepts of capitalism and unity of the world. Claiming instead that those burying ideas of the past are simply building up oil deposits from which the rise of technology focused claims gain their fuel. These "grave-diggers", as Mattelart labels them have forgotten the claims and statements of the past that echo their own, concepts such as: the "global village" (1962) and Worldism (early 1900s) but instead follow Henry Ford's statement "History is bunk".

Mattelart takes his archaeology sarcasm a step further to reveal the corruption through incorporation of basic American principles into corporate mottos. Take the concept of "freedom of speech" and "freedom" in general, in Mattelart's rhetoric they become "freedom of commercial-speech" and "freedom of trade" becoming synonymous with corporate interests. He notes that freedom has become the beacon of capitalism, glowing for all to see, whether they wish to follow its route home or extinguish it all together.

Further, Mattelart picks apart globalization's bones with a finer brush then most noting its well put intentions that have worsened things for not just those that are buying into the ideology but those that sell it. The main focus is the creation of the growing digitial divide, the benefits and downfalls of protest as it becomes more complex and perhaps even more difficult. Lastly, he notes the methods by which corporation and capitalistc mechanisms ignore the methods of human exploitation who are the mechanisms that mobilize consumption and technological output.

So before we host globalization and the "global society" we claim to live in, on to a new podium or alter for worship, lets not forget what is below the surface fueling this radiating ideology. The long forgotten claims and ideologies that were pumped into society and then buried or discarded not so long ago as ancient history, with the rise of this "alternate" and newly trans-formative claim. Long live the past, as it may be our future.

Wiki Power!?

Not to keep harping on Wikileaks, but...

Wikileaks is normally not something I would be interested in, but I think its very poignant timing that this news is breaking at the end of our course. You couldn't really ask for a better cumulation of the concepts we studied this semester. What I'm most interested in is just how much the most recent wiki "leak" has and/or could hurt the US soft power. Maybe its just because I'm paying more attention to it in the news now, but it seems that this diplomatic leak is making a bigger splash than the one about the Iraq war. All countries do bad things in war, but now the US's dirty little laundry is out there... Our burn book got published and we just won the mean girl contest.
If our public diplomacy over the past 10 years has been all about putting a more synchronized, "real" image of the US out there, the recent leaks are going to be a huge hurdle, that Mrs. Clinton and the folks at the state department are already struggling to overcome. What better an example of the emerging influence of ICT's in the global political sphere. Some secret funded upstart website had almost a more than instantaneoues impact on global politics. Even before it leaked the documents, the anticipation was making headlines and putting governments on the defensive. I'm sure this is just the beginning of what wikileaks and other self appointed whistle blowers and going to be able to do, and I think heads of state are more than a little afraid of it. I'm just glad I chose this career path.

Wikiplomacy

When I heard of the Wikileaks State Department cables release, my first thought was, oh no, we need to brace for the worst, thinking what a embarrassment this was going to be. But then I thought, maybe this is a good thing, one of those that shifts those worn out ways of institutionalized governance. Truth be told, I feel that if something were going to change, it would have to be with a big blow, and that is Assange’s mission, I think, apart from being a little on the creepily vindictive side. He openly stated the he was pleased to hear Netanyahu’s comment that leaders should discuss in public what they discuss in private. I wonder what Netanyahu’s take would have been if he had lost face with the cable instead of his Middle Eastern counterparts.

When I started to think about the consequences, I thought about the reality of how leaders and diplomats act when it comes to talking with each other. Surely, if you were going to show any willingness to cooperate and negotiate with others with whom you are actually or even historically at odds, wouldn’t it be necessary to do so behind closed doors? Leaders always want to show zero weakness to their own people and save face. That means displaying that you are unwilling to waver on any points. What I wonder is, if there were never any negotiations and concessions behind closed doors, would any of it ever really get done?

I am all for being able to have these conversations in the public eye, but is it realistic? I can see that if there were a big shift in PD, and the new information era of transparency served to convinced everyone that giving a little and taking a little is part of any workable relationship, then it would be easy. What are the chances that everyone’s paradigm to how we have always done international relation will change?

This administration takes a bit of heat for being too “apologetic.“ Would everyone be able to strike that balance between being capable of working with others, and keeping their constituents at ease?

200 Pound Beauty

Entertainment-Education is a complex field that walks the tightropes between engaging the audience and instilling or disproving cultural norms. In walking this tightrope failure can be a way of life and it seems many messages turn south causing what is promptly labeled as the "Archie Bunker Effect"(Singhal, 7-9). Occuring when the character that is suppose to get the audience to rebuke the support of a sterotype actually reinforces it.

Thinking about the successful case of the show Jasoos Vijay in India covered by Catterjee and Frank and the way in which dramas can inflict value judgements and help overcome anti-setiment, I wondered if it could be applied to a certain Korean Drama. The drama, 200 pound beauty, aired in 2006 it appears to be a educative drama gone south. The story centers around a woman by the name of Hanna, a behind the scenes singer for a pop idol (who can't sing) who undergoes head to toe plastic surgery for the sake of love and a boost in confidence. If this combination wasn't potent enough, the drama ends with Hanna, now pop-idol material herself, denouncing her "all natural" branding to her fans and yet still being accepted for her dramatic change.

It is this kind of play on norms through captivating (or not) narrative dialogue that throws this drama's creditability for a loop. If we can consider this drama a form of entertainment-education media, then would it be a failure for enforcing an already growing concern of young urban Korean woman's current trend/obsession with plastic surgery? Or can it be viewed as a moral lesson that gets girls in the Urban areas of Korea speaking out about changing themselves for others and the consequences of such ?


More on Drama

FIFA Results- Soccer made Soft Power?

Soccer Link

In last weeks reading of Joseph Nye's " Public Diplomacy and Soft Power" and Corman, Tretheway and Goodall's " A 21st Century Model for Communications in the Global War of Ideas" we learned of soft power and the message influence model that the United States clings to. Soft power defined by Nye is " the ability to affect others to obtain the outcome one wants through attraction rather than coercion or payment"(pg2). If this definition is taken at face value then the United States has a long way to go to recover and re-live its glory days gone by, as it loses its second consecutive battle to host the FIFA 2022 World Cup to no other than Qatar.

The reasoning behind the decision was the desire to hold the game for the first time in Eastern Europea which will continue the FIFA organizations goal of expanding the sport worldwide. But where does this blow to ones pride, leave the United States? Well it seems to suggest that the United States conventions of just getting its message across in a "consistent" manner, over and over again till they agree with us, is crying out for a re-evaluation as suggested by Corman, Tretheway and Goodall. The United States can no loner rely on the soft power it gained during the cold war to bail it out now, it seems to have forgotten somewhere after the Berlin Wall fell the importance of maintaining a good image and what the meaning of a message actually constitutes.

Perhaps if the United States took up the Pragmatic Complexity Model and maybe even a few hints from its Arabic neighbors it might learn that a message is a two-way flow of information. In order to win the game whether on the field or in the political arena understanding and reacting to your teammates perception is just as important as keeping an eye on the ball.

Muppet Ambassadors?

In order to determine whether Sesame Street is a form of public diplomacy, we must first establish which lens to view public diplomacy through. If public diplomacy is citizens—or in this case Muppets—acting on behalf of a political body to establish interpersonal connections, then no, Sesame Street is not a vehicle for public diplomacy. However, if public diplomacy is measured by outcome, and not intention, then I dare say that Elmo and friends are cultural ambassadors. Their mission is to act on behalf of their audience to educate them—equipping them with lessons on literacy, counting, cultural awareness, friendship, self-esteem, kindness, and tolerance. Providing youth around the world with an educational outlet, emphasizing morals and values (both local and shared) is one of the best forms of diplomacy. There are some hearts and minds that Big Bird can touch that a government will never be able to—so let the show go on, and tell everyone how to get to, how to get to Sesame Street.

http://www.cpb.org/features/sesamestreetdiplomacy/index.html

Wikileaks and FP

Since everyone is talking about the Wikileaks, I'm going to add my two cents. I think one of the most significant Wikileaks had to do with a bunch of the Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, urging the United States to attack Iran. All of this information, which should have been kept secret, shows an interesting side of the United States relationship with the Arab countries in the Middle East. It seems that in spite of many of these countries spending millions on weapons and defense from the U.S. government, they still want the United States to fight their battles for them in that there appears to be a concern in the region about Iran being a dominating player. Of course much of this is related to the nuclear issue, but it shows that the Arab states want the United States to play the role of the police officer in the region and to fight their battles for them in order to ensure a balance of power that would keep Iran as a weaker player in the region. This information which is now in the public domain reflects to some extent, United States foreign policy in the region purely as an attempt to contain Iran -- which I doubt is to really protect the Arab states (whose political systems do not represent the democracy and development we are trying to spread to the region) but to make sure that we (the West) does not have to deal with Iran as a formidable opponent -- which they would be if they had nuclear weapons. At the same time, this shows the influence that transnational advocacy networks in the Arab states -- and also for that matter, their Israeli "enemy" -- have as a common interest in prevent Iran from becoming a power in the region.

Our Social Reality

In “A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas” (Corman et al.), the authors do a good job of pointing out the shortcomings of the classic transmitter/receiver model, which they refer to as the Message Influence Model. Their call for a new strategy that takes into account the complexities of the “a social reality” in which we live today is a much needed step forward in communication strategy. “Members of the system, routinely and often unconsciously, work to preserve the existing framework of meaning. To accomplish this they interpret messages in ways that “fit” the existing scheme, rather than in ways that senders may intend.” (pages 7-8)

This would explain why many recent attempts by the U.S. to explain its values abroad is interpreted as it trying to impose its culture on others. We need to remember that we no longer live in the post WWII euphoria of the American Dream. Today, a lot of people remember our dodgy cold war era military interventions and one
sided trade policies. If you ask people in Latin America if the U.S. can lead in environmental policy, many will be quick to point out that we never signed on in Kyoto, so how dare we try.

To summarized their proposed Pragmatic Complexity Model they argue that in communication between parties A and B:

-The success of A’s behavior depends not only on external conditions, but on what B does and thinks.
-What B does and thinks is influenced by A’s behavior as well as B’s expectations, interpretations, and attributions with respect to A.

Moreover, if you have a B that is fed up with A, they are less likely to want to listen and more sensitive in misinterpreting any message from A as condescending or irrelevant to them.

Is this where America stands now? Has American policy in the last sixty years worn out the welcome of communication? Can we ever go back to having an audience willing to listen and interpret the way we would like?

More in the world of wikileaks

Thought this might be an interesting article...

WASHINGTON — The online website WikiLeaks says it will go ahead with the release of hundreds of thousands of classified State Department documents in defiance of U.S. demands not to publish the files.

The WikiLeaks website appeared to be inaccessible, and WikiLeaks said in its Twitter feed that it was experiencing a denial of service attack. Nevertheless, WikiLeaks said that publications in the U.S. and Europe would print the leaked diplomatic cables even if it could not.

The group's founder, Julian Assange, also tells the U.S. ambassador to Britain that WikiLeaks won't bow to Washington's demands.

The Obama administration has been bracing for the release for the past week. Top officials have notified allies that the contents of the diplomatic cables could prove embarrassing because they contain candid assessments of foreign leaders.

The State Department has warned that the expected release of classified U.S. documents would endanger countless lives, jeopardize American military operations and hurt international cooperation on global security issues.

The department's top lawyer urged Assange in a letter on Saturday to keep classified documents off the website, remove records of them from its database and return any material to the U.S. government.

Lawyer Harold Koh said the department has learned that WikiLeaks provided 250,000 documents to The New York Times, The Guardian of Britain and German magazine Der Spiegel.

Some media reported the news outlets may post stories on the documents as early as Sunday and said they have also been given to newspapers Le Monde in France and El Pais in Spain.

The U.S. government, which was informed in advance of the contents, has contacted governments around the world, including in Russia, Europe and the Middle East, to try to limit any damage. Sources familiar with the documents say they include corruption allegations against foreign leaders and governments.

Koh wrote that publication of the documents would "place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" as well as military initiatives and cooperation between countries to confront problems from terrorism to pandemic disease.

The lawyer also rejected what he said was Assange's request for more information about individuals who might be at risk from publication of the documents.

"We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials," Koh wrote.

Past releases by WikiLeaks, founded by Assange, an Australian-born computer hacker, contained sensitive information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the United States had said compromised national security and put some people at risk.

Anticipating the fallout from the latest publication, U.S. Ambassador to Germany Philip Murphy wrote a letter to the German Sunday weekly Bild am Sonntag that the WikiLeaks revelations would be an embarrassment.

"Regrettably we will soon have something new to see: alleged confidential diplomatic messages from U.S. embassies around the world, including mine. It's hard to say what effect it will have, but it will at the very least be uncomfortable -- for my government, for those mentioned in the reports, and for me personally as American Ambassador to Germany."

The newspaper reported that some German politicians were severely judged in the reports.

On Friday, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey told reporters he was worried about the documents coming out.

"WikiLeaks are an absolutely awful impediment to my business, which is to be able to have discussions in confidence with people," he said.

The State Department letter echoed concerns expressed by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, airing on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on Sunday.

"I would hope that those who are responsible for this would, at some point in time, think about the responsibility that they have for lives that they're exposing and the potential that's there and stop leaking this information," Mullen said.

In October, WikiLeaks released nearly 400,000 classified U.S. military files chronicling the Iraq war.

In a Twitter message last week, WikiLeaks said its forthcoming document release would be seven times larger than the Iraq war cache. A person familiar with the documents said that comparison was based on the total number of words.

An item that was apparently posted prematurely, and then removed, from the Der Spiegel website over the weekend, said the new WikiLeaks cache constituted of just over 250,000 State Department cables and 8,000 "diplomatic directives."

© 2010 msnbc.com

Facebook vs. FARC

“A powerful counter-movement has emerged that has demoralized the remaining terrorist group, the FARC. The origins of the new force were not in government or civil society. Instead, a young unemployed computer technician named Oscar Morales spontaneously started a Facebook group that grew quickly to more than 400,000 members. The group, called One Million Voices Against the FARC, put 12 million people in the streets in a single day in 190 cities around the world -- just two months after it was set up.”
-James Glassman, Public Diplomacy 2.0

I remember that day. The parade was marching down 7th Avenue. I had bought a couch which I was getting delivered to my house but the driver could not cross the closed off street, so the two of us had to carry it over our heads across the march (pretty comical) and up the two blocks to my apartment.

Oscar Morales did not spontaneously start up a face book group that changed the course of history with the FARC. His reaction was a reflection of the sentiment there at the time. The entire country was pissed off over an incident with a little boy named Emmanuel who the FARC lied about having in their possession. HOWEVER, I would argue that the state of the FARC at that point was completely debilitated. They "had" Emmanuel, and they had Ingrid Betancourt, they were forced to lie about one and then the other was freed in a dramatic rescue by the military who had infiltrated the FARC up to ten years before. While there are still thousands of displaced persons in Colombia, and yes, people still go missing and get kidnapped with some regularity, the years of being terrorized by the FARC are long gone. Fifteen years ago, you couldn’t leave Bogota in a car because you were sure to be at great risk. Then people started driving in caravans. In 2006, two years before the facebook group, I drove by myself out of the city to meet a friend in a nearby town with zero fear of threat.

My point is not that Morales’s face book group was not a huge success, simply that the response to it was a reflection of civil society. To say that it created a counter-movement is a big miscalculation. Fortunately, Glassman makes this point later.

“.. public diplomacy – whether 1.0 or 2.0 – is only one tool for achieving foreign policy and national security goals. One blogger wrote last week that “starting a Facebook group called 'Terrorism Sucks!' and getting a bunch of people to join it isn't exactly winning the War on Islamic Fundamental Militancy“…In fact, we never said soft power was a substitute for hard power. It is an essential complement.”

You want a good experiment on the effect of social media? Try this exact same thing in Cd. Juarez today. If you get 12 million people out on the street and your curb the cartels’ morale, then facebook is a winner. My bet is that you don’t. And there is no FARC in Bogota to fight you. But would there be a blood bath in the streets in Juarez. There is, every weekend.

Defender of Responsibiliy--Anderson Cooper?

This week the New York Times Opinion articles were spangled with excellent features—Omaha’s local businessman (Buffet) gets a special shout-out here. Nevertheless, the article I want to focus on is Thomas Friedman’s Too Good to Check. Friedman uses one of Twain’s most appropriate diplomacy quotes: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” The article does not go on to mention Nye’s version of public diplomacy—but the message is there. Friedman applauds CNN’s Anderson Cooper for dispelling the myth that Obama was going to spend $200 million (yes, taxpayer dollars) a day on his South-East Asian trip, and would supplement the vacation with 34 navy liners and a 3,000 man team. These “facts” are not only appalling, but also frightening in how quickly they travelled. These momentum-building details were splashed across all mediums of news without anyone bothering to check their validity.

So thank you Anderson Cooper for protecting our soft power. You not only assured Americans and foreigners alike that Obama is not frivolously throwing money at our greatest job-source competition, but you proved—at least momentarily—that we care about reporting. Many foreigners have strong opinions regarding America’s freedom of press, and our ability to air just about anything we like is our right—but airing the ‘right’ things, well that my friends is our responsibility. No wonder Americans have developed the paradox of plenty and ADD rates are going through the roof—we have too much information coming at us, and we aren’t even guaranteed that it’s accurate! I do understand that journalists and broadcasters take ethical vows. I am not attempting to insinuate that these acts are malicious. I am trying to point out, for the sake of our Public Diplomacy, lets at least be sure to cross-or-double check information before sharing it with the world. We have enough reasons for people to argue with us—let’s at least limit them to legitimate ones.

The Al Jazeera Factor

The Gilboa Powers article for this coming week quoted a man as saying that he watches Al Jazeera because it represents the truth and reality of events. Taken with my grandfather’s opinion of Al Jazeera as a terrorist organization, aka “Jihad TV”, the difference in interpretations of this media outlet are striking and to me demonstrate the viewers importance in perpetuating and creating media bias. Even Powers tempers the “truth” aspect of Al Jazeera crediting its positive reputation to the even worse reputations of other corrupt Arab news organizations. Kind of like comparing CNN news to Fox in my opinion, although again if this were my grandpa it would be the other way around… One is only the truth because the other is not.
Powers tries to present Al Jazeera as an important transnational actor, and I too would argue that it is, now more than ever. But in light of the criticism it widely receives in the US, is its transnational might dependent on region? It is arguably a glue factor for Arab countries and Arab diasporas, but how far does that “trans” go? The article really just confused me more than anything. Al-Jazeera is supposed to be a political actor, and has strong influence in the Arab region. It caused 6 nations to withdraw their ambassadors from Doha. Does this mean Al Jazeera was doing its job in exposing unjust practices in those countries? Maybe. But does that do anything to instigate actual political change in those areas? I think this is where the separation of media outlets and other transnational actors would come into play. The need for viewers is always going to trump other priorities. But then again what transnational actors need for followers isn’t going to win out. Is Al Jazeera really triumphing for an alternative representation of the news, putting stories out there that would otherwise be oppressed? Or is it the Bill O’Riley of the Arab world, stirring up controversy to draw viewers in and over to their side of the truth?

Legitimacy of the CNN effect

As someone who checks Google News regularly, I can definitely relate to how the CNN effect has changed the consumer's expectations on how fast news should get to you as a consumer. Google News updates by the minute on all sorts of different issues from news sources all over the world. Personally, I really like the up to date news. However, I've noticed if you are following a breaking story -- almost all the news sources have the same information. It also makes it so that the consumer has not only incomplete information, but often imperfect information since it is coming out so quickly that most of the time the story is not even fully formed.

This has profound implications for shaping how people think of things as they happen in the world. If you are not checking the media constantly, you may only have part of the story as opposed to if news was reported, for example, once a day on an evening news show. Especially in countries where the media that comes out is to some extent limited, which is most developing countries with totalitarian regimes. I think this is in spite of all the other informal news avenues we have -- such as social networking sites like facebook and twitter. However, there is only so much legitimacy in what comes out on these sites as well, because you are relying on individuals who are not accountable to larger organizations for information. This can be good and bad, in that there is less incentive to edit what is actually happening on the ground, but can also result in much inaccurate information that the consumer has to decide whether or not is actually a legitimate source of information.

Spinning Cigarettes

Robin Brown’s piece “Spinning the War” was pretty spot on in terms of illustrating media importance in shaping political decisions and outcomes, with the specific example of how the war on terror became what it is today. I’m personally interested in health communications and I think that in some way, the new cigarette health warnings can fit into Brown’s general argument. The FDA has recently required cigarette manufacturers to use more graphic images as part of the mandatory health advisories on cigarette cartons. Some of these images include shriveled babies and a man smoking with a hole in his throat. The decision obviously has some implications for cigarette advertising, but whether or not the new images, meant to shock potential buyers, will have an effect on sales remains to be seen. Graphic warning images are new in the United States, but not elsewhere in the world, and haven’t seemed to faze already habitual smokers. I do however think the FDA’s ruling is a step in the right direction in combating smoking in the United States. The cigarette industry has the money to be a strong government lobbiest and these new labels are at the least a strong showing in the attempt to balance their might. I also think the media is in part responsible for the passing of these new requirements. Anti smoking campaigns, especially the TRUTH campaign, have been given more attention and more air time in the past decade and cigarette ads have been given some restrictions as to where they can be published. Media may not have been the driving factor in the passing of the more graphic images, but it will be important in how the images are received and the extent their impact will have actually deterring people from consuming cigarettes. And for the proponents of even more strict cigarette regulation in the future, this is where I think media spin and politics, especially the politics of cigarette money will come into play. It’s not happening in the main stream right now, but maybe after a while of looking at shriveled babies, the war against smoking is in the cards.

Universal Values and China

The class discussion on Liu Xiaolo is such a perfect example of just how complex cross-cultural communication can be. The question becomes one of deep seeded beliefs and ways of life, often ones that we are blind to. I know that before in this class we have questioned the idea of “individualism” versus “collectivism”, saying that people love to boil the west v. east cultural struggle to these opposites often too easily. But it is worth questioning the idea of whether or not we are too quick to assume that there are “universal values” everyone can agree with. Read about this debate in China here.

Are there such things as universal values? Is it our right to question China from afar? Saudi women’s rights? The Indian caste system? Are we going to take on one culture at a time for not adhering to our system of values?

Here is an interesting quote from the Economist:
Mr Liu writes positively about the growth of civil society in China. But he is scathing about the willingness of the Chinese public to bend to party authority, so long as the party continues to provide opportunities (no matter how underhand) to get rich. Mr Liu is despondent about the prospects for a public push for change in China’s authoritarian system. “The repression by the dictatorial authorities is, admittedly, one of the reasons, but the indifference of the populace is an even greater cause,” he says. -The Economist

Is the “indifference of the populace” enough to clue us in to the will of the people? At least the majority? Isn’t that a democracy?

Would love to know your thoughts.

Al-Jazeera's viewership

I think the Al-Jazeera effect has had its good effects and bad effects. First, the concept of news being reported by all and not being influenced as much by politically based funding frees up the journalists to report without an agenda. However, Al-Jazeera does not have as much legitimacy among Western audiences as other media outlets -- primarily because of the stigma attached to anything coming from the Middle East/Arab world/anything that sounds like it might be remotely related to Islam. Of course, this illegitimacy definitely reflects a bias on the part of Western viewers, but you have to wonder how much of that bias has been created by our own media. Al-Jazeera however, has been successful in other countries and has expanded its consumer base because over time it has shown to be a more legitimate source of news. This might be attributed to the fact that more people can relate to the diversity of issues that are displayed and broad-casted on Al-Jazeera.

Christmas Ad

In "Global Communication and the Nation-State" by Elizabeth Hanson, she talks about framing of the news in which the news "frames events in a manner design to elicit public support" (pg 103). Looking at the four ways of framing described: cultural congruence, degree of consensus, amount of control over the flow of information and the nature of the event; I wondered if the principles of framing could also be applied to advertisements.

I came upon this thought at work (were many of my thoughts on readings occur) when watching what my company calls their "company programing". Included amongst its heave logo, slogan and values reinforcement there is a preview section of upcoming advertisement that will be broadcast across the nation in the weeks to come. Christmas being around the corner, the focus was linking home improvement projects with Christmas decorating. I was surprised to see the companies possibly first commercial solidly in Español to be featured in Mexico and on Spanish speaking channels in the US in limited quantity.

I found three distinctive features of the commercial that differed from its US counterpart in possibly negative ways. First, the imagery, nativity scene decoration, santa and then a Feliz Navidad sign on the lawn at the end. Now while these are just symbols of various traditions in the culture its also doesn't cover anything in the cultural context beyond the stereotypical. Unlike the american version, family is almost entirely missing and the shopper near the end was portrayed as someone hitting a bargain sale at walmart...no machismo I assure you. Granted I am far from being a expert of Spanish, Mexican or South American culture but it seemed to be lacking some core values and I'm sure one of them is family.

Second, the commercial speaker was FAST, while obviously fluency is a given, the music and tempo didn't match the imagery, as if the music from the US commercial was thrown in along with the announcing voice hap haphazardly. Almost in a way of saying, we could care less about the quality as long as for 15 seconds you hear this commercial. There was even a spot near the end were the voice almost didn't make the cut at the end in which it was announcing the discount on exchanging lights out for new LEDs. I believe this is could be considered a control on the flow of information, in which the limitation of the programing and long with the way it is framed show that the value of the commercial is less important then the fact that its in another language (note I have seen their soccer commercial and the quality was WAY better).

I remember clearly listening and watching this commercial over three times to see if it was just a value judgement on my part but still I can't help but feel that the framing of the ad elcited a very culturally insensitive feel, void of the importance of the add and suggesting that by its very nature as an ad for a limited viewing space that it wasn't worth the effort they purposely put into the English version. So I ask, what does this kind of advertising say about the company and the customers its aimed at? Can we use Hanson's suggested framework of news to evaluate it?

Taking the Lead? Not so fast.

A common theme in this week's readings had to do with the media taking the lead on issues, not following them. Granting this is jumping the gun a bit...but I am more worried about the fact that if the media is leading, that means that others are not. Due to the CNN effect, curve, complex, factor--call it what you will--consumers expect to be informed immediately. This necessitates that those generally providing the news--managers, government officials, experts--are forced to provide statements before fully familiarizing themselves with the issues. This is not a new topic, I realize this. However, when I was reading these articles one image kept playing in my mind. President Bush's photo staring out the window onto the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina.

Recently, since Bush's return to the media, he has again voiced his remorse for having this photo taken and published. He did not think of the consequences at the time, and the media--and thus the public--was demanding some sort of a statement. What is equally as frightening is that these rushed statements and photos will never disappear. Granted, I suppose you could use microfilm to pull up clippings from a century ago, but with today's technology the past is the present whenever someone uses the Google search feature. So what is the solution? Working on that one for now. But in the mean time, I'll give my sympathy vote to those being splashed around the press when their intentions were to appease the people's call of producing something.

Google Maps

After last week's discussion on Google taking the go-ahead with maps and deciding on its own borders (at times disputed by the states themselves) I thought that this article would be a good addition to the dialogue. I find it interesting that Google uses the State Department's information to draw its borders. And I find it interesting not because it follows America, but because it follows any one country's stance on national boundaries. Though, I do suppose that it has to base its information off somewhere, and one data-set is probably easier than picking and choosing--and thus setting their own agenda.

International Media Influencing U.S. Foreign Policy?

Recently, the U.S. and the international community has been paying a lot of attention to Iran and its nuclear program. Ironically, this has made Ahmadinejad a very sought after man in the media. Ahmadinejad has been on NPR and Larry King, to name two. If anything, all of the hoop-la surrounding the Iran situation has provided Ahmadinejad with a platform to voice his political opinions to the world, as evident by his various interviews with U.S. media sources. This definitely cannot be good for the momentum of the opposition movement in Iran. Last year, Ahmadinejad basically stole the elections and this year as a result of international media hype over Iran's nuclear program and most of the media is focusing on Ahmadinejad as the primary source of all things pertaining to Iran. If anything, I think this sort of hype by the media can drive policy in that if the media only focuses on one political figure as opposed to other voices, including dissenting voices, public opinion is bound to be more influenced by the redundancy of the international media representation of Iran as Ahmadinejad.