View from the Hill

Off Course

2008-09-21T11:13:00.000-07:00

In his article, "Off Course", Michael Massing says that The New York Times should cover more stories about the social impact of Pop Culture. I think he has a good point. It would be interesting to have a broader range of stories on pop culture, and to see the effect it has on our society. But the debates about whether pop culture is good or bad or responsible for how children act has been going on for so long. There is no evidence to say definitely either way whether it influences people or not, and I think maybe we would just end up going round in circles, arguing the same things over and over again. On the other hand, more information can help lead to more informed decisions. I also found it interesting that Massing had statistics claiming that many people are not happy with what is in the mainstream media and have concerns. This surprised me because I was unaware that people really aren't getting what they want, when that's what corporations claim they're doing.

A year in the news and agenda-setting

2008-09-06T09:04:00.000-07:00

After reading 'A year in the news', it made me realise that I'd been reading the news and thinking the same thing. Everyday was the same story and that was the presidential election. Obviously, it's an important story and should be covered, but it feels like we hear the same thing every day and don't hear much about anything else. On the lack of coverage of slower new, such as gas prices and education, it's unfortunate that these stories don't get more coverage. they're important aspects of people's lives and people should be informed. However, that's just how news works. Big, urgent, attention grabbing stories will always make the news over slower stories, and will always sell more papers. The fact that people aren't necessarily getting what they want to read about is good and bad. sometimes people need to be pushed outside their interest zone and learn about new things, but if they want to learn about certain things and aren't being given the information, that's not good.

Which leads me to agenda-setting. It's a little bit scary that editors and news directors are deciding what's important for us, but if they don't, who will? Not every little thing that happens can make the news. Someone needs to decide what goes in and what doesn't and they're not always intentionally setting an agenda. It's never going to be perfect and it will never make everyone happy. At least this way the media still acts as a government watchdog, which wouldn't happen if the government were in charge of deciding what news made the papers. And as someone said in class, at least most people can realise that they're not getting everything, and take it upon themselves to see what else is out there and other versions of the story. We're not a passive, stupid audience and agenda-setting can only manipulate us so far.

What belongs to who?

2008-03-30T14:57:00.000-07:00

The task this week is to work out what two media philosophies Japan, Canada and the U.K. subscribe to. Not as easy as it sounds. So here's what I think:

The U.K:
Social responsibility and libertarian.
Why? I hear you ask. Social responsibility because they have a strong public broadcasting system and are required to have programs of 'public importance'.
Libertarian because they have media that is privately owned and entertains as well as it informs. It is run in order to make money, not just to benefit society. I think that most Western societies' media will be libertarian, because most are capitalists.

Canada:
Democratic-participant and libertarian.
I think it's democratic-participant because their radio and television stations are required to play a certain amount of citizen-created content.
Libertarian because they also have commercial stations.

Japan:
Libertarian and developmental.
We'll start with libertarian this time. Japan is a free country according to Freedom House, so therefore has free media. the media is not punished by the government if they print unfavourable comments. The media can keep the government in check and inform and entertain the public. There are commercial broadcasters.
Developmental because of the Kisha Clubs. While the government won't punish the media, it has the Kisha clubs to help develop relationships with the media, which is supposed to help them work together for the good of the country. But they could also help them control what the public finds out. Especially if the media becomes too personally involved with the government, and is then biased. they also promote a lot of their own productions, such as Anime and Japanese Reality tv shows, which they also export.

Peace Corps or Teach America?

2008-02-10T07:27:00.000-08:00

For me, this one's easy. Teach America.
Maybe our generation really is the quiet generation and not be active in change, but I would prefer to do Teach America. While I undoubtedly admire those who do join the peace corps, I know it's something that I couldn't do. It is amazing that they go out there and are active in making a difference and helping people, I think it's a great program and wouldn't want our world to be without those people who want to make a difference. For me though, I would rather help from home. I think education is also a really important part of helping change the world we live in. If we can't fix up our problems at home, how can we help the rest of the world? If we have more educated people, then we have more people who can make a difference, because they will understand the problems we face, and not be apathetic and/or ignorant about them. Inequality in education just because of class standing is not fair and I think this is something that we need to address, and Teach America is doing exactly that. I would be happy to share what I've gotten out of my education with others who are less fortunate.

Globalization: The all powerful or fooling us all?

2008-02-10T07:08:00.000-08:00

Here we are again at globalization. It seems we end up talking about globalization in every subject, because it's somehow relevant to everything. It is, that's the whole point of it. It's taking over and creating a standard for the world. After reading the four articles this week though, I don't think it's as far along as some would have us believe.

I felt a bit wary of the two reviews, as Thomas Friedman, the author they were reviewing worked for the New York Times, and the reviews were done by the NYT and the Washington Post. But in the end, both papers didn't love the book. It sounds like Friedman is very exciteable, but I do think he may be onto something, just not as evolved as he'd like to think.

"The world is spiky" by Richard Florida, made some interesting points. By showing the readers where on the map the most light use, etc are coming from, we can realize that not everywhere is at the same level and doing the same things. We already know that most people live in cities though, so there would be unbalance in that sense. There are many parts of the world that aren't very hospitable, but it doesn't explain the few obvious centers of activity.

I think globalization definitely is something that is happening, as witnessed by Electronic Colonialism Theory, but it's not all powerful yet.

It's hard to say what's worse: Countries with limited civil rights and media or Paris Hilton

2008-02-06T14:13:00.000-08:00

McPhail says that Westerners receive limited news of other parts of the world, and that the Western Press say NWICO will worsen this situation. I think that's probably right. Restricting access to international news even further is not going to help. Licensing journalists will lead to less news, and possibly less objective news if those licensed feel pressured to print positive stories. I'm not even sure that plan will help LDCs. I don't understand how it could. I guess by limiting the bad press, countries can improve their reputations. but having said that, if bad things continue to happen, by stopping the rest of the world knowing, those countries would be free to things with no interference. That's like saying that just because we don't hear the story and see the pictures of Paris Hilton doing something skanky, that she's not doing it. We all know she's doing it, we just can't prove it, or stop it. Though I'm not sure anyone can stop the crime against nature that is Paris Hilton. The point if, how is limiting news flow going to help anyone? Especially when it's already limited due to financial and physical safety costs.

I'm not sure how to feel about developmental journalism. On the one hand, it is true that the LDCs don't have the 'infrastructure to support' a media system like the West's. And it is true that they are making initial steps in creating some sort of media that they can build up from. Even America's media had to start somewhere, and it started with publishers being thrown in jail for sedition, which is a big jump from where we are today. In that sense I think it's good that they are making a start and trying to help themselves. On the other hand, the fact that they must only print/broadcast government supportive media is a little scary. It's more scary when they go on to encourage the portrayal of the West as evil. It does not help matters to have the West or the LDCs having images of each other as the enemy.

I don't know where LDCs will go from here, but I wish them luck. I hope they manage to have a stable community and a free press somewhere down the track.

Would you like some culture with that?

2008-02-03T11:18:00.000-08:00

Electronic Colonial Theory is definitely interesting, but before I talk about the theory, I have to get something off my chest that really annoyed me in the reading. Maori tribes are from New Zealand, and New Zealand only. Aboriginals are from Australia. There is a BIG difference between them, and I think it was a pretty big oversight to print that the Maori are from both Australia AND New Zealand. Apart from that I liked the reading. I thought it was interesting and had some merit to it. Western media is definitely the ruling media world wide. Especially media from the U.S. The Western culture is being shown around the world and is influencing other cultures in their thinking and behavior. Even in other western nations, American media influences language, clothes and thinking. Many people complain about the 'Americanization' that is happening. They're usually the older generations who aren't as interested in some of the newer media products, and who are therefore not watching/listening/reading them and not being influenced. But it is taking over. People like what they see, they are convinced that it's 'cool', and they're influenced. It's like advertising for culture.

It's emphasized by the world system theory. The core nations have the means to produce media products that the semi-peripheral and especially the peripheral nations don't. The two peripheral groups of nations are in those groups because they lack the economic and social power that the core nations have, and therefore cannot rival the core nations with their own media products. Even other core nations cannot rival the bigger nations. Australia has a media industry, and produces some really good stuff. I mean, is 'The Castle' not the most Australian film ever? And 'Getting Square'- so funny!

But who outside of Australia has seen these films? Even one of the most successful television shows, 'Kath and Kim', is being remade as an American version for U.S. audiences. To be honest, these shows show stereotypical Australian characters, which is why Australians think they're funny. But the 'bogan' culture is probably not the kind of culture we want to encourage in other nations. However, the amount of Australian content shown and played in Australia is nothing compared to that of American content. Financially, it is sometimes more cost effective for television channels to buy a show from America they know will be a hit, than to spend a fortune producing their own show when it may fail. For our relatively small industry, it's not always worth the risk. Even our movie stars are only movie stars because they've been successful in Hollywood. They help to finance the American film industry, because that's where the money and success is. There are just not as many opportunities in Australia in the media as there are here, and there won't be as long as American media is so successful. So we buy more American media and are influenced further by American culture. Though looking at 'Kath and Kim', maybe this isn't such a bad thing.

Photo 1: The Castle (and yes, that is Eric Bana).
Photo 2: Kath and Kim

We'll be starving and fighting, but we'll be able to vote

2008-02-03T07:24:00.000-08:00

Kaplan and Zakaria. What to say? 'The Coming Anarchy' was depressing, but made a good point about the environment. I found that to be one of the points that really stood out to me, as it is such a big issue. We've long known that the environment was in trouble and going to cause problems in the future, but only now are people starting to do anything about it on the big scale. Coming from a country that's currently in a seven year drought, I can understand how important water is. Having said that, our country is fortunate enough to be no-where near the point of starvation or dying of thirst. But it is only in the past few months that our government has made big steps in joining other nations in trying to do something about our environment, and that was only after a major change in government. People need water and food to survive, and as it becomes limited, humans' nature to survive will come out and people will fight for what they can get. Which will result in lots of fighting and death.

Zakaria's 'The Raise of Illiberal Democracy' definitely woke me up to the fact that my ideas about democracy were totally off. I have to admit, I didn't really think about it and always just assumed that all democracies were liberal. It was just automatic to assume they went together, as it's what I've been brought up with. But obviously they don't. I thought his comment that liberal non-democracies are often better than illiberal democracies was interesting. It shows us that we shouldn't judge a country just by whether they have multi-party elections. There's more important things than just voting, especially when many democracies, like the U.S. don't even make voting compulsory. Sure, there will always be those who will vote by the colour of the flier, instead of by party beliefs, but if not everyone votes, then the government isn't a representation of what the people want. It's only a representation of what a small percentage of the people want. Anyway, that was off topic. It seems to me that having a liberal society, where the people have rights, is more important than just being able to vote, but having no rights. And how can we have an ideal democracy, when cultures are so different? No-one would be able to agree on anything because not everyone shares the same values. While it might be important for us in the west to have women's rights, it's not going to be up there for other nations, and it's unlikely that everyone would be able to agree on everything. While it would be great, it just seem like it's not possible to have an international standard for everyone to follow. Otherwise everywhere would be a liberal democracy already.

Clash of the Articles

2008-01-26T08:00:00.000-08:00

Francis Fukuyama's 'The end of history?' argues that history is not comprised of actions, but of battles of ideology, and that the ideology of democracy has won, resulting in the end of 'history'. Fukuyama believes that democracy will be the only way to go and that the world will become westernised. On the other hand, Samuel Huntington's article 'The Clash of Civilisations?' argues that nations will instead fight about their customs and differences in ways of life.

While the two do not agree with eachother, both arguments have good and bad points. Fukuyama argues that democracy and other ways of life cannot work together. He argues that Democracy is the best way of life, but Huntington argues that with the attempted westernisation of the world, nations are fighting harder to keep their own ways. I would agree with this. Coming from a country with a strong multicultural society, I find that immigrants who are faced with such a strong pressure to conform to the west, make an effort to hold on to their beliefs and practices from back home. Even when their home starts to change, they want to hold on to what they had, almost as if to defy the west and keep a part of themselves. That is what they believe in and have grown up with, so they are not going to change to democracy overnight and suddenly see how 'good' it is. Some of the actions and ways of life carried out by those living in democratic societies goes directly against what the immigrants believe, so how can they think that it is good, or even better for them?

Some may argue that there are countries who live with a mix of democracy and other ways of life, such as Islam. Some places can, but some can't. It has been argued that Turkey is an example of this, but Huntington says that Turkey is the perfect example of a torn country. The west won't accept them until they cut out Islam, and the the Islamic nations won't accept them until they cut out the westernisation of their country. And they are having trouble making the two ways of life work together. Some members of government are trying to get religion out of the public altogether, by banning head scarves and religious wear from government buildings. And some are trying to enforce religion in a very strong way, almost to the point of extremism. Clearly they are having problems reconciling Islam and democracy.

Some nations can make it work, but they are usually democratic secular nations, where people can freely practice their religions, but the nation is not ruled by any religion. While I think this is a good way of doing things, not everyone does, and that's up to them. We cannot enforce democracy on nations who do not want it. That seems to be compeltely beside the point of democracy. 'We want you to be free, but we're giving you no choice'. Maybe the western world should just butt out of other people's business. Maybe other nations will ask for our help when they want it. But then there is the problem of standing by when there are things happening that the west believes to be wrong and against human rights. This is where the clash of civilisations occurs. Where do we draw the line?

Show Me The Money (and the Guild)

2008-01-23T13:37:00.001-08:00

I thought Chris Mooney's article Blogonomics was interesting and looked at blogs in a way I hadn't thought about before. I hadn't ever considered the economic rights of bloggers. Of course I've heard about successful bloggers who have made money from their blog such as Perez Hilton, or who have gained book deals from their writing, and those who write a blog as their job like opinion writers. But I hadn't thought about those whose blogs are making money for someone else.

It only seems fair that if someone can sell advertising, or charge people to come and see what you have written, you should get some compensation for it. And from there it only makes further sense that there should be some organisation to regulate the payment of bloggers. It would help to minimise unfair treatment and payment of bloggers, who are, after all, writers.

I know we've always been looking at bloggers as the citizen journalists of the future, and have known they play a huge part in the development of the internet and it's role in society. But now there's a new reason to keep watching them, and I know that it's sparked my interest, at least.