Public Input in Media Regulation

While reading the Siochru and Girard chapter on media regulation I became interested in the different ways in which various governments allow public input into media regulations. This mainly applied to the societal regulations in terms of the public sphere and prohibitive content. I was impressed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's extensive use of public input on regulations. There are public hearings, notices for public submissions, regional consultations, round-table discussions and apparently even more. Of course we don't know how much the CRTTC actually uses the suggestions and opinions expressed by the public, but I've never heard of the FCC in the US so actively pursuing public opinion on media regulation. Typically it seems that the only input the FCC gets from the public is when they see something they don't like and complain about it (Janet Jackson at the Superbowl anyone?). However, in my mind at least the FCC is somewhat separated from the government and therefore hopefully able to take a middle-ground position between the government and the public.
Then of course there are other extremes of countries which have no independent regulating organizations and all of these decisions are controlled by the state. Siochru and Girard did mention in societal briefly discuss regions where communication that is believed to "subvert" the state or "offends state symbols" can be prosecuted (11). While not explained or mentioned, the recent election crisis in Iran comes to mind, with the harsh government crackdown on any media coverage (or communication) that criticized the state. Much of the justification for the crackdown was that outsiders were trying to subvert the government and needed to be censored.
(However, a police state like Iran likely is not the only place such censorship could occur. While in the United States we do have protection for freedom of the press, it is unlikely the government would allow a company or organization to air material that explicitly subverts the state, for example a call to violence against the federal government.)
With these two ends of the spectrum, I began to wonder, what roles should the public play in creating societal media regulations? In Canada there is extensive public involvement, in the USA moderate involvement, and in Iran none. While I do admire the Canadian system, it seems unfeasible in many areas. I'm not sure how well the public hearings, regional meetings, and round-tables would go in the US, especially after seeing what happened at the health care town hall debates of the summer. So what then? Is our system of making our objections to content we find offensive the best way for us to continue or will the those with more extreme views (usually the most vocal) be the only ones heard because they yell the loudest?
To be fair, I think that so far the FCC has done a good job of regulating content, by prohibiting things that are generally offensive to American society (nudity, some profanity) but protecting free speech by allowing others that push boundaries, but don't technically cross that line (shows like Family Guy and South Park for instance). My fear is that in the future certain groups will push for labeling more and more content as offensive and therefore slowly curtail the rights of free speech.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is a valid fear how should more moderate groups and individuals counter this? Should we write to the FCC and tell them we think they're doing a good job or wait until other groups push for those stricter regulations and then express our own discontent? Is it a constant dialogue between the public and regulating agencies or a matter to be addressed only when we have something to object to? How do we make sure our voices are heard in content regulation so that the views of the general public are not overshadowed by louder more extreme groups? Is that even possible?

Murdoch, the poor and Global Governance

_{I hate to harp on some of the things I have mentioned before in my previous posts, but it is what interests me and it keeps coming up in all of our readings in one way or another. Mainly the power that corporations and nations with money exert on those people and nations with less power, money and influence. Even within our own country, the flow of information is at the hands of a few. It has been taken over by the big corporations, GE, Disney, and the News Corporation. The market-driven strategy, privatization of global communication and expectations of profitability is affecting the way in which information flows and, more importantly, what information is being dissiminated and shared with viewers, readers, and the public. Satellites and space communications have been bought by private investment groups, for example. The ownership of satellites and media conglomerates such as the News Corporation, have given the owners control over access, information flow, and content. Liberalization and privatization have not positively affected the poor. The market-based globalization has a down side. “A shift from public to private agenda is the increase in poverty amont the world's poorest, living in countries on the receiving end of neo-liberal reforms, which have yet to deliver for a majority of the world's population.”}

_{The media corporations have a grasp on information and although some developing countries have benefited (India), others have been bought out by foreigners. Africa, Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe have high degrees of foreign ownership of their national broadcast media. Case in point, Murdoch and the News Corporation. The quote by one of the senior staff officials where he mentions that from morning to night, the News Corporation is a part of our lives (on TV, news, books, entertainment, etc) is true and spells out just how much it infiltrates people's lives whether we consciously choose Murdoch's products or not. I don't think many people are aware of all that he owns, and only Fox News get the negative attention because of the conservative bias. In the end, he controls his media empire, and his view trickle down in some shape or form into the News. He has that power and his influence is far-reaching. Is it fair? I'm not sure, but I do believe that each network, news channels, and newspapers have their own biases, whether it be the boss' or the journalist's point of view. I don't think it's fair to have the wealthy control how the news is spun or have them control what developing countries watch, listen, etc.}

_{The articles discuss Global Governance and infrastructure and it got me wondering how Global Governance is best managed, and how it can best be conducted. I think Castells purports an interesting, somewhat idealistic view. “Either to construct the global political system as an expression of power relationships without cultural mediation or else to develop a global public sphere around the global networks of communications, from which the public debate could inform the emergence of a new form of concensual global governance.” In this way, the ICTs and global networks could be completely inclusive, and hopefully all would have equal presence and participation. Alas, to think that this would work is idealistic, but we can hope that we are headed towards that direction. Although from the General Assembly at the UN last week, I'm not so sure...}

Communication: Responsibility or Commodity?

One of the things that Hanson discusses in Chapter 3 different media systems across the globe (which we also learned about in earlier readings). Hanson quotes Dizard who said that in most of the world telecommunications systems were considered "a government responsibility, not a market commodity". Most countries had some form of nationalized or government monopolized telecommunications systems comprising, post, telegraph, and telephone services (PTT). However in the US the postal service was public and telegraph and telephone service was monopolized by AT&T until the 1980's. So the United States made the telecommunications sector a market commodity. We've seen this trend continued with some countries having nationalized news networks (BBC in the UK) and some having private networks only (obviously the US).
So what is communication? Does a government have a responsibility to provide an infrastructure of postal service, (previously) telegraph and telephone lines/service, and now even television and internet? Or should it all be bought and sold on the free market?
In the case of the US the overall postal service is government run (USPS), but it does have shipping competition from UPS, FedEx and other companies (mainly just for packages and special types of mail). In essence we have a mixed socialized and privatized postal system. In a country that seems so opposed to socialization (as seen in the recent health care debate) why have we allowed our postal service to remain government run? Surely the free market would create a more efficient system (who doesn't hate waiting at the post office?) with more competitive prices (44 cents to mail a letter 3,000 miles from New York to California? Outrageous!).
Now I haven't researched the post office history (I guess I'll have to visit that museum at the Smithsonian...), but it could be that the USPS remains because that's just the way it's always been and we're too lazy to change it. Or maybe, on some level we do believe that communication is a government responsibility (and maybe even a public right?) and not just a free market commodity. National communications is essential to the functioning of our modern society, without it pretty much nothing we have today would be possible.
Now I'm not saying that every communication system should be government run, maybe it would be better maybe not (is there really that much of a difference and need for so many telephone companies or internet providers?). Of course there are many concerns about state-run communications, such as censorship of the internet in China, which I'm against. However as I've said before I'm not a fan of huge transnational conglomerate corporations running communications either. There's a risk of censorship and bias there as well, take the recent case of certain books, already purchased, being removed from customers' Kindle devices by Amazon. While the government should in theory have the best interests of the people in mind, it often values its own interests more. Corporations aren't even ideally supposed to have the best interest of the consumer in mind, their goal is to maximize profits, so how can we trust them to give us the best technology/prices/service/information possible either? (Although I do acknowledge in theory they should keep customers happy to keep them, but how often do we hear of consumers getting screwed over by big companies?)
I don't have the answers to this debate. I'm not sure which, if either, of the systems would work better. Maybe everything should be like PBS with some government backing and public contributions (although that's unlikely to succeed). The central question seems to remain; is communication a responsibility of the government or a market commodity?

Hi my name is Rachel and I believe in cultural imperialism.

According to Sinclair, one of the fallacies of cultural imperialism is that the power of free will is not given any credit. He mocks the specter of the pernicious influence of American culture in LDCs. He also points out that people's identities are not one dimensional but exist on multiple, dynamic levels, allowing them to identify with different cultures or facets of the world around them without abandoning the precious "native" culture that the dependency theorists and cultural imperialists are so worried about (I'm channeling his disdain here, not my own). Whether one thinks that globalization is a phenomenon induced with intent or a naturally occurring postmodern process, the resulting dispersion of populations allows for free flows of culture all across the world. Sinclair says that this in turn gives people the chance to "maintain cultural identifications brought from outside that nation . . . no longer obliged to assimilate themselves to a national culture."

I do agree with Sinclair's demand that people take responsibility for themselves, taking the time to probe their personal values and beliefs and cultivate a dynamic identity that rings true to them. I bring the story below, however, as a purely relative example of how the critics of cultural imperialism underestimate the appeal of a culture of entertainment:

When I got married and moved to Israel two years ago, I never thought to buy a TV. The few shows I watched with any regularity could be found on the Internet, and the same went for movies. Plus, the majority of the channels would have been Israeli programming unless I paid for cable. A lot of talk shows, variety shows, and knock offs of reality shows like Survivor and American Idol. Not interested. I liked shows with stories, plots that I could escape into and turn my overactive brain off for all at the same time.

Over the course of those two years, I experienced a strange dissonance between the values and worldview of the people around me in Jerusalem and the values and worldview expressed in what I was watching on my computer. I found myself disturbed by the gratuitous sex, caustic language, glorification of the wealthy and general mindlessness in a lot of American entertainment, particularly when I thought about my younger teenage brothers being exposed to this smut fest (oldest siblings out there know what I am talking about). But who cares, right? It's just entertainment. It doesn't affect you, it's just fun.

Coming from a religious Jewish community in the U.S., there were certain customs and values that were daily givens in my life but never made me feel less a part of the general cultural milieu. So I only wear skirts and shirts with sleeves in mixed company, and started covering my hair as well after I got married. Those were just "ethnic" things, the uniform, and my faith was an internal thing and no one else's business. Being Jewish had no impact on the music I listened to, the movies I watched, my dating habits, or anything else I did for fun. American culture was my parents' culture, my friends' culture, and my culture. In my mind, being a modern Orthodox Jewish American did not get in the way of anything but my love of tank tops, and that was liveable.

Once I was in Israel, however, the space between my external expression and spiritual beliefs-- my mind, my intellectual identity-- became a cultural battleground. I was no longer being entertained by what I watched or did for fun. Instead, I was constantly evaluating, parsing, wondering if I shop or talk or conduct my marriage the way I do based on the influence of a culture that demands pleasure, encourages consumption, and puts the beautiful (who is beautiful?) on a pedestal as if beauty is some sort of accomplishment. These were not the values in the Jewish community around me; there was a congruence between their spiritual beliefs and day-to-day culture that seemed to endow them with a sense of peace and positivity.

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that there is something inherently American about materialistic or hedonistic values, or that Jews or Israelis are a bunch of holy rollers, or that my little rant above did not refer to characteristics that lie at the base of human nature regardless of a person's background, religion, whatever. What I am saying is that mainstream international entertainment, the basis of which is American entertainment, is promoting a worldview by presenting it to audiences as an innocuous, fun given, a given that I myself only began to question when immersed in a society that encourages a different attitude towards love, life, and self.

If there had been faster or more omnipresent access to American entertainment in my apartment, maybe I would have taken in enough to subdue any discomfort I was experiencing from the dissonance, numbing myself with fun. I still watch TV and movies, but I do try to pick through my options, a call to conscientiousness that sometimes annoys me. After all, I still just want to be entertained. We all need a break once in a while. But I am trying to steer clear of entertainment that is not in tune with my values-- if I don't, I know Sinclair will say I have no one to blame but myself.

Globalization and the Digital Divide

Hanson provides historical background on how ICTs have helped globalization and made it easier, faster to trade, perform financial transactions and share information. How is globalization good and bad? She gives examples on both sides of the coin. Sometimes it is beneficial to have these technologies that help globalization, but sometimes it can deter nations, especially developing nations. One issue that she brings up that I discussed on last week's blog was one of access. “Unequal acess creates new patterns of exclusion and inclusion,” she writes. From her discussion about the distribution of wealth and the digital divide, it is clear that those who do not have access to ICTs or cannot afford them or do not know how to use them are at a disadvantage. New ICTs are one of the driving forces behind the globalization and create new ways to interact in the economic realm. Increasingly, developing nations are left behind. The advancement of ICTs and globalization have aided the West's economy, for example, by outsourcing production where cheap labor exists, but as we have read, those countries that are at the bottom are not getting a slice of the pie or not a big enough slice as they need. Hanson mentions Wal-Mart as an example of a company that uses cheap labor from developing countries. Wal-Mart negotiates heavily with other countries' companies to obtain the lowest prices, to sell for low prices, but at what costs? These types of situations also have pros and cons. Some argue that the US loses jobs when US companies outsource. At the same time, the companies often argue that they are providing jobs where they are needed most, developing countries. Growing up on the border town of El Paso,TX and Juarez, Mexico, I became aware of the maquiladoras (factories) early on in my life. Mostly young women are hired by Western companies who have set up shop in Juarez. The wages are about $5 a day there, which are very low even for the cost of living there, at the same time, these girls, women, and men have very few other choices of attaining income. The business practices and ethics are questionable in many of these situations. Companies make business choices that usually revolve around their own interests and, of course, money. Social and economic development of the countries they infiltrate rarely make the agenda or if they do, it is not high on their priority list.

It seems that new ICTs contribute to the digital divide and have not been beneficial to developing nations. As mentioned, it is an issue of access and resources. They cannot afford them or they are not educated and have no idea how to best utilize them. There have been cases were ICTs are being used to try to ensure that these nations can progress and have some economic growth, as the case in India that Hanson mentions. Due to various issues, these have not been as succesful as we would hope. I find these cases very interesting because as we have discussed many countries, like Burma and Iran, are using the internet for social change and to share information globally. What is pertinent and what came to mind as I read the chapters is how globalization, ICTs, new media can be used to socially and economically develop nations who have high poverty rates, who have high HIV/AIDs rates, etc. There have been cases of organizations using cell phones to disseminate health, and other information in developing nations, but these have to be evaluation to see if they are worth the time, money and effort. These cases are new and from the readings for this and another class, it seems that there are many problems when trying to implement technological programs into communities and populations who are not accustomed to these sorts of innovations. There have been failures due to culture, exposure, education of the developing nation, but these failures will serve as lessons for the future.

Nationalism and ICTs. Good or Bad?

Castells writes about the Global Civil Society and how the media plays a role in creating a global society. With the emergence of new media such as twitter and facebook, the notion of a global civil society will become crucial to governments and communities at large. The case in Burma were public opinion was exposed on facebook, blogs and videos is a good example. The question to consider is one of access. The people who have access to internet and can post a blog or have access to a video camera and use youtube to share is something we must keep in mind. Waisbord pointedly mentions that we can't ignore the inequalities in cultural production and consumption. Karim states that the primary barriers seem to be accesibility to the servies and subscription costs. Karim also cites Newman that although there are diasporic communities, that does not mean that a majority of the group has access to them or that they are interested in using them. People living in rural villages in the developing countries often do not have access to internet, and usually depend on one source of information, usually the radio, as Waisborn mentions. Also, Karim reiterates what we read last week, that information usually flows from North to South, usually reinforcing northern views. What Latin Americans see on television that comes from the this North-South, ie, from the US to them, is different than from what they watch from Latin America, even from Univision and Telemundo, since these adhere to the Latin Ameican news values.

All three articles had one thing in common, they spoke about the power of the media and how, just like nationalism, it can be a good or bad thing. Waisbord says that nationalism is an elastic concept and that the media serves to nurture and perpetuate cultural identities and outline boundaries between in-groups and out-groups rather than their crystallization of cultural sovereignty. Karim gives us some examples of this in his article pertaining to Spanish-speaking Latinos in the US who watch Univision or Telemundo, for example. Latinos and all other immigrants, migrants, and nomadic peoples have television, radio, newspapers that make them feel at home, but also perhaps prevent them from assimiliating into the new place. Groups of people who travel to one area from a community feel at home by watching shows in their language, about their culture. The media helps create linkages. Nationalism can be reinforced and spread by using media outlets. Having this 'new cultural formation' is also due to the lack of spatial or literacy obstacles of the media.

Assimilation perhaps does not happen as quickly or at all due to ICTs and the media, but I think what Karim declares, that the diaspora is a “coexistence of multiplicity of cultural cartographies supported by the vibrant bodies of literature as well as other intellectual and artistic forms” is something positive that researchers need to think about in IC.

IC and the use of ICTs can be a two-way street in the sense that those in power can dissiminate information and demand control, and spread nationalism, but individual citizens can use these tools and new media to respond and make their views heard across continents. However, problems arise when governments and those in power wish to control, for example, the internet. Again, it is an issue of access and accesibility. In the US, our president has said that the internet should be free and open. However, this has not necessarily been the case in China, N. Korea and other nations. There are dangers from information sharing and also from the internet itself. We mentioned cyberattacks in class a couple of weeks ago. We are starting to rely more and more on the internet and new information-sharing technologies (how many people have an iphone or blacberry, for example.) An interruption or destruction would cause mayhem. Businesses, markets and individuals rely on the technologies, on television and other news sources for information, communication, and education, It would be similar to the Y2K scare, but it became a reality, there would be many unable to perform their jobs, for example.

I do believe those without these technologies would benefit from them if they were able to obtain and use them properly. People in rural African villages who only listen to the radio, if they own one, would be able to hear about the presidential candidates, other than relying simply from one source or from word of mouth. At the same time, if there was electricity available and we gave all of them televisions and computers and taught them how to use the internet, how would this change their society and ours? Would it all be used for good? Maybe, maybe not. (I have the movie 'The Gods Must be Crazy' in mind).

Analysis Question 1

The prevalent political and economical concerns that have driven IC debates over the past decade are still relevant today. At the same time, at this juncture, with the development of many new ICTs, there needs to be in inclusion of other factors by researchers and policy-makers. As in the early stages of international communications that we read about the past few weeks, there is a need for nations or governments, and officials to use the telegraph, radio, tv, phones and now the internet to spread their own ideas and interests within the nation and internationally. The system of control that most of the authors mention, is still in place today. It is a group's ideals and beliefs that are the driving forces. Also, as we have read it is usually more powerful nations, or more economically secure countries that are able to take advantage of ICTs, use them to make money or to spread beliefs. Economic and political gains will never be completely pushes aside, and for good reason. This has been the case for the past decades, but I believe now is a time for a bit of a change because of the emergence and accesibility of new technologies. One example is how terrorists groups are now using video and the internet to try to impose their beliefs, spread their messages, and capture violent moments to instill fear in peoples. It is not only the wealthy who have access to these technologies, although it a majority of the wealthier nations who have more and better access, but with the emergence of cheap cell phones, video cameras and even internet service the IC field is transforming, thus I believe researchers and policy makers should being to focus not only on the money-making and the politics of IC, but on culture and individuals. (Blogs are an interesting way to follow individuals.) Perhaps a melange of the old and these new concerns would work. The cultural theories that Karim and Thussu touch upon are interesting and a good start. It is difficult to consider all cultures, all people and all religions, but with globalization, there is more of a need to try to include this diversity.