Blog #7
Globalization/ Localization
I find an incongruity and unfairness to the fact that globalization and localization can work hand in hand. Over all I am not a fan of globalization. I don’t like chain restaurants and I don’t like franchised stores. I feel that while it is sometimes nice to drive to any nationally franchise restaurant anywhere and get the same thing it is mostly detrimental to society. Seem like a strong statement? Allow me to plead my case. At the risk of sounding like an hemp wearing hippy, local is so much better. A local grocery store, which provides food grown as locally as possible support a stable market and provide for each community to have a feel and character of its own. Why should we all have anything we desire anytime of the year? That ridiculous. Thinking of this in terms of media, the same tithing applies. Local music contributes to a more well developed culture in the area in which it is supported.
When applying these thoughts to the localization of a globalized product, localization takes on an almost sinister tone. As though it’s masking what it really there. The same crap everyone else has. Yes china should be allowed information on other cultures. But can’t that come from a local company. I realize this may be a comical pipe dream in relation to china. But as is stated in the conclusion of the article, “It is unrealistic to assume that any nation-state can maintain itself as a fortress against these new and accelerated global capital flows.”(pg84) But when I go to china I want to visit CHINA not America 2.0. The cultural imperialism that is a result of globalized media conglomerates seems to detract ever so incrementally from the individuality of the country it expands to.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Andrews Post #6
Blog #6-
2. How can you link the "Arab media lagging behind" article to our guest presentation on Lebanon? Try to find at least one obvious connection.
The thing that stood put to me most during the presentation over Lebanon was the dichotomy that existed between a Ridgeley patriarchic society and the fact that Lebanon is has a reputation that one can get what ever one wants whenever one wants, a Las Vegas of the east. I find found the video of the father pleading his daughter not to work shocking, not because it is sexist but because of the wild inconsistencies that abound in the “logic” of the song. His concern for her being respected and honored is paramount yet one could easily claim his placating her as disrespectful and dishonorable, given her intelligence and education.
In rather a similar fashion one can see the dissonance between Arab media and culture. Communications cannot be restricted with out restricting growth of those media. This is mentioned in the article.
“They provide their media with the latest technology and machinery and pay their staff well. But none of that is related to political reform or democratic change”. (pg23) In this way we see the even though there monetary support propelling media and technological development forward there has also been Traditional politics and culture stagnating the growth.
2. How can you link the "Arab media lagging behind" article to our guest presentation on Lebanon? Try to find at least one obvious connection.
The thing that stood put to me most during the presentation over Lebanon was the dichotomy that existed between a Ridgeley patriarchic society and the fact that Lebanon is has a reputation that one can get what ever one wants whenever one wants, a Las Vegas of the east. I find found the video of the father pleading his daughter not to work shocking, not because it is sexist but because of the wild inconsistencies that abound in the “logic” of the song. His concern for her being respected and honored is paramount yet one could easily claim his placating her as disrespectful and dishonorable, given her intelligence and education.
In rather a similar fashion one can see the dissonance between Arab media and culture. Communications cannot be restricted with out restricting growth of those media. This is mentioned in the article.
“They provide their media with the latest technology and machinery and pay their staff well. But none of that is related to political reform or democratic change”. (pg23) In this way we see the even though there monetary support propelling media and technological development forward there has also been Traditional politics and culture stagnating the growth.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Andrews post 5
Children’s programming.
Why so popular.
At the risk of sounding like a dissenter, America is hedonistic. I know this isn’t front page news or a new thought but I think it plays into the topic. America is full of lots of everything, it’s a consumerist smorgasbord of thing to consume and all of it in excess. not the least of which is Television. It seems sometimes that if there is a way to do something to an excess it will be, we just call it “Ultimate” or “extreme” Even water we hoard! It never fails to strike guilt to my core when I go to a pool or drive past a water park. There are countries that lack water for basic needs, yet we play in it…. Millions and millions of gallons of it. I’ve digressed. The use of television in America has transformed through out its life. From its roots in simple, light entertainment to being a tool of educational and information to what it is now, globalize, profit driven, satellite controlled and oft times life encompassing. Television has become a tool of parenting.. or rather not parenting in some cases. It has replaced the training previously offered through parental and familial interaction. Now children learn from television, how to act, what’s acceptable, how to deal with bullies and what standards they are supposed to uphold. Additionally, television is used, ironically, as a agent of early education, Providing parents with a peace of mind that their child is a prodigy. And will be going to an Ivy League college. Personally, I think that while children’s programming does offer several positive aspects, some of which I’ve mocked above, there seem to be far more negative effect of it. Which begets the questions: How and why is it so globally pervasive?
International- As is emphasized in the article, the “media superpowers” such as Viacom, have played a crucial role in the development of a global economy. (Pg172) This success could be seen as largely dependant on “Customization, localization, regionalization or domestication”(pg173). It may sound ethnocentric but, in this topic, it seems like westernization would also fit to describe what supports globalization of this extent. As capitalism expands and consumerism thrives there is a need to take in more territory. Children’s programming is hugely popular in the U.S. and in order to make more money companies need only to tap into ready and waiting foreign markets. The shows and all the ancillary money making products are enough incentive to put forth the effort to popularize this type of show. Realistically, Barney is appalling, sponge bob – ridiculous, and Hannah Montana is at the very least vacuous. Yet, all are or were popular at a global level.
To attempt to shorten what is apparently becoming a novella with a sanctimonious vein, Children’s programming is, like many products, a tool of capitalism and consumerism. Yes is has functional value, but even that comes at a cost. It is propelled by greed which is masked by education for children and progress for our world.
Why so popular.
At the risk of sounding like a dissenter, America is hedonistic. I know this isn’t front page news or a new thought but I think it plays into the topic. America is full of lots of everything, it’s a consumerist smorgasbord of thing to consume and all of it in excess. not the least of which is Television. It seems sometimes that if there is a way to do something to an excess it will be, we just call it “Ultimate” or “extreme” Even water we hoard! It never fails to strike guilt to my core when I go to a pool or drive past a water park. There are countries that lack water for basic needs, yet we play in it…. Millions and millions of gallons of it. I’ve digressed. The use of television in America has transformed through out its life. From its roots in simple, light entertainment to being a tool of educational and information to what it is now, globalize, profit driven, satellite controlled and oft times life encompassing. Television has become a tool of parenting.. or rather not parenting in some cases. It has replaced the training previously offered through parental and familial interaction. Now children learn from television, how to act, what’s acceptable, how to deal with bullies and what standards they are supposed to uphold. Additionally, television is used, ironically, as a agent of early education, Providing parents with a peace of mind that their child is a prodigy. And will be going to an Ivy League college. Personally, I think that while children’s programming does offer several positive aspects, some of which I’ve mocked above, there seem to be far more negative effect of it. Which begets the questions: How and why is it so globally pervasive?
International- As is emphasized in the article, the “media superpowers” such as Viacom, have played a crucial role in the development of a global economy. (Pg172) This success could be seen as largely dependant on “Customization, localization, regionalization or domestication”(pg173). It may sound ethnocentric but, in this topic, it seems like westernization would also fit to describe what supports globalization of this extent. As capitalism expands and consumerism thrives there is a need to take in more territory. Children’s programming is hugely popular in the U.S. and in order to make more money companies need only to tap into ready and waiting foreign markets. The shows and all the ancillary money making products are enough incentive to put forth the effort to popularize this type of show. Realistically, Barney is appalling, sponge bob – ridiculous, and Hannah Montana is at the very least vacuous. Yet, all are or were popular at a global level.
To attempt to shorten what is apparently becoming a novella with a sanctimonious vein, Children’s programming is, like many products, a tool of capitalism and consumerism. Yes is has functional value, but even that comes at a cost. It is propelled by greed which is masked by education for children and progress for our world.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Andrews Post #4
Propriety or censorship
A reoccurring theme I have noticed in all the recent presentations has been limitations on what can or cannot be said in broadcast or printed etc, censorship. I was thinking about the right to freedom of speech we have in America and how that affected the way our nations has developed. It is proclaimed in the First amendment to our own Bill of Rights. But is also recognized in the Universal declaration of human rights, as well as in the International human rights law. Is it that remarkable? Is it that powerful? What would America look like if it were not for out ability to speak freely? Assuming that we are indeed able to speak freely, a point questioned at times, what are the effects of this proclaimed and protect right?
In North Korea there exists a very different environment, one of complete control. As was expressed in the lecture given on the country this control comes in many forms. The use of propaganda for support of the government, control over the dispersal & use of commutation equipment and a system of informants are a few examples. These work together to create an environment that results in forcing the inhabitants there of to trust the government and only the government.
In Russia while there are not laws specifically barring what is said, there is a great expectation of self-censorship and dire consequences for those who don’t. Consequences, which also are not written in the law, but happen anyway. It is not allowed to speak negatively against the government officials or the decisions they make. There is a façade of free and open communication sustained by the more than 400 daily newspapers, millions of Internet users and the various television and radio stations. When in reality, the Internet the people use is not only controlled in regard to content but also monitored, The broadcast stations are owned and run through what is essentially cronyism and the only the print publications and TV stations approved by the government are actually available to the masses.
But what is so bad about not bashing the ruling party? Perhaps a little more respect in the swearing out of complaints and concerns would be a good idea? Does freedom of speech have to be interpreted so broadly as is seems to be for the majority of American? There appears to be a thought among the people that freedom of speech equals saying whatever when ever. Personally, I think America would do with a little self-censorship, especially in this day and age. The vast majority of Americans have at their disposal, quick and simple access to the Internet. Where one can, not only find a wealth of information on multitudinous topics but it is also where people can and do create and post essentially anything they wish, under the guise of the common misconception of freedom of speech. Thus degrading its actual value. It seems that perhaps a functional value of freedom of speech is quelling the masses. Allowing them to speak their piece whether for not anything will ever come of it; because it is impossible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
A reoccurring theme I have noticed in all the recent presentations has been limitations on what can or cannot be said in broadcast or printed etc, censorship. I was thinking about the right to freedom of speech we have in America and how that affected the way our nations has developed. It is proclaimed in the First amendment to our own Bill of Rights. But is also recognized in the Universal declaration of human rights, as well as in the International human rights law. Is it that remarkable? Is it that powerful? What would America look like if it were not for out ability to speak freely? Assuming that we are indeed able to speak freely, a point questioned at times, what are the effects of this proclaimed and protect right?
In North Korea there exists a very different environment, one of complete control. As was expressed in the lecture given on the country this control comes in many forms. The use of propaganda for support of the government, control over the dispersal & use of commutation equipment and a system of informants are a few examples. These work together to create an environment that results in forcing the inhabitants there of to trust the government and only the government.
In Russia while there are not laws specifically barring what is said, there is a great expectation of self-censorship and dire consequences for those who don’t. Consequences, which also are not written in the law, but happen anyway. It is not allowed to speak negatively against the government officials or the decisions they make. There is a façade of free and open communication sustained by the more than 400 daily newspapers, millions of Internet users and the various television and radio stations. When in reality, the Internet the people use is not only controlled in regard to content but also monitored, The broadcast stations are owned and run through what is essentially cronyism and the only the print publications and TV stations approved by the government are actually available to the masses.
But what is so bad about not bashing the ruling party? Perhaps a little more respect in the swearing out of complaints and concerns would be a good idea? Does freedom of speech have to be interpreted so broadly as is seems to be for the majority of American? There appears to be a thought among the people that freedom of speech equals saying whatever when ever. Personally, I think America would do with a little self-censorship, especially in this day and age. The vast majority of Americans have at their disposal, quick and simple access to the Internet. Where one can, not only find a wealth of information on multitudinous topics but it is also where people can and do create and post essentially anything they wish, under the guise of the common misconception of freedom of speech. Thus degrading its actual value. It seems that perhaps a functional value of freedom of speech is quelling the masses. Allowing them to speak their piece whether for not anything will ever come of it; because it is impossible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Andrews Post #3
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”.
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 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)