This post is due by Tuesday, April 15 @ midnight for full credit.
Email late posts to rob.williamsATmadriver.com for partial credit.
Read our MEDIA@SOCIETY book, assigned chapter above.
In a SINGLE blog post below, provide for the chapter:
1. A single sentence, IYOW, that captures the chapter's THESIS (main argument).
2. THREE specific pieces of supporting documentation - ideas, concepts, stats, data - to bolster your thesis for the chapter. (Use 2 - 3 sentences for each.)
3. A single PERSONAL story of 3-4 sentences that connects the chapter directly with your own personal media experiences.
4. A SINGLE specific question you have after reading and blogging on the chapter.
Game on,
Dr. W
Globalization is allowing the world to become more connected, but it comes at a high cost, as U.S. media domination is unfairly causing an information imbalance and cultural assimilation in periphery countries.
ReplyDeleteMoney and resources go hand-in-hand with technology and because of this, “the ability of core and periphery nations to create, distribute, and use information and new communication technologies differs, creating the imbalance” (285). This gap is only widening especially when it comes to journalism, where periphery countries are simply “presented on the world stage as passive sites for dramatic or tragic events rather than as full participants in a global community” (286). While a few long term solutions exist to diminish this imbalance, core nations look to make profit and determine the spread of information technology themselves, leading them to not want to equalize information imbalance. Cultural assimilation is also of concern to non-Americans, who are finding their media and society to be greatly influenced by the United States. More and more, “American styles in fashion, food, and media fare dominate the global market” (283).
I was aware of how much of an impact American culture has on the world, with people in other countries having grown up watching or hearing about TV shows and movies that American teenagers grew up with, but us not having heard much about popular culture in other countries. However, I did not realize how harmful it actually was. The section about American journalism was interesting to me because my project focused on how US news creates a single mold that most stories follow, but that mold and those ideals are also projected to the world, influencing other countries and people from many nations, and that’s scary to think about.
How are movies that are complete box office failures in the US, able to be hits overseas? Do they do better in foreign markets because of certain perceptions of America/Hollywood abroad?
Given the world’s technological capabilities in today’s century, communicating globally is extremely easy; however, given that the United States is an economic power-house, there comes some bias and fear of a “single-story”.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that, “it is much easier to focus on the spread of communication technology itself than to understand the cultural meaning and consequences of media globalization” (Media in Society, 279), our world must perhaps be a little more cautious with what we educate ourselves on. Given this climate of media globalization, it is hard for people to not just focus on the actual technology and rather the implications and negative impacts that this may have.
Reminiscent of the Feed once again how those not outfitted with a feed were literally “off- the map”, “if ethnocentric U.S. news media come to dominate the globe, such critics argue, the gulf between the information poor and the information rich will continue to widen, while American ideology will increasingly shape global public opinion” (Media in Society, 285). One of the wonders of media is it’s ability to reach all people at practically any place at any time. However, now that our world is so deeply rooted in it’s dependence on media, those who are classified as “information poor” will be severely behind.
3) What I found important to note is the fact that, “what researchers find is that American cultural content is polysemic- it has multiple meanings, varying across age, gender, ethnicity, and nationality. It is not possible to predict what a media text actually means to someone else- the meaning is made by the interpreting audience, not made by the producer or lodged in the text itself” (Media in Society, 288). We may or may not be culturally bound whether it is subconscious or conscious, and given this fact it is hard to predict how people from other cultures will interpret U.S. media and if their interpretation will have a negative, positive or a neutral affect on them.
Sometimes I question how the U.S. news sources paint certain topics within other countries. Regardless of whether it is war or just “soft news”, I feel as though the United State’s journalist may have a much harder time staying objective and unaffected by stereotypes that are so prevalent, yet many times subconscious in our country.
How do we fix this rising dilemma? Is there a way to balance economic power with equal and fair information in an attractive way?
Media globalization in the United States creates a more connected, interdependent world; nonetheless, the exportation of the US way of life has the potential to distort the workings of international culture.
ReplyDeleteThe globalization of mass communication leads to the transfer of western ideology. “Globalization can be primarily political, dealing with the apparent spread of US- style democracy especially since the end of the Cold War.” (278) US media translates the notions of freedom associated with American culture. Developing countries that have access to media can document the persecution of dissident groups and corruption of political leaders and show it to the world. Many argue the collapse of the Berlin Wall in Germany is the result of US media technologies. However, this political assimilation can be taken for imperialism or neo-colonialism, the conforming to one set of values.
Globalization can also lead to an information imbalance. “Theorists like Herbert Schiller and Noam Chomsky believe US news media are seriously limited in the ways that they cover world events.” (285) If an ethnocentric driven US news media dominates global media, the gap between “information rich and information poor” will widen. Also, world public opinion will be dominated by US political opinion.
“The global media environment is now much more accessible to independent and alternative producers, artists, writers, publishers, and online entrepreneurs.” (297) The media industry offers a diversity of opinions and products. Yet, what is marketed to us is decided by a group of producers who think they know what is best for society. It begs the question is globalized capitalism really part of the free-market vision?
Friends of mine who have visited other countries always come back home emphasizing how important US media is where they visited. American movies, actresses, and actors hold as much if not more prominence there, than the United States. They also say US pop music is constantly being played, old and new songs.
Is the United States in itself a contradiction, both regarded as a symbol of freedom and an imperialist invader by other countries?
As decades pass, new technology emerges connecting us in ways we did not even think possible but the globalization of mass communication, while keeps us linked to one another, has underlying social, cultural and political consequences outside of the United States borders.
ReplyDelete“Furthermore, the consciousness of consumer culture makes it difficult for people to imagine new ways of living that are not heavily dependent on the mass media and brand-name products… Globalization seems to be heading toward a similar hybridized standardized culture, with bits and pieces of different cultural styles, with no real or meaningful differences among them” (p. 284).
As Americans, our country was constructed through cultural assimilation but other countries formed by their own distinct qualities. Foreign countries are starting to loose their distinctive virtues as a nation. Every country is becoming more and more alike to the United States due to globalization, everyone has US styled clothing, likes US favored movies; everyone is becoming Americanized.
“In the past, most people were exposed to one culture only—the culture they were born into…the globalization of communication via the online revolution gives many more people the opportunity to reconsider the cultural systems they were born into” (p.300-301).
With the help of the Internet, we are able to research and observe other’s cultures and values. However, stricter cultures have seemed to have dwindling numbers of community members continuing on with their way of life. This is in part due to the globalization. Especially in America, culturally everyone is similar and if you practice a different way of living, there are strong pulls from minority cultural ways to the popular, widespread of American culture.
“For the most fearful critics, there will no longer exist a geographical escape from the bad effects of the media and consumer culture. Their nightmare is becoming global reality—the whole world may turn into a giant U.S. media-dependent network…” (p. 278).
Though this may be a bit of a stretch in my opinion it is not too far from the truth. The spread of US culture on foreign countries is starting to change every country into a subclass of America. The media can change a culture it is whether you look at it with the glass half full or half empty.
I have traveled Europe quite extensively for an 18 year old and many of European cultures is Americanized. Obviously there were a lot of differences, the language, the history dating back to even before the first century, the food, but the way they dress, watch on TV, etc. were strangely familiar. Europeans had a lot of Americanized clothes, American movies were being publicized on billboards, and there were fast food restaurants on every street. I expected European cultures to be substantially different but I was surprised that it was not as different as I had anticipated.
How much has American culture affected the political systems of countries?
(1) Globalization as we know it is possible through the power of technology, particularly the Internet. The cultural globalization of American media has become important in challenging some of the questionable traditions around the world.
ReplyDelete(2) The United States has become the ringleader of cultural globalization by utilizing the Internet to connect with others around the globe. What makes the United States so unique is that it is filled with cultural assimilation, "we absorb and combine various cultures because, as we learn in elementary school, the United States was founded as a nation of immigrants...the pot into which other cultures melt" (284). As the book argues, other nations may view us a giant, self-interested amoeba that cheerfully encourages everyone else to join the program and assimilate. Some critics have gone even as far to say that, "American cultural imperialism both hampers the development of native cultures and negatively influences teenagers who abandon their own cultural heritage to adopt American tastes" (284). However, our cultural imperialism can also be viewed as good thing, for our modern, challenging views on traditional rules can be important to other cultures wishing to make a change in their outdated society. "Aspects of our culture challenge authority, national boundaries, and outmoded traditions....it can create an arena in which world citizens can raise questions about their own inherited status quo" (283). By inheriting this assimilation of media, countries can connect with one another on a more personal level, potentially taking one step closer to world peace.
(3) One aspect of the chapter that stuck out to me was when the United States was considered imperialistic yet absorbent. We export so much of our media across the world, adopted by billions of different people from different backgrounds who find it fascinating. Yet, at the same time, we are a society of consumption that takes in other cultural traditions; food, TV shows, books, art sports, electronics, etc.
(4) Has our cultural imperialism impacted any foreign governments directly from our influence on their citizens?
1.While media globalization is invaluable for sharing ideas and information, it is also dangerous, erasing and assimilating cultures and promoting hyper consumerism.
ReplyDelete2.“…positive accounts of globalization are often startlingly insensitive to the perspective of non-U.S. societies. Pro-globalization commentators presume that whatever is good for “us” is good for the world.” (p. 282)
U.S. citizens tend to believe that their way is the right way, regardless of the cultures or opinions of other countries. With globalization, it is easier than ever to broadcast biased and nationalist information to other countries, potentially brainwashing them into thinking the way we do.
“When these [Chilean] authors studied Donald Duck comics…, they found the portrayal of ‘compulsive consumerism,’ an obsession with money, and stereotypic portrayals of foreign and exotic lands ready for exploitation.” (p. 289)
It has been shown that media consumers adopt, consciously and subconsciously, the values and behaviors of those represented in media. When consumers in the U.S. and other countries observe hyper commercialism and materialism, they will begin to covet those things they see on TV or in printed ads. This, of course, encourages capitalism and encourages the pursuit of monetary gain.
“But cosmopolitanism can also be an inclusive, progressive, pluralistic stance that respects and accommodates difference.” (p. 300)
Although media can be used to meld cultures and ideas, it also allows for many lesser-known ideals and beliefs to surface, especially on the internet. Globalization allows small, grassroots movements to gain traction, as millions of people with media access can find others with the same beliefs.
3.I had very few friends when I was in middle school, as I could find no one with the same interests. This led me to the creative writing site Mibba, where I quickly found people who listened to the same music, read the same books, and had similar beliefs to my own. I was able to interact with people from all over the U.S., and even in other countries. They gave me writing advice, and taught me basic HTML coding.
4.Is globalization lending itself more to inclusive cosmopolitanism or to cultural assimilation?
The globe can easily be connected, and with media globalization the connection becomes expensive due to the consequences that come from the hyper consumerist culture were living in today.
ReplyDeleteThe connection of the world can prove as a great way of learning about the cultures and other lives of fellow humans. Seemingly this sounds amazing, but what we don’t focus on is the affect that this connection can have to the cultures themselves. “…Globalization seems to be heading toward a similar hybridized standardized culture… with no real or meaningful differences among them” (284). We see that with technology, life becomes centralized around that, and cultures are beginning to focus its time on the importance of technology. We can all see the latest fad as quickly as it comes out, and the news is able to spread like wild fire. “American styles in fashion, food, and media fare dominate the global market” (283). Our ideas and our culture are shared all over the world. This can encourage other cultures and societies to adapt to or change their styles to follow the fad. As learned in school, America started because ‘we absorbed and combined various cultures’ to create the nation we have today (284). The melting of cultures can influence other countries because their families may have come here. The spread of media can give ideas to other countries, and with their country being represented in America; they are more likely to trust our fashions.
I think it is crazy how our society is affecting the world. Our interests pose as an example of new life for the rest of the world. Most of all, I love that while others learn from our society, we also evolve off of their societies.
How will globalization affect the outcome of wars in the future now that we are even more connected than ever?
Bravo, DIG MEDIA posse.
ReplyDeleteGood to read your thoughts here re: GLOBALIZATION.
In today’s media society, technology allows for media to become global and for US companies to expand their markets; while this has many benefits its also has underlying effects such as distorting culture and promoting bias.
ReplyDeleteIn the world, according to the chapter, there is “a fear (or hope) that, because of mass communication, the whole world is becoming ever more culturally modern, Western, and therefore Americanized” (279). There are some who believe that if the world becomes Americanized it would be beneficial, and others who argue that it is important for cultures to retain their differences.
Some theorists believe “US news media are seriously limited in the ways that they cover world events” (285). People are now starting go think about the consequences of the increasing globalization of media and how the US shapes global opinions.
Some approaches have been attempted to try and balance out the information system, such as “core countries work to make periphery countries as technologically sophisticated and as “modern” as core countries” (286). However the book highlights that this often creates dependency on developed countries and doesn’t always work.
I often wonder how people come to believe what they believe, whether it be religion or racism, why do people end up thinking that way? I’ve come to realize that most people are influenced by those around them and the media that they consume, especially if they don’t think it is biased towards one thing or another.
How can we fix the globalization of Americanized media?
The development of technology has created new ways to communicate which has caused people to be more independent and has also changed the way groups are organized.
ReplyDelete“With mass production enabled through the printing press, mass reproduction emerged and subsequently the mass distribution of messages” (280). This mass distribution of messages has changed the way people communicate with one another and also to whom they can communicate with. However, due to this mass communication, we lose the ability to know someone’s local status which affects human relationships.
Culture has and will keep changing due to the development of new technologies because it helps build originality and independence. Communicating through technology “as forms, not just as content, can and will change the ways people imagine themselves, as well as how they organize into groups, form, and sustain communities, and distribute and maintain power” (280). The change occurs due to the lack and decrease of personal contact or face-to-face interactions.
Advertisements and protests have become a huge way to communicate to the world, particularly through media. “Although American popular culture often contains protests against social wrongs, such protests ‘can be turned into consumer products and lose their bite’” (284). Some look deeply into ads and compare themselves to it but unfortunately, some advertisements give the wrong impression to the viewer.
Although advertisements can be a beneficial way to spread information, some advertisements have given me the wrong idea and impression about reality. Since it is nearly impossible to escape media, subconscious and conscious ideas and thoughts come into play based off of what I saw in the ad. From this, I have realized that it is impossible to unsee something; you cannot make the seen unseen. This is because once you have witnessed, read, or saw something, it will always be in your mind whether it is the freshest thought or a faded memory.
Since the increase in communicating through the media has developed people to be more independent, is it possible that there could be a mass production of social media that could lead to everyone being independent and therefore, cultures would not exist because groups are no longer be present?