The readings this week had to do with the power of transnational corporations within the larger context of global media and how mergers, integration, and buyouts are putting much of the world's media in the control of a handful of corporations.

This idea is nothing new to me as I have been learning about this trend since my days at De Anza Junior College in Cupertino, CA, but the facts are no less daunting than before.

The question each of the readings aims to address is what the power of these media conglomerates is and whether or the grasp that these corporations have over transnational corporations can be considered cultural imperialism?

There were a few facts in the readings that struck me most:

• The fact that whole of Africa has produced 600 films in the continent's history

• That 1/3 of the world's nations create no film products whatsoever

• That Nickelodeon has such a strong presence in Latin America and Europe, because animation is so easy to dub with minimal continuity breaks for the viewer as a result of that dubbing i.e.: subbing a Texan accent with a Bavarian one for German audiences

• A statement by a Disney executive that "for all children, the Disney characters are local characters and this is very important. They always speak a local language"

And that is the exact point I find most troubling. As someone who spent a great deal of my undergrad studying the role of representation in media I know that simply having a character speak a local language and possibly donning a more 'ethnic' name does not necessarily make it more relatable to those audiences. Because many of the premises and characterizations portrayed in those translated shows still come from a Western gaze.

If these 9 companies are going to control as much of the global media spectrum as they do, regulation may unfortunately be too difficult (thanks in large part to decisions by Western nations and Western backed/created/controlled international organizations), but perhaps creating clauses where these media makers are required to train the local people in media creation and storytelling may result in a more complete representation of the rest of the world that at least to some degree would veer from the Western gaze and characterizations of nations that have previously been the subject of, but rarely the creators of media.

Perhaps many of the films may not veer too far from Western ideals and representations or maybe what results could resemble Brazil's Cinema Novo or the Iranian film industry - which finds hidden metaphors in simple aspects of everyday life - but it would be interesting to see what could result.

On regulation and artistic choice

I found this week’s readings on the nature of media regulation much more interesting than I originally expected, such that as I sit down to write this blog, about a million thoughts (mostly in the form of questions, rather than conclusions) are going through my head. I’ll try to parse it out into some coherent strands…

Discussions about access to media production resources and broadcasting for developing and undervoiced groups make a compelling argument for regulation. That is, we need regulation to ensure equitable access for anyone who desires to air their views. It is not so much diversity as an inherent good that needs to be propagated as it is making sure that no one single discourse dominates the media landscape to the exclusion of others, so long as other viewpoints exist.

That said, to what extent does regulation, whether by government or market forces, actually limit the diversity that is represented? Can we trust either the government or market forces (generally dictated by the majority) to know not only what we want to see, but what we should see? Should “what we should see” even be a consideration, or should a concerted effort to show a variety of things and leave the choice aspect to the viewer be enough?

Government governance, presumably working in the greater public interest, can ensure a certain amount of education/Culture (with a capital C!) components to media. It can also ensure that no single interest dominates. Governance by the wrong government, however, can have negative effects on freedom of expression, and can also be susceptible to lobbying interests. Historically, government governance of the media has not spoken to "what the people want," as evidenced by the triumph of commercialized television throughout most of the world.

Government governance also has the effect of dictating a moral code to programming. Moral codes vary by individual, but rather than risk offending anyone, regulation skews towards a more conservative approach. Siochru and Girard mention "prohibitive content regulation" as part of their broader treatment of societal regulation, and note that "normative boundaries are not fixed in the same place in all societies". I would also argue that in a country as large and diverse as the United States, normative boundaries are not fixed in the same place in even a single society. To the extent, then, that representations must adhere to a moral code that may or may not be one’s own, does regulation of things like language or nudity or violence constitute a form of censorship of the artist or producer? And how does that affect the “art” of media?

A personal anecdote: while studying abroad in Edinburgh, my American flatmate and I were in awe of what could and couldn't be shown or said on British television as opposed to American TV. Boobs, butt, curse words -- all were readily available on TV (though generally only after a certain time). In my opinion, liberalization from these content restrictions enhanced these programs because the use of certain language or nudity became an artistic CHOICE. When anybody can show some flesh, the viewer is better able to analyze how and to what effect it is or isn’t used in a way that can’t be asked if there is no choice involved.
When I step back and think of media less in terms of journalism (dominant discourses of FOX vs. MSNBC, New York Times vs. The Economist, etc), and more in terms of cultural entertainment, the freedom of expression advocate in me balks at the idea of regulation, whether by government or corporate interests, or even some kind of civil society board presumably acting on my behalf. Siochru and Girard talk about the "public sphere" as an open, transparent forum where people can be "convinced by reason" rather than by propaganda or through "suppression or distortion of information." They discuss the public sphere in relation to democratic ideals, but I think it relates to access to art as well. I balk at the idea of someone else telling me what is art and what isn't, or, to put it less polemically, what is entertainment and what isn't. I'm sure we've all had the experience of having a favorite show cancelled based on either not enough people appreciating it the way we did, or by suits in New York and LA who take issue with some part of it. I want to make my own decisions about entertainment, not to have someone else, not even another consumer, do it for me.

I’m not sure I entirely agree with Siochru and Girard’s assertion that media products require some amount of regulation because “in important respects they also ‘produce’ us”. While they are not strictly cultural imperialists, noting that media has the ability to empower the viewer towards participation and to effect change in society, this comment seems to draw upon the idea of the viewer as passive and without any media interpretation skills of one’s own.

I think it was Judy who pointed out the need for media literacy last week in class, and it is to that that I draw my conclusion from this week's discussion of regulation. Regardless of who controls the media and who produces it, we as a civil society need to understand its processes so as not to get absorbed in the propaganda or the glitz and the glamor. We need to understand in what ways regulation, by government or by market forces, constrain what we see. We need to understand that Fox News (to take the often-cited case) is propelled both by its conservative viewership as well as by Murdoch's own political views. From the small level of understanding the concept of product placement to the larger understanding of the complex conglomerates that currently dominate the media landscape, we need to have a better grasp of the forces behind the escapist entertainment that we consume.

For the past two weeks, much of the reading has had to do with ownership of the media, government control of that media and how the globalization of Information Technology has played such a large role in creating advancements throughout 'the world.' In reality though, much of these advancements don't make it back to the nations that need it the most.

The Siochu and Girard reading begins with a lot of statements about the role that media plays in society as well as in the development of the people of that society.

In listening to, watching, and reading media we do not just consume, we interact. We interact with other people and through them with society in general

Thus, according to Siochu and Girard, the media plays a large role in the development of a nation or ideal (just ask Quentin Tarantino) meaning the media plays an extremely important role in the world. So given the importance of this role, should media be regulated?

The answer is not quite as simple as one may think. When we let Societal Regulation take too strong of a stance we end up with endless talk, debate, and coverage of a Super Bowl Halftime show and Clear Channel dictating that after 9/11 Somewhere Over the Rainbow could not be played yet Bombs Over Baghdad could. On the other hand, if we do not have proper Industry Regulation then we end up with the likes of NewsCorp, Bertelsmann, Viacom, and the aforementioned Clear Channel owning everything from magazines, TV stations, billboards, film studios, recording companies, newspapers, and service providers.

Perhaps the better idea would be to regulate for Plurality which is meant to encourage as much diversity in media interaction and content presented as possible, so that many different audiences can be reached through the media. Of course, that is not something we see in contemporary mainstream American media. Perhaps some people call the dichotomous choice between Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann versus Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck a plurality, but in actuality it is just promoting the continuation of the ubiquitous two-party system in America. So that we are not only divided into two political parties during elections but also two ideological parties in our daily lives. Of course this means that there is very little room for third party thoughts on mainstream American television - other than as a token thrown in from time to time (more often than not as a caricature or for shock value).

Of course, the other side of the coin are nations like Iran or Afghanistan. In Iran, all methods of communication were quickly shutoff in the immediate aftermath of the tenth presidential election and what they couldn't turn off - newspapers and magazines - the authorities quickly dealt with through violent means.

Afghanistan on the other hand, has a burgeoning Television media system with 5 different television stations - 3 broadcast from Afghanistan itself and two from the diaspora in California. Though Afghanistan claims to be at least somewhat democratic, a commentator on the nationally owned Television station was imprisoned for allegedly speaking negatively about President Hamid Karzai (has the Karzai Administration never seen the stations broadcast from California?)

Democracy in peril?

As Aldous Huxley very rightly put in his Brave New World: “Words can be like X-rays. If you use them properly, they'll go through anything.” I find this a fair illustration of the significant role that language plays in the transfer of ideas and in shaping the society, the culture, and… the entire world we live in. So, should an unregulated flow of words and media products – ultimately, ideas – be allowed, given all their power and influence over people, who then (attempt to) decide how things function? This question becomes even more significant when put into the modern-world context: we see a “chicken or the egg”-type debate about media content and gradually shifting patterns of demand.

Siochrú and Girard point out that media products are special because they are essentially the tools of “society production.” In order not to get back to the discussion of the media shaping identities, suffice it to say that their statement is in itself a powerful argument for a cautious regulation of the media market, especially as it is increasingly privatized and taken over by commercial interests.

A free media market essentially implies equilibrium. This can work perfectly well… in theory. In reality, many times people forget to ask about how that market demand is created. A second question that needs to be urgently addressed is whether, given the above-mentioned special status of the media products, the mega-corporations should be given the unlimited freedom to create that demand. I see the matter as an ethical issue (especially when it comes to news reporting and journalism), unless, of course, the sole acceptable morality is that of profit-maximization and instant gratification.

The traditional “mainstream” approach in the US seems to have been very critical of the European (as well as other governments’) attempts to regulate or, at least, carefully monitor the media market. Well, perhaps justly so. After all, a true democracy cannot function without freedom of speech and a free flow of information. However, I still find it hard to understand how a system that took such great care to create a meticulous structure of checks and balances can be inclined to completely overlook a fundamental threat to its very existence. With the increasing trend of privatization and liberalization of the media markets, which gave way to the rise of the large transnational media empires, the very democracy that freedom is supposed to facilitate is being jeopardized, as the corporations start to acquire and exert political influence.

Yet, their influence – acquired through large profits channeled into active lobbying and “support” campaigns, in expectation of favorable policies and treatment – is not limited to the political sphere. It is no secret that media ownership affects content and that through carefully directed programming, media companies can potentially cultivate the demand for specific “products”, create and promote ideas and social movements, and even kick-start revolutions. The first example that jumps to the mind is the claim made by the Iranian regime about the June presidential election. However, why go there? Let’s look at the US and Obama’s healthcare plan debacle.



Of course, Al-Jazeera, being the channel that it is, is NOT unbiased, but still it provides a very good alternative insight into the recent 9/12 demonstrations and the role Fox News played in all that. Needless to mention, of course, that Fox is one of the central pillars of Murdoch’s empire, and that there is absolutely no coincidence in the fact that he had recently begun voicing his concerns about Obama’s approach to the economy, calling him “dangerous.”

Freedom of speech and information, whether in the national realm or in the global sphere, was meant to serve as a vehicle to ensure plurality and diversity of opinions, as well as best possible access to the best possible information. Being fundamental to democracy, these were also supposed to improve governance AND effectively check the government’s power. Thus, the media were meant to be the “domain of information” and supposedly assumed the responsibility to act as the fourth estate, in the public’s best interest. And yet, the recent trends of conglomeration, privatization, and deregulation have resulted in a situation of decreased competition and domination by aggressively profit-driven corporations that gradually become the very power that was meant to be contained. And so it happens that by “using the words properly” the transnational media corporations are spinning the idea of freedom to serve their own ends, defeating the very purpose of the much-cherished First Amendment.

Did you know?

An interesting summary of many facts on the Info Revolution: co-produced by XPLANE and the Economist.
Enjoy!

Media Regulation and Global Governance

I was excited to see global governance on the syllabus this week because it’s something I’ve always wondered about in the back of my mind- if cultures across the world are so different, how can we all agree to make laws about issues that affect all of us? Part of our reading assignment for this week was three chapters from Global Governance: a Beginner’s Guide by Seán Ó Siochrú and Bruce Girad with Amy Mahan.

The authors begin the first chapter by asking if media is another kind of “product” in a free market, why should it be regulated? The authors continue, arguing that media is different because it “produces” us. Culture must be learned, and we learn culture by reading the newspaper, watching television, and consuming media. Media are outlets through which culture can be streamed to us. Media is so important to our development that it must be regulated.

The authors also argue that even no regulation is a kind of regulation. With no regulation, the control of media outlets would fall into the hands of a few, similar to having no economic regulation. By allowing media access to only be a privilege a few can afford, a statement is being made.

The chapter makes a distinction between industry regulation versus societal regulation. Industry regulation views media as an active part of the economy and regulates intellectual property rights, breaks up media-based monopolies, and attempts to provide universal access to media outlets. Societal regulation recognizes media’s impact on the production of culture and seeks to regulate the cultural, societal, and political facets of media, advocating for free political debate and differences of opinion.

The second chapter begins by asking the question, what does governance actually mean? The chapter provides a brief historical context of global governance and gives an explanation of how the United Nations system works. The third chapter is another historical context of media communications.

The issue of media regulation reminded me of an interesting discussion we had in other class this week. We were talking about how a reader can determine whether an internet news source is credible or not and how one can filter through all of the bias on the internet. Furthermore, should bias be censored from the internet or would that impede upon our first amendment rights? Since the internet provides complete anonymity for its users, hate, bullying, and bias can run rampant. Should users be have to provide a name so that they will be forced to own up to their comments or is anonymity one of the defining aspects of the internet?

Globalization and Realism

It is funny how ideas and paradigms get their names and retain them, even after becoming supposedly “out-of-date.” A perfect example would be Realism, which, despite being dismissed as obsolete, still retains its name and its sense as the most “down-to-Earth” and “assumption-less” approach to analyzing affairs. With the emergence of all the complexities of the globalizing world, particularly, Realism might provide a very limited view on the “real” state of things. But when circumstances get down to the “real” things that really matter, no one can deny that self-interests and cost-benefit calculations are the ultimate determinants of decision outcomes. I see this idea as the very essence of the arguments pushed by globalization pessimists, who view globalization as perpetuating the existent inequities, while the “agents of change” as pursuing ulterior motives. In a sense, they are right, as there can be no development or progress unless there are substantial incentives driving those, particularly if they involve large costs. Multinational corporations are trying to maneuver the international space looking for profit maximization, and it is only rational of them to pursue their goals in a Realist manner. The same can be said about states, with a slight change in wording: substitute “profit maximization” with “national objectives.”

That said, it is important to note the OVERALL outcome. Globalization that brings with it the intensification of resource flows and a greater interdependence of nations can ultimately result in an increase in general output: i.e. overall increase in affluence and in the standard of living. What is more, one cannot overlook the fact that the more the states are economically interdependent, the less willing they will be to engage in any conflict, which, in turn, can lead to further stabilization and sustainable economic and political development (even in cases where the interstate, or the state-corporation relationship is regarded as asymmetric). Therefore, potentially, globalization can bring the greatest benefit to most people, and all the readings this week touched upon this matter in one way or another.

Nevertheless, they also pointed out the fact that the benefits are not as equitably distributed as most of us would like to hope, which gives further ground to the pessimists. Even more relevant in this matter is the fact that the nation state seems to be among those to lose out most in the globalization process, as its sovereignty and self-determination are gradually eaten away by the post-modern tendencies. Together, the groups that fall behind in this intense global competition (be it on the international, national, or sub-national level) can present viable evidence to prove the selective advantages of globalization and its deficiencies. And certainly, the Marxist argument of “the rich exploiting the poor” is ever present in any such talk, be it concerning nation-states, or MNCs. Perhaps it may sound rudimentary, but one only needs to look at the current international sphere to see that these arguments might really be making a GOOD point. International structures such as the G8 and G20, despite all their altruistic mission statements, are essentially serving the interests of the select few – those who are IN the club – and even if the attainment of their goals might involve the development of the other parts of the world (well, being interdependent will allow more international stability and better business), they are still motivated by their very same self-interests. Fair enough. But that is where Morgenthau and Realism come creeping back in.

And yet, the end result should not be overlooked. Development and “progress,” especially on a global scale, can take many decades, if not centuries, to achieve and instant gratification is not something one should expect. Even if all the “agents of change” are ultimately driven by their self-interests, they can still play a significant role in dragging the “laggers” along. It is then up to these laggers to make sure they are included in the process, by proving their potential and getting involved – sufficiently and on time – instead of merely complaining and waiting for benevolence. If one looks at world affairs as a game, then there are rules by which it is played, and each player should make the most out of them, apparently, without expectations of altruism from others...

Media Convergence

The chapter “The Globalization of Communications” in the The Information Revolution and World Politics by Elizabeth C. Hanson provides a brief history of communication technologies including telecommunication, satellites, computers, and the Internet, in a global context. Hanson also discusses vertical versus horizontal integration. Vertical integration is the control of the production and distribution in only one medium whereas horizontal integration is control across several mediums.

The three communication branches discussed in the chapter are telecommunications, audiovisual, and computer-mediated communication. As soon as these three categories were brought up in the reading, I immediately began thinking about the convergence of these media and specific products like the iPhone and Skype (which were both briefly mentioned later in the last section of the reading) that transcend the three branches. I was slightly disappointed that Hanson did not discuss the convergence of media and media branches until the last section of the chapter entitled, “The Revolution Continues.”

Apple’s iPhone3G (and some other devices offering a 3G or third generation network) is probably the best example of the convergence of media branches. The iPhone is a cell phone, mp3 player, video player and recorder, camera, digital compass and GPS, game console, internet device, and messager, not to mention the hundreds of applications available consisting of everything from calorie counters to money managers to mobile piano keyboards.

Skype is another example of a technology transcending boundaries. The chapter discussed Skype in terms of facilitating telecommunications, but Skype is well known for its video conferencing abilities. This medium combines telecommunications with both computer-mediated communications and audiovisual products.

"[This] is not a borderless world"

I stopped short at this phrase in Hanson's book, page 158: "Although cross-border exchanges have reached historic proportions, and the globalizing technologies that facilitate them know no boundaries, it is not a borderless world."

So many globalization papers, seminars, discussions take for granted that mass communications have made borders immaterial or at least soon to be obsolete. The ease by which to cross them has been equated with the negation of the very idea of borders. After all, what caused borders are an artifical concept. They are an organizational tool, an abstraction and the imposition of borders on territories outside of Europe (even internal) have led to turmoil that persists to this day.

Borders were constructed through the Peace of Westphalia, to indicate physically the idea of the national sphere, where the nation is sovereign. (For instance, the idea of 'spheres of influence' in China, where European countries staked out actual territory where their law was applied.) Places such as Southeast Asia and Africa had territories or realms of control, but there existed no man's lands, undefined areas. These areas, in terms of control (absolute vs. local), still exist to an extent.

Therefore, the argument runs, when border-crossing comes so easy, nations falter in their soveriegnty in the face of supranational, multinational and micronational organizations; don't borders become immaterial?

No. Because it's only the physical sense of borders that is being trespassed. As our other readings have discussed, nations, despite the threats/impediment to their sovereignty, they still exist and even more so, continue to exist in people's minds.

It was national leaders that aided this process - globalization did not occur despite it. Therefore, Hanson says on page 158, "There remains a broad area for national legislation to shape the impact of the globalizing economy....Economic globalization is not necessarily diminishing state power," but it is rather transforming its conditions.

As long as the system that uses borders exists and the ideological understanding/acceptance of it continues, borders will still be significant. And disregarding them is nonsense.

Can ICT Save the Developing World? Using Afghanistan and Iran as Examples

Towards the end of Chapter Five of Elizabeth Hanson's book The Information Revolution and World Politics, Hanson begins to explore what role bridging the digital divide can play in aiding the advancement of the world's developing nations.

The reading uses India as an example of a nation that has the most greatly benefited from the proliferation of IT products and services while still being victim to the largest domestic digital divide in the world. The reading presents the point of view of what it calls 'pessimists' of the digital divide who ask what good can increased communication technology be in aiding people who are lacking clean water, food, clothing, shelter, and security? This point of view is contrasted by the 'optimists' who believe that the increased access to knowledge can help the people advance their economy and possible find ways to challenge the rule of despots (which the reading doesn't address).

In the recent election and subsequent 'Green Revolution' of Iran, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, Youtube and Blogs played a large role in circumventing the foreign media blackout the Iranian government imposed shortly after millions of Iranians took to the streets. Of course, these people were still held back by the censorship, control, and spying of Internet activities by the Iranian government. In a nation like Iran with a seventy seven percent overall literacy rate, the bridging of the digital divide is really only useful if the limitations on access and fear of government intrusion on activity is put to an end. Iranians had to work very hard to get the information out there as the days following the highly contested tenth presidential election went by. They had to constantly create proxy servers, find ways to get information to foreign websites to broadcast, and try to discern the spies and fake government accounts from actual news sources.

Therefore, though the majority of the nation is literate and the educated, more well to-do people of the cities have considerably good access to technology, that access is worth nothing without the freedom to find and broadcast what you will.

In contrast, the August 20th election of Afghanistan, which has seen vast accusations of fraud on all sides was almost exclusively broadcast online through foreign sources on the ground. There was very little online activity among the people of Afghanistan itself. Unlike Iran, Afghanistan has a literacy rate of just twenty eight percent, in fact, the literacy rate is so low in Afghanistan that the majority of ballots had to have graphics next to each candidate's printed name so that the largely illiterate people of Afghanistan could vote. Afghanistan, as the fourth poorest nation in the world, is like the slums and villages of India where access to information technology is of little use without clean water, food, shelter, education, and above all security. Unlike Iran, no website in Afghanistan is blocked by the government and twenty five percent of Afghans have cell phone access, and yet the people of the nation are largely illiterate and thus have little use for Internet technology. In the case of Afghanistan, the people are in need of life's necessities before they can be given unrestricted access to the vast knowledge of the world offered online.

What these two nations prove is that there is more to the argument than just the increasing or reduction of the digital divide - the Internet is useless in the hands of a largely literate populace if their access is controlled by a government and on the other hand, unrestricted access to the information of the world is of little use to a people who by and large can neither read nor write.

Again, this vision of the widen or reduction of the digital divide presents a Western slant on an important international issue that affects millions of people around the world. There is far more to consider than whether or not the people of the world have access to the information of the Internet, because that information is rendered powerless in the hands of deprived peoples.