Andrews post #3
Do you believe that the popularity of telenovelas with the Hispanic market in the USA is an example of "reverse media imperialism"?
I am pleased that this is a question suggestion for the blog posts, because this is very phrase is one, which stood out to me. It seemed a bit aggrandizing in favor of the Hispanic market, relating specifically to the markets in America. I understand that telenolevlas has become a well-globalized product, as mentioned in class.
It seems that in order for a phenomenon to be considered as havening a “reverse cultural imperialism” effect it would need to be more pervading. If the topic were considered from the inverse by looking for definite examples of cultural imperialism, One would see that, In order for cultural imperialism to exist there are several factors needed. First would be an imposition of a more powerful nation or culture, the effects of that imposition, as well at a loss of the native culture, which has been over run. There tends to be more encompassing effects. Where as with the suggestion that telenovelas is a “reverse cultural imperialism ” effect it is still a sub cultural, which exists aside from the main stream. To employ Acoms Razor, what is the simplest answer? It seems, that the phenomena in question is still a simple one, largely limited to a sub culture. There is no doubt it is grown and continues to do so but, it is as of yet, subordinate. To conclude, I don’t find the popularity of Telenolevas to yet be an example “Reverse cultural imperialism”.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Andrews post #2
Andrews Post 2
Possible reason for Hollywood’s global domination of the film production and distribution
Economic- The film industry in this area has been thriving since the early 1900s. This creates an infrastructure. As well as a vested interest in it maintaining productivity for the well being of a massive section of income for a large state which contribute to the US economy.
History/ nostalgia- while there was a time when Hollywood didn’t exist and therefore was not the center for the film industry
Geography- The land in California lends itself to a variety of themes, enabling those who are there to shoot a variety of themes. It also serves as a point of appeal to bring others to make films in Hollywood
Have all the tools needed- Even though the history of Hollywood is relatively short , in that time almost everything needed to make a successful film is at ones fingertips there.
Unions- there are laws that make it so one cannot produce and distribute films that are not supported by the unions or guild
American interest leads to global interest- Americans invest billions of dollars into entertaining ourselves. Released in 2007 by Buena Vista, “Pirates of the Caribbean: at worlds end” has a listed US gross revenue of 309,420,425$ and a worldwide gross revenue of 960,996,492$( http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php)
Because of all of these things it creates a factory like environment where in many films can be easily made. Thus increasing the number of American films distributed not only in the US but through out the world.
Possible reason for Hollywood’s global domination of the film production and distribution
Economic- The film industry in this area has been thriving since the early 1900s. This creates an infrastructure. As well as a vested interest in it maintaining productivity for the well being of a massive section of income for a large state which contribute to the US economy.
History/ nostalgia- while there was a time when Hollywood didn’t exist and therefore was not the center for the film industry
Geography- The land in California lends itself to a variety of themes, enabling those who are there to shoot a variety of themes. It also serves as a point of appeal to bring others to make films in Hollywood
Have all the tools needed- Even though the history of Hollywood is relatively short , in that time almost everything needed to make a successful film is at ones fingertips there.
Unions- there are laws that make it so one cannot produce and distribute films that are not supported by the unions or guild
American interest leads to global interest- Americans invest billions of dollars into entertaining ourselves. Released in 2007 by Buena Vista, “Pirates of the Caribbean: at worlds end” has a listed US gross revenue of 309,420,425$ and a worldwide gross revenue of 960,996,492$( http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php)
Because of all of these things it creates a factory like environment where in many films can be easily made. Thus increasing the number of American films distributed not only in the US but through out the world.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Andrews Post 1-
Andrews post #1
Some Possible ramifications of media control being limited to a few conglomerates are:
1) Money oriented vs Consumer oriented
Initially, one could argue that the heart or goal of any business is money. But when it comes to businesses, which have direct correlation, and interaction with consumers (customers) it becomes problematic to focus solely on the revenue. If the only goal is to make more money not matter what it becomes simpler to side step diversity, integration and fair representation. Looking at these phenomena in a broadcast television application we could compare it to the cutting of shows because ratings are too low to create a wide enough profit margin. Its not that they don’t make no money, it’s just not enough.
2) Limited scope of interests being represented.
For instance If I lived in an town where I owned ½ of all the land that means I get to control what happens with that lands. Be it subdivision, industrial park, office parks, parking lots etc. Appling that to the media aspect we see that if owned 1 of 2 media companies that mean at least of the media produced has a strong probability of being biased in my favors or represent only things which would be of benefit to me.
3) Limitation of information.
I differentiate this from the above in that this would be a subset or out come of it. This can be exemplified in a political scenario. There are two candidates running for an office. In the voting area there are 3 news stations, 2 owned by a company in favor of candidate A and the other neutral. In such a setting the news being shared about candidate A could likely could be more easily represented, or supported. Their platform shared or views explained. Leaving candidate B With one outlet of media. Thus setting the odds in favor of candidate A, where media is concerned. I recognize that this is a very polarized example.
Some Possible ramifications of media control being limited to a few conglomerates are:
1) Money oriented vs Consumer oriented
Initially, one could argue that the heart or goal of any business is money. But when it comes to businesses, which have direct correlation, and interaction with consumers (customers) it becomes problematic to focus solely on the revenue. If the only goal is to make more money not matter what it becomes simpler to side step diversity, integration and fair representation. Looking at these phenomena in a broadcast television application we could compare it to the cutting of shows because ratings are too low to create a wide enough profit margin. Its not that they don’t make no money, it’s just not enough.
2) Limited scope of interests being represented.
For instance If I lived in an town where I owned ½ of all the land that means I get to control what happens with that lands. Be it subdivision, industrial park, office parks, parking lots etc. Appling that to the media aspect we see that if owned 1 of 2 media companies that mean at least of the media produced has a strong probability of being biased in my favors or represent only things which would be of benefit to me.
3) Limitation of information.
I differentiate this from the above in that this would be a subset or out come of it. This can be exemplified in a political scenario. There are two candidates running for an office. In the voting area there are 3 news stations, 2 owned by a company in favor of candidate A and the other neutral. In such a setting the news being shared about candidate A could likely could be more easily represented, or supported. Their platform shared or views explained. Leaving candidate B With one outlet of media. Thus setting the odds in favor of candidate A, where media is concerned. I recognize that this is a very polarized example.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)