New video added

This is a test post and is not real...

Journalism 2.0 on Science 2.0

It is not surprising to hear the results about open access to scientific journals. Open access appears to have positive results that benefit both the scientific community and the public at large. I definitely understand the concerns of scientists that their individual research, and in some cases their life's work, may be compromised.

But the overriding factor here has to be the fact that taxpayer dollars are funding so much of scientific research. In an age where government accountability appears to be non-existent at times, it is important that an area where so many taxpayer dollars are being devoted contain an air of transparency to the general public, especially when the public may not see/realize the immediate tangible benefits of scientific research.

International Wire Agencies

One thing that struck me about the reading from "Global Communications" was the lack of competition in the wire service industry. The fact that there is only one major wire service operating in the United States is surprising given the rising level of competition across media forms in the United States today.

This fact begs the question of what role the Internet will play in defining the future of these wire services. With UPI beginning an online-only presence, can they become a viable competitor to the AP? Is there enough of a market for an Internet-only provider?

Ethical questions are posed as well by these issues. Is it right that only one company dominates the wire industry in the United States and is such a large supplier of news to a vast amount of news companies?

The New Wave

The issues Corey Pein illustrates in his article seem emblematic of the past seven years of foreign policy in this nation. At its core, using the Voice of America as a propaganda tool fails to make logical sense.

The peoples targeted most by VOA right now are those in supposed terrorist centers and areas unfriendly to the US. Yet many of these people--the Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghans, etc. live in or lived in regimes with basically dictatorial leaders and endured steady streams of propaganda. It is safe to assume that most of these people recognized propaganda as just that and refused to believe/accept the government line.

It is likely that these people sense that what the US is feeding them through VOA is also propaganda, especially for those living in war zones who see the truth unfolding around them. It is not only insulting but also ineffective to spread propaganda to these people. It does little good to improve American standing in the world and fails to accomplish a central goal: improving trust in America and our nation's image.

CNN International

The most troubling aspect of the numerous competitors formed by foreign nations to take on CNN is the amount of government control and funding over these networks. Despite the fact these networks have been formed with the best intentions, the amount of government control, even in liberal democracies, should be troubling for any journalist.

The fact remains that while these networks may be acting objectively and without any governmental pressure, that all can change in the blink of an eye. The way the American government was able to handle an "independent" media during the initial invasion of Iraq, with closely shepherded embedded reporters, indicates what kind of effect a government can have when in bed with the media.

Media Systems in Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom

Japan
Primary: Social Responsibility
Secondary: Liberatarian

Canada
Primary: Developmental
Secondary: Social Responsibility

UK
Primary: Liberatarian
Secondary: Social Responsibility

Foreign Media Conglomerates

The latest reading from MacPhail surprised me in that I had no idea that Canadian media corporations dominate the world scene as much as they do. In fact, I hadn't heard of ANY Canadian media outlets outside of the CBC until reading this passage. It is amazing that American media outlets, especially television outlets, are readily available in Canada, yet we here in America have not a clue what is going on just over the border.


I wonder how long it will be before some of these smaller global media organizations are eaten up by the top 5 media conglomerates. In the age of consolidation and increased competition, it seems that global media conglomerates will be seeking every edge they can get, and the opportunity to penetrate further into markets controlled by these smaller groups may be enticing enough to incur wholesale buyouts.

Mariah Blake's piece in the Columbia Journalism Review is a bit shocking as a student journalist. On one hand, I definitely understand the concerns of the British court. In terms of privacy, one has to draw the line somewhere before the situation gets out of hand. The fact that media organizations (tabloids) are shelling out huge sums of money for access to voicemail is disturbing. Yet the penalties being placed on journalists is more disturbing.

My opinion is that every last step or precaution should be taken before freedom of the press is curbed. The fact that a law like this may hamper investigative journalists from taking the first steps in their reporting provides too much shielding for the government. I may not be up to date with all the latest happenings from British politics, but if their system works anything like America's, the need for investigative reporting is probably on the rise.

In an era where leaders make decisions that result in preemptive wars, decisions based on faith/religion and heavily earmarked spending, journalists need to be encouraged to seek out stories that unearth even the smallest forms of corruption in government.

American Multimeda Giants

McPhail's research and writing about American multimedia giants provides valuable insight into how American media corporations have come to dominate the global scene via electronic colonialism theory. Particularly striking was the far reaches that the Disney Corporation employs. A story from here on campus illustrates just how wide Disney's reach is.

Disney CEO, an Ithaca College alumnus, came to visit in the fall of 2006 to kick off the college's multi-million dollar fundraising campaign. Iger spoke in the Hockett Recital Hall in Ford Hall, and his address was televised live throughout campus. Being Ithaca, students and residents needed to protest something, and this time it was Disney's role in the anti-Clinton documentary, "The Truth About 9/11." The young woman who directly confronted Iger about this topic and offered a range of accusations was wearing Disney boots.

That moment is particularly emblematic of how much these media conglomerates touch our lives and how much we may not even be aware of it. As media scholars, I think it is our job to become more conscious of how our everyday life is affected by these media conglomerates.

China's media reform: where to go?

Jie Lin's article provided insight into the current state of media in China. The concept that most surprised me was the degree of freedom that China's media exercises. I was taken aback that China's government does not play a significant role in directly guiding the content and editorial tone of major Chinese newspapers. The financial aspect makes sense and was something I had never considered. Interestingly, that's a topic I don't think it is a topic that the American mainstream media has explored, either.

The amount of self-censorship by Chinese journalists makes sense, given the amount of freedom granted to journalists by the Chinese government. The vastness of that self-censorship was still surprising to me, in that the censorship covered a wide range of issues. Again, this is a topic that the mainstream American media do not really touch upon. I think we are fed this image of a communist media monster indoctrinating its people, which doesn't really seem to be the case...somewhat.

China media less aggressive in foreign coverage

Howard French's article in the New York Times provides a concise view of the current state of Chinese media. I think an excellent example of French's article playing out recently occurred when Steven Spielburg pulled his support for the Beijing Olympics due to China's overt support of the Sudanese government. Chinese media, in particular Xinhua, cast the move as largely irrelevant and continued driving one point home: China is not responsible for what the Sudanese government does.

China's take is an interesting one, considering their criticisms of the United States at times for being too meddlesome. It is interesting that the US often takes preemptive approaches to solving problems while China's modus operandi seems to be to sit back and watch...unless they can benefit from getting involved.

Musharraf's Monster

Shahan Mufti's article gives excellent insight into the state of media in Pakistan. Reading this article offered perspective on the way the American media has covered Pakistan for the last six months.

Since September 11, American media have often offered positive reports of Gen. Musharraf. Little reporting was done on the limitations he placed on the people of Pakistan. Words like dictator or totalitarian were never thrown around with regards to Gen. Musharraf, even though in many ways that is what he represents.

The glowing praise offered to Benizir Bhutto in the American media is contrasted by the images of Bhutto offered in the article.

The development of the media in Pakistan is a fascinating story, and it is hard to fault journalists there for failing in some regard...virtually going through experiences for the first time, with no supposed manual of how to operate in these situations, I believe these journalists excelled in incredibly difficult situations.

The New Arab Conversation

Gal Beckerman's article in the Columbia Journalism Review struck me because blogging in the Arab world has become something so much different than the Western world (or America at least).

The major blogs in America, or at least the ones that come to mind immediately, are often littered with partisan leanings. Granted, these have a place in our society and add context to help citizens oriente their frames of reference. Beckerman's article indicates that it is the people themselves blogging in the Arab world; the characters seem more real and the emotions seem more real. A general desire to understand others, and others' differences, echoed through the article.

I just don't see that in blogs in America. Granted, I don't read that many blogs. But from what I have read and heard, blogs in this country seem much more polarized. Much like our media, the focus of blogs seems to be disparaging political enemies rather than debating what is best for our country moving forward.

Drawing A New Map of Journalism in the Mideast

Robert Worth's article was very interesting with regards to the development theory of media. The fact that Al-Jazeera took a substantial period of time to become a "fair and balanced" network (with no regards to FOX News) begs the question: should the government of Qatar stepped in and molded Al-Jazeera in a way to create more balanced programming?

It is worth nothing that Al-Jazeera has historically been silent on issues pertaining to the Qatar government, in a form of silent self-censorship. But would it have been best for the people of the Mideast world to have a reformed Al-Jazeera immediately?

I think the answer is no; the losses from having a biased network are far outweighed by the benefits of Al-Jazeera modifying itself on its own. Any form of government intervention will immediately be looked at in a negative way by viewers (Iranians basically ignore state TV, for example). Even regulation with the best intentions would be looked at as propaganda, so I believe the path Al-Jazeera has taken, free of regulation, was the best for the network and its viewers.

Broadcast Views

Arkady Ostrovsky's "Broadcast Views" piece in the Financial Times provided an excellent look at the way Russian media has developed (or regressed) under the Putin presidency. What I found most troubling about this piece was the willingness of journalists to openly promote a presidential candidate for the good of the country. To me, there is a logical disconnect in this idea.

If the media were to present both candidates in a fair and unbiased manner, one can assume that the people are intelligent enough to make the decision that is best for the country. In this case, it seems relatively simple--the liberalization of Yeltsin or a return to communism. Yet, the media felt the need to promote Yeltsin over the communist candidate. This seems to assume that the people are not smart enough to make this decision on their own; they need some help from the media to make the proper choice.

But if the people need the media to help them make proper choices, why should the government not regulate the media to help them make these proper choices? It seems to be a slippery slope.

Furthermore, these journalists are making a drastic assumption that the people are not educated enough to make choices on their own without any basis...the idea that people need to be taught democracy, to me, is one of the worst ideas circulating today.

Peace Corps vs. Teach for America?

Upon graduation, if I had to make a choice, I would opt for the Peace Corps as opposed to Teach for America. While both are notable causes, I would welcome the opportunity to make a difference outside of the United States. The comparison has been made that even the worst-off individuals in America are better off than the majority of the world's people. Perhaps this is the motivation that would steer me towards international service. The opportunity to help the poor and the impoverished outside of the US would be another draw for me. Having participated in a home-building mission in Peru and having reaped the personal benefits of that experience, I would welcome the opportunity to do something like that again.

Terrorism, Global Journalism and the Myth of National State

Deni Elliot's article in the Journal of Mass Media Ethics gives an accurate portrayal of the faults of the American media following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. I agree with Elliot's thesis that journalists should not be cheerleaders for government policy and that journalists must report on the views and opinions of the proverbial enemy.

Extrapolating on Elliot's argument, it becomes much easier to see how the Bush administration was able to launch its case for war in Iraq with the such media complicity. Back in 2002 and 2003, it became incredibly difficult to find a questioning voice in the mainstream media. The sheer volume of articles supporting the war vastly outweighed the number of articles against war, which were normally found buried in the back pages of newspapers.

Just as the Bush administration primed the nation for war by staging patriotic events, such as a gathering at the National Cathedral in Washington, which was supposed to represent the day of mourning but culminated with the "Battle Hymn of the Republic," the media followed suit by breaking into live coverage to broadcast the "Battle Hymn." Like our representatives, not one mainstream media member took the time to peruse the USA PATRIOT Act, which later the media criticized at every turn.

As signs point increasingly towards the possibility of armed conflict in Iran, the media has a responsibility to engage the American public in a more efficient way than took place in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

The World is Spiky

Richard Florida's analysis of Friedman's theories present an innovative way to view arguments against the flat-world theory. Florida's theory makes more sense than Friedman's: we are on the path towards a flat world, but it is an incredibly slow journey, and the disparities that characterized the round world are still very much with us.

The map showing light usage from around the world was particularly striking. Two years ago I took a trip to Piura, Peru, helping build homes with members of my church. I was struck by the absolute blackness at night. After about 10 p.m., most street lights were switched off, and the vast majority of residents had no electricity in their homes. The area resembled a black-out area during World War II.

Florida's depiction makes me wonder if we need to speed along the process of flattening the world. Friedman's book at times sounds the alarm about a flat world, but the disparity of wealth and resources that characterizes the US is all to evident in Florida's analysis. Whether anyone can speed up the flattening process is anyone's guess, but perhaps flattening the world would not have the dire consequences that some pundits have suggested; perhaps the benefits would far outweigh any harm to America.

Why the world isn't flat

Pankaj Ghemawat's analysis of Friedman's flat-world theory is sound. Ghemawat's theory about voters favoring protectionism particularly resonated with me. Looking at the United States as an example and the immigration crisis, the mood of the American people, according to public opinion polls, seems to indicate a need to secure our borders immediately and stop the flow of illegal immigrants. While illegal immigrant workers in this country do not represent direct outsourcing, jobs are being outsourced from American workers in this manner. Yet, we see Americans stridently rejecting this.

Furthermore, the media portrays a backlash to so many American corporations moving their operations out of the country. Political candidates talk about rebuilding industry in America; maybe the rhetoric is nothing more than that, but perhaps these politicians are hitting a key note with the American people: the protection of our economy and the need for job creation at home.

I thought Ghemawat's argument was particularly strong when he used statistics to back up his point. Often, Friedman employed statistics that were difficult to understand or so large and other-worldly that it was difficult to understand his point. Ghemawat paints a clear picture to indicate that the flat world is not developing as fast as some experts may think.

This article also points to a fundamental flaw in Western media, particularly American media, and that is a rush to judgment. Ghemawat's television interview is particularly telling, in that the anchor has seemed to accept Friedman's views as fact because they are mainstream, without bothering to do any independent research to check the validity of his claims. It is this willingness to accept the "mainstream" that is a major flaw in our media today.

Reviews of "The World is Flat"

Warren Bass' review of "The World is Flat" presents a balanced review of Thomas Friedman's work. I particularly agree with Bass' assertion that Friedman is never able to show that the flat-lining of the world economy is taking place right now on a large scale. While it seems that Friedman's book builds towards that central thesis, there remains no evidence to point to that.

Similarly, I thought Fareed Zakaria's review was also well-contrived. However, one of the points that Zakaria illustrates is one that I disagree with. Zakaria notes how Friedman believes that science education is deteriorating in this country, and that a solution is to encourage more students to study science and engineering.

Friedman never answers why it is a bad thing that immigrants are disproportionally represented in these fields. I think he also fails to look into why Americans are not studying science and engineering as much in the past. Only by understanding the root of the problem can a solution be generated; proposing a quick fix isn't going to get the job done.

NWICO and Development Journalism

After reading McPhail's analysis of the New World Information and Communication Order and development journalism, I believe that the best way for the Western press (and the Western world) to facilitate the growth of a free press in developing nations is by increasing and expanding foreign coverage in those areas. While not all news about the developing world is "coup and earthquake" news detailing every new disaster, certainly a wider variety and context of news would be useful to aid Western media consumers to better understand the developing world. As a media consumer who examines three newspapers and a variety of online sources on a daily basis, I still do not feel like I can grasp the complexities of developing areas in Africa or the Middle East.

I think that journalists themselves need to gain a better grasp of what is going on in these areas. While some journalists like Robert Fisk become part of the fiber of a foreign community, so often we now see correspondents fly in, report, and fly out. Even Christian Amanpour, perhaps the most revered American war correspondent in recent memory, is guilty of this. When American reporters experience what they are reporting and live it, like Fisk in Beirut, then their readers will gain a better grasp of the situation at hand.

Personally, having read nearly all of Fisk's writing for the last three years, I can honestly say that I understand and comprehend the situation in Beirut and Lebanon, and I am able to formulate my own thoughts and opinions on what is best for the area. Do the Lebanese appreciate Fisk's presence? Do the Israelis likewise? Those are questions I would like to have answered.

Electronic Communications Theory and World System Theory

McPhail's analysis of the electronic communications theory and the world systems theory are excellent depictions of the world around us. I think McPhail hit the nail with the hammer when he showed how nations outside of the US react to the influx of American media and culture by almost turning inward, becoming extremely nationalistic and aiming for a return to basic cultural values.

It is interesting that in the US, many on the far right wing believe that our media is corrupting American society, and that we as an American people need to return to basic American values and morals. Does the media do any of us in the world any good whatsoever???

McPhail's writing indicates how responsible the media needs to be operating in a global climate. While the media has done a respectable job respecting cultural and religious differences in its reporting, perhaps the media needs to advocate more for third world and developing nations, highlighting their problems and successes more so that we and they can gain a greater understanding of the common world we live in. More thoughtful and more in-depth reporting may be needed to achieve this....through what medium, though, remains to be seen. In the age of profit-driven media, what media can step up to the plate and take on this challenge?

The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

The question posed by Fareed Zakaria's "The Rise of Illiberal Democracy" is a striking one. What, exactly, is a nation supposed to do when opposed by an illiberal democracy. Does any nation, particularly the United States, have a right to invade/depose a sovereign, democratically elected government in the name of preserving liberal democracy?

This is a question I have long wrestled with, and there is obviously no easy answer. On one hand, I think that nations, particularly, the US, have an obligation to intervene when situations of genocide arise. For example, I think the United States should have intervened militarily in Sudan, just as they should have in Rowanda years ago. Yet, looking at the situation in Iraq, how different was it? Granted, Saddam Hussein was not a democratically elected leader, yet I was and remain staunchly against the invasion, and logically that doesn't make sense. Outside of the lies told by the US government, in order for my logic and morals to be consistent, I should support the invasion of Iraq...but I don't. Confused? So am I.

Does a nation have the right to intervene in America if our government shows signs of illiberal democracy? I think the answer is no--I can vote out my representatives every election as I please...unless the actions of our nation directly effect the security and well-being of another, I don't think another nation has the right to interfere with the goings-on of the US. Does that apply the other way around? Should it? Again, something else for me and you to ponder...

The Coming Anarchy

Robert Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy" was the most logical and well thought-out article I have read for this class to date. Personally, I agree that environmental issues will be the biggest flashpoint of the 21st century and perhaps beyond.

I found Kaplan's argument that the social group that can withstand suffering the longest will eventually prevail to be an intriguing and convincing one. One thought I have always pondered is when will the American people decide that enough is enough with our system of government (or lack thereof) and create a revolution of sorts. The term revolution is thrown out so much by talk show pundits and my parents and their friends/family...but when will we ever see this revolution? Perhaps if the oil crisis continues to grow, we will finally see this revolution. At what point do gas prices rise so much that the effect on the pocketbooks of Americans is too much and finally, we reach a breaking point? As we continue to learn more about the environmental impact and the limited amounts of oil available, I think the idea of such a revolution grows more and more legitimate.

The Clash of Civilizations

Huntingdon's "Clash of Civilizations" was at times an alarming read for me. Particularly troubling was the fact that Huntingdon attempts to boil down the political structures of his day into one main concept--that of a clash of civilizations. I don't think Huntingdon acknowledges that many elements are coming into play, outside of simply cultural/civilization differences.

In particular, I thought Huntingdon failed to address the role the United States has taken in shaping the global socio-political map. In discussing the Persian Gulf War, Huntingdon addresses how Muslim nations called for a war against the West and the idea that the struggle represented something greater than America protecting the sovereignty of Kuwait. However, Huntingdon never looks at this case from the opposite perspective. Is it possible that American leaders and the American people themselves viewed the conflict as a war against the Middle East? In light of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, this idea gains some credibility. Huntingdon fails to look at both sides of the coin--he addresses the cultural differences of countries outside of the West but fails to look at how ideas and philosophies of Western civilization may also create conflict outside of the West.

The End of History?

Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History?" presents a controversial view on how historians and the media will view the past and the future of the world politically. While I think Fukuyama's analysis is original, I believe it is flawed. Fukuyama fails to explain why liberal democracy is the zenith of human socio-political development. There is no logical answer as to why all of human history has been building up to the point of liberal democracy, and that the evolution of human thought will end at this point.

Fukuyama does not take into account that new schools of political thought could arise. Surely, 200 years ago, the idea of a communist or socialist state would have seemed ludicrous. In the Middle Ages, the idea of a democratic state would have seemed equally silly. By not taking into account that a greater political ideal could trump liberal democracy, Fukuyama's argument becomes greatly flawed.

Finally, given the relative youth of liberal democracy (only about 300 years old), Fukuyama does not address that liberal democracy is still a relatively new concept and is likely to continue evolve, possibly into an ideal that is completely foreign to the people of today.